Addressing food and nutrition insecurity in the Caribbean through domestic smallholder farming system innovation
- 1.4k Downloads
Smallholder farmers are key actors in addressing the food and nutrition insecurity challenges facing the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), while also minimizing the ecological footprint of food production systems. However, fostering innovation in the region’s smallholder farming systems will require more decentralized, adaptive, and heterogeneous institutional structures and approaches than presently exist. In this paper, we review the conditions that have been undermining sustainable food and nutrition security in the Caribbean, focusing on issues of history, economy, and innovation. Building on this discussion, we then argue for a different approach to agricultural development in the Small Island Developing States of the CARICOM that draws primarily on socioecological resilience and agricultural innovation systems frameworks. Research needs are subsequently identified, including the need to better understand how social capital can facilitate adaptive capacity in diverse smallholder farming contexts; how formal and informal institutions interact in domestic agriculture and food systems to affect collaboration, co-learning, and collective action; how social actors might better play bridging and linking roles that can support mutual learning, collaboration, and reciprocal knowledge flows; and the reasons underlying past innovation failures and successes to facilitate organizational learning.
KeywordsCommunity-based development Land use policy Food policy Complexity Sustainable food systems
Formally recognized at the Earth Summit in 1992, Small Island Developing States (SIDS) confront a range of context-specific challenges (Angelucci and Conforti 2010) while also sharing common challenges related to small size, insularity, remoteness, geographic isolation, and proneness to natural disasters (Briguglio 1995). Annual climatic variability and intensification of extreme weather events associated with global environmental change are adding more layers of complexity to the sustainable development of many SIDS (Blancard and Hoarau 2013; Tompkins and Adger 2004).
One strategy adopted by the CARICOM Secretariat to address these regional challenges has been to try and realign domestic agricultural production with a view to enhancing dietary diversity and quality (Brathwaite and YongGong 2012; CARICOM 2010). However, realizing such a vision will require a fundamental departure from past institutional approaches (sectoral, state-led, or market-led) in order to better account for the complexity of the local agriculture-food systems and support the multi-level innovation processes required to ensure the resilience of domestic food systems. Recognizing the significance of the challenges that face the region, this paper reviews how institutional arrangements in Caribbean agriculture and food systems have been driving smallholder vulnerability in a cyclical manner. We first describe the conditions that have been undermining sustainable domestic food production in the region, focusing on issues of history, economy, and innovation. Building on this discussion, we argue for a different approach to agricultural development in the SIDS of the CARICOM that draws primarily on socioecological resilience (SES) and agricultural innovation systems (AIS) frameworks. Working within this approach, we then discuss potential policy options and identify research needs.
Conditions undermining domestic agriculture and food systems in CARICOM SIDS
History: plantation institutions and the legacies of colonization
The legacies of colonization in the Caribbean have been the subject of much study, influenced by Frank’s (1969) analyses of economic development and external structural arrangements (Beckford 1999; Cooper et al. 1993; Lewis 1968; O’Loughlin 1968; Richardson 1992a; Thomas 1988). Increasingly, however, it is being recognized that domestic institutions in ex-colonies have the potential to play a significant role in sustainable and equitable economic development (Acemoglu et al. 2002; Favaro 2006; Mendola 2007; Olson 1996; Rodrik et al. 2004; Seligson and Passé-Smith 2008). In the context of agricultural development, understanding how colonial institutional legacies have fostered export production in the SIDS of the CARICOM region requires examination of the role played by domestic policy and institutions (Rodrik et al. 2004; Seligson and Passé-Smith 2008). Recognizing this, Timms (2008) traced agricultural policy development in the Caribbean from the colonial mercantilist interests (1500–1900) to the most recent 2008 food price hikes and offered three factors driving CARICOM’s export-oriented focus: (1) in-country resistance to changing the status quo by the planter class and political elites; (2) lack of resources to support institutional change, first by colonial and then ex-colonial powers who have been concerned primarily with their own positive balance of trade and utilizing aid to sustain such terms of trade; and (3) most recently, neoliberal trade policies that have disadvantaged small local producers through market flooding with cheaper food produced in industrial agricultural systems (see also Elliott and Palmer 2008).
Across the Caribbean, the “plantation” as an institution of political colonization was both a powerful economic and social unit, surviving for over 450 years with minimal structural change (Beckford 1999; Beckles and Shepherd 1996), and influencing social norms, interactions, and relations concerning agriculture. Caribbean plantation agriculture was a system informed by an exploitation and domination ethic that used land and labor for the maximum extraction of profit. More specifically, Richardson (1992a) identified six characteristics of the Caribbean plantation institution: (1) viewing land as a commodity, (2) complete control of resources and their use centralized by the owner or representative, (3) significant investment in equipment and technology for monocrop agriculture, (4) introduced workforce controlled by coercion and/or force (slavery), (5) production oriented toward foreign mass markets, and (6) supporting policies devised by foreign capital interests. Other linked norms associated with the plantation institution include racist and exploitative ideologies that have affected human relations in the Caribbean agricultural system (Beckles and Shepherd 1996). For example, Thomas (1988) described plantation relations during slavery as authoritarian, based on force, terror, fear, and fraud (see also Richardson 1992a). In order to supplement imported food rations, each slave was allowed 1 day a week to tend to their garden and exchange surplus produce. As a result, producing food for subsistence was one of the few areas where slaves were able to enjoy the fruits of their labor and subsistence farming became the focal point of family and community life (Thomasson 1994). According to Mintz and Price (1976), these interactions form the basis of the contemporary informal institutions that support domestic production and weekly farmer markets in the Caribbean (Richardson 1992a).
