ArticlePDF Available

Landscapes of Social Inclusion: Inclusive Value-Chain Collaboration Through the Lenses of Food Sovereignty and Landscape Governance


Abstract and Figures

Value-chain collaboration (VCC) aims to increase smallholder productivity and market integration. Higher productivity, better incomes and innovations have been documented, but also exclusionary trends and loss of biological and dietary diversity. New forms of VCC 'beyond the chain' hope to tackle this through collaboration with non-chain actors. Drawing on territorially embedded VCC, food sovereignty and landscape governance theories, this article presents a conceptual framework to analyse whether and how inclusive VCC, greater farmer autonomy and sustainable landscapes can be achieved. Key elements of our approach are knowledge of smallholders' various livelihood trajectories and selective value-chain engagement; multi-stakeholder definition of the sustainability choice space; and smallholder inclusion in adaptive learning and empowerment processes that bring together and integrate different and oft-competing knowledge systems and governance levels. This approach will support further action research in learning platforms in Ghana and South Africa. The article discusses the link with the broader inclusive development debate. © 2015 European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Original Article
Landscapes of Social Inclusion: Inclusive Value-Chain Collaboration
Through the Lenses of Food Sovereignty and Landscape Governance
Mirjam A.F. Ros-Tonen
, Yves-Pierre Benoît Van Leynseele
, Anna Laven
Terry Sunderland
University of Amsterdam, Department of Geography, Planning and International Development Studies,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
KIT Sustainable Economic Development, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Centre for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.
Abstract Value-chain collaboration (VCC) aims to increase smallholder productivity and market inte-
gration. Higher productivity, better incomes and innovations have been documented, but also exclusionary
trends and loss of biological and dietary diversity. New forms of VCC beyond the chainhope to tackle this
through collaboration with non-chain actors. Drawing on territorially embedded VCC, food sovereignty and
landscape governance theories, this article presents a conceptual framework to analyse whether and how
inclusive VCC, greater farmer autonomy and sustainable landscapes can be achieved. Key elements of our
approach are knowledge of smallholdersvarious livelihood trajectories and selective value-chain engage-
ment; multi-stakeholder denition of the sustainability choice space; and smallholder inclusion in adaptive
learning and empowerment processes that bring together and integrate different and oft-competing knowl-
edge systems and governance levels. This approach will support further action research in learning platforms
in Ghana and South Africa. The article discusses the link with the broader inclusive development debate.
La collaboration au sein de la chaîne de valeur (CCV) vise à accroître la productivité des petits exploitants et
lintégration du marché. Une productivité accrue, de meilleurs revenus, et des innovations ont été
documentés, ainsi que des tendances dexclusion et la perte de la diversité biologique et diététique. De
nouvelles formes de CCV au-delà de la chaîneespèrent régler cela grâce à la collaboration avec les acteurs
non-impliqués dans la chaîne de valueur. Cet article dappuie sur les théories CCV intégrées au territoire, sur
la souveraineté alimentaire et sur les théories de gouvernance du paysage an de présenter un cadre
conceptuel pour analyser si et comment une CCV inclusive, une plus grande autonomie des agriculteurs et
des paysages durables peuvent être atteints. Les éléments clés de notre approche sont la connaissance des
différentes trajectoires de subsistance des petits exploitants et lengagement dans la chaîne de valeur
sélective; la dénition de différentes parties prenantes de lespace de choix de la durabilité; et linclusion des
petits exploitants dans les processus dapprentissage adaptatif et dautonomisation; ces processus
rassemblent et intègrent des systèmes de connaissances et des niveaux de gouvernance différents et souvent
concurrents. Cette approche permettra de soutenir davantage la recherche-action sur les plateformes
dapprentissage au Ghana et en Afrique du Sud. Cet article examine le lien avec le débat élargi sur le
développement plus inclusif.
European Journal of Development Research (2015) 27, 523540. doi:10.1057/ejdr.2015.50
Keywords: value-chain collaboration; food sovereignty; smallholder agency; landscape governance; learning
platforms; inclusive development
Smallholders who are dened as farmers who produce goods and services for both markets and
subsistence, based mainly on family labour and limited access to land (Chamberlin, 2008;
Cousins, 2011) produce 80 per cent of all the food grown in Africa and Asia, but are among the
© 2015 European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes 0957-8811
European Journal of Development Research Vol. 27, 4, 523540
most marginalised and food-insecure components of rural society (IFAD, 2013a). Governments,
NGOs and action researchers have therefore promoted value-chain collaboration (VCC) with the
private sector as a way to increase farmersaccess to technology, inputs and markets, assuming
that this would increase their income and overall food security (Bitzer, 2011). This particularly
applies to tree crop farmers, whose products (for example, cocoa and macadamia nuts) can be
exported to high-value markets with large growth and employment potential (Chamberlin, 2008;
Traub, 2012). Ghana and South Africa are among the countries that explicitly promote such
forms of VCC (MOFA, 2007; NPC, 2012). VCC is understood in this article as voluntary
associations between different actors in a chain, including producers and buyers and often, but
not necessarily, other societal actors such as non-governmental and (in the case of public-private
partnerships) governmental organisations (c.f. Helmsing and Vellema, 2011).
Although positive effects on farmersproductivity, income and innovation capacity have been
documented (Swinnen et al, 2013; Burnett and Murphy, 2014), scientists and practitioners also
warn that VCC may reproduce existing inequalities and power imbalances between value-chain
actors; lacks a genuine representation of producer organisations and smallholders from
developing countries; and may not automatically benet the poor if not properly designed
(Sahan and Fischer-Mackey, 2011; Bitzer and Glasbergen, 2015). Examples of risks include
growing gender inequalities (Bolwig et al, 2010; Laven, 2010; Pyburn, 2014); loss of decision-
making power regarding crop choice and marketing, inequitable risk and benet sharing (Kirsten
and Sartorius, 2002; Laven, 2010; Spierenburg et al, 2012, Greenberg, 2013); declining dietary
diversity (Ecker et al, 2012); and biodiversity loss because of production intensication and
increasing landscape homogenisation resulting from monoculture development (Donald, 2004;
Perfecto et al, 2009). This raises the question of how VCC can be made more inclusive, taking
into account the most marginalised of those smallholders, as well as the environment.
Existing approaches only provide partial answers to how adverse inclusion in VCC can be
avoided. The instrumental view (for example, World Bank, 2007) considers smallholder
integration in VCC as being conditional to technology transfer and increased productivity and
income, but tends to ignore diversity among smallholders, power imbalances between value-
chain actors and sustainability issues. Social action views, mostly emanating from the food
sovereignty and agro-ecology movements, emphasise traditional values, knowledge and diver-
sity, and local production-consumption cycles (Altieri and Toledo, 2011), but are generally
hostile to value-chain integration (for example, Holt Giménez and Altieri, 2013). Value-chain
analysis focuses on governance arrangements and power constellations within value chains (for
example, Kaplinski, 2000; Gerefet al, 2005), and therefore runs the risk of losing sight of
the socio-economic, cultural, political, institutional and territorial contexts in which the chains are
embedded (Bolwig et al, 2010; Helmsing and Vellema, 2011). Agricultural innovations literature
acknowledges the importance of contextual factors, but tends to focus on interactions within
innovation networks and key institutional actors redistributing resources and transferring skills
(for example, Spielman et al, 2009; Klerkx et al,. 2010).
What is lacking, and what we are proposing here, is a critical approach towards value-chain
integration and collaboration that takes smallholdersagency and struggle to access food, attain
autonomy over production and marketing, and achieve sustainability as a starting point. It thereby
looks beyond the chainto include non-commodity (food) production and sustainability issues,
and horizontal collaboration with non-chain actors to address these. We do so within the context
of a recently commenced research programme, funded by WOTRO Science for Global
Development (see acknowledgement), that examines how VCC involving tree crop farmers in
Ghana (cocoa and oil palm) and South Africa (macadamia and avocado) can enhance food
sovereignty, inclusive value-chain integration and sustainable landscapes. The framework
Ros-Tonen et al
524 © 2015 European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes 0957-8811
European Journal of Development Research Vol. 27, 4, 523540
presented can, however, be applied in any action-oriented research at the interface between
(vertical) chain relationships and (horizontal) collaboration embedded in landscapes.
There are three reasons for focusing on smallholder agency beyond the chain. First, it
provides a better understanding of why smallholders differ in their engagement (or capacity to
engage) in VCC with the private sector and how this affects processes of inclusion and exclusion.
Second, it corresponds with a recent trend within the private sector to deliberately work beyond
the farm-scale to support food production, ecosystem conservation, and rural livelihoods across
entire landscapes in an integrated manner(Kissinger et al, 2013, p. 1), often in partnership with
development and conservation organisations. Third, upcoming landscape approaches that aim to
reconcile environment and development through multi-stakeholder negotiation (Sayer et al,
2013) increasingly involve agro-food businesses (Kissinger et al, 2013), extending VCC from the
vertical commodity chain to the geographical, socioeconomic and political space in which the
value chain is embedded.
Hence, the objective of this article is to present a conceptual framework to analyse whether
and how inclusive VCC and more equitable terms of engagement, greater autonomy in food
production and marketing, and sustainable landscapes can be achieved. We thereby draw on
theories on territorially and contextually embedded value chains (Bolwig et al, 2010; Bowen,
2010; Helmsing and Vellema, 2011), food sovereignty (Altieri, 2009; Edelman, 2014;
McMichael, 2014) and landscape governance (Sayer et al, 2013; Ros-Tonen et al, 2014). Within
the framework of this special issue, we also discuss how the presented framework contributes to
the broader inclusive development debate (Gupta et al, 2015, this issue).
The article is structured as follows. The next section elaborates on the tendency towards VCC
beyond the chainand its implications. After that, we focus on concepts and approaches for
analysing smallholder agency as regards realising food sovereignty and sustainable landscapes.
We pay specic attention to the concept of sustainability choice space within the context of
multifunctional landscapes (Potschin and Haines-Young, 2006). In the discussion we advocate
new institutional spaces to enhance smallholder inclusion in novel forms of VCC and landscape
approaches, and position the framework within the broader inclusive development debate.
In concluding we make suggestions for further research and practice.
Towards Territorial Grounding of Value-Chain Collaboration
This section provides the most common examples of VCC beyond the chain, including public-
private partnerships (PPPs); creating social value (CSV) arrangements; and innovation platforms.
