Skip to main content

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

Abstract

Value-chain collaboration (VCC) aims to increase smallholder productivity and market integration. Higher productivity, better incomes and innovations have been documented, but also exclusionary trends and loss of biological and dietary diversity. New forms of VCC ‘beyond the chain’ hope to tackle this through collaboration with non-chain actors. Drawing on territorially embedded VCC, food sovereignty and landscape governance theories, this article presents a conceptual framework to analyse whether and how inclusive VCC, greater farmer autonomy and sustainable landscapes can be achieved. Key elements of our approach are knowledge of smallholders’ various livelihood trajectories and selective value-chain engagement; multi-stakeholder definition of the sustainability choice space; and smallholder inclusion in adaptive learning and empowerment processes that bring together and integrate different and oft-competing knowledge systems and governance levels. This approach will support further action research in learning platforms in Ghana and South Africa. The article discusses the link with the broader inclusive development debate.

Abstract

La collaboration au sein de la chaîne de valeur (CCV) vise à accroître la productivité des petits exploitants et l’intégration du marché. Une productivité accrue, de meilleurs revenus, et des innovations ont été documentés, ainsi que des tendances d’exclusion et la perte de la diversité biologique et diététique. De nouvelles formes de CCV ‘au-delà de la chaîne’ espèrent régler cela grâce à la collaboration avec les acteurs non-impliqués dans la chaîne de valueur. Cet article d’appuie sur les théories CCV intégrées au territoire, sur la souveraineté alimentaire et sur les théories de gouvernance du paysage afin de présenter un cadre conceptuel pour analyser si et comment une CCV inclusive, une plus grande autonomie des agriculteurs et des paysages durables peuvent être atteints. Les éléments clés de notre approche sont la connaissance des différentes trajectoires de subsistance des petits exploitants et l’engagement dans la chaîne de valeur sélective; la définition de différentes parties prenantes de l’espace de choix de la durabilité; et l’inclusion des petits exploitants dans les processus d’apprentissage adaptatif et d’autonomisation; ces processus rassemblent et intègrent des systèmes de connaissances et des niveaux de gouvernance différents et souvent concurrents. Cette approche permettra de soutenir davantage la recherche-action sur les plateformes d’apprentissage au Ghana et en Afrique du Sud. Cet article examine le lien avec le débat élargi sur le développement plus inclusif.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Figure 1
Figure 2

Notes

  1. The two applications in rural contexts target GSM and internet services (Siyakhula Living Lab; http://www.openlivinglabs.eu/livinglab/siyakhula-living-lab) and ICT in the retail sector (Sekhukhune Living Lab, http://www.c-rural.eu/Southafrica-LivingLab/) respectively.

  2. This definition obscures a fundamental ontological debate that is beyond the scope of this paper about whether landscapes are ‘real’ spatial units, with coordinates, biophysical features and attributes, or mental constructs that are ‘in the eye of the beholder’.

  3. We acknowledge that this reduces the scale issue to geographical and institutional scales. Jurisdictional, ecological, management, temporal, knowledge and network scales, and levels within these scales (Cash et al, 2006) may also play a role in landscape analyses and approaches (Minang et al, 2015).

  4. This definition builds on the definition of interactive governance by Kooiman and Bavinck (2013).

References

  • Altieri, M.A. (2009) Agro-ecology, small farms, and food sovereignty. Monthly Review 61 (3): 102–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altieri, M.A. and Toledo, V.M. (2011) The agroecological revolution in Latin America: Rescuing nature, ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasants. Journal of Peasant Studies 38 (3): 587–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armitage, D. (2005) Adaptive capacity and community-based natural resource management. Environmental Management 35 (6): 703–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armitage, D., Marschke, M. and Plummer, R. (2008) Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning. Global Environmental Change 18 (1): 86–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, S.B. (2008) Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly. Critical Sociology 34 (1): 51–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrientos, S. (2013) Gender Production Networks: Sustaining Cocoa-Chocolate in Ghana and India. June. Brooks World Poverty Institute Working Paper No. 186, Manchester: University of Manchester, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2278193, accessed June 2014.

  • Berkes, F., Folke, C. and Colding, J. (eds.) (2003) Navigating Social-Ecological Systems. Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkes, F. (2009) Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management 90 (5): 1692–1702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, H. (2014) Food sovereignty via the ‘peasant way’: A sceptical view. The Journal of Peasant Studies 41 (6): 1031–1063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bitzer, V. (2011) Partnering for Change in Chains. On the Capacity of Partnerships to Promote Sustainable Change in Global Agricultural Commodity Chains. PhD Dissertation. Utrecht: University of Utrecht.