Eventually, under pressure from ex-slaves, land settlement schemes were implemented but they did not generate the desired outcomes. Five factors can be seen as undermining these settlement plans: (1) political expediency—lands were carved into farms of less than two hectares to increase land ownership levels among many peasants rather than into more economically viable units; (2) low access to financial and physical capital and technology which kept production levels low; (3) low levels of human and social capital with many farmers lacking the knowledge to design and sustain commercial operations; (4) lack of natural capital—since plantations were already located on the fertile lands and plains, smallholders were often allocated inappropriate and marginal lands which limited production and increased land degradation; and (5) local elites, with conflicting economic interests in the wholesale business of food imports, actively undermined agricultural investments directed toward domestic production and local markets (Axline 1986; Timms 2008).
[A]t the deepest levels of a man’s being it cannot make sense that he should … labour for those whose style of thinking discloses them to be his enemies (Louis 1981 p. 222).
[T]he peasants of the Caribbean have been embattled since their beginnings …. agricultural or infrastructural improvement—in roadways, marketing facilities, agricultural extension and credit, crop varieties…went to the plantation sector…. Perhaps the most unusual thing about Caribbean peasantries is that any of them survived at all (Mintz 1985 p. 132).
Beyond the formal land settlement schemes, land tenure across the CARICOM region also became subject to a diverse range of informal, unclear, and complex (multiple ownership) arrangements. For example, communal, indigenous, and generational land ownership is still found in Suriname, Belize, Jamaica, Bahamas, Tobago, Dominica, and Saint Lucia (FAO 2013). In Saint Lucia, 45 % of all land parcels fall under the generational “family land” title, defined as lands owned across generations of a family that can be accessed and used by a multiplicity of heirs without title by virtue of shared bloodline (OAS 1986). These sociohistorical influences on land and labor continue to pervade agriculture in the region. Further, the relative ease of access (not ownership) to small, sub-economic farm units serves to limit the operation of the more conventional microeconomic principles needed to support conventional commercial agricultural investment and development.
Economy: small size of domestic markets
The small size of domestic markets and the absence of economies of scale present a particular challenge to sustainable domestic agricultural sector development and regional food security for the SIDS of CARICOM. According to Blancard and Hoarau (2013), small domestic markets, absence of economies of scale, limited economic diversification, high costs of imports, and limited private sector development are significant challenges to innovation in most sectors. In the agricultural sector, these challenges are compounded by limited natural resources, remoteness and insularity, and vulnerability to natural disasters, which further undermine the resilience of domestic food systems. According to Briguglio (2003), the factors affecting development capacity and innovation in the small market economies of CARICOM include: (1) loss of high-skilled human capital (“brain drain”) with 70 % of the regional labor force migrating to developed economies (Mishra 2006; Stubbs and Reyes 2004); (2) high social cohesion among policymakers and social elites which stifles growth (Briguglio 1995); and (3) revenue shortfalls from the small population and taxation base resulting in public service limitations (Briguglio 1995; Favaro 2006). These are significant size-related challenges which limit the options and resources available to decision makers tasked with developing and reviewing the effectiveness of existing institutional arrangements (Tonurist 2010).
Notwithstanding historical legacies, institutional “lock-in,” and size-related limitations, the governments of CARICOM have recognized the urgent need to foster innovation across their domestic agriculture-food systems to help build the adaptive capacity of rural communities and address the growing public health crises of NCDs, resulting from low dietary and nutritional diversity (CARICOM 2010). The complex challenges of food insecurity became further highlighted during the 2007–2008 food price hikes (Grote 2014), which revealed that while there had been extensive investments in agricultural science and technological developments, there had not been matching policy innovation around the institutional arrangements that support smallholder farmer systems (FAO 2013; Gamble et al. 2010; von Braun 2009). According to Maetz et al. (2011), many governments have returned to previously neglected areas of food security-related public policy since the 2007–2008 food price hikes due to a lack of confidence in the market, unwillingness of policymakers to continue dependence on the private sector to provide signals for food security decision-making, and attempts to make policy more context-driven. Their analysis of the policy options implemented by CARICOM SIDS revealed that 42 % had initiated producer-oriented measures (e.g., input subsidies, seed improvement, and input price control), 17 % trade policy measures (e.g., food imports/exports imposed or lifted), and 25 % consumer-oriented measures (e.g., school feeding, price control, and removal of VAT) (Maetz et al. 2011). As the CARICOM searches for new, context-driven food and nutrition security policy options, the region will require a better understanding of how existing (often informal) domestic institutions function and how they can and do inform formal agricultural sector reform policy and process.