PPPs are multipartite arrangements involving (foreign) private rms, the government and
parastatal bodies, which sometimes also include NGOs and international aid and lending agencies
(Kirsten and Sartorius, 2002). PPPs evolved from the introduction of neo-liberal reforms in the
1980s, which resulted in a withdrawal of the public sector from economic activities and the
consequent shift from state to corporate governance (Ton et al, 2008; Laven, 2010; Bitzer, 2011).
Partnering with the private sector became a way for both the state and farmers to maintain access
to credit, agricultural inputs, extension services and marketing channels no longer provided
by governmental marketing organisations and parastatal processing companies (Kirsten and
Sartorius, 2002; Swinnen and Maertens, 2007; Ton et al, 2008; Bitzer, 2011). PPPs gained
institutional momentum after the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg
in 2002 and are increasingly advocated in international cooperation as a vehicle for attaining
multiple goals, oriented towards both private sector development and sustainability (Laven and
Pyburn, 2015). For the private sector, being a partner in a PPP often goes hand-in-hand with
Landscapes of Social Inclusion
525© 2015 European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes 0957-8811
European Journal of Development Research Vol. 27, 4, 523540
access to public funding (for example, matching grants) for investments in innovations and
sustainable livelihoods. This explains why PPPs function as a vehicle for investments beyond
the chain(or beyond the sector) in which the private partner operates. Examples of PPPs are
the Word Cocoa Foundation and Sustainable Tree Crop Programme in Côte dIvoire, Ghana,
Nigeria, Cameroon and Guinea.
A second type of VCC emanated from the corporate social responsibility (CSR) discourse the
1990s. It is generally framed as a response to consumer demands for safe, socially responsible,
sustainably, and preferably fairly traded and/or organically produced food (Morsello, 2006;
Bitzer, 2011). This discourse is currently shifting towards Creating Shared Values (CSV), dened
as policies and operating practices that enhance the competitiveness of a company while
simultaneously advancing the economic and social conditions in the communities in which it
operates(Porter and Kramer, 2011). It is based on the idea that failure to address societal
problems (for example, food insecurity or environmental damage) may present internal costs in
the form of water shortages, waste of materials, supplier failure or limited labour productivity.
In the words of Porter and Kramer (2011, p. 2), Shared value is not social responsibility,
philanthropy, or even sustainability, but a new way to achieve economic success. It is not on the
margin of what companies do but at the center.CSV is widely used among global companies that
source from smallholders. Examples are Nestlé and Olam International that are pursuing
sustainable sourcing strategies, while aiming at improving smallholder livelihoods and making
production more efcient and sustainable by supporting local suppliersfood and commodity
production through capacity building (Kissinger et al, 2013; It has
resulted in new kinds of VCC beyond the chaininvolving donors, NGOs, entrepreneurs and
government agencies assuming that shared value can be created only through collaboration
(Porter and Kramer, 2011). In CSR and CSV, smallholders tend to be beneciaries of the
collaboration, rather than active participants.
Critics argue that, despite emancipatory rhetoric regarding ecological, social, ethical and
transparent performance, CSR (and CSV for that matter) primarily serve the nancial interests of
multinational corporations and as a strategy to legitimise their power (Banerjee, 2008). Crane
et al (2014) acknowledge strengths as being appealing to practitioners and academics, elevating
social goals to a business strategy, assigning a clear role for governments, and providing rigour to
the conscious capitalismconcept. However, they also criticise the concept for not offering
anything new compared with CSR, stakeholder management and social innovation ideas;
ignoring inherent tensions between social and economic objectives; being naïve about business
compliance with legal and moral standards; and being based on a narrow and corporate-centric
view of the role of businesses in society.
The third kind of VCC beyond the chainare innovation platforms. These platforms are not
primarily the initiative of value-chain actors, but mostly of action research programmes that aim
to tackle the institutional causes of limited technology uptake and persistent poverty among
smallholders. These include institutional constraints to farmersself-organisation, collective
action and capacity to negotiate agreements between different users; insecure tenure; and a lack
of transparent information ows about prices and stocks, resulting in a mismatch between the
technology and knowledge transferred and farmersrealities (Röling et al, 2012; Struik et al,
2014). To deal with these institutional challenges, action researchers created innovation
platformsfor joint learning and action with NGOs, policymakers, extension ofcers, farmers,
traders, processors and retailers, where problems are jointly diagnosed, opportunities identied,
and scientic and local knowledge combined to undertake action and, hopefully, effect
change (Nederlof and Pyburn, 2012; Cullen et al, 2014). Examples are the Sub-Sahara Challenge
Programme and Nile Basin Development Challenge, both under the umbrella of the Consultative
Ros-Tonen et al
526 © 2015 European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes 0957-8811
European Journal of Development Research Vol. 27, 4, 523540
Group for International Agricultural Research, and the Convergence of Sciences: Strengthening
Innovation Systems Programme, carried out by a consortium of four research institutes from the
Netherlands, Benin, Ghana and Mali (Hounkonnou et al, 2012; Röling et al, 2012; Struik et al,
2014). These initiatives share the aim of creating a space for smallholders to articulate and
negotiate their needs vis-à-vis more powerful chain actors (Cullen et al, 2014). They represent a
decentralised and networked form of VCC that aims to be adaptive to the contingencies
associated with complex systems and the uncertain institutional environments in sub-Saharan
Africa (Spielman et al, 2009). In potential, such platforms go beyond a one size ts all
technology transfer, and develop more tailored and inclusive ways of learning. In South Africa,
similar initiatives emerged in the form of Living Labs(Pitse-Boshomane et al, 2008; Leminen
et al, 2012), but we found no examples of their application in smallholder contexts.
ThetendencytoextendVCCbeyond the chain’–with governance agencies in PPPs or with
NGOs and research organisations in innovation platforms has three major implications. First, it
results in a broadening of objectives beyond optimising the value chain, to include the improvement
of livelihoods and environmental conditions (Cullen et al, 2014). Second, it merges (vertical)
commodity chain relations with (horizontal) place-based interactions and effects (Bolwig et al,
2010; Purnomo, 2014), introducing new contexts, actors and enabling factors in which VCC plays
out, while also implying that effective adaptations to environmental and resource vulnerabilities
will need to be inherently place based”’ (Marsden, 2013, p. 215). This forms the basis of our
objective to bring the analysis of vertical chain relations, smallholder agency and autonomy, and
landscape approaches together within the same frame of analysis. Third, it problematizes the role of
scientic knowledge in society as being negotiated (not prescriptive) and envisions a role for
scientists in supporting existing negotiation processes (Giller et al, 2008).
The Challenges of Inclusive VCC
Actors have various interests, capacities, powers, agency and societal legitimacy as regards
organising or inuencing several value-chain dimensions (production, technology development,
marketing, standard-setting) (Klerkx et al, 2010). Value-chain relations unfold in a conditioning
environment. The relationship between a structuring environment and actorsability to innovate
and effectuate change is one of a dialectic mutual embeddedness: actors observe and respond to
critical dynamics and contingencies of the environment in which they operate and, in doing so,
modify that environment (Klerkx et al, 2010, p. 191). For the most marginalised, the barriers for
VCC are high and may involve trade-offs and a reduction of their autonomy.
This implies that, despite their apparent pro-poor focus, new forms of VCC are not
automatically more inclusive or sustainable. Corporations tend to focus on the low hanging
fruitand easy win-win projectsrather than on addressing fundamental social and environ-
mental problems of which they are part (Crane et al, 2014, p. 140). Neither are innovation
platforms neutral regarding who is targeted or reached (Pyburn, 2014). Younger and female
farmers and those with fewer assets tend to be excluded because of a blindness to the diversity of
the very same poor (Barrientos, 2013; IFAD, 2013b; Pyburn, 2014). This raises the question
of why one should embark on research into inclusive VCC while there is so much evidence of
adverse effects and exclusion. We do so, rst, because we consider engagement in value chains
and VCC as (partly) deliberate choices of smallholders, which is not only backed up by theories
on peasant agency (Long, 2008; van der Ploeg, 2014) addressed below, but also by social
movements and epistemic communities involving smallholders and farming organisations
(Muñoz and Viaña, 2012). It is in the interest of these farmers to analyse the conditions under
Landscapes of Social Inclusion
527© 2015 European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes 0957-8811
European Journal of Development Research Vol. 27, 4, 523540
which they can exert agency to advocate changes regarding the terms on which they engage in
VCC. Second, we consider it important to grasp the dialectics of autonomy and dependency in
VCC and the paradox of diverging outcomes in terms of livelihoods and sustainability. Looking
beyond the chainthen implies analysing the impacts of VCC on the availability of natural
resources and the sustainability of their use at both farm and landscape levels.
Food Sovereignty: A Focus on Smallholder Autonomy and Agency
This section introduces food sovereignty as a normative principle and analytical concept.
Following Altieri and Toledo (2011, p. 588) food sovereignty is dened as the right to (i) good
quality and culturally appropriate food, (ii) smallholder autonomy regarding the way in which
food is produced and marketed and (iii) sustainable production.
Food sovereignty has been described as a programme of action for a more equitable food
system reconnecting food, nature and community(Wittman et al, 2010) and a democratic
rebuilding of domestic agricultures(McMichael, 2014, p. 2), related to strategic questions of
practices, scale and identity. Although contested and expressing a wide array of paradigmatic
positions (Edelman, 2014), it provides a common frame of understanding of more or less shared
principles regarding the right to nutritious and diverse food, autonomy and sustainability.
This framing is closely associated with agro-ecology; a proposal for small-scale agriculture
based on traditional ecological principles; genetic, species and cultural diversity; and local markets,
production-consumption cycles, energy and technology (Altieri and Toledo, 2011). Agro-ecology
is driven and supported by social movements farmer-to-farmer networks, peasant and indigenous
movements, and organisations of landless farmers (Perfecto et al, 2009). It challenges conventional
agricultural institutions that are seen as being associated with neo-liberalism, privatisation and
corporate control over value chains (Altieri, 2009; Altieri and Toledo, 2011). Seen as the product of
individual and collective agency, agro-ecology is considered as a way to prevent or reduce
smallholdersdependence on genetically modied crops and external inputs such as agrochemicals
and credits, to combat land grabbing and to promote social and environmental equity (Perfecto et al,
2009; Rosset, 2011).
Stressing farmersautonomy, social and environmental justice, and sustainability, the food
sovereignty and agro-ecology debates make an essential contribution to the conceptualisation of
inclusive VCC and its operationalisation in smallholder contexts. However, the emphasis on local
production-consumption cycles and markets, autonomy regarding energy, inputs and technology
(Altieri, 2009), and opposition to corporate industrialised agriculture and food regimes (Altieri,
2009) seems to be at odds with the integration of smallholders in international value chains.
Indeed, strong stands have been taken against such integration (for example, Holt Giménez and
Shattuck, 2011; Holt Giménez and Altieri, 2013) based on arguments that smallholder modes of
production and environmental sustainability worldwide are threatened by dominant market forces
(Patel, 2006; Holt Giménez and Altieri, 2013). Opponents to market integration argue that the
dominant trajectory of agricultural development unfolds through a number of crises across
different scales, which include the steady erosion of local farming knowledge, a narrowing of
(institutional) choices for producers and consumers, and an increased incapacity of food systems
to feed the world in a sustainable and healthy manner (Edelman, 2014). As such, these debates
foreground struggles for alternative patterns of consumption and modes of production that
minimise dependency on industrialised farming and restore sovereign rights of decision making
to community and smallholder levels. This resistance to dominant market forces and neo-liberal
Ros-Tonen et al
528 © 2015 European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes 0957-8811
European Journal of Development Research Vol. 27, 4, 523540
agrarian structures emphasises development from belowin support of smallholdersmultiple
livelihood strategies.
While valuing the above problematizing of unequal power in international trade as being
central to more inclusive VCC, we take a less radical stand towards smallholder engagement in
markets. First, smallholders contribute substantially to export-oriented trade in agricultural
commodities, and this trade contributes considerably to their incomes and food security (Vorley
et al, 2012; Burnett and Murphy, 2014). These farmers are less concerned about inequalities in
the global food system than they are about their economic rights and bargaining positionin the
commodity chains for which they produce (Murphy in Burnett and Murphy, 2014, p. 7).
As Vorley et al (2012) suggest, the hostile position towards value-chain integration and
international trade may therefore impose an ideological agenda that does not match with these
smallholdersaspirations, and hinders effective partnerships that would help them to realise their
goals (Green in Vorley et al, 2012, p. 58). Extending the sovereignty principle to smallholders
choices to invest in the relationships they deem valuable, or have reason to value, is a valid
argument for reconsidering the food sovereignty movements stand on international trade.
Second, we challenge the assumption that complete withdrawal from international trade and
value chains equals sovereign control over production and consumption and suggests a revisiting of
the notion of agency. In the food sovereignty discourse agency is typically framed as resistance.
According to Bernstein (2014, p. 9) there is the larger and heroic scale of resistanceassociated with
coordinated, internationalised social struggle and the smaller mundane, scaleassociated with James
ScottsWeapons of the Weak. Whereas the former entails an emphasis on how peasants mobilise
using collective action through social movements together with a progressive state (c.f. Desmarais,
2002; Borras, 2010), the latter refers to everyday struggles for autonomy at farm level.
For the analysis of these farm-level struggles, we suggest an actor-oriented approach that
conceptualises resistance in terms of local agro-ecological practices through which farmers
strengthen resilience and food security (Long, 2008; van der Ploeg, 2008). Smallholder agency is
strongly linked to processes of endogenous development and growth (Helmsing and Vellema,
2011) that are at once grounded in local interests, availability of resources, place-based identities,
smallholder histories of learning and market engagement, as well as a larger conditioning
environment (Long, 2008; Klerkx et al, 2010). Locality is problematized, following the notion
that local heterogeneity in agricultural patterns cannot be attributed to one dominant set of
driving forceslocated in markets, agrarian policy and technology development(Long and
van der Ploeg, 1994, p. 4).
Smallholder responses to the agrarian crisis are then seen as being expressed through skilled
interventions in the organisation of labour and production towards greater autonomy regarding
market forces (van der Ploeg, 2010). This conceptualisation foregrounds the notion of co-
productionbetween man and nature through which smallholders build resilience by strengthening
their natural resource base. They do so through qualitative improvements in soil, labour, farming
implements and biodiversity enhancement through crop diversication. In this way they expand their
ecological capitaland enhance the sustainability of their production (van der Ploeg, 2008, 2014).
Importantly, these smallholder innovations occur through partial or selective engagement in
markets, and temporal and variable combinations of production in commodity and non-
commodity circuits (van der Ploeg, 2008). This dialectic process of engaging with and distancing
from the market is key to understanding smallholdersinclusion in and partially deliberate
exclusion from value-chain relations. Analytically it means that a distinction should be made
between different degrees of peasantness(van der Ploeg, 2008, pp. 2930), which result in
variegated congurations of subsistence and market-oriented production and livelihood trajec-
tories. This conceptualisation recognises that smallholders are integrated in differing ways into
Landscapes of Social Inclusion
529© 2015 European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes 0957-8811
European Journal of Development Research Vol. 27, 4, 523540
trade networks and that they do so constructively and creatively. They thereby re-design and
materially rebuild agriculture through the development of new products, services and markets
(van der Ploeg, 2014, p. 17) to create a multi-functional farming system. In stressing the
dynamics in smallholderslivelihood trajectories, we emphasise that these trajectories may lead
to de-peasantisation’–implying stagnation, increased dependency on external inputs and
integration in unequal relationships but may equally follow a re-peasantisationpathway that
marks increased self-reliance and sustainable intensication (van der Ploeg, 2008).
The above discussion of agency and reworking market relationships implies that value-chain
relations can be seen as a space for contesting smallholdersrights and autonomy. Peasant agency
as co-productionand varied modalities of smallholder market integration also establishes a rm
link between vertical commodity relations and the horizontal interactions in the landscape that
will be further elaborated below.
Smallholder Agency at Landscape Level
Agro-ecology offers a clear proposal for reconciling agricultural production and biodiversity
conservation in mosaic landscapesby building on traditional ecological knowledge and farming
practices based on genetic and crop diversity (Altieri, 2009). However, its focus on localised food
systems and deliberate exclusion from the corporate food regime(Holt Giménez and Altieri,
2013) makes the agro-ecology approach less suitable for the analysis of agency of smallholders
integrated into international value chains. Smallholders operate at the interface of vertical
relationships with chain actors (buyers, processors, exporters) and horizontal interactions within
the landscape in which they live and farm (Figure 1). This requires an analysis of agency beyond
local autonomy, local markets, local production-consumption cycles, energy and technological
sovereignty(Altieri, 2009, p. 104).
For this reason we propose positioning the analysis of smallholder agency at the landscape
level within the current debate on landscape approaches. We thereby dene landscapes as
dynamic congurations of human-nature interactions in geographical spaces of variable scale,
determined by both biophysical characteristics and perceptions
and a landscape approach as a
governance approach steered by institutions through which actors negotiate land-use objectives
= trees/forest patches/agroforests (carbon)
= fisheries
= food crop
= house
= tree crop
with effects
on poverty,
labour and the
Vertical commodity chain
relations and flows (products,
info, inputs, funds)
Primary processing
Figure 1: Territorially embedded value-chain collaboration (after Bolwig et al, 2010 and Purnomo, 2014).
Ros-Tonen et al
530 © 2015 European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes 0957-8811
European Journal of Development Research Vol. 27, 4, 523540
and trade-offs (c.f. Görg, 2007; Pfund, 2010). The broadening playing eld of VCC implies
increasing synergy with such approaches.
Landscape approaches aim to provide integrative responses to global challenges such as food
insecurity, climate change and biodiversity loss by creating multi-functional landscapes where
agriculture, sheries, biodiversity conservation, and maintenance of other environmental services
(for example, water provision, carbon sequestration) are increasingly integrated (WWF, 2004;
Sayer et al, 2013). Known under several labels for example whole landscape approaches
(DeFries and Rosenzweig, 2010) and ecoagriculture(Scherr and McNeely, 2008) they have in
common that they pursue multiple objectives with negotiated and minimised trade-offs between
economic, environmental and social interests; are based on multi-stakeholder participation and
adaptive learning processes; take a dynamic long-term sustainability perspective; assign a key
role for communities and households as producers and stewards of the landscape; and try to
involve the most vulnerable groups and protect their livelihoods (Scherr et al, 2012; see also
Sayer et al, 2013). Trees and tree crops in smallholder settings can play an important role in
landscape approaches as they potentially contribute to climate smart(Scherr et al, 2012; FAO,
2013; Minang et al, 2015) and sustainable(OFarell and Anderson, 2010) landscapes through
the provision of food, commodities and environmental services, notably carbon sequestration
(Tscharntke et al, 2012; Insaidoo et al, 2013).
For companies, a landscape approach can be a CSV strategy to deal with the risks of
unsustainable sourcing (Kissinger et al, 2013). Within the context of this article, the scale under
consideration is therefore the sourcing area at the producer end of the value chain.
This is the
context in which resource problems are identied and articulated, values understood, conicts
resolved and choices made (Potschin and Haines-Young, 2013). It is also the scale at which
agency of VCC actors, particularly smallholders, is localised and embedded in structures
(institutions, rules and policies) (Minang et al, 2015). However, both ecological and institutional
phenomena interact across scales and levels (Cash et al, 2006), and hence a multi-scale and
nested approach should be followed in both landscape analysis and the facilitation of landscape
approaches (see Minang et al, 2015 and below for further details).
Agency within the context of landscape approaches is essentially about smallholderscapacity
to negotiate, interact, position themselves and make claims vis-à-vis companies, investors, NGOs
and donors; make good choices; and act accordingly (Muñoz and Viaña, 2012, p. 6). In addition
to analysing how smallholders reconstruct their ecological capital at farm level through
diversication (van der Ploeg, 2008), the analysis then also focuses on the opportunities and
constraints that shape smallholderscapacity to negotiate land-use objectives and trade-offs at
landscape level (DeFries and Rosenzweig, 2010; Sayer et al, 2013). A key element in these
negotiations is the sustainability choice space. This concept was coined by Potschin and
Haines-Young (2006) to denote different landscape congurations that provide ecosystem goods
and services in a sustainable way and in accordance with stakeholderscultural and economic
values. Together they provide a set of landscape scenarios from which stakeholders can choose.
Elements of such landscape congurations include (i) biophysical boundaries of ecosystems in
the landscape, (ii) outputs of ecosystem goods and services, (iii) the economic, social and cultural
values that stakeholders attach to the landscape, and (iv) the risks and the costs they regard as
acceptable. At the basis of negotiating different landscape congurations lies the participatory
development of alternative landscape scenarios in a trans-disciplinary approach that combines
scientic knowledge of neutralbiophysical metrics with stakeholderslocal knowledge and
social perceptions (c.f. Wagner and Gobster, 2007).