  • Bitzer, V. and Glasbergen, P. (2015) Business – NGO partnerships in global value chains: Part of the solution or part of the problem of sustainable change? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 12: 35–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolwig, S., Ponte, S., du Toit, A., Riisgard, L. and Halberg, N. (2010) Integrating poverty and environmental concerns in value-chain analysis: A conceptual framework. Development Policy Review 28 (2): 173–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borras, Jr S. (2010) The politics of transnational agrarian movements. Development and Change 41 (5): 771–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, S. (2010) Embedding local places in global spaces: Geographical indications as a territorial development strategy. Rural Sociology 75 (2): 209–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brasser, A. (2013) Reducing Risk: Landscape Approaches to Sustainable Sourcing:Olam International and Rainforest Alliance Case Study. Washington DC: Landscapes for People, Food and Nature Initiative.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnett, K. and Murphy, S. (2014) What place for international trade in food sovereignty? The Journal of Peasant Studies 41 (6): 1065–1084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cash, D.W. et al. (2006) Scale and cross-scale dynamics: Governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and society 11 (2): 8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlin, J. (2008) It’s Small World After All: Defining Smallholder Agriculture in Ghana. Rome: IFPRI. http://www.ifpri.org/publication/its-small-world-after-all?print, accessed May 2014.

  • Colfer, C.J.P. and Pfund, J.-P. (eds.) (2010) Collaborative Governance of Tropical Landscapes. London/Washington DC: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colfer, C.J.P., Pfund, J-P. and Sunderland, T. (2010) The essential task of ‘muddling through’ to better landscape governance. In: C.J.P. Colfer and J.-P. Pfund (eds.) Collaborative Governance of Tropical Landscapes. London/Washington DC: Earthscan, pp. 271–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cousins, B. (2011) What is a smallholder? Class-analytic perspectives on small-scale farming and agrarian reform in South Africa. In: P. Hebinck and C. Shackleton (eds.) Reforming Land and Resource Use in South Africa. Impact on Livelihoods. Oxon, UK/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., Palazzo, G., Spence, L. J. and Matten, D. (2014) Contesting the value of ‘creating shared value’. California Management Review 56 (2): 130–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, B., Tucker, J., Snyder, K., Lema, Z. and Duncan, A. (2014) An analysis of power dynamics within innovation platforms for natural resource management. Innovation and Development 4 (2): 259–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeFries, R. and Rosenzweig, C. (2010) Toward a whole-landscape approach for sustainable land use in the tropics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107 (46): 19627–19632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desmarais, A.A. (2002) Peasants speak – The Vía Campesina: Consolidating an International peasant and farm movement. The Journal of Peasant Studies 29 (2): 91–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devaux, A., Andrade-Piedra, J., Horton, D., Ordinola, M., Thiele, G., Thomann, A. and Velasco, C. (2010) Brokering Innovation for Sustainable Development: The Papa Andina Case (No. 12). ILAC Working Paper, Silverwater: ILAC.

  • Dietz, T., Ostrom, E. and Stern, P.C. (2003) The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302 (5652): 1907–1912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donald, P.F. (2004) Biodiversity impacts of some agricultural commodity production systems. Conservation Biology 18 (1): 17–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ecker, O., Trinh Tan, J.-F., Alpuerto, V. and Diao, X. (2012) Economic Growth and Agricultural Diversification Matters for Food and Nutrition Security in Ghana. Discussion note #31. Ghana Strategy Support Program. Ann Arbor MI: IFRI.

  • Edelman, M. (2014) Food sovereignty: Forgotten genealogies and future regulatory challenges. The Journal of Peasant Studies 41 (6): 959–978.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2013)) Climate-Smart Agriculture Sourcebook. Rome, Italy: FAO.

  • Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J. and Sturgeon, T. (2005) The governance of global value chains. Review of International Political Economy 12 (1): 78–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giller, K.E. et al. (2008) Competing claims on natural resources: What role for science? Ecology and Society 13(2): 34, http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art34.

  • Görg, C. (2007) Landscape governance: The politics of scale‖ and the natural conditions of places. Geoforum 38 (5): 954–966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, S. (ed.) (2013) Smallholders and Agro-Food Value Chains in South Africa: Emerging Practices, Emerging Challenges. Cape Town, South Africa: Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies, School of Government (PLAAS).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, J. et al. (2010) The adaptive capacity wheel: A method to assess the inherent characteristics of institutions to enