Research, part of a special feature on Enhancing Social-Ecological Resilience and Equity in Southern Africa: insights from Research and Practice

INTRODUCTION

The multiple sustainability crises of the Anthropocene, manifesting as destabilization of the Earth system, are embedded in a societal context of inequity. The response to these interdependent challenges will define humanity’s future (Leach et al. 2018). Systemic societal transformations at large scales will be required to address the overshoot of the Earth system boundaries of climate, biodiversity, habitat, fresh water, and other biophysical processes (Steffen et al. 2011, Rockström et al. 2023). These transformations require fundamental reorganization of multiple interconnected systems, including the economy, production systems, and societal norms, to address the root causes threatening the functioning of the Earth System, life on Earth, and human well-being (Díaz et al. 2019, Folke et al. 2021, Rockström et al. 2023). Navigating these extensive changes requires resilience, the capacity to navigate change in social-ecological systems, particularly unexpected change, in ways that continue to support human well-being (Biggs et al. 2015, Folke et al. 2016). However, systemic transformations come with risks and may perpetuate inequities at various scales (Blythe et al. 2018). Actions taken to transform systems may have substantial equity implications if they are undertaken in a deliberately or inadvertently exclusionary manner, or if the short-term and long-term trade-offs are not adequately recognized (Bennett et al. 2019). Attention to the ways in which equity may be supported or undermined in transformations is therefore central to creating a more equitable and sustainable future.

Global food systems are one of the principal drivers of these planetary overshoots (Rockström et al. 2020), but are also especially vulnerable to continued global change (Steffen et al. 2015). Global and local inequalities are manifested strongly in the food system, particularly relating to Indigenous people, small-scale producers, women and youth (WWF 2022, Shostak 2023). Food is intimately connected with the dominant structures of power (e.g., land and labor) that produce patterns of inequality, in terms of food access and food insecurity (Shostak 2023). Food production has always been deeply intertwined with global structures of inequality, historically via slavery for expanded food production, and more recently via international trade policies which direct food surpluses to wealthy nations, while the world’s poor (often directly involved with producing that food) experience continual crises such as food shortages, price shocks, and a lack of access to healthy foods (Downs and Fox 2021). For example, roughly one-third of all food produced is wasted/lost and ~815 million people experience malnutrition (FAO 2017) while conversely, obesity, primarily in wealthier nations, has tripled since 1975 (World Health Organization 2025).

Equity, which refers to ensuring different social groups have access to what is needed for their well-being according to their differential capacities, aims to ensure context-specific resources or support to achieve fairness and justice. This term is often used interchangeably with “equality,” which emphasizes uniformity of treatment, and “social justice,” which moves beyond individual considerations to address systemic inequalities (Leach et al. 2018). This distinction helps to frame the problem of extreme inequities that shape the Anthropocene. The three dimensions of equity (procedural, recognitional, and distributional equity) are all apparent in food systems (Tschersich and Kok 2022). Distributional equity, which refers to the fair distribution of both benefits and harms, is apparent when thinking about how food is distributed worldwide, as well as how land and water resources to grow food are allocated (Carr et al. 2016, Wegerif and Guereña 2020). Procedural equity, which refers to the ability of people to participate fully in decision making and to access accountability and justice, is apparent in food systems in relation to the right of people to self-determined food systems, especially the concept of food sovereignty, which emphasizes the right to make locally appropriate decisions (Leventon and Laudan 2017). Recognitional equity, refers to fair and equal consideration for different views or values, and for the explicit recognition of these views or values from different societies, cultures, ethnicities, races, or genders. Recognitional equity issues are apparent in the food system in the domination of, for example, corporate commercial food interests at the expense of those of marginalized peoples, or the exclusion of gender inequity issues from major initiatives on the food price crisis (Botreau and Cohen 2020). Intersectional inequalities, especially relating to income, race and gender, shape how individuals and communities engage with and are affected by the food system, resulting in distinct and overlapping distributional, recognitional, and procedural inequities. These intersecting forms of inequity influence who has access to nutritious food, whose food practices and knowledge are valued, and who holds power in decisions about land, labor, and food policy (Botreau and Cohen 2020, Bowen et al. 2021, Shostak 2023).

Achieving transformations to sustainable futures requires moving away from the dominant paradigms that contribute directly to creating the problems we face, such as inequality driven by global capitalist systems that prioritize the exploitation of nature for its instrumental value (Reyers et al. 2018, Harmáčková et al. 2023). Furthermore, incremental approaches, which focus on small, step-by-step improvements to existing systems, are recognized as no longer sufficient for transformation, given their inability to address root causes of problems or deeply embedded issues (Park et al. 2012, Loorbach et al. 2020). Initiatives that demonstrate transformative capacity, i.e., that enable social-ecological systems to move to new or different configurations in a deliberate and sustained way (Olsson et al. 2004, Hölscher et al. 2018), are therefore particularly important. Such transformative initiatives can be social, political, economic, and/or technological, including processes, practices, and policies that can help build new sustainability pathways (Castro-Arce and Vanclay 2020). Initiatives that emerge in a bottom-up manner and are rooted in the diverse local contexts and cultures around the world, represent particularly interesting sources of alternative ideas and solutions, which can potentially shape alternative pathways to transformed food systems (Loorbach et al. 2020).

The “Seeds of Good Anthropocenes” project aims to identify potentially transformative bottom-up, experimental innovations, so-called “seeds,” which currently reside outside the mainstream or dominant ways of thinking and doing, and explore how they might contribute toward systemic transformation (Bennett et al. 2016). Seeds may be products, technologies, networks, methods, or processes. In order to build momentum and facilitate systemic change, these individual small-scale experiments need to connect or “bricolage” their interventions, as each seed typically only addresses an aspect of the system (Pereira et al. 2018). Such transformative “niches” are often scaled and institutionalized during crises such as a climatic event or financial crisis, when existing governance arrangements become untenable. In this situation, seeds (or a number of connected seeds) may provide solutions for aspects of these crises, thus being adopted into mainstream practice and policy (Pereira et al 2018). Seeds and niches are also powerful in that they can stimulate a reimagining of what could be possible (Pereira et al. 2018) and may therefore provide an entry point toward understanding how equitable transformations may be practically achieved.

African food systems, defined here as all the ways in which food is produced, distributed, and consumed, offer a powerful lens through which to examine transformations toward equitable food systems more generally. The general image and international consensus of African food systems are ones of stagnant growth, malnutrition, and dependence on outside imports (AGRA 2022). Hunger in Sub-Saharan Africa is ranked second highest in the world and the continent is considered the most vulnerable to future shocks and crises (Von Grebmer et al. 2022). In 2021, more than one-third (278 million) of the total number of people facing severe food insecurity were located in Africa (FAO et al. 2022). Further, the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted food systems and livelihoods in Africa, including negatively impacting significant development gains made in the past (Badiane et al. 2023). Specific groups, such as women, faced higher food insecurity because of the economic crisis triggered by the pandemic, including less access to resources, opportunities, and information (FAO et al. 2022). Efforts to transform food systems in Africa are hindered by challenges such as climate change, environmental degradation, poor adoption of new technologies, widening energy deficits, increasing resource-scarcity, shortage of financial resources exacerbated by socioeconomic shocks, and high rates of migration and youth unemployment (Badiane et al. 2023).

Despite these challenges, the continent’s current food systems are diverse, often blending traditional and modern farming technologies, with strong cultural links to traditional diets and high levels of natural biodiversity (Badiane et al. 2023). Additionally, substantial advances in the production of certain food types (e.g., fruit and vegetables) over the past decade, accompanied by the rapid proliferation of often informal, grassroots clusters of small/medium enterprises servicing wholesale, processing, logistics, and retail, has resulted in domestic “supply booms” across Africa (Reardon et al. 2024). These existing factors, along with the sustained economic growth of recent decades leading to reductions in poverty and the diversification of rural economies, offer potential to continue to build healthier, sustainable, and more equitable systems that are resilient to risks and adverse conditions (FAO et al. 2022, Von Grebmer et al. 2022, Badiane et al. 2023).

Opportunities to trigger positive food system transformations are already present in Africa today. The large youth population in Africa is particularly important (HLPE 2021) because of the influence this group will have in development trajectories and future sustainability of food systems, both in their role as agents of change, as well as their need for healthy, accessible food in an era of ecological collapse (Glover and Sumberg 2020). Food movements relating to indigenous and traditional food crops also offer potential to stem the loss of intergenerational knowledge, and contribute toward food security, dietary diversity, and improved nutrition (Akinola et al. 2020). Movements toward food justice and food sovereignty are seeking to combat damaging processes of commodification, structural marginalization, delocalization, and waste (Leventon and Laudan 2017, Shostak 2023). There are also promising examples of transformative initiatives such as circular economy approaches, innovative public and private sector partnerships, business incubation, agroecology movements, blended local food systems, and healthy dietary transitions (Chesterman et al. 2022). Expanding and mainstreaming such bottom-up initiatives may offer a powerful way to accelerate the transformation toward sustainable food futures and move away from environmentally and socially harmful policies (Hebinck et al. 2021).

In this paper, we analyze a set of “seeds” that seek to promote equity and sustainability in African food systems. Specifically, we analyze the contribution of such initiatives toward both equity and sustainability, the barriers and the opportunities they face, and what strategies they may use to create impact. Our objective is to provide insights on ways in which such initiatives can be better supported to contribute to achieving equitable and sustainable transformations in African food systems, and more widely.

METHODS

We identified local, marginal, or experimental initiatives that exhibited innovative practices or processes (so-called “seeds”) that could contribute to more sustainable food systems in Africa. We first conducted a series of internet searches and literature reviews to find potentially relevant seeds across Africa, using keywords including “food/farming, sustainable/resilient/transformation, project/initiative/organization/enterprise, equity/justice/equality, and Africa.” Additionally, we identified equity-relevant seeds from within existing sub-projects within the global Seeds of Good Anthropocenes project. The seeds we identified were based in South Africa, Kenya, Ghana, Malawi, Benin, and Zambia, where there are ongoing research projects linked to the Seeds of Good Anthropocenes initiative, and which therefore had established knowledge allowing for easier identification of seed initiatives within these countries. We aimed to identify seeds along the full food system, including food production, food distribution, food waste/loss, and food consumption, as well as two underlying factors: broader institutional environment and underlying ecosystem functioning (see Appendix 1 for all category/code definitions). Based on literature and local knowledge of food systems, we specifically selected those seeds that also showed potential to achieve positive impacts on one or more of the dimensions of equity in their context, using indicators such as a focus on marginalized groups, food sovereignty, cultural norms, etc.

We then conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with individuals working within the identified seed initiatives, between January and April 2023. These individuals were generally the person who manages the seed initiative, a senior project manager, or the communications manager. The interviews explored the development, objectives, and activities of the seed initiative, in what ways the initiative benefited people, and what barriers and opportunities they experience (see Appendix 2 for interview protocol). Interviews lasted approximately 45 minutes and were conducted in the language with which the interviewee was most comfortable (English, Swahili, Chichewa, Afrikaans, or French) by native speakers within the author group. Participants were asked to sign an informed consent form prior to the interview commencing, and to give permission to record their interview (ethical clearance number REC: SBE-2022-24527).

The recorded interviews were translated and transcribed and then imported into Atlas.ti for qualitative coding. We followed a hybrid coding approach, where an inductive coding process was used, followed by an additional round of deductive coding. Three authors coded the interviews, using a shared codebook including definitions and examples. The three coders compared their coding of two example interviews to ensure consistency. Inductive coding was used to generate possible codes from the data based on the interview questions, and then refined and consolidated as all interviews were read. This included for example, generating a comprehensive list of codes describing categories of barriers or beneficiaries, and then applying these codes consistently to the data. We then created summaries of code groups in Atlas.ti (e.g., number of seeds relating to each category). Additional deductive codes were then applied from existing frameworks. The coding categories of Hebinck et al. (2021) were used to code the transformative food system outcomes of the seeds and different food system actors. This paper consolidated literature to identify outcomes associated with, or which could become, a starting point or signpost for transformation in food systems, while acknowledging that it is impossible to know beforehand if something will be transformative. These outcomes therefore are considered to align with a desired food system transformation by building on principles outlined in the transformations literature. Coding for the amplification or scaling of seeds used the framework of Lam et al. (2020), which states that potentially transformative practices or initiatives then “grow” through different amplification processes, including amplifying beyond (changing rules and values), amplifying out (growing in scale or transferring the initiative to either a similar or unique context), or amplifying within (stabilizing and speeding up actions within the initiative).

To analyze which transformative outcomes were associated with each other, we used a correlation analysis in the R package “corrplot” by creating a 2x2 contingency matrix from the binary coding of these outcomes for each seed. The resulting Phi coefficient was ordered by FPC for the first principal component. Significance of correlations was assessed using Pearson correlation tests, with p-values indicating whether each association differed significantly from zero.