Landscapes such as those based on the sourcing areas of the value-chain arrangements that
we aim to study do not necessarily coincide with administrative and jurisdictional boundaries
Landscapes of Social Inclusion
531© 2015 European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes 0957-8811
European Journal of Development Research Vol. 27, 4, 523540
(van Oosten et al, 2014). Multi-stakeholder negotiations about sustainable landscapes within
the framework of territorially embedded VCC therefore require a new form of landscape
governance (Görg, 2007). We thereby dene landscape governance as multi-sector, multi-
actor and multi-level interactions to solve societal problems and create societal opportunities
at landscape level (van Oosten et al, 2014; Ros-Tonen et al, 2014).
New institutional
arrangements are needed to bring together a broader range of actors than are conventionally
involved in landscape planning, facilitate multi-stakeholder processes, negotiate trade-offs
and manage conicts (Colfer and Pfund, 2010). An increasing body of literature is dening
principlesand benchmarksfor institutional arrangements that could steer landscape
approaches (Sayer et al, 2013) and be tested (Ros-Tonen et al, 2014 and 2015 (in press);
Wambugu et al, 2015) (Table 1). These design principles are meant to enable multi-
stakeholder interactions that help shape equitable access to, and the sustainable use of, land
and resources at landscape level. Examples are given in Box 1.
Table 1: Design principles for institutions in landscape approaches (adapted from Ros-Tonen et al, 2014,
pp. 30013002)
Principle Dimensions Authors
Negotiated objectives, change logic and trade-offs Sayer et al, 2013
Participatory and collaborative processes Scherr et al, 2012; Wambugu
et al, 2015
Polycentrism Hybridity of arrangements with clear rights and
responsibilities, legal options for self-organisation
Nagendra and Ostrom, 2012
Multi-scale and multi-level governance Mwangi and Wardell, 2012;
Sayer et al, 2013
Single loop learning (improving daily practices),
double loop learning (challenging underlying
assumptions) and triple loop learning (transforming
underlying norms and values)
Armitage et al, 2008; Pahl-
Wostl, 2009
Building institutional memory Gupta et al, 2010
Participatory monitoring and evaluation Sayer et al, 2013; Wambugu
et al, 2015
Being prepared for change Dietz et al, 2003
Willingness to engage in collective decision making
and share power
Berkes et al, 2003; Armitage,
Accept a diversity of solutions, actors and
Berkes et al, 2003; Armitage,
2005; Gupta et al, 2010
Room for autonomous change Gupta et al, 2010
Building adaptive capacity Sayer et al, 2013
Taking account of gender roles, rights and values in
resource access, collaboration and equitable benet
sharing; representation of women
Wambugu et al, 2015
Ros-Tonen et al
532 © 2015 European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes 0957-8811
European Journal of Development Research Vol. 27, 4, 523540
The growing hybrid nature of institutional arrangements resulting from VCC beyond the chain
has implications for smallholderscontrol and autonomy in agro-ecological processes and the re-
grounding of farming on ecological capital (van der Ploeg, 2014). The next section discusses the
way in which we propose bringing the analysis of agency at farm and landscape level together in a
coherent framework to assess whether and how VCC can be made more inclusive.
Discussion and Conclusion
We propose a critical yet constructive approach towards analysing new forms of VCC with
non-chain actors and their prospects for enhancing smallholdersagency and autonomy both
within the chain and the landscape in which the chain is embedded. This approach puts
smallholdersagency and empowerment centre stage in the analysis by combining and
contributing to debates on territorially embedded value chains, food sovereignty and
landscape governance, respectively; three elds in which the ability of farmers to exert
agency is key to their terms of inclusion.
This combination of strands enriches inclusive development theory the theme of this special
issue in several ways. First, a territorially embedded value-chain perspective provides an
analytical lens through which to view the global to local analysis of vulnerability causes,
structural constraints, policymaking and governance (Gupta et al, 2015, this issue) by positioning
vertical VCC in its geographical, social and political-cultural contexts (Bolwig et al, 2010;
Bowen, 2010, Helmsing and Vellema, 2011). Second, the reconstruction of the peasantry(van
der Ploeg, 2014) interpretation of value-chain engagement and disengagement as an act of
resistance highlights a link between farmersagency and autonomy regarding their resource
base and sustainability that is typically overlooked in inclusive development approaches. Third,
the focus on diversication and variegated livelihood trajectories enables us to situate empower-
ment in a production space marked by multiple institutional linkages, public and private actors,
and various policies, which is relevant in a context of VCC beyond the chainand landscape
approaches. Fourth, the proposed approach recognises that the heterogeneity of responses in the
Box 1: Landscape approaches in practice
An extensive review of 191 landscape approaches in Africa and Latin America (Hart et al, 2015) reveals
commonalities regarding (i) a focus on mosaic landscapes (eight land-cover/land-use types on average); (ii) an
integrated approach with 79 per cent of the initiatives holistically targeting agriculture, conservation, livelihoods and
multi-stakeholder coordination; (iii) a primacy of conservation and sustainable management goals as a motivation to
start the initiative; (iv) involvement of multiple stakeholder groups (10 on average per initiative); and (v) a bias in
investments towards capacity building, institutional planning and stakeholder coordination. Major differences exist
in scale (from tens to tens of thousands of km
) and population size (from a few hundred to millions of people).
Institutionally, most initiatives are based on platforms for stakeholder mobilisation and negotiation.
The case of a corporation-driven landscape approach initiated by agribusiness Olam International in West Africas
cocoa sector provides more institutional details, revealing engagement in multiple and nested institutions from local
to global (Brasser, 2013; Kissinger et al, 2013):
Local tenure arrangements, negotiated with traditional authorities and concession holders;
A national multi-stakeholder platform, involving the Ghana Forestry Commission to negotiate better tenure
arrangements for cocoa farmers and the integration of cocoa farming in carbon schemes;
A certication scheme with the Rainforest Alliance to enhance smallholdersincome through certication of
climate friendly cocoa.
Landscapes of Social Inclusion
533© 2015 European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes 0957-8811
European Journal of Development Research Vol. 27, 4, 523540
production space may enhance new forms of learning and exchange on sustainable land use at both
farm and landscape level. Fifth, the food sovereignty concept stresses self-determination with
regard to production, marketing and sustainability, putting the inclusive development triptych
of agency/empowerment, well-being and sustainability into a coherent and critical perspective
(Figure 2). Sixth, the landscape approach provides a spatial context for multilevel and inter-
active governance through which multiple land uses, including conservation, and sustainable choice
space (Potschin and Haines-Young, 2006) are negotiated among chain and non-chain actors.
However, the three stances also pose challenges that need to be addressed in further research
as well as in practice. First are those related to the analysis of territorially embedded VCC,
including (i) connecting vertical relationships with their place-based contexts and (ii) dealing
with the institutional complexities of including marginalised actors in multi-scale arrangements
characterised by unequal power relationships (Helmsing and Vellema, 2011). Second, the notion
of food as a rightin food sovereignty discourse, and food as a commodityin VCC is
inherently conicting (Hospes, 2013) as illustrated by the debate on whether proponents of food
sovereignty should revise their stance on smallholder value-chain participation (Vorley et al,
2012; Burnett and Murphy, 2014). Where such conicting norms and values cannot be overcome,
win-win outcomes in multi-stakeholder collaborations may not be achieved (Crane et al, 2014).
Third, landscape approaches face the challenge of translating the institutional design principles
into institutional arrangements for smallholder inclusion in allocating and monitoring land use at
the level of landscapes. These institutional arrangements are still largely experimental and
characterised by signicant muddling through(Colfer et al, 2010).
These challenges offer scope for further action research for institutional innovation. Building
on the ideas outlined by Giller et al (2008) on the role of science in multi-stakeholder negotiation
processes, within the WOTRO research programme, we intend to do this by actively engaging in
learning platforms. We see these learning platforms as arenas for joint learning and negotiated
Figure 2: VCC beyond the chainfrom a inclusive development perspective (c.f. Gupta et al, 2015, this
Ros-Tonen et al
534 © 2015 European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes 0957-8811
European Journal of Development Research Vol. 27, 4, 523540
knowledge (Giller et al, 2008). They differ from the existing innovation platforms and networks,
examples of which were given in the section on territorial grounding of VCC, in their attempt to
stimulate new stakeholder coalitions where this is needed to build a bridge between local-level
innovation platforms and higher-level multi-stakeholder arrangements and policy communities.
Although we will liaise with existing innovation platforms, our primary aim is to mediate
between different knowledge systems across different governance levels. We thus hope to
contribute to facilitating technological and institutional innovation (Giller et al, 2008; Klerkx
et al, 2009; Devaux et al, 2010) in situations characterised by power imbalances and different
political agendas (OFarrell and Anderson, 2010).
These learning platforms may act as bridging organisations (Cash et al, 2006) and catalysers
for innovation, enabling less powerful actors to respond to opportunities by providing an arena
for knowledge co-production, trust building, sense making, learning, vertical and horizontal
collaboration, and conict resolution(Berkes, 2009, p. 1695). Through these learning platforms
we envisage (i) the co-production of knowledge about smallholder strategies and resulting
diversity into livelihood trajectories and how these play out in VCC and landscape approaches,
(ii) multi-stakeholder denition of the sustainability choice space of commoditised tree crop
farming, and (iii) smallholdersinclusion in adaptive learning processes related to innovations
and landscape approaches initiated through VCC. We hope that these platforms provide a space
for smallholder inclusion in exploring trade-offs and scenarios that may lead to socially just
agricultural systems, equitable VCC and sustainable landscapes.
This article is part of a research programme on inclusive value-chain collaboration for sustainable landscapes
and greater food sovereignty among tree crop farmers in Ghana and South Africa, nanced by WOTRO
Science for Global Development of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientic Research (NWO) (project
no. W 08.250.2013.122). The rst version of this paper was written during the rst authors sabbatical leave,
spent at the Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) in Bogor, Indonesia, whose hospitality is
kindly acknowledged. Terry Sunderlands contribution to this article was funded through USAIDs
Biodiversity Earmark.
1. The two applications in rural contexts target GSM and internet services (Siyakhula Living Lab; http:// and ICT in the retail sector (Sekhukhune Living
Lab, respectively.
2. This denition obscures a fundamental ontological debate that is beyond the scope of this paper about
whether landscapes are realspatial units, with coordinates, biophysical features and attributes, or
mental constructs that are in the eye of the beholder.
3. We acknowledge that this reduces the scale issue to geographical and institutional scales. Jurisdictional,
ecological, management, temporal, knowledge and network scales, and levels within these scales (Cash
et al, 2006) may also play a role in landscape analyses and approaches (Minang et al, 2015).
4. This denition builds on the denition of interactive governance by Kooiman and Bavinck (2013).
Altieri, M.A. (2009) Agro-ecology, small farms, and food sovereignty. Monthly Review 61(3): 102113.
Altieri, M.A. and Toledo, V.M. (2011) The agroecological revolution in Latin America: Rescuing nature,
ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasants. Journal of Peasant Studies 38(3): 587612.
Landscapes of Social Inclusion
535© 2015 European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes 0957-8811
European Journal of Development Research Vol. 27, 4, 523540
Armitage, D. (2005) Adaptive capacity and community-based natural resource management. Environmental
Management 35(6): 703715.
Armitage, D., Marschke, M. and Plummer, R. (2008) Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning.
Global Environmental Change 18(1): 8698.
Banerjee, S.B. (2008) Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly. Critical Sociology
34(1): 5179.
Barrientos, S. (2013) Gender Production Networks: Sustaining Cocoa-Chocolate in Ghana and India. June.
Brooks World Poverty Institute Working Paper No. 186, Manchester: University of Manchester, http://, accessed June 2014.
Berkes, F., Folke, C. and Colding, J. (eds.) (2003) Navigating Social-Ecological Systems. Building Resi-
lience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Berkes, F. (2009) Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and
social learning. Journal of Environmental Management 90(5): 16921702.
Bernstein, H. (2014) Food sovereignty via the peasant way: A sceptical view. The Journal of Peasant
Studies 41(6): 10311063.
Bitzer, V. (2011) Partnering for Change in Chains. On the Capacity of Partnerships to Promote Sustainable
Change in Global Agricultural Commodity Chains. PhD Dissertation. Utrecht: University of Utrecht.
Bitzer, V. and Glasbergen, P. (2015) Business NGO partnerships in global value chains: Part of the solu-
tion or part of the problem of sustainable change? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 12:
Bolwig, S., Ponte, S., du Toit, A., Riisgard, L. and Halberg, N. (2010) Integrating poverty and environ-
mental concerns in value-chain analysis: A conceptual framework. Development Policy Review 28(2):
Borras, Jr S. (2010) The politics of transnational agrarian movements. Development and Change 41(5):
Bowen, S. (2010) Embedding local places in global spaces: Geographical indications as a territorial devel-
opment strategy. Rural Sociology 75(2): 209243.
Brasser, A. (2013) Reducing Risk: Landscape Approaches to Sustainable Sourcing:Olam International and
Rainforest Alliance Case Study. Washington DC: Landscapes for People, Food and Nature Initiative.
Burnett, K. and Murphy, S. (2014) What place for international trade in food sovereignty? The Journal of
Peasant Studies 41(6): 10651084.
Cash, D.W. et al. (2006) Scale and cross-scale dynamics: Governance and information in a multilevel
world. Ecology and society 11(2): 8.
Chamberlin, J. (2008) Its Small World After All: Dening Smallholder Agriculture in Ghana. Rome: IFPRI., accessed May 2014.
Colfer, C.J.P. and Pfund, J.-P. (eds.) (2010) Collaborative Governance of Tropical Landscapes. London/
Washington DC: Earthscan.
Colfer, C.J.P., Pfund, J-P. and Sunderland, T. (2010) The essential task of muddling throughto better
landscape governance. In: C.J.P. Colfer and J.-P. Pfund (eds.) Collaborative Governance of Tropical
Landscapes. London/Washington DC: Earthscan, pp. 271280.
Cousins, B. (2011) What is a smallholder? Class-analytic perspectives on small-scale farming and agrarian
reform in South Africa. In: P. Hebinck and C. Shackleton (eds.) Reforming Land and Resource Use in
South Africa. Impact on Livelihoods. Oxon, UK/New York: Routledge.
Crane, A., Palazzo, G., Spence, L. J. and Matten, D. (2014) Contesting the value of creating shared value.
California Management Review 56(2): 130153.
Cullen, B., Tucker, J., Snyder, K., Lema, Z. and Duncan, A. (2014) An analysis of power dynamics
within innovation platforms for natural resource management. Innovation and Development 4(2):
DeFries, R. and Rosenzweig, C. (2010) Toward a whole-landscape approach for sustainable land use in the
tropics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(46): 1962719632.
Desmarais, A.A. (2002) Peasants speak The Vía Campesina: Consolidating an International peasant and
farm movement. The Journal of Peasant Studies 29(2): 91124.
Devaux, A., Andrade-Piedra, J., Horton, D., Ordinola, M., Thiele, G., Thomann, A. and Velasco, C. (2010)
Brokering Innovation for Sustainable Development: The Papa Andina Case (No. 12). ILAC Working
Paper, Silverwater: ILAC.
Dietz, T., Ostrom, E. and Stern, P.C. (2003) The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302(5652):
Ros-Tonen et al
536 © 2015 European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes 0957-8811
European Journal of Development Research Vol. 27, 4, 523540
Donald, P.F. (2004) Biodiversity impacts of some agricultural commodity production systems. Conserva-
tion Biology 18(1): 1737.
Ecker, O., Trinh Tan, J.-F., Alpuerto, V. and Diao, X. (2012) Economic Growth and Agricultural Diversi-
cation Matters for Food and Nutrition Security in Ghana. Discussion note #31. Ghana Strategy Support
Program. Ann Arbor MI: IFRI.
Edelman, M. (2014) Food sovereignty: Forgotten genealogies and future regulatory challenges. The Journal
of Peasant Studies 41(6): 959978.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2013)) Climate-Smart Agriculture Sour-
cebook. Rome, Italy: FAO.
Geref, G., Humphrey, J. and Sturgeon, T. (2005) The governance of global value chains. Review of Inter-
national Political Economy 12(1): 78104.
Giller, K.E. et al. (2008) Competing claims on natural resources: What role for science? Ecology and
Society 13(2): 34,
Görg, C. (2007) Landscape governance: The politics of scaleand the natural conditions of places. Geo-
forum 38(5): 954966.
Greenberg, S. (ed.) (2013) Smallholders and Agro-Food Value Chains in South Africa: Emerging Practices,
Emerging Challenges. Cape Town, South Africa: Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies,
School of Government (PLAAS).
Gupta, J. et al. (2010) The adaptive capacity wheel: A method to assess the inherent characteristics
of institutions to enable the adaptive capacity of society. Environmental Science and Policy 13(6):
Gupta, J., Pouw, N.R.M. and Ros-Tonen, M.A.F. (2015) Towards an elaborated theory of inclusive devel-
opment. European Journal for Development Research 27(4): 541559.
Hart, A.K., Milder, J.C., Estrada-Carmona, N., DeClerck, F.A.J., Harvey, C.A. and Dobie, P. (2015)
Integrated landscape initiatives in practice: Assessing experiences from 191 landscapes in Africa and
Latin America. In: P.A. Minang, M. van Noordwijk, O.E. Freeman, C. Mbow, J. de Leeuw and
D. Catacutan (eds.) Climate-Smart Landscapes: Multifunctionality in Practice. Nairobi: World Agro-
forestry Centre (ICRAF).
Helmsing, A.H.J. and Vellema, S. (eds.) (2011) Governance, inclusion and embedding: Raising the issues.
In: Value Chains, Inclusion and Endogenous Development Contrasting Theories and Realities. Oxon,
UK/New York: Routledge, pp. 116.
Holt Giménez, E. and Altieri, M.A. (2013) Agro-ecology, food sovereignty, and the new green revolution.
Agro-ecology and Sustainable Food Systems 37(1): 90102.
Holt Giménez, E. and Shattuck, A. (2011) Food crises, food regimes and food movements: Rumblings of
reform or tides of transformation? Journal of Peasant Studies 38(1): 109144.
Hospes, O. (2013) Food sovereignty: The debate, the deadlock, and a suggested detour. Agric Hum Values
31: 119130.
Hounkonnou, D. et al. (2012) An innovation systems approach to institutional change: Smallholder devel-
opment in West Africa. Agricultural Systems 108: 7483.
IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development) (2013a) Smallholders, Food Security, and the
Environment. Rome, Italy: IFAD and UNEP.
IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development) (2013b) IFAD and public-private partnerships:
Selected project experiences. Rome: IFAD,, accessed
May 2014.
Insaidoo, T.F.G., Ros-Tonen, M.A.F. and Acheampong, E. (2013) On-farm tree planting in Ghanas high
forest zone: The need to consider carbon payments. In: R. Muradian and L. Rival (eds.) Governing the
Provision of Ecosystem Services. Studies in Ecological Economics 4 Heidelberg, Germany: Springer
Publishers, pp. 437463.
Kaplinski, R. (2000) Globalisation and unequalisation: What can be learned from value chain analysis? The
Journal of Development Studies 37(2): 117146.
Kirsten, J. and Sartorius, K. (2002) Linking agribusiness and small-scale farmers in developing countries:
Is there a new role for contract farming? Development Southern Africa 19(4): 503529.
Kissinger, G., Brasser, A. and Gross, L. (2013) Scoping Study. Reducing Risk: Landscape Approaches to
Sustainable Sourcing. Washington DC: Landscapes for People, Food and Nature Initiative.
Klerkx, L., Hall, A. and Leeuwis, C. (2009) Strengthening agricultural innovation capacity: Are innovation
brokers the answer? International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 8(5/6):
Landscapes of Social Inclusion
537© 2015 European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes 0957-8811
European Journal of Development Research Vol. 27, 4, 523540
Klerkx, L., Aarts, N. and Leeuwis, C. (2010) Adaptive management in agricultural innovation systems:
The interactions between innovation networks and their environment. Agricultural Systems 103(6):
Kooiman, J. and Bavinck, J.M. (2013) Theorizing governability The interactive governance perspective.
In: M. Bavinck, R. Chuenpagdee, S. Jentoft and J. Kooiman (eds.) Governability of Fisheries and
Aquaculture. Theory and Applications. MARE Publication Series No. 7 Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Springer, pp. 930.
Laven, A.C. (2010) The Risks of Inclusion: Shifts in Governance Processes and Upgrading Opportunities
for Cocoa Farmers in Ghana (PhD thesis University of Amsterdam). Amsterdam: KIT Publishers.
Laven, A. and Pyburn, R. (2015) Facilitating gender inclusive agri-business. Knowledge Management for
Development Journal 11(1): 1030.
Leminen, S., Westerlund, M. and Nyström, A.G. (2012) Living labs as open-innovation networks.
Technology Innovation Management Review (September): 611.