Institutions, interactions, and innovation: lack of formal learning and low levels of adaptive capacity
The evolution of a two-tiered agriculture-food system in the CARICOM has resulted in institutional mismatch that likely drives smallholder vulnerabilities, supports institutional inertia in Caribbean agriculture, also provides an entry point for future interventions to enhance innovation outcomes and overall food and nutrition security in the region. Major differences between the tiers include: knowledge types (tacit vs. codified), ethics (subsistence vs. exploitation), knowledge exchange/learning pathways (social learning vs. top-down), production principles (agroecological vs. monoculture), management type (self-emergent vs. authoritarian), institutional forms (informal/flexible vs. formal/command and control), major resource used (social capital vs. financial capital), coordination mechanism (heterogeneous vs. homogenous), and governance (decentralized/multi-level vs. centralized/bureaucratic). Interestingly, both production tiers appear to have followed parallel processes, with the formal agriculture-related institutions likely undermining the adaptive capacities of smallholder farmers. Rahman et al. (2014) described this phenomenon of dual resource management systems with conflicting objectives as resulting in an “inter-institutional pitfall” which undermines reciprocity, knowledge exchange, learning, and development of common interests across institutions. Policy can bridge these gaps, foster trust, and shared vision by acknowledging informal institutions and enhancing cooperation through inter-institutional processes (such as multi-stakeholder groups) supported by mediating agents (Rahman et al. 2014).
Promoting innovation in the domestic agriculture and food systems of CARICOM
Recognizing the complex challenges that face the CARICOM as it seeks to sustainably develop domestic agriculture-food systems, there is an urgent need for more system-based approaches to policy, practice, and research. More specifically, the historical, economic, and institutional challenges facing smallholder agriculture will require a greater focus on building AIS, defined by (Hall et al. 2006) as “networks of organizations or actors, together with the institutions and policies” that influence innovation processes and outcomes through interactive learning that results in “new products, new processes, and new forms of organization” (p. 12). AIS thinking goes beyond previous approaches in the region, such as the National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) and the Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems (AKIS), to focus explicitly on interactions between actors and their institutional and policy contexts with a view to creating enabling environments for innovation (Klerkx et al. 2012). Understanding how such interactions, interdependencies, and cultural environments developed within CARICOM’s AIS offers a potentially fruitful avenue to address the institutional mismatches that likely drive smallholder vulnerabilities and institutional inertia in Caribbean agriculture with a view to enhancing innovation outcomes and overall food and nutrition security in the CARICOM (see Maat (2007) on AIS application in the Dutch Caribbean Island dependencies and Chave et al. (2012) on the French Caribbean Island dependencies). Adopting an AIS perspective also has implications for the ways in which donor agencies, governments, non-governmental organizations, scientists, and communities might best approach resiliency-focused food security policy and research in the region (Bernard and Spielman 2009; Hounkonnou et al. 2012; Schut et al. 2015; Totin et al. 2012).
Another important approach to understanding the complexity of the interactions occurring between the human and natural systems supporting agriculture and food systems in the CARICOM is socioecological systems (SESs) thinking (Berkes and Folke 1998). SES thinking views human systems and ecosystems as coupled and emphasizes complexity, feedbacks, systemic interactions, and adaptive capacity (Foran et al. 2014). Efforts to better understand the dynamics of SESs, including how they adapt, absorb shock, and maintain key functions, have revealed important insights to the relationship between institutions and resilience (Folke 2006). More specifically, the concept of social resilience, defined by Adger (2000) as the capacity of groups or communities to adapt in the face of external social, political, or environmental stresses and disturbances, represents an often untapped resource for facilitating SES through adaptation and innovation (Folke et al. 2003; Folke et al. 2005; Pretty 2003; Pretty and Ward 2001). Recently, however, Fabinyi et al. (2014) identified the need to focus further on how social diversity, power relations, and agency affect SESs. For example, Westley et al. (2013) reviewed agency in socioecological transformation and matched social innovation strategies with SES adaptive cycle phases, suggesting that innovation within a SES depends upon the ease with which organizations can promote joint action and the extent to which institutional structures foster the type of innovation required in that system phase.
Previous research by Butler et al. (2014) has combined AIS and SES resilience thinking to examine adaptation pathways in Indonesian islands and provides some general guidance on how an integrated AIS and SES approach might be operationalized, including: multi-scale analysis of livelihoods within the SES; development of multi-stakeholder processes (e.g., innovation platforms); and emphasis on governance through adaptive co-management. Our review of the literature supports the potential utility of these steps in the context of the domestic agriculture and food systems operating in CARICOM’s SIDS and points to the following opportunities to foster innovation: (1) facilitating institutional diversity that fosters local knowledge and governance; (2) creating conditions that support interaction for collaboration, co-learning, and adaptation at multiple scales; and (3) supporting agroecological approaches to local food production systems (Bahadur et al. 2013), each of which is further discussed below.