RESULTS

We identified 24 food system seed initiatives that showed impacts to equity (Fig. 1). The majority of seeds came from South Africa (n = 11), with three seeds each from Benin, Ghana, and Kenya, and two each from Malawi and Zambia. Most of the seeds worked in the food production and harvesting component of the food system (n = 20), while five seeds worked in food distribution, and five in food waste/loss. Three seeds worked in food consumption and three worked with the broader institutional environment. Two focused on underlying ecosystem functioning, and one in food processing. The seeds worked with a wide range of actors, including primary producers like farmers and fishers (n = 13 seeds), developers/financiers (n = 8), civil society actors (n = 7), academia (n = 6), social enterprises (N = 6), food processors (n = 5), and public actors (n = 5). On average seeds worked with 3 different actor types. See Appendix 1 for definitions of all codes applied.

The seeds show diverse economic, social, environmental, and political “transformative outcomes,” that is, outcomes that align with a desired equitable and sustainable food system transformation, and that may be signposts or signals of such transformations (Fig. 2; categorizations from Hebinck et al. 2021). The most commonly observed outcome was increased self-sufficiency for vulnerable groups, followed by increased economic opportunities and competitiveness. Connections of flows/efficient use of resources and reclaiming space or land for the commons were other notable contributions. Improving transparency between consumers and producers, reducing chemicals in the food system and impacting policy or creating new networks were not often observed as impacts of the selected seeds. On average, seeds achieved two transformative outcomes. There were strong positive correlations (r > 0.5) between “increased competitiveness/economic opportunities” and “increased self-sufficiency of vulnerable groups”; between “reduction in chemicals” and “improving transparency between producers and consumers”; and between “reclaiming space/land for the commons” and “strengthening biodiversity/multifunctionality” (Fig. 2). There was a strong negative correlation (r < -0.5) between “increased food quality” and “increased self-sufficiency of vulnerable groups.”

Equity contributions

Seeds contributed toward the three dimensions of equity (recognitional, procedural, and distributional equity) to different extents (Fig. 3). The majority of seeds contributed only to distributional equity (n = 12). A smaller number contributed to all three equity types (n = 4) and to a mix of recognitional and distributional equity (n = 5). Few seeds contributed to a mix of procedural and distributional equity (n = 2), and no seeds contributed to only recognitional or only procedural equity. Procedural equity was therefore present in the fewest seeds (n = 7), followed by recognitional equity (n = 9), while distributional equity, either alone or mixed with the two other forms of equity, was present in 22 seeds out of the total of 24. These results shows that these types of marginal, experimental initiatives can make substantial contributions toward equity in African food systems, but face barriers in achieving equity impacts in all three equity dimensions.

The most common group benefitting from the seed initiatives were women (n = 15), followed by the general public (n = 10) and children (n = 9; Fig. 4). The elderly and disabled were the least common beneficiary groups (n = 3 each). In terms of tangible benefits these groups received, the most common benefits received were skills development (n = 20), income security (n = 12), and improved nutrition (n = 10). Inclusion in decision making, land ownership, and legal recognition were the least common benefits (Fig. 4).

When looking at which beneficiary group received which benefits, most groups (except historically marginalized groups) lacked inclusion in decision making (Appendix 3). Skills development primarily benefitted the general public and children. The group that benefitted most from income security was the youth, while seeds that improved nutrition primarily benefitted the disabled, the elderly, and children.

Barriers

The primary barriers seed initiatives face relate to funding (n = 17). For example, finding funders at the scale many seeds worked at was a challenge (Table 1, Quote 1). External market shocks also impacted funding (Quote 2). Community dynamics, perceptions, and cultural norms was another key challenge that seed initiatives faced in implementing the goals of their initiatives (n = 12), in some cases because they challenge prevailing inequitable structures, for example, relating to land ownership (Quote 3). Poor or unreliable public infrastructure and services (e.g., roads, electricity, and water supply; n = 10) was another common challenge (Quote 4). Infrastructure often presented more of a hurdle than funding (Quote 5). Economic pressures and instabilities also proved a challenge for seeds to manage (Quote 6).

To overcome these barriers, seeds primarily invested in increasing collaboration (n = 15) and securing funding (n = 9; Fig. 5). Increasing collaboration was particularly targeted at securing funding and community buy-in, as well as accessing or improving infrastructure. Seed initiatives secure funding through various sources including individual donations, the private sector, project grants, and government programs, with some seed initiatives tapping into a combination of these funding opportunities. However, many seeds highlighted a misalignment between what the seed needed funding for versus the specific set of items their funding could be spent on, limiting their ability to overcome barriers that are specific to their contexts (Quote 7).

There were also more specific barriers that limited the seed’s ability to distribute benefits to their beneficiaries, and therefore their on-the-ground impact. Long-term unsustainability of the amount of benefits currently being created was an issue (Quote 8). There were also a lack of skills causing a barrier to the realization of these benefits (e.g., beneficiaries lacking the educational level to be able to fully participate in seed activities). Cultural dynamics/traditions limited participation from certain groups, particularly women participating in formal institutions and decision-making processes (Quote 9). Seeds also faced security issues, limiting the seed’s ability to function properly (Quote 10). There were also conflicts in communities as a result of distributing benefits in a certain way and in choosing who benefits (Quote 11). Misaligned policies and institutional frameworks also limited seed impact (Quote 12).

Emergence and scaling

The majority of seeds we analyzed had been in existence for between 2 and 10 years (12 seeds), while only a few had existed for a long time (> 20 years, n = 2), or for a very short time (< 2 years, n = 3). Three primary factors contributed to the emergence of the seeds we analyzed. These are “networking and partnerships,” “community buy-in and support,” and “funding.” Networking/partners were important in many ways, for example, in forming coalitions to manage common issues, (e.g. Table 1, Quote 13); but also to gain vital information and skills to initiate the seed. Community support was imperative to many seeds, and often benefitted from existing networks (Quote 14). Often seeds starting to show some successes allowed community support to grow and in this way helped seeds connect with more beneficiaries (e.g., Quote 15). The majority of seeds were initiated by a collaboration of individuals or from within existing organizations. This highlights the need to support seeds and seed founders to be able to network efficiently, so innovations can emerge through these partnerships. Legislation and access to non-monetary resources played a lesser part in the emergence of the seeds, and were less often seen as critical over the seed’s lifetime. Key events that were critical to many seeds were a shock or a crisis creating an opportunity or an impetus for the seed, exposure of the seed (e.g., to the public, donors, etc.), and a funding injection. Gaining a new partner was also a key event for many seeds.