Long, A. and van der Ploeg, J.D. (1994) Endogenous development: Practices and perspectives. In: J.D. van
der Ploeg and A. Long (eds.) Born From Within. Practice and Perspectives of Endogenous Rural
Development. Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum.
Long, N. (2008) Resistance, agency and counterwork: A theoretical positioning. In: W. Wright and
G. Middendorf (eds.) The Fight Over Food. Producers, Consumers and Activists Challenge the Global
Food System. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press, pp. 6992.
Marsden, T. (2013) Sustainable place-making for sustainability science: The contested case of agri-food and
urban Rural relations. Sustainability Science 8(2): 213226.
McMichael, P. (2014) Historicizing food sovereignty. Journal of Peasant Studies 41(6): 933957.
Minang, P.A., Dungama, L.A., Alemagi, D. and Noordwijk, M. van (2015) Scale considerations in
landscape approaches. In: P.A. Minang, M. van Noordwijk, O.E. Freeman, C. Mbow, J. de Leeuw and
D. Catacutan (eds.) (2015) Climate-Smart Landscapes: Multifunctionality in Practice. Nairobi, Kenya:
World Agroforestry Centre, pp. 121134.
MOFA (Ministry of Food and Agriculture) (2007) Food and agriculture sector development policy
(FASDEP II),, accessed May 2014.
Morsello, C. (2006) Company-community non-timber forest product deals in the Brazilian Amazon:
A review of opportunities and problems. Forest Policy and Economics 8(4): 485494.
Muñoz, D and Viaña, J (2012) Small Producers in Latin America: New Ways of Thinking and Acting in
Markets Position. London/The Hague, The Netherlands/La Paz, Bolivia: IIED/HIVOS/Mainumby.
Mwangi, E. and Wardell, A. (2012) Multi-level governance of forest resources (Editorial to the special
feature). International journal of the Commons 6(2): 79103.
Nagendra, H. and Ostrom, E. (2012) Polycentric governance of multifunctional forested landscapes.
International Journal of the Commons 2: 104133.
Nederlof, S. and Pyburn, R. (2012) One Finger Cannot Lift a Rock. Facilitating Innovation Platforms to
Trigger Institutional Change in West Africa. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: KIT Publishers.
NPC (National Planning Commission) (2012) Our future Make it work. National development plan 2030.
Pretoria: National planning commission,, acces-
sed May 2014.
OFarrell, P.J. and Anderson, P.M.L. (2010) Sustainable multifunctional landscapes: A review to imple-
mentation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2(1-2): 5965.
Oosten, C. van, Gunarso, P., Koesoetjahjo, I. and Wiersum, F. (2014) Governing forest landscape restora-
tion: Cases from Indonesia. Forests 5(6): 11431162.
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2009) A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning
processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change 19(3): 354365.
Patel, R. (2006) International agrarian restructuring and the practical ethics of peasant movement solidarity.
Journal of Asian and African Studies 41(1/2): 7193.
Perfecto, I., Vandermeer, J. and Wright, A. (2009) Natures Matrix: Linking Agriculture, Conservation and
Food Sovereignty. London: Earthscan.
Pfund, J.L. (2010) Landscape-scale research for conservation and development in the tropics: Fighting
persisting challenges. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2(1): 117126.
Pitse-Boshomane, M.M. et al. (2008) Catalysing innovation: The promise of the Living Lab Approach in
South Africa. Refereed paper presented at Prato CIRN 2008 Community Informatics Conference: ICTs
for Social Inclusion: What is the Reality?,
accessed June 2014.
Ros-Tonen et al
538 © 2015 European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes 0957-8811
European Journal of Development Research Vol. 27, 4, 523540
Ploeg, J.D. van der (2008) The New Peasantries: Struggles for Autonomy and Sustainability in an Era of
Empire and Globalization. London: Earthscan.
Ploeg, J.D. van der (2010) The peasantries of the twenty-rst century: The commoditisation debate revisited.
The Journal of Peasant Studies 37(1): 130.
Ploeg, J.D. van der (2014) Peasant-driven agricultural growth and food sovereignty. The Journal of Peasant
Studies 41(6): 9991030.
Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2011) Creating social value. Harvard Business Review11/30/2011,http://, accessed June 2014.
Potschin, M. and Haines-Young, R. (2006) Rio+10, sustainability science and landscape ecology. Land-
scape and Urban Planning 75(3-4): 162174.
Potschin, M. and Haines-Young, R. (2013) Landscapes, sustainability and the place-based analysis of
ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology 28(6): 10531065.
Purnomo, H. (2014) The hypothetical landscape. In: Haze crisis and landscape approach, http://www, accessed February 2015.
Pyburn, R. (2014) Gender equitable and inclusive innovation platforms. In: S. Sanyang, R. Pyburn, R. Mur
and G. Audet-Bélanger (eds.) Against the Grain and to the Roots. Maize and Cassava Innovation
Platforms in West and Central Africa. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: CORAF/WECARD and KIT
Röling, N. et al. (2012) Diagnosing the scope for innovation: Linking smallholder practices and
institutional context: Introduction to the special issue. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences
6063: 16.
Rosset, P. (2011) Food sovereignty and alternative paradigms to confront land grabbing and the food and
climate crises. Development 54(1): 2130.
Ros-Tonen, M.A.F., Derkyi, M. and Insaidoo, T.F.G. (2014) From co-management to landscape govern-
ance: Whither Ghanas modied taungya system? Forests 5(12): 29963021.
Ros-Tonen, M.A.F., Pouw, N.R.M. and Bavinck, J.M. (2015) Governing beyond cities: The urban-rural
interface. In: J. Gupta, K. Pfeffer, H. Verrest and M. Ros-Tonen (eds.) Geographies of Urban Govern-
ance: Advanced Theories, Methods and Practices. Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London:
Sahan, E. and Fischer-Mackey, J. (2011) Making markets work for the poor. Oxfam Discussion Paper,http://
on-using-markets-to-empo-188950, accessed February 2015.
Sayer, J. et al. (2013) Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and
other competing land uses. PNAS 110(21): 83498356.
Scherr, S.J. and McNeely, J.A. (2008) Biodiversity conservation and agricultural sustainability: Towards a
new paradigm of ecoagriculturelandscapes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences 363(1491): 477494.
Scherr, S., Shames, S. and Friedman, R. (2012) From climate-smart agriculture to climate-smart landscapes.
Agriculture & Food Security 1: 12.
Spierenburg, M., Cousins, B., Bos, A. and Ntsholo, L. (2012) Connecting communities and business: Pub-
lic-private partnerships as the Panacea for Land reform in Limpopo Province, South Africa. In: M. de
Bruijn and R. van Dijk (eds.) Reforming Land and Resource Use in South Africa. Impact on Livelihoods.
Oxon, UK/New York: Routledge, pp. 161181.
Spielman, D.J., Ekboir, J. and Davis, K. (2009) The art and science of innovation systems inquiry:
Applications to Sub-Saharan African agriculture. Technology in Society 31(4): 399405.
Struik, P.C., Klerkx, L., van Huis, A. and Röling, N.G. (2014) Institutional change towards sustainable
agriculture in West Africa. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 12(3): 203213.
Swinnen, J. F. and Maertens, M. (2007) Globalization, privatization, and vertical coordination in food value
chains in developing and transition countries. Agricultural Economics 37(s1): 89102.
Swinnen, J., Colen, L. and Maertens, M. (2013) Constraints to smallholder participation in high-value
agriculture in West Africa. In: A. Elbehri (ed.) Rebuilding West Africas Food Potential. Rome, Italy:
FAO/IFAD, pp. 287314.
Traub, N.L. (2012) Bureau for food and agricultural policy (BFAP): Your partner in decision making. The
futures of agriculture. Brief No. 10 English. Rome: Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR),, accessed May 2014.
Tscharntke, T. et al. (2012) Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural
intensication. Biological Conservation 151(1): 5359.
Landscapes of Social Inclusion
539© 2015 European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes 0957-8811
European Journal of Development Research Vol. 27, 4, 523540
Ton, G., Hagelaar, G., Laven, A. and Vellema, S. (2008) Chain Governance, Sector Policies and Economic
Sustainability in Cocoa: A Comparative Analysis of Ghana, Côte dIvoire, and Ecuador. Markets,
Chains and Sustainable Development Strategy & Policy paper #12 Wageningen, The Netherlands:
Wageningen UR.
Vorley, B., Del Pozo-Vergnes, E. and Barnett, A. (2012) Small producer agency in the globalised market:
Making choices in a changing world. UK and the Netherlands: IIED/HIVOS,
16521IIED.html, accessed June 2014.
Wagner, M.M. and Gobster, P.H. (2007) Interpreting landscape change: Measured biophysical change and
surrounding social context. Landscape and Urban Planning 81(1): 6780.
Wambugu, S.W., Chomba, S.W. and Atela, J. (2015) Institutional arrangements for climare-smart land-
scapes. In: P.A. Minang, M. van Noordwijk, O.E. Freeman, C. Mbow, J. de Leeuw and D. Catacutan
(eds.) (2015) Climate-Smart Landscapes: Multifunctionality in Practice. Nairobi, Kenya: World Agro-
forestry Centre, pp. 257273.
Wittman, H., Desmarais, A.A. and Wiebe, N. (eds.) (2010) Food Sovereignty. Reconnecting Food, Nature
and Community. Oakland, CA: Food First.
World Bank (2007) World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development. Washington DC:
World Bank.
WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) (2004) Integrating Forest Protection, Management and Restoration at
a Landscape Scale. Gland, Switzerland: WWF Forests for Life Programme.
Ros-Tonen et al
540 © 2015 European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes 0957-8811
European Journal of Development Research Vol. 27, 4, 523540
... There is an increasing interest in the use of the landscape concept as a nonmaterialistic or non-physical conception that can create spaces for co-creating knowledge, options and action that can lead to collective goals and greater horizontal and vertical coordination (Arts et al. 2017;Ros-Tonen et al. 2015;Westerink et al. 2017). Use of the landscape concept in these spaces can give rise to novel definitions of sustainability through creation of place-specific meaning in landscapes Ros-Tonen et al. 2015;Westerink et al. 2017). ...
... There is an increasing interest in the use of the landscape concept as a nonmaterialistic or non-physical conception that can create spaces for co-creating knowledge, options and action that can lead to collective goals and greater horizontal and vertical coordination (Arts et al. 2017;Ros-Tonen et al. 2015;Westerink et al. 2017). Use of the landscape concept in these spaces can give rise to novel definitions of sustainability through creation of place-specific meaning in landscapes Ros-Tonen et al. 2015;Westerink et al. 2017). This process, however, entails permitting the evolution of the landscape concept as it is implemented, and developing as yet undefined practices of measuring the services from production landscapes and their benefits to various stakeholders (Sayer et al. 2013(Sayer et al. , 2016Torquebiau 2015;Westerink et al. 2017). ...
... Much attention has been given to the importance of the landscape concept for connecting actors through the integration of knowledge systems across scientific and local, traditional and place-based landscape knowledge, and across landscape components and domains. There is less evidence of the particular effectiveness of connecting actors' roles, particularly scientists, in achieving this in practice across different actors' needs, and the needs of less powerful local landscape actors in particular, and across temporal scales of landscape sustainability and multiple networks and nodes of decision-making processes (Beunen and Opdam 2011;Bürgi et al. 2017;Ros-Tonen et al. 2015). ...
Full-text available
Food systems are responsible for pushing human resource use past three thresholds of safe planetary operating space, yet the potential of agroecosystems to contribute to sustainability of food systems when managed for multiple benefits is underexplored. This gap has led to a call for food systems transformation. Previous reviews have acknowledged that governance of food systems transformations is not well understood. The aim of this review is to examine the challenges to transformative governance of agroecosystems, and the potential to apply existing paradigms of adaptiveness in agroecosystems for this transformation. Agricultural production landscapes have been found to be a key level of governance for realizing sustainability transformations of food systems and the landscape concept has been a key paradigm for managing multiple social and ecological objectives at a landscape scale. An examination of the landscape concept using five transformative governance characteristics and applying the earth system governance research lenses illustrated two key areas for further investigation and action for transformative governance. The first is landscape design for continuous social and ecological changes and evolving understandings of sustainability, and the second is the allocation of landscape costs, rights and benefits in present and future decision-making and among human and non-human entities. Managing the pluralistic diversities inherent to agroecosystems will be a key dynamic important to governance and policy for food systems transformations.
... Integrated landscape approaches (ILAs) aim to reconcile nature conservation and socio-economic development by engaging and negotiating with multiple stakeholders to identify common concerns and planned actions (Sayer et al. 2013;Ros-Tonen et al. 2015;Arts et al. 2017;Duncan et al. 2021). Nevertheless, social-cultural and political-economic factors often engender competing claims to natural resources that pose significant challenges to equitable and effective landscape governance (Money et al. 2020;Forsyth and Springate-Baginski 2021). ...
... To address power imbalances, decision-makers are challenged to reform institutions holistically and be responsive to local contexts whilst recognising multiple tiers of landscape governance (Ribot et al. 2010). Landscape governance refers to how rules and decision-making processes address stakeholders' competing claims to, and interests in, natural resources to stimulate dialogue and sustainable management of complex mosaic landscapes (Ros-Tonen et al. 2015;Kusters et al. 2020;Best et al. 2021). As a form of landscape governance, integrated landscape approaches have gained support as mechanisms to enhance landscapescale sustainability (Dale et al. 2019;Reed et al. 2020) and are increasingly adopted in both tropical and temperate regions (Estrada-Carmona et al. 2014;Milder et al. 2014;DeFries et al. 2016;García-Martín et al. 2016;Zanzanaini et al. 2017;Wolff et al. 2020). ...
Full-text available
Actors engaging in integrated landscape approaches to reconciling conservation and development represent multiple sectors and scales and actors with different powers, resource access, and influence on decision-making. Despite growing acknowledgement , limited evidence exists on the implications of power relations for landscape governance. Therefore, this paper asks why and how different forms of power unfold and affect the functioning of multi-stakeholder platforms in southern Zambia. Social network analysis and a power influence assessment reveal that all actors exercise some form of visible, hidden, or invisible power in different social spaces to influence decision-making or negotiate a new social order. The intersection of customary and state governance reveals that power imbalances are the product of actors' social belongingness, situatedness, and settlement histories. We conclude that integrated landscape approaches are potentially suited to balance power by triggering new dynamic social spaces for different power holders to engage in landscape decision-making. However, a power analysis before implementing a landscape approach helps better recognise power differentials and create a basis for marginalised actors to participate in decision-making equally. The paper bears relevance beyond the case, as the methods used to unravel power dynamics in contested landscapes are applicable across the tropics where mixed statutory and customary governance arrangements prevail.
... Moreover, the integration of internal supply chain with territories is also necessary, confirming findings of Ros-Tonen et al. [78,79]. ...
... Regarding quality in the wine sector, this can be linked to three elements: (1) the grape production area, highlighting the link between the soil and the grapes, from which the finished product draws the qualities necessary to distinguish it from others; (2) the year of production of the wine, since this information identifies and differentiates it from products of the same kind; and (3) the company brand and/or the presence of a quality certification. Therefore, a further concrete suggestion from this study, in line with previous literature on integration of internal supply chain with territories [78,79], is the need for actions undertaken by national and regional institutions to protect and enhance these inimitable wines, by supporting producers in the market. ...
Full-text available
This is the first study on the brand–land link for quality wines with a strong identity produced in extreme territories using the Policy Delphi methodology. The objective of this study is to assess the existence of a relationship between the wine brand and the territory of origin for wines produced in the Etna valley in Sicily (southern Italy). Awareness among producers and stakeholders of the recognizability of local wines by the market was investigated. Moreover, the forecasts/reliability, issues/importance, options/feasibility, and goals/desirability of development factors for wines with a brand–land link in the Etna valley were analyzed. The results were used to design a model of the value chain for wines with a brand–land identity which is generalizable to other wine regions. In this study, the policy Delphi method was adapted, consolidated, and improved for marketing studies in the agri-food sector. This adapted method can be replicated in other studies focusing on similar contexts. The findings provide insights into the characteristics (type and category) of development factors that add value to Etna Rosso DOC wine and provide interesting food for thought for wine-producing companies in other wine-growing areas with unique pedoclimatic characteristics that determine a strong brand–land link between wine and its territory or origin. Practical implications encompass new elements for winemakers, as well as for local decision-makers and stakeholders, for the formulation of more effective communication strategies and territorial revitalization strategies to enhance the competitiveness and appreciation of wines with strong geographical identity traits. To highlight these elements, a new theoretical model was designed that includes the experience of the territory and the product in the value chain of iconic wines.
... This result broadens knowledge of the relationship between efficiency and resilience, because in the resilience context, one is accustomed to thinking that specialisation and the regional concentration of primary production only weakens the redundancy of elements and thus creates vulnerabilities. Multi-stakeholder platforms (MSPs) could stimulate partnership between different actors through knowledge exchange, joint learning and co-creation and speed up the implementation of research results (van Ewijk and Ros-Tonen 2021;Ros-Tonen et al. 2015;Klerkx et al. 2012). ...
Full-text available
Unlabelled: Food systems are increasingly exposed to disruptions and shocks, and they are projected to increase in the future. Most recently, the war in Ukraine and Covid-19 pandemic has increased concerns about the ability to secure the availability of food at stable prices. This article presents a food system resilience framework to promote a national foresight system to better prepare for shocks and disruptions. Our study identified four key elements of resilience: system thinking through science and communication; redundancy of activities and networks; diversity of production and partners; and buffering strategies. Three national means to enhance resilience in the Finnish food system included domestic protein crop production, renewable energy production, and job creation measures. Primary production was perceived as the cornerstone for food system resilience, and the shocks and disruptions that it confronts therefore call for a sufficient and diverse domestic production volume, supported by the available domestic renewable energy. A dialogue between different actors in the food system was highlighted to format a situational picture and enable a rapid response. Our study suggests that to a certain point, concentration and interdependence in the food system increase dialogue and cooperation. For critical resources, sufficient reserve stocks buffer disruptions over a short period in the event of unexpected production or market disruptions. Introducing and strengthening the identified resilience elements and means to the food system call for the preparation of a more holistic and coherent food system policy that acknowledges and emphasises resilience alongside efficiency. Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10669-022-09889-5.
... Narrowly concentrating on the specific benefits of FMNR for farmers-as is the case with most studies on FMNR-or abstract narratives around restoring trees to a landscape, demonstrates an underappreciation of the place-based, culturally-situated, experiential learning of farmers (Flachs & Richards, 2018;Netting, 1993;Vanclay, 2004). Such narrow or abstract concentrations also risk disempowering farmers engaged in restoration by fundamentally prioritizing scientific rationales (Reed et al., 2020;Ros-Tonen, Van Leynseele, Laven, & Sunderland, 2018)-a risk underscored in climate change adaptation research as well (Eriksen et al., 2021;Klenk, Fiume, Meehan, & Gibbes, 2017;Nightingale et al., 2020). In many African smallholder communities, farming practices carry meaning beyond the strictly agricultural context since they (re)affirm sociocultural and political institutions-such as marriage and kinship-over the course of decades (Peters, 2019;Richards, 2018). ...
Full-text available
Restoring degraded landscapes is critical for achieving global environmental and development goals, and agroforestry is increasingly promoted as a nature-based solution to land degradation. Farmer-managed natural regeneration (FMNR) is an agroforestry-based approach for restoring degraded agricultural land and it has been widely implemented in African drylands. However, a recent systematic review found significant gaps in the evidence base for FMNR, including that its upscaling has been based on inadequate understandings of local contexts. Furthermore, studies reporting on farmer adoption of FMNR have mainly relied on quantitative data from household surveys, resulting in limited understandings of what motivates farmers who practice FMNR. This paper draws on the results of a qualitative study in northeastern Ghana to address two questions: 1) How and why do farmers practice FMNR? And 2) How does context influence farmers' rationales for practicing FMNR? We found that farmers grounded their perspectives on the utility of FMNR in nuanced understandings of the local farming and land and tree tenure systems. The results of our study also demonstrate how farmers' decision-making was situated within socially and agroecologically differentiated contexts, which were conditioned by long-term, multi-faceted change in the region. We conclude that in spite of the rush to scale up FMNR, more attention should be directed to assessing where, when, and for whom FMNR might be appropriate. Such assessments should be grounded in resource managers' preferences, local agricultural and land and tree tenure systems, and the requisite biophysical conditions for FMNR. To support these efforts, we propose an FMNR suitability assessment framework, based on our findings and those from related studies. As landscape restoration is scaled up globally, initiatives should be informed by evidence demonstrating how and why resource managers might practice a restoration activity as well as how context influences their choices.