Facilitating institutional diversity that fosters local knowledge and governance
Institutional diversity can facilitate improved local knowledge from varied sources, enhance governance structures, and provide the basis for community-based development approaches (Bodin and Prell 2011; Pelling and High 2005; Tompkins and Adger 2004). The formal institutions operating in the agriculture and food systems of the CARICOM are generally characterized by a state-led focus on managing food exports with markets directing imports (Armstrong and Read 2002). In the context of British ex-colonies, Lange (2009) observed that rather than promoting broad-based development following independence, state institutions have remained relatively static, reinforcing previous colonial hierarchies and centralized power. A good example of this situation is the Windward Islands Banana Growers’ Association, co-owned by the four Windward Islands (Dominica, Grenada, Saint Lucia, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines), which when commercialized into the Windward Islands Banana Development and Exporting Company Limited in 1994 witnessed minimal institutional change. The importance of focussing on the issue of adaptive capacity in these relatively young institutions is supported by a recognition that promoting innovation through enhanced interactions, supportive rules, and two-way knowledge flows (Berkes and Folke 1998) will require more decentralized, adaptive, and heterogeneous institutional structures. These structures will be considerably different from the often authoritarian, top-down, technocratic, state-led agricultural production institutions enacted by parliament that dominate the Caribbean (Adger et al. 2005; Allison and Hobbs 2004; Folke 2006; Tompkins and Adger 2004), such as the Guyana Rice Development Board (3/1998) and the Coffee Industry Board of Jamaica (146/1999). Further studies into different institutional forms and how they can influence social actors in Caribbean SIDS contexts are needed in order to provide a better understanding of how domestic agriculture and food system innovation might be enhanced in the region.
Studies by Osbahr et al. (2010), Aligica and Tarko (2014), and Ostrom (1999) have shown that more context-specific, multilayered, and polycentric institutional structures can foster more equitable governance arrangements and have the potential to counter historical social hierarchies, power differences, and class divisions. These structures have also been shown to be more suitable for enhancing the transfer of knowledge and interaction between diverse social actors (Bahadur et al. 2013; Kilelu et al. 2013). The development and maintenance of technocratic institutions in the agriculture and food systems of CARICOM have had the effect of stifling system innovation and creativity by sustaining hierarchical power differentials and limiting the evolution of more locally appropriate institutional designs (Lam 2011). This is supported by the FAO (2013) who identified the need for policy reform in the region to develop institutions better tailored to small-scale agriculture. Such reforms would benefit from clear institutional diagnoses (see Amankwah et al. 2012; Hounkonnou et al. 2012; Totin et al. 2012) to detect constraints, highlight openings for intervention, the key intermediaries functioning, and the development of multi-stakeholder groups (Struik et al. 2014b). While innovative multi-stakeholder governance pathways in AIS are conceptualized as iterative and adaptive, capable of fostering learning and conflict resolution (Amankwah et al. 2012), existing deficiencies in collaboration, and innovation systems may serve to limit institutional evolution and maintain the “status quo.” In these situations, more flexible policy structures and facilitation mechanisms may help to enhance decision-making to better meet conflicting and multifaceted objectives (Kilelu et al. 2013; Klerkx et al. 2010; Swaans et al. 2013). In the context of Sub-Saharan Africa, innovation platforms, which comprised of multi-stakeholder support networks operating within a geographic area, have been shown to enhance agricultural innovation by bridging critical social, economic, technical, and institutional gaps (Kilelu et al. 2013; Klerkx et al. 2013). While innovation platforms identify problems, seek opportunities, and develop solutions (Adekunle and Fatunbi 2012), change agents or innovation entrepreneurs are also needed to galvanize change in complex systems (Klerkx et al. 2013; Westley et al. 2013) which can be derailed by power dynamics and limit effectiveness of participatory processes (Foran et al. 2014). The adaptive co-management model, which supports power and knowledge-sharing among stakeholders from multiple levels through reflective learning and innovation, is another approach that has already been applied in other natural resource sectors in the region (notably in fisheries, coastal zone, and watershed management) (Tompkins and Adger 2004) and may offer valuable insights for domestic agriculture and food systems governance. According to Sandersen and Koester (2000), these may include how to get commitment to the devolution of state power, how to develop dynamic mechanisms to resolve conflicts, how to manage social diversity and power asymmetries, and how to enforce rules based on agreed-upon social norms.
Creating conditions that support interaction and adaptation at multiple scales
The absence of an enabling cultural environment needed to support innovation (Lederman et al. 2013) particularly within the region’s historically two-tiered food production system hampers learning and knowledge exchange. More specifically, procedures are needed to govern behavior and facilitate collaboration, co-learning, and collective action for adaptation (see Dessie et al. 2013), while there is also a need to create environments that are conducive to realizing two-way communication flow (formal and informal), consensus, and change (Struik et al. 2014a; Struik et al. 2014b; Temby et al. 2015). These changes often require a systemic reassignment of the collective resources that created the division or what Hart in Guha-Khasnobis et al. (2007 p. 33) described as “a massive cultural effort” directed toward support for learning and adaptation at multiple scales.
Both SES and AIS approaches require a high degree of interaction between social actors and organizations in order to support institutional and cultural change and foster innovation in attitudes, values and norms from the farm to the community, private and public sectors, NGOs, and wider society (Hounkonnou et al. 2012; Olsson et al. 2014; Westley et al. 2013). One way that this can be accomplished is by mobilizing and building social capital in the form of trust, reciprocity, and social networks (Folke et al. 2005) across the domestic agriculture-food systems operating in CARICOM SIDS. Social capital comprises three dimensions: bonding (horizontal within group ties), bridging (horizontal ties bridging distinct groups), and linking social capital (vertical ties to power, finance through shared tasks toward the common good) (Grootaert et al. 2003; Sabatini 2009). Importantly, not all social capital is equal, with different dimensions playing different roles in the innovation process. While van Rijn et al. (2012) in their study on smallholder farming systems in seven Sub-Saharan African countries identified social capital and innovation as complementary, they suggested that while structural social capital (bridging) enhanced innovation adoption, cognitive social capital (bonding) among homogenous groups served to limit innovation by maintaining the status quo. Studies in the Caribbean have suggested that an enhanced understanding of social capital dynamics within communities could improve policy and practice (Adger 2003; Pelling and High 2005), by encouraging social actors to co-learn and collaborate (Pretty and Ward 2001). Perhaps most importantly, the capacity of policy processes and institutions to build bridging and linking social capital across actors in the agriculture-food system will likely be directly related to their ability to overcome historical legacies of inequity and marginalization, which dominate the social memory. Social memory involves widely accepted practices based on experiences activated by a collective in response to various shocks (Folke et al. 2003). High levels of distrust among actors in the domestic agriculture-food systems of the CARICOM (Lowitt et al. 2015) are likely embedded in the social memory that has resulted from coercion and authoritarian exploitation and may foster bonding social capital between marginalized smallholder farmers and undermine efforts to develop bridging and linking social capital in support of innovation and collective action. Existing linking and bridging social capital between organized actors in the agriculture-food system, such as policymakers, international donors and scientists, may offer an important entry point for developing the smallholder agricultural innovation system (Fischer and Qaim 2014) through more participatory and decentralized processes of research, deliberation, and decision-making that can foster trust and the “cross-fertilization of ideas, methods, and expertise” (Brooks and Loevinsohn 2011 p. 195; Real and Hickey 2013).
Despite the recognized need for more flexible policy frameworks and decentralized innovation processes to support the development of social capital in the domestic agriculture-food systems of the CARICOM, a significant gap remains between potential and actual practices in most countries, with negative implications for smallholder farming systems. Informed by Rogers’ (1983) diffusion theory, most agricultural extension practices in the CARICOM have followed a conventional linear approach to knowledge flow, where knowledge is developed by scientific researchers and delivered through government agricultural extension officers to individual farmers (Ganpat et al. 2009). According to Ganpat et al. (2009), the large gap between agricultural extension theory and practice in the region stems from: (1) weak linkages between agricultural research and education; (2) limited coordination of limited resources; and (3) inadequate adaptation of the institutional structures to meet existing needs and resource limitations. As the region confronts the challenges of developing resilient smallholder farming systems, dynamic and organic learning systems will be needed to allow farmers to critically assess and adopt new practices or technologies (Zilberman et al. 2012). Mobilizing disconnected policy actors (e.g., farmers, consumers, health practitioners, and importers), institutions, and sectors operating within the CARICOM agriculture-food systems (for example through innovation platforms) can help support adaptive capacity by building trust, social capital, and widening knowledge networks, but will require redeployment of human, financial, and social capital (Lowitt et al. 2015). This task will also involve creating opportunities for diverse social actors to work together, develop joint visions, meet varied knowledge needs, and identify and respond to change (Klerkx et al. 2013); which may be supported by innovation platforms that seek to orchestrate change agents (Kilelu et al. 2013; Swaans et al. 2013) and connect them at different scales (Westley et al. 2013).
Supporting agroecological approaches to local food production
Despite institutional similarities, the high degree of diversity in both the population sizes (e.g., 2.7 million in Jamaica compared to 70,000 in Dominica (World Bank 2014)) and natural resource bases (e.g., Guyana has an area of 216,970 km2 compared to Montserrat with 103 km2) of CARICOM nations results in varied opportunities for agricultural development (CARICOM 2011). As a result, complex system approaches are needed that can go beyond “overly simplified institutional prescriptions” or the “panacea problem” (Ostrom and Cox 2010) that often serve to limit the capacity of the domestic agriculture and food sectors to respond to change (Thompson and Scoones 2009). Agroecological approaches offer an alternative approach to research and policy that contrasts with the monoculture plantation approaches that have unsustainably used natural resources in the CARICOM region and left domestic food systems vulnerable to shocks (Simpson 2010). More specifically, intensive commodity-oriented production in the CARICOM has resulted in high levels of deforestation and loss of wildlife (Bramwell 2011; Crichlow 2005; Watts 1990), spiraling soil erosion (Cox and Madramootoo 1998), coral reef destruction (Pandolfi and Jackson 2006), and subsequent economic vulnerability of food systems and national economies (Andreatta 1999; Deep Ford et al. 2007). Previous research has demonstrated that agroecological approaches have the potential to be successfully applied in the region (Brierley 1988); however, further research and supporting policies are needed to encourage more ecologically based agricultural production (Simpson 2010). For example, building upon proven low-input traditional agronomic practices would support livelihoods, especially pro-poor. Additionally, it would likely help support sustainability in these communities (Blay-Palmer 2010; Buttel 2006).
Key principles of taking an agroecological approach include: supporting diversity and redundancy, building connectivity, managing slow variables and feedbacks, improving understanding of socioecological systems as complex adaptive systems, enhancing learning and experimentation, increasing participation, and encouraging polycentric governance systems (Biggs et al. 2012; Mercer et al. 2007; Tomich et al. 2011), all of which offer important insights for how institutions and actors might foster innovation in the domestic smallholder farming systems of the CARICOM. In the context of West Africa, Struik et al. (2014a) posed four questions that may also help guide CARICOM member states to better approach agroecological approaches to local food production: (1) How can context-driven change be sustained in dynamic agroecological settings? (2) How can practice build on best practice in institutional innovation to build resilient agro-ecosystems? (3) How can dual goals of sustainable intensification and improved pro-poor rural livelihoods be aligned?; and (4) How can policies be designed to protect smallholder farmers against global market shocks?
Science has an important role to play in this thinking by: (1) developing new tools that integrate mixed data sources to inform decision-making; (2) conducting assessments based on multiple criteria that can be used to prioritize, evaluate, and predict impacts and trade-offs at different scales; and (3) enhancing knowledge development on local species and traditional practice to assess their contribution to developing sustainable food systems (Caron et al. 2014). However, as noted by Tittonell and Giller (2013), researchers and policy makers also need to be careful not to romanticize traditional practices which may limit smallholder farming systems in realizing their potential, resulting in “poverty traps” that can prevent the adoption of good agronomic practices and sustain low soil fertility.
Fifty years since their independence, CARICOM SIDS continue to grapple with their unique food and nutrition security challenges that have resulted from historical plantation legacies that support cyclic vulnerability within a two-tiered agriculture-food system. These challenges range from degrading natural resources, declining exports and rural livelihoods, high production costs, small populations and domestic market size, increasing food imports, growing rates of obesity and NCD, and disaster proneness with production difficulties arising from environmental change. Improving adaptive capacity in the domestic agriculture-food systems of CARICOM will require enhanced coordination, collaboration, and innovation. However, export policy “lock-in,” limited investment in agricultural development, structural openness with associated susceptibility to economic, environmental, and political change, and inattention to the unique sociohistorical context of the region have limited attempts to revitalize national and regional policies and practices.
By combining AIS and SES frameworks in the context of CARICOM smallholder farming system innovation, this paper identifies social resilience as the pivot point for improving human–nature interactions and points to the following opportunities to foster innovation: (1) facilitating institutional diversity that fosters local knowledge and governance; (2) creating conditions that support collaboration, co-learning, and adaptation at multiple scales; and (3) supporting agroecological approaches to local food production systems (Bahadur et al. 2013). More specifically, we highlight how resilience and innovation in the smallholder farming systems of the CARICOM could be enhanced through greater interaction among social actors and institutions, allowing them to better navigate the ill-defined issues, power hierarchies, and limited collective learning processes that generally exist in the region. Research gaps are subsequently identified, including the need to better understand how social capital and cohesion can facilitate resilience in diverse smallholder farming contexts; how formal and informal institutions interact in domestic agriculture and food systems to constrain or provide opportunities for collaboration and collective action; how social actors might better perform bridging and linking roles (e.g., innovation champions, knowledge brokers) to support mutual learning, collaboration, and reciprocal knowledge flows; and the reasons for past innovation failures and successes in the region to facilitate organizational learning. Ultimately, there is a need to increase the interactions, knowledge flows, and interconnections between the formal and informal institutions and diverse social actors who drive domestic agriculture-food systems in the CARICOM.
This work was carried out with the aid of a Grant from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Ottawa, Canada, and with the financial support of the Government of Canada provided through Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada (DFATD). We are thankful to the reviewers for their valuable comments.