Seeds scaled in different ways, primarily through the process of “amplifying out” (n = 23), which involved growing their activities within the same or a different context, or replicating them elsewhere, while “amplifying beyond” (changing the rules or values of the system, n = 11) and “amplifying within” (doing the same thing but faster or more efficiently; n = 7) were less commonly observed. Seeds could scale in more than one way, although no clear patterns could be observed given the small sample size.

DISCUSSION

We explore the potential of seed initiatives to contribute toward sustainability transformations of African food systems, while also positively impacting equity. Here we discuss the transformative impacts and equity outcomes seeds have achieved, as well as the barriers they face. Finally, we discuss opportunities for triggering greater scaling of seeds.

Transformative impacts of seed initiatives on food systems

Our analysis shows seeds contribute to one or more transformative outcomes in the food system, as defined by Hebinck et al. (2021). Although it is not surprising that increased self-sufficiency of vulnerable groups came out prominently in our analysis, as we were selecting seeds that impacted equity, it is promising that our selection of seeds demonstrated the majority of the transformative outcomes identified by Hebinck et al. (2021). This points to the potential of seeds to have impacts in many directions, targeting multiple systemic issues within the food system. Although these outcomes act as signals or “signposts” of a transformation, indicating which initiatives may be worth strengthening or investing in, interactions between seeds and the broader political and societal landscape may determine their ability to affect change more broadly (Hebinck et al. 2021).

Many seeds focus on supplying benefits that we categorize as distributional equity, such as skills development and income security, while those that target policy changes regarding land ownership, for example, are less common. Although interventions that facilitate distributional equity may be individually important, they also may have limited potential to transform a system, a trend identified by Abson et al. (2017) as common in many sustainability interventions. Deeper system characteristics, such as the societal norms and the institutional arrangements that regard land ownership, hold more transformative potential, but are typically harder to influence (Abson et al. 2017, Leventon et al. 2021). From an individual seed’s perspective, limited time and resources can justify the need to prioritize impact toward tangible “shallow” interventions. However, it also creates the potential for seeds to partner with more powerful and better resourced actor groups, like government institutions, that share the seed’s vision of change. In forming such partnerships and seeking to influence multiple system characteristics, such alliances may have greater potential to achieve positive impact (Dentoni et al. 2021).

Although the seed actions may therefore be somewhat incremental, there is evidence that seeds, each creating “small wins” (concrete outcomes of moderate importance), may form coalitions to create new narratives of change (Patterson et al. 2017). This coalition formation and bricolage is already visible in our seeds, such as in the “Food for All Ghana” seed that stated the following:

There are also other local food banks initiatives hoping to collaborate and partner. So that we can have a common front and be able to also engage governments and get businesses and other processing companies to donate their services.

This illustrates this coalition may contribute to broader systemic changes, as they foster a sense of agency to engage with, challenge, or reshape unsustainable policies and governance structures (Westley and Antadze 2010, Leach et al. 2018). Initiatives that use a multi-faceted approach, incorporating other transformative outcomes such as diverse diets and using agroecological principles to reduce reliance on external inputs, may also help drive food systems to a more resilient, sustainable, and equitable state, by pushing back on “business as usual” practices, which both destabilize and degrade the food system (Schipanski et al. 2016). Together these factors (new narratives, coalitions, agency, and multi-facetted activities) may contribute toward guiding transformations that recognize the context-sensitive inequities present in food systems.

Equity outcomes and beneficiaries

Influencing equity in food systems is a difficult endeavor because of the complex relationship between actors with differential power capabilities and available resources at their disposal, while institutional arrangements determine how these different elements interact (Zurek et al. 2022). Here, we find that the seed initiatives we identified primarily impact distributional equity, which can reasonably be explained by the fact that many parts of the African continent remain food insecure (Von Grebmer et al. 2022). However, our results also suggest the potential for different dimensions of equity to interact (Whitfield et al. 2021). For example, Partners in Agri-Land Solutions (PALS) is a seed that enables the participation of previously disadvantaged farmers in South African food systems, thereby allowing them to share in the benefits that we categorize as distributive equity. The objective of the seed is, however, established in the context of South Africa’s history of land dispossession, for which redress is codified in the Constitution and more recently in Chapter 6 of the National Development Plan (South African Government 2012). This recognition therefore sets the base for the development of processes and actions the seed engages in, such as policy advocacy, the formation of formal partnership agreements between advantaged and disadvantaged farmers, and skills development to ensure procedural equity is achieved whereby previously disadvantaged farmers are able to participate and benefit from food systems. The Malawi Women’s Rural Assembly is another example of a seed that pursues policy change for both distributional equity issues (land ownership for women) but also for procedural equity issues related to agricultural policy (such as challenging corporate capture of plant seed). In doing so, and combined with seed actions that include training and the provision of resources to women, the seed ensures that multiple conditions necessary for equitable land ownership is satisfied.

These seeds provide examples of how a combination of approaches that cuts across the different dimensions of equity is required to achieve intended impact. A lack of recognitional equity in society, reflected through entrenched worldviews such as that of racism or sexism, often emerges as the foundational challenge to seed’s transformational impact and their ability to foster resilience through reduction of social inequalities (McOmber et al. 2019). In our study, a number of seeds indicated that prevailing norms in communities was a barrier to wider impact. For example, one seed spoke about the challenge of getting men to become involved in woman-focused initiatives, and how, for the seed to achieve impact in their community, engaging with these hidden dynamics was key:

A key challenge we have encountered is the willingness and availability of men to attend these dialogue sessions in the communities because, you know, gender is such [an issue] that you need both the men and women to be committed to make the change. And so, in addressing this we’ve been working with the community to encourage more men to participate in the dialogue sessions.

This highlights that the functioning of food systems is often underpinned by deep rooted societal norms, worldviews, and associated political configurations, and therefore, to be able to influence their outcomes requires that these factors be addressed first (Lam et al. 2021). For example, identifying the attitudes of male groups as a potential barrier toward achieving the objectives of the seed initiative creates an opportunity for additional interventions to be implemented that specifically target this issue, and in this way challenge the bounds of “what is possible” regarding these norms (Patterson et al. 2017, Pereira et al. 2018). Importantly, it also contributes to the view of seeds as phenomena that emerge on a basis of need. As understanding of the system grows and new barriers are identified, the idea of seeds as a form of “bricolage” is maintained, where new interventions targeting different aspects are added and combined into the system to increase the likelihood of a desired outcome being achieved (Pereira et al. 2018). It also emphasizes the need for processes that support continuous learning and reflection as new interventions are implemented to address the core challenges of access, sustainability, and equity (Rogers et al. 2013).

Our finding that women were the primary beneficiary group of the selected seeds speaks to the growing recognition of women’s role in food systems. Research has found that, at a global level, improving gender equity and access to education for women has large positive cascading effects on family nutrition and child undernutrition, and these factors may be as or more important than food supply (Smith and Haddad 2015). Given women’s large roles in both food production and in household nutrition, strategies that empower women and address gender inequalities are likely to increase food system and well-being outcomes (Schipanski et al. 2016).

We found relatively few seeds that benefitted the elderly or disabled. People with disabilities have been found to be at higher risk of food insecurity than the general population (Schwartz et al. 2019); the elderly are at risk primarily of undernutrition, but also overnutrition, and are also generally overlooked in much food policy (Kimokoti and Hamer 2008). This gap in seed activities may also represent the fact that these groups are relatively small proportions of the population. Indigenous groups were not included as beneficiaries in our analysis, as none of the seeds made this an explicit target beneficiary group. This is likely because of the complex understanding of Indigeneity in an African context, where many states argue “everyone” is Indigenous or that there are no Indigenous groups within the country (despite many groups self-identifying as such), or that the colonial creation of borders, made without reference to ethnic or other groupings, makes this concept non-applicable (Werner 2023). These gaps may however highlight real gaps in seed impact, or in our search approach, and therefore require further research.

Challenges and opportunities

The key barriers to the functioning and impact of seed initiatives are not only financial but also include the lack of enabling conditions for them to thrive. Misaligned funding, socio-cultural dynamics, and poor infrastructure are major barriers to seed activities. Misaligned funding rules and policies, especially the short-term nature of much funding, makes long-term impact planning and monitoring difficult. Further, rules regarding how funds can be spent means that seeds are unable to be agile in responding to barriers. This reflects a common challenge with social innovations; governments (and their development funding agencies) have stringent requirements to ensure accountability, meaning they are uncomfortable with uncertainties often associated both with wholly new innovations but also initiatives that may be new to a particular context. These types of funders are therefore most likely to fund incremental innovations, rather than radical ones, and are also likely to be unwilling to supply the necessary freedom many of these types of initiatives require to thrive (Westley and Antadze 2010). This exacerbates inequalities in funding streams, further privileging often non-radical initiatives, set up to slot into dominant donor paradigms (Hayes et al. 2018).

Infrastructure was also a key limiting factor in multiple ways, including reducing the stability of benefits provided, increasing costs of creating benefits, limiting the ability to scale up impact, and limiting the ability to utilize resources efficiently. Infrastructure barriers were linked to issues of corruption and political instability, which in turn exacerbate or cause market instabilities. These barriers reduce the seed’s overall impact, and their ability to contribute to local transformations. Failing or non-existent rural infrastructure is a key barrier for stimulating social innovation, often forcing communities to adapt in an unplanned and uncoordinated way, and further exacerbating existing vulnerabilities through reliance on autonomous adaptation, which may only be available to those with more resources (Chirambo 2021). Conversely, investments in physical and social infrastructure, including in the energy grid and transport system, can have substantial enabling effects for seeds and food security (Olabiyi and Adedokun 2023).

Wider system disruptions, in particular the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, were also a key barrier for seeds that stalled or even ended their programs. However, other seeds found COVID to be an opportunity. For example, one seed said that “there were mind shifts at different levels and you needed to think outside the box” during the pandemic, allowing them to innovate their practice, and another found that food import disruptions allowed local produce to enter the market more easily. This is evidence of how seeds can provide potential “solutions” in times of crisis, which can then be adopted more broadly afterward (Gelcich et al. 2010, Pereira et al. 2018). Seed initiatives may therefore present an opportunities to support rapid local innovation, through their ability to adapt and innovate in context-specific ways (Ostrom 2010a).

Facilitating seed emergence and impact

Facilitating both the emergence of innovative food system initiatives and their ability to positively impact equity requires re-thinking how seed initiatives are supported by governments, funders, and researchers. We found that, although financial and technical support is always needed, seeds themselves recognize their own agency in finding funding. We found that collaboration is a primary strategy to overcoming a wide range of barriers and is also key for the formation of new seeds, which often form directly through collaborations between organizations and between individuals. Exposure, partnerships, and networking present as common themes critical to the emergence, scaling, and ability to overcome barriers of seed initiatives. This collaboration allows seeds to mutually reinforce each other and also provides opportunities for change to become incorporated at larger scales (Pereira et al. 2018). However, seeds often found that their networks were lopsided toward a particular region or aspect of the food system, and also that their interactions with higher level actors such as government and funders lacked coherence. This lack of coherence limits the ability of seeds to legitimize the discourse around alternative food practices, and therefore their ability to influence policy making and create long-term funding streams (Matacena 2016). Seeds may also exhibit rigidity in their engagement with policy and formal government institutions because of misaligned timescales, differing priorities, and a lack of formalized mechanisms for collaboration. Without adaptive strategies to navigate these complexities, bottom-up initiatives risk being sidelined in decision-making processes, even when their contributions to sustainability are significant (Olsson et al. 2006). This give-and-take between bottom-up and top-down institutions is central to effective polycentric governance, as is understanding whether current structures help or hinder the innovation, learning, and cooperation of actors (Ostrom 2010b). Our selected seeds therefore show both strengths (such as their ability to navigate complex societal norms and collaborate with other seeds), as well as weaknesses (such as difficulty in creating shared priorities with government and funders), in relation to their interactions with other actors in the system.

Our findings suggest that platforms for marginal, small-scale initiatives to learn from one another, broaden their networks with various actors (e.g., government officials, health professionals, funders, chefs), and leverage knowledge from other areas or sectors to create partnerships and form new innovations, can be a powerful mechanism for enabling the emergence and development of initiatives that can contribute to systemic change across the food system. These types of collaboration represent a type of alternative food network, which aims to re-socialize and re-localize food systems as an alternative to globalized food production (Matacena 2016). Such platforms could be exploratory (bringing people together to investigate a common problem and connect with problem solvers), experimental (bringing people together to explore and evaluate solutions, and test protypes at a larger scale), or related to execution (to collaboratively implement solutions, write proposals, and find funding, and help adopters to navigate changes; Nambisan 2009). Each of these types of platforms may have a valuable role for seeds. Knowledge sharing within networks is a valuable means for seeds to collaborate to overcome common barriers. For example, some seeds struggle to formulate and operationalize new projects because of a lack of skills in writing proposals and interacting with funders. A seed explained:

We need an expert or to be trained on skills such as proposal writing so that we can have a skilled person for some time. Because even the funding that we have gotten, it has been written by people outside the community. We have not written it for ourselves.