Full-text available
In the last decades, scholars from different disciplines have used the foodscape as a concept and an analytical framework to explore the intersection between landscape, people and food culture. Adopting a comparative case-study analysis, this article aims to show how a foodscape can be used as a lens to investigate cultural landscapes, specifically in mountain areas affected by fast structural socio-economic and ecological changes, identifying key tangible and intangible elements, the underpinning relationship and values, as well as the factors underlying their evolution and transformation. In this way, the article indicates this concept as a key tool for landscape management and conservation. We discuss three different and complementary approaches to the analysis of cultural landscapes, namely, from food products to landscape analysis (Albania), from food production practices to landscape analysis (Kenya) and from food-related rural architecture to landscape analysis (Italy). Overall, the research highlights how implementing a foodscape lens among the different levels of landscape analysis could contribute to the assessment, protection and promotion of local food-related resources. In so doing, it opens new research aimed at defining the limits of this heuristic instrument, where its most promising aspects of the foodscape have been explored in the article.
Purpose This paper intends to analyze a social enterprise as a case example of fulfilling social missions and achieving financial profitability at the same time. This paper aims to illustrate a business partnership that helps to bridge the gap in business and employment opportunities between megacities and suburban areas and examine value-creating activities that generate healthy income stream for the business. Design/methodology/approach This paper follows a quantitative methodology in the form of case study. The data are collected through interviews, personal observation and document analysis; direct quotes from interviewees are used to describe the phenomenon. Value chain framework is adopted to analyze company activities and deduce key success factors as well as value creations of the company. Findings The case demonstrates that social enterprises can be self-sustained financially, which would help them to better fulfill their social missions. Financial profitability can be achieved through good management of production, marketing and sales activities. Besides, value creation achieved through activities in the value chain is not only for customers but also for suppliers – a beneficiary within the social impact created by the case company. Practical implications The case demonstrates the necessity of establishing strong alliance with suppliers and customers in ensuring business success, which implies that leaders need to equip themselves with good business skills. Entrepreneurship support should include educational and training assistance besides the usual legal and financial support. Social implications The case provides an exemplary partnership model that helps social enterprises to achieve financial security and social mission at the same time. This model can be applied anywhere in the world to create benefits for vulnerable communities. Originality/value The case study contributes to the limited understanding of social entrepreneurship in Vietnam, and demonstrates a social innovation in business partnership that helps to diminish the inequality of income and employment opportunities between suburban areas and big cities.
This study sought to propose a theoretical model by determining the incident factors of agro-industrial territorial development based on the existing scientific literature and the exploration of successful case studies in the sector worldwide. A systematic review of the literature was carried out, with a bibliometric analysis and content analysis, recognizing elements associated with the improvement of competitiveness and territorial development. The factors identified as incidents of agro-industrial territorial development are: the short supply chain, protection of agri-food products with territorial identity, family farming, local food systems and agribusiness. These factors were integrated into a theoretical model in order to analyze the systemic interaction of each of the factors to find the causes or reasons for territorial development where activation mechanisms can be identified, such as: relational, spatial and technological proximity, the institutional framework from the territory, the support of public policy and the promotion of inclusive and integrated businesses in the value chain.
Inclusive value chain frameworks have been widely adopted by states and international development agencies as a strategy for addressing rural poverty. The approach aims to improve smallholder farmers’ linkages to agricultural markets and to increase the value of their products within these markets. Inclusive value chain initiatives targeting apple producers in northwestern Nepal are illustrative of this development approach. This article examines apple production in Jumla District, which has expanded rapidly over the last two decades, and shows how value chain development interventions have sought to accelerate a shift towards commercial agriculture by linking producers to agribusiness partners and upgrading production. A central assumption of these interventions is that farmers will aim to maximize profits through entrepreneurial strategies within targeted value chains. However, as this article demonstrates, a closer investigation of the political ecology of apple production in the region calls this assumption into question. The article argues that the popularity of apples in Jumla District must be situated within processes of agrarian change and livelihood diversification that have informed labour‐saving, risk‐averse approaches to apple market participation. The findings lend support to calls for strategies that prioritize autonomy and long‐term risk mitigation over competitive market integration.
Full-text available
Living labs bring experimentation out of companies’ R&D departments to real-life environments with the participation and co-creation of users, partners, and other parties. This study discusses living labs as four different types of networks characterized by open innovation: utilizer-driven, enabler-driven, provider-driven, and user-driven. The typology is based on interviews with the participants of 26 living labs in Finland, Sweden, Spain, and South Africa. Companies can benefit from knowing the characteristics of each type of living lab; this knowledge will help them to identify which actor drives the innovation, to anticipate likely outcomes, and to decide what kind of role they should play while "living labbing". Living labs are networks that can help them create innovations that have a superior match with user needs and can be upscaled promptly to the global market.
Full-text available
A major challenge for many researchers and practitioners relates to how to recognize and address cross-scale dynamics in space and over time in order to design and implement effective governance arrangements. This editorial provides an overview of the concept of multi-level governance (MLG). In particular we highlight definitional issues, why the concept matters as well as more practical concerns related to the processes and structure of multi-level governance. It is increasingly clear that multi-level governance of forest resources involves complex interactions of state, private and civil society actors at various levels, and institutions linking higher levels of social and political organization. Local communities are increasingly connected to global networks and influences. This creates new opportunities to learn and address problems but may also introduce new pressures and risks. We conclude by stressing the need for a much complex approach to the varieties of MLG to better understand how policies work as instruments of governance and to organize communities within systems of power and authority.
Full-text available
Two recent phenomena related to sustainable agricultural development converge to frame this article, namely the prioritization of gender and the expanding role of the private sector. The first speaks to the current re-thinking of gender in sustainability discourse and practice – gender equity and women’s empowerment are gaining traction and priority on the mainstream sustainable development agenda. The second refers to the emerging and growing place of the private sector in sustainable development initiatives, strategies and funding. These two entry points are very different: gender coming from a rights-based and social transformation perspective, and the private sector focus on business, economic viability and profit. We argue that when creatively combined the synergies are tremendous. However, the combining process requires facilitation. We distinguish three arrangements used by large private sector players that operate in international agricultural value chains to link business to sustainable development goals: corporate social responsibility (CSR), certification to social and environmental standards, and public-private partnerships (PPPs). These arrangements are analyzed as different ways to trigger change that combine instrumental, economic and facilitative aspects of human coordination. This article focuses on the nexus of gender, private sector involvement in agricultural development and facilitation: otherwise stated, facilitating interaction to trigger change towards more gender inclusive agri-business.
Full-text available
The empirical evidence in the papers in this special issue identifies pervasive and difficult cross-scale and cross-level interactions in managing the environment. The complexity of these interactions and the fact that both scholarship and management have only recently begun to address this complexity have provided the impetus for us to present one synthesis of scale and cross-scale dynamics. In doing so, we draw from multiple cases, multiple disciplines, and multiple perspectives. In this synthesis paper, and in the accompanying cases, we hypothesize that the dynamics of cross-scale and cross-level interactions are affected by the interplay between institutions at multiple levels and scales. We suggest that the advent of co-management structures and conscious boundary management that includes knowledge co-production, mediation, translation, and negotiation across scale-related boundaries may facilitate solutions to complex problems that decision makers have historically been unable to solve.
Full-text available
CHAPTER 1 Governance, Inclusion and Embedding: Raising the Issues A.H.J. (Bert) Helmsing and Sietze Vellema ABSTRACT This introductory chapter discusses how inclusion of small producers, firms and workers in value chains can be conceptualized. Processes of inclusion at different scales must be unpacked in order to identify the particular terms of participation. A combination of integrative and socialized views uncovers institutional aspects of participation which otherwise would remain hidden. In addition, and as chains are embedded, this chapter argues that inclusion can be conceptualized as the degree of alignment between value chain logics and the capacities and institutions in the local business system, including the state. Both dimensions set the agenda for multi-actor development partnerships.
Scattered among large-scale citrus orchards and game farms in Limpopo Province lie the densely populated former homelands of Venda, Gazankulu, and Lebowa. With few possibilities for development in these barren areas, many communities have lodged claims for the restitution of land from which they were evicted under apartheid. Limpopo Province has a relatively high number of land claims compared to other provinces but has been slow in responding to them (Ramutsindela 2007). Influenced by reports documenting the “failure” of restitution projects elsewhere in South Africa (Hall 2004; Lahiff 2008), the provincial authorities feared that restitution would damage the province’s economy, which is largely based on export-oriented agriculture and tourism (www. limpopo. gov. za; Pauw 2005), and has sought a way to do justice to the land claimants and maintain the productivity of the farms that were to be transferred. To this end, the provincial authorities obliged restitution beneficiaries to enter into a partnership with a private for-profit organization and develop a business plan to continue running their farm as a large-scale commercial enterprise (Fraser 2006, 2007). The aim of these strategic partnerships is to prepare land-reform beneficiaries to take over commercial operations after a period of (usually) 10–15 years, during which time the private-sector partner is responsible for skills transfer. These connections between communities of beneficiaries and the (rural) business sector—so-called strategic partnerships—are supposed to integrate the former into the modern commercial agricultural sector and connect them with global agricultural markets.
This chapter presents the conceptual foundations of governability and interactive governance upon which it is based. Interactive governance is a theoretical perspective that emphasizes the governing roles of state, market and civil society. Interactions between these realms are argued to be an important factor in the success or failure of whatever governance takes place. Governability refers to the quality of governance in a societal field, such as fisheries. Diversity, complexity, dynamics and scale are argued to be major variables influencing the governability of societal systems and their three components: a system-to-be-governed, a governing system and a system of governing interactions mediating between the two.
Landscapes are frequently seen as fragments of natural habitat surrounded by a 'sea' of agriculture. But recent ecological theory shows that the nature of these fragments is not nearly as important for conservation as is the nature of the matrix of agriculture that surrounds them. Local extinctions from conservation fragments are inevitable and must be balanced by migrations if massive extinction is to be avoided. High migration rates only occur in what the authors refer to as 'high quality' matrices, which are created by alternative agroecological techniques, as opposed to the industrial monocultural model of agriculture. The authors argue that the only way to promote such high quality matrices is to work with rural social movements. Their ideas are at odds with the major trends of some of the large conservation organizations that emphasize targeted land purchases of protected areas. They argue that recent advances in ecological research make such a general approach anachronistic and call, rather, for solidarity with the small farmers around the world who are currently struggling to attain food sovereignty. Nature's Matrix proposes a radically new approach to the conservation of biodiversity based on recent advances in the science of ecology plus political realities, particularly in the world's tropical regions. © Dr Ivette Perfecto, Dr John Vandermeer and Dr Angus Wright, 2009. All rights reserved.