- Acemoglu D, Johnson S, Robinson JA (2002) Reversal of fortune: geography and institutions in the making of the modern world income distribution. Q J Econ 1231–1294. doi:10.1162/003355302320935025
- Adekunle A, Fatunbi A (2012) Approaches for setting-up multi-stakeholder platforms for agricultural research and development. World Appl Sci J 16:981–988. http://idosi.org/wasj/wasj16%287%2912/13.pdf
- Adger WN, Brown K, Tompkins EL (2005) The political economy of cross-scale networks in resource co-management. Ecol Soc 10. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss2/art9/
- Allison HE, Hobbs RJ (2004) Resilience, adaptive capacity, and the lock-in trap of the Western Australian agricultural region. Ecol Soc 9. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art3/
- Anderies JM, Janssen MA, Ostrom E (2004) A framework to analyze the robustness of social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecol Soc 9:18. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art18/
- Andreatta S (1998) Transfomation of the agro-food sector: lessons from the Caribbean. Hum Organ 57:414–429. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1310294020?accountid=12339
- Axline WA (1986) Agricultural policy and collective self-reliance in the Caribbean. Westview special studies on Latin America and the Caribbean. Westview Press, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
- Beckford GL (1999) Persistent poverty: underdevelopment in plantation economies of the third world, 2nd edn. University of West Indies Press, JamaicaGoogle Scholar
- Beckles H, Shepherd V (1996) Caribbean freedom: economy and society from emancipation to the present: a student reader. Ian Randle Publishers, JamaicaGoogle Scholar
- Berkes F, Folke C (1998) Linking social and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Blay-Palmer A (2010) Imagining sustainable food systems: theory and practice. Ashgate Publishing, VermontGoogle Scholar
- Brathwaite R, YongGong L (2012) Agricultural policy evolution in Barbados and its impacts (1960–2010). J Agric Biotechnol Ecol 5:1–18. http://www.cabi.org/cabdirect/FullTextPDF/2014/20143048263.pdf
- Brierley JS (1974) Small farming in Grenada, West Indies. University of Manitoba, WinnipegGoogle Scholar
- Brierley JS (1988) A retrospective on West Indian small farming, with an update from Grenada. In: Brierley JS, Rubenstein H (eds) Small farming and peasant resources in the Caribbean. The University of Manitoba, WinnipegGoogle Scholar
- Briguglio L (2003) The vulnerability index and small island developing states: a review of conceptual and methodological issues. Meeting of the 10 year review of the Barbados plan of action. http://www.um.edu.mt/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/44137/vulnerability_paper_sep03.pdf. Accessed 22 Jan 2015
- Buttel FH (2006) Sustaining the unsustainable: agro-food systems and environment in the modern world. Handb Rural Stud 213–229. doi:10.4135/9781848608016.n15
- CARICOM (2007) Strategic approach to realising the agriculture contribution to CARICOM development. In: Paper presented at the Caribbean Community Agriculture Donor Conference, Crowne Plaza Trinidad Hotel, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, 2 June 2007Google Scholar
- CARICOM (2010) Regional food and nutrition security policy. Caribbean Community. http://www.caricom.org/jsp/community_organs/regional_food_nutrition_security_policy_oct2010.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan 2015
- CARICOM (2011) Caribbean community members. Caribbean Community. http://www.caricom.org/jsp/community/member_states.jsp?menu=community. Accessed 15 Jan 2015
- Clegg P, Shaw TM (2002) The Caribbean banana trade: from colonialism to globalisation. Palgrave Macmillian. doi:10.1057/9781403932839
- Cooper F, Mallon FE, Isaacman AF, Stern SJ, Roseberry W (1993) Confronting historical paradigms: peasants, labor, and the capitalist world system in Africa and Latin America. University of Wisconsin Press, MadisonGoogle Scholar
- Crichlow MA (2005) Negotiating Caribbean freedom: peasants and the state in development. Lexington Books, Maryland. http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip0421/2004018653.html
- Deep Ford JR (2013) Hunger: more than a bread and butter issue. http://www.slideshare.net/FAONoticias/deep-ford-hongermorethanabreadandbutterissue. Accessed 15 Jan 2015
- Deep Ford JR, Dell’Aquila C, Conforti P (2007) Agricultural trade policy and food security in the Caribbean: structural issues, multilateral negotiations and competitiveness. Trade and Markets Division FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a1146e/a1146e.pdf
- FAO (2012) Report on workshop of small scale farming in the Caribbean. FAO. http://www.rlc.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/iniciativa/content/pdf/eventos/agric-fam-caribe-2012/report-workshop-small-scale-farming-caribbean.pdf. Accessed 10 June 2013
- FAO (2013) The outlook for agriculture and rural development in the Americas: a perspective on Latin America and the Caribbean. http://www.fao.org/3/a-as167e.pdf
- Favaro E (2006) Trade in institutions and the integration of small states to the world economy. The World Bank. http://depot.gdnet.org/gdnshare/pdf2/gdn_library/annual_conferences/seventh_annual_conference/Favaro_parallel_4_3.pdf. Accessed 12 Mar 2013
- Fischer E, Qaim M (2014) Smallholder farmers and collective action: What determines the intensity of participation? J Agr Econ 65. doi:10.1111/1477-9552.12060
- Frank AG (1969) Latin America: underdevelopment or revolution: essays on the development of underdevelopment and the immediate enemy. Monthly Review Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Ganpat WG, Ragbir S, de Freitas C, Badrie N (2009) The use of information and communication technologies in the modernization of Caribbean agriculture: focus on agricultural extension. In: 2009 West Indies Agricultural Economics Conference, Barbados, vol 122663, Caribbean Agro-Economic Society, Trinidad and TobagoGoogle Scholar
- Grootaert C, Narayan D, Woolcock M, Nyhan-Jones V (2003) Integrated questionnaire for the measurement of social capital (SC-IQ). The World Bank Social Capital Thematic Group, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