A learning platform to share and develop such skills could be a way of overcoming this barrier, act as a catalyst for greater local action, as well as more equitable distributing access to necessary resources, knowledge, and influence. Collaborative platforms therefore may impact equity by not only allowing more effective initiatives, positively benefiting more people on the ground, but also by enhancing equity between different initiatives.

Collaborative platforms may also serve as a mechanism for adaptive governance, by helping to generate new initiatives as problems arise, and have an important aspect of evolvability and reconfigurability (Ansell and Gash 2018). Creating platforms that serve to provide strategic multi-level intermediation between initiatives and those with political authority or resources can also be especially powerful (Ansell and Gash 2018). Funders who struggle to support transformative initiatives operating on too small a scale for funders to meaningfully engage in (such as the seed initiatives identified here), may be able to support the development of such collaborative platforms, and in this way, support seeds to increase their impact. The Collaborative Adaptation Research Initiative in Africa and Asia (CARIAA), focused on regional climate change adaptation, provides an example of such a collaborative platform, as it provided a space for the development of consortiums that contributed to policy, tested innovations, facilitated research, developed skills, and channeled funding (Currie-Alder et al. 2020). Our analysis highlights the vital role that collaboration across scales, and opportunities to collaborate, have in both how seed initiatives form and in how they overcome obstacles. Creating deeper, more meaningful connections and facilitating exposure of successes across the African food system is necessary for wider impact.

CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH

Our analysis presents a snapshot of innovative food system initiatives, focusing specifically on those that also have impacts on equity outcomes. There are limitations to this approach, primarily the non-random approach we took to selecting our seeds based on the location of research projects within the “Seeds of Good Anthropocene” initiative, and interviewing seed “owners” and not beneficiaries. Although this selection is biased toward countries where authors have existing research projects, we nevertheless believe that this snapshot provides useful insights that can inform further research. Primary among them is how to facilitate seeds to achieve deeper impacts both within the food system and for social equity. Although seeds individually show promise, the ability of seeds to achieve systemic impacts requires greater research into connections and coalitions among seeds and enabling organizations, including interrogating the blockage points between their approaches and governments and funders. Finally, we find examples of seeds that simultaneously address recognitional, distributional, and procedural equity, demonstrating how reinforcing interactions can challenge entrenched norms and problematic governance structures, offering inspiration for initiating transformative change in food systems. Recognizing and fostering these synergies not only strengthens local initiatives but also provides pathways for scaling equitable and sustainable food practices.

LITERATURE CITED

Abson, D. J., J. Fischer, J. Leventon, J. Newig, T. Schomerus, U. Vilsmaier, H. von Wehrden, P. Abernethy, C. D. Ives, N. W. Jager, and D. J. Lang. 2017. Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio 46(1):30-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y

Akinola, R., L. M. Pereira, T. Mabhaudhi, F. M. de Bruin, and L. Rusch. 2020. A review of indigenous food crops in Africa and the implications for more sustainable and healthy food systems. Sustainability 12(8):3493. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083493

Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). 2022. Empowering Africa’s food systems for the future. AGRA, Nairobi, Kenya.

Ansell, C., and A. Gash. 2018. Collaborative platforms as a governance strategy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 28(1):16-32. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mux030

Badiane, O., S. L. Hendriks, K. Glatzel, F. Abdelradi, A. Admassie, J. A. Adjaye, M. Ayieko, E. Bekele, T. Chaibi, M. H. A. Hassan, et al. 2023. Policy options for food system transformation in Africa and the role of science, technology and innovation. Pages 713-735 in J. von Braun, K. Afsana, L. O. Fresco, and M. Hag Ali Hassan, editors. Science and innovations for food systems transformation. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15703-5_37

Bennett, E. M., M. Solan, R. Biggs, T. McPhearson, A. V. Norström, P. Olsson, L. Pereira, G. D. Peterson, C. Raudsepp-Hearne, F. Biermann, S. R. Carpenter, E. C. Ellis, T. Hichert, V. Galaz, M. Lahsen, M. Milkoreit, B. Martin López, K. A. Nicholas, R. Preiser, G. Vince, J. M. Vervoort, and J. Xu. 2016. Bright spots: seeds of a good Anthropocene. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 14(8):441-448. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1309

Bennett, N. J., J. Blythe, A. M. Cisneros-Montemayor, G. G. Singh, and U. R. Sumaila. 2019. Just transformations to sustainability. Sustainability 11(14):3881. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11143881

Biggs, R., M. Schlüter, and M. L. Schoon. 2015. An introduction to the resilience approach and principles to sustain ecosystem services in social-ecological systems. Pages 1-31 in R. Biggs, M. Schlüter, and M. L. Schoon, editors. Principles for building resilience: sustaining ecosystem services in social-ecological systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316014240.002

Blythe, J., J. Silver, L. Evans, D. Armitage, N. J. Bennett, M. L. Moore, T. H. Morrison, and K. Brown. 2018. The dark side of transformation: latent risks in contemporary sustainability discourse. Antipode 50(5):1206-1223. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12405

Botreau, H., and M. J. Cohen. 2020. Gender inequality and food insecurity: a dozen years after the food price crisis, rural women still bear the brunt of poverty and hunger. Advances in Food Security and Sustainability 5:53-117 https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.af2s.2020.09.001

Bowen, S., S. Elliott, and A. Hardison-Moody. 2021. The structural roots of food insecurity: how racism is a fundamental cause of food insecurity. Sociology Compass 15:e12846. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12846

Carr, J. A., P. D’Odorico, S. Suweis, and D. A. Seekell. 2016. What commodities and countries impact inequality in the global food system? Environmental Research Letters 11:095013. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/095013

Castro-Arce, K., and F. Vanclay. 2020. Transformative social innovation for sustainable rural development: an analytical framework to assist community-based initiatives. Journal of Rural Studies 74:45-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.11.010

Chesterman, S., M. Hamann, and A. Norström. 2022. Insights for food systems transformation from southern Africa: outcomes of the Southern African Resilience Academy. Global Resilience Partnership, Stockholm, Sweden.

Chirambo, D. 2021. Can social innovation address Africa’s twin development challenges of climate change vulnerability and forced migrations? Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies 7(1):60-77. https://doi.org/10.1177/2393957520967564

Currie-Alder, B., G. Cundill, L. Scodanibbio, K. Vincent, A. Prakash, and N. Nathe. 2020. Managing collaborative research: insights from a multi-consortium programme on climate adaptation across Africa and South Asia. Regional Environmental Change 20:117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-020-01702-w

Dentoni, D., J. Pinkse, and R. Lubberink. 2021. Linking sustainable business models to socio-ecological resilience through cross-sector partnerships: a complex adaptive systems view. Business and Society 60(5):1216-1252. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650320935015

Díaz, S., J. Settele, E. S. Brondízio, H. T. Ngo, J. Agard, A. Arneth, P. Balvanera, K. A. Brauman, S. H. M. Butchart, K. M. A. Chan, L. A. Garibaldi, K. Ichii, J. Liu, S. M. Subramanian, G. F. Midgley, P. Miloslavich, Z. Molnár, D. Obura, A. Pfaff, S. Polasky, A. Purvis, J. Razzaque, B. Reyers, R. R. Chowdhury, Y.-J. Shin, I. Visseren-Hamakers, K. J. Willis, and C. N. Zayas. 2019. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366:eaax3100. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax3100

Downs, S. M., and E. L. Fox. 2021. Uneven decline in food system inequality. Nature Food 2(3):141-142. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00247-3

Folke, C., R. Biggs, A. V. Norström, B. Reyers, and J. Rockström. 2016. Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecology and Society 21(3):41. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08748-210341

Folke, C., S. Polasky, J. Rockström, V. Galaz, F. Westley, M. Lamont, M. Scheffer, H. Österblom, S. R. Carpenter, F. S. Chapin III, K. C. Seto, E. U. Weber, B. I. Crona, G. C. Daily, P. Dasgupta, O. Gaffney, L. J. Gordon, H. Hoff, S. A. Levin, J. Lubchenco, W. Steffen, and B. H. Walker. 2021. Our future in the Anthropocene biosphere. Ambio 50(4):834-869. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01544-8

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2017. The future of food and agriculture - trends and challenges. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, and WHO. 2022. The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2022: repurposing food and agricultural policies to make healthy diets more affordable. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Gelcich, S., T. P. Hughes, P. Olsson, C. Folke, O. Defeo, M. Fernández, S. Foale, L. H. Gunderson, C. Rodríguez-Sickert, M. Scheffer, R. S. Steneck, and J. C. Castilla. 2010. Navigating transformations in governance of Chilean marine coastal resources. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107(39):16794-16799. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1012021107

Glover, D., and J. Sumberg. 2020. Youth and food systems transformation. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 4:101. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.00101

Harmáčková, Z. V., Y. Yoshida, N. Sitas, L. Mannetti, A. Martin, R. Kumar, M. Berbés-Blázquez, R. Collins, K. Eisenack, E. Guimaraes, M. Heras, V. Nelson, A. Niamir, F. Ravera, I. Ruiz-Mallén, and P. O’Farrell. 2023. The role of values in future scenarios: what types of values underpin (un)sustainable and (un)just futures? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 64:101343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101343

Hayes, N., L. D. Introna, and P. Kelly. 2018. Institutionalizing inequality: calculative practices and regimes of inequality in international development. Organization Studies 39(9):1203-1226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617694067

Hebinck, A., O. Selomane, E. Veen, A. de Vrieze, S. Hasnain, M. Sellberg, L. Sovová, K. Thompson, J. Vervoort, and A. Wood. 2021. Exploring the transformative potential of urban food. npj Urban Sustainability 1:38. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-021-00041-x

High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE). 2021. Promoting youth engagement and employment in agriculture and food systems. High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome, Italy.

Hölscher, K., J. M. Wittmayer, and D. Loorbach. 2018. Transition versus transformation: what’s the difference? Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 27:1-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.10.007

Kimokoti, R. W., and D. H. Hamer. 2008. Nutrition, health, and aging in sub-Saharan Africa. Nutrition Reviews 66(11):611-623. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-4887.2008.00113.x

Lam, D. P. M., B. Martín-López, A. I. Horcea-Milcu, and D. J. Lang. 2021. A leverage points perspective on social networks to understand sustainability transformations: evidence from Southern Transylvania. Sustainability Science 16:809-826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00881-z

Lam, D. P. M., B. Martín-López, A. Wiek, E. M. Bennett, N. Frantzeskaki, A. I. Horcea-Milcu, and D. J. Lang. 2020. Scaling the impact of sustainability initiatives: a typology of amplification processes. Urban Transformations 2:3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42854-020-00007-9

Leach, M., B. Reyers, X. Bai, E. S. Brondizio, C. Cook, S. Díaz, G. Espindola, M. Scobie, M. Stafford-Smith, and S. M. Subramanian. 2018. Equity and sustainability in the Anthropocene: a social-ecological systems perspective on their intertwined futures. Global Sustainability 1:e13. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2018.12

Leventon, J., D. J. Abson, and D. J. Lang. 2021. Leverage points for sustainability transformations: nine guiding questions for sustainability science and practice. Sustainability Science 16(3):721-726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00961-8

Leventon, J., and J. Laudan. 2017. Local food sovereignty for global food security? Highlighting interplay challenges. Geoforum 85:23-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.07.002

Loorbach, D., J. Wittmayer, F. Avelino, T. von Wirth, and N. Frantzeskaki. 2020. Transformative innovation and translocal diffusion. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 35:251-260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2020.01.009

Matacena, R. 2016. Linking alternative food networks and urban food policy: a step forward in the transition towards a sustainable and equitable food system? International Review of Social Research 6(1):49-58. https://doi.org/10.1515/irsr-2016-0007

McOmber, C., C. Audia, and F. Crowley. 2019. Building resilience by challenging social norms: integrating a transformative approach within the BRACED consortia. Disasters 43(S3):S271-S294. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12341

Nambisan, S. 2009. Platforms for collaboration. Stanford Social Innovation Review 1:44-49.

Olabiyi, O. M., and A. S. Adedokun. 2023. Impact of community-level infrastructure on household food insecurity in Africa. Journal of Tropical Futures 1(1):25-55. https://doi.org/10.1177/27538931231203062

Olsson, P., C., Folke, and T. Hahn. 2004. Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management: the development of adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in southern Sweden. Ecology and Society 9(4):2. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00683-090402

Olsson, P., L. H. Gunderson, S. R. Carpenter, P. Ryan, L. Lebel, C. Folke, and C. S. Holling. 2006. Shooting the rapids: navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 11(1):18. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01595-110118

Ostrom, E. 2010a. Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change 20(4):550-557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.004

Ostrom, E. 2010b. Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review 100(3):641-672. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.3.641

Park, S. E., N. A. Marshall, E. Jakku, A. M. Dowd, S. M. Howden, E. Mendham, and A. Fleming. 2012. Informing adaptation responses to climate change through theories of transformation. Global Environmental Change 22(1):115-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.10.003

Patterson, J., K. Schulz, J. Vervoort, S. van der Hel, O. Widerberg, C. Adler, M. Hurlbert, K. Anderton, M. Sethi, and A. Barau. 2017. Exploring the governance and politics of transformations towards sustainability. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 24:1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2016.09.001

Pereira, L., E. M. Bennett, R. Biggs, G. D. Peterson, T. McPhearson, A. Norstrom, P. Olsson, R. Preiser, C. Raudsepp-Hearne, and J. Vervoort. 2018. Seeds of the future in the present: exploring pathways for navigating towards “good” Anthropocenes. Pages 327-350 in T. Elmqvist, X. Bai, N. Frantzeskaki, C. Griffith, D. Maddox, T. McPhearson, S. Parnell, P. Romero-Lankao, D. Simone, and M. Watkins, editors. Urban planet: knowledge towards sustainable cities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316647554.018

Reardon, T., L. S. O. Liverpool-Tasie, B. Belton, M. Dolislager, B. Minten, B. Popkin, and R. Vos. 2024. African domestic supply booms in value chains of fruits, vegetables, and animal products fueled by spontaneous clusters of SMEs. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 46(2):390-413. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13436

Reyers, B., C. Folke, M.-L. Moore, R. Biggs, and V. Galaz. 2018. Social-ecological systems insights for navigating the dynamics of the Anthropocene. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 43:267-289. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085349

Rockström, J., O. Edenhofer, J. Gaertner, and F. DeClerck. 2020. Planet-proofing the global food system. Nature Food 1(1):3-5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-019-0010-4

Rockström, J., J. Gupta, D. Qin, S. J. Lade, J. F. Abrams, L. S. Andersen, D. I. Armstrong McKay, X. Bai, G. Bala, S. E. Bunn, D. Ciobanu, F. DeClerck, K. Ebi, L. Gifford, C. Gordon, S. Hasan, N. Kanie, T. M. Lenton, S. Loriani, D. M. Liverman, A. Mohamed, N. Nakicenovic, D. Obura, D. Ospina, K. Prodani, C. Rammelt, B. Sakschewski, J. Scholtens, B. Stewart-Koster, T. Tharammal, D. van Vuuren, P. H. Verburg, R. Winkelmann, C. Zimm, E. M. Bennett, S. Bringezu, W. Broadgate, P. A. Green, L. Huang, L. Jacobson, C. Ndehedehe, S. Pedde, J. Rocha, M. Scheffer, L. Schulte-Uebbing, W. de Vries, C. Xiao, C. Xu, X. Xu, N. Zafra-Calvo, and X. Zhang. 2023. Safe and just Earth system boundaries. Nature 619(7968):102-111. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06083-8

Rogers, K. H., R. Luton, H. Biggs, R. Biggs, S. Blignaut, A. G. Choles, C. G. Palmer, and P. Tangwe. 2013. Fostering complexity thinking in action research for change in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 18(2):31. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05330-180231

Schipanski, M. E., G. K. MacDonald, S. Rosenzweig, M. J. Chappell, E. M. Bennett, R. B. Kerr, J. Blesh, T. Crews, L. Drinkwater, J. G. Lundgren, and C. Schnarr. 2016. Realizing resilient food systems. BioScience 66(7):600-610. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw052

Schwartz, N., R. Buliung, and K. Wilson. 2019. Disability and food access and insecurity: a scoping review of the literature. Health and Place 57:107-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.03.011

Shostak, S. 2023. Food and inequality. Annual Review of Sociology 49:359-378. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-031021-112747

Smith, L. C., and L. Haddad. 2015. Reducing child undernutrition: past drivers and priorities for the post-MDG era. World Development 68(1):180-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.11.014

South African Government. 2012. National development plan. Cape Town, South Africa.

Steffen, W., Å. Persson, L. Deutsch, J. Zalasiewicz, M. Williams, K. Richardson, C. Crumley, P. Crutzen, C. Folke, L. Gordon, M. Molina, V. Ramanathan, J. Rockström, M. Scheffer, H. J. Schellnhuber, and U. Svedin. 2011. The Anthropocene: from global change to planetary stewardship. Ambio 40:739-761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-011-0185-x

Steffen, W., K. Richardson, J. Rockström, S. E. Cornell, I. Fetzer, E. M. Bennett, R. Biggs, S. R. Carpenter, W. De Vries, C. A. De Wit, C. Folke, D. Gerten, J. Heinke, G. M. Mace, L. M. Persson, V. Ramanathan, B. Reyers, and S. Sörlin. 2015. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347(6223). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855

Tschersich, J., and K. P. W. Kok. 2022. Deepening democracy for the governance toward just transitions in agri-food systems. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 43:358-374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2022.04.012

Von Grebmer, K., J. Bernstein, M. Wiemers, L. Reiner, M. Bachmeier, A. Hanano, O. Towey, R. N. Chéilleachair, C. Foley, S. Gitter, G. Larocque, and H. Fritschel. 2022. Global hunger index: food systems transformation and local governance. Welthungerhilfe, Bonn, Germany and Concern Worldwide, Dublin, Ireland.

Wegerif, M. C. A., and A. Guereña. 2020. Land inequality trends and drivers. Land 9(4):101. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9040101

Werner, K. 2023. Who is Indigenous in Africa? The concept of indigeneity, its impacts, and progression. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 51(2):379-404. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298221135666

Westley, F., and N. Antadze. 2010. Making a difference: strategies for scaling social innovation for greater impact. Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal 15(2):2.

Whitfield, S., M. Apgar, C. Chabvuta, A. Challinor, K. Deering, A. Dougill, A. Gulzar, F. Kalaba, C. Lamanna, D. Manyonga, L. O. Naess, C. H. Quinn, T. S. Rosentock, S. M. Sallu, K. Schreckenberg, H. E. Smith, R. Smith, P. Steward, and K. Vincent. 2021. A framework for examining justice in food system transformations research. Nature Food 2:383-385. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00304-x

World Health Organization. 2025. Obesity and overweight. Fact Sheets. World Health Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight

World Wildlife Fund (WWF). 2022. Scaling and accelerating adaptation in food systems in Africa: An assessment of Nationally Determined Contributions and National Adaptation Plans. WWF, Gland, Switzerland.

Zurek, M., A. Hebinck, and O. Selomane. 2022. Climate change and the urgency to transform food systems. Science 376:1416-1421. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abo2364