- Grossman LS (1998) The political ecology of bananas: contract farming, peasants, and agrarian change in the Eastern Caribbean. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel HillGoogle Scholar
- Gumbs F (1981) Agriculture in the wider Caribbean. Ambio 10:335–339. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4312731
- Hart K (2005) Formal bureaucracy and the emergent forms of the informal economy. UNU-WIDER, United Nations University. http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/63313/1/488093279.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2015
- Klerkx L, van Mierlo B, Leeuwis C (2012) Evolution of systems approaches to agricultural innovation: concepts, analysis and interventions. In: Darnhofer I, Gibbon DP, Dedieu BT (eds) Farming systems research into the 21st century: the new dynamic. Springer, New York, pp 457–483. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4503-2_20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lamming G (1981) Foreward to Walter Rodney. In: A history of the Guyanese working people 1881-1905. John Hopkins, Baltimore, p xxv Google Scholar
- Levitt K, Best L (1975) Character of Caribbean economy. In: Beckford G (ed) Caribbean economy, ISER. Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of the West Indies, Jamaica, pp 34–60Google Scholar
- Lewis GK (1968) An introductory note to the study of the Virgin Islands. Caribbean Stud 8:5–21Google Scholar
- Louis M (1981) An equal right to the soil: the rise of peasantry in St. Lucia; 1838–1900. Dissertation, John Hopkins UniversityGoogle Scholar
- Lowitt K, Hickey GM, Laszlo S, Saint Ville A, Raeburn K, Phillip LE (2015) Exploring the factors influencing agricultural innovation and adaptive capacity among smallholder farmers in the Caribbean. Reg Environ Change. doi:10.1007/s10113-015-0805-2
- Maetz M, Aguirre M, Kim S, Matinroshan Y, Pangrazio G, Pernechele V (2011) Food and agricultural policy trends after the 2008 food security crisis: renewed attention to agricultural development. EASYPol Module 125 FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
- Mendola M (2007) Farm household production theories: a review of “Institutional’’and “Behavioral” responses. Asian Dev Rev 24:49Google Scholar
- Mishra P (2006) Emigration and brain drain: Evidence from the Caribbean. doi:10.5089/9781451862850.001
- Mintz SW (1985) From plantations to peasantries in the Caribbean. In: Mintz SW, Price S (eds) Caribbean contours. John Hopkins Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
- Mintz SW, Price R (1976) An anthropological approach to the Afro-American past: a Caribbean perspective. Institute for the Study of Human Issues, University of Virginia Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
- Norton BG (2005) Rebirth of environmentalism as pragmatic, adaptive management. Va Environ Law J 24:353–376Google Scholar
- OAS (1986) Saint Lucia natural resources and agricultural development project-studies and proposals for the implementation of a land registration programme. Department for Regional Development Executive Secretariat for Economic and Social Affairs, Organisation of American States. http://www.oas.org/dsd/publications/Unit/oea36e/oea36e.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan 2015
- O’Loughlin C (1968) Economic and political change in the Leeward and Windward Islands. Yale University Press, ConnecticutGoogle Scholar
- Osbahr H, Twyman C, Adger WN, Thomas DS (2010) Evaluating successful livelihood adaptation to climate variability and change in southern Africa. Ecol Soc 15:27. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art27/
- Ostrom E (1999) Polycentricity, complexity, and the commons. A PEGS. J Good Soc 9:36–40. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20710947
- Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of innovations, 3rd edn. Macmillan Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Seligson MA, Passé-Smith JT (2008) Development and underdevelopment: the political economy of global inequality, 2nd edn. Lynne Rienner Publishers, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
- Shephard CY (1947) Peasant agriculture in the Leeward and Windward Islands. Trop Agric 24:61–71Google Scholar
- Simpson LA (2010) Climate change and agriculture in the Caribbean: approaches and opportunities for sustainable development in the 21st Century. Review: 20 CARDI. http://www.cardi.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/CARDI-Review-Issue-10.pdf#page=22. Accessed 22 Jan 2015
- Stubbs J, Reyes H (2004) Migration in the Caribbean: a path to development? En Breve: 48 World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2004/05/5408544/migration-caribbean-path-development. Accessed 22 Jan 2015
- Thomas CY (1988) The poor and the powerless: Economic policy and change in the Caribbean. Monthly Review Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Thomasson DA (1994) Montserrat kitchen gardens: social functions and development potential. Caribb Geogr 5:20–31Google Scholar
- Timms BF (2008) Development theory and domestic agriculture in the Caribbean: recurring crises and missed opportunities. Caribb Geogr 15:101Google Scholar
- Tompkins EL, Adger W (2004) Does adaptive management of natural resources enhance resilience to climate change? Ecol Soc 9:10. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art10/main.html
- Tonurist P (2010) What is a “small state” in a globalizing economy? Halduskultuur-Adm Cult 8–29Google Scholar
- Watts D (1990) The West Indies: patterns of development, culture, and environmental change since 1492, vol 8. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- World Bank (2003) Reaching the rural poor: a renewed strategy for rural development. http://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/14084/267630REACHING0THE0RURAL0POOR0.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed 15 Jan 2015
- World Bank (2011) The growing burden of non-communicable diseases in the Eastern CaribbeanGoogle Scholar
- World Bank (2014) World Development Indicators World Bank. http://data.worldbank.org/country. Accessed 15 Jan 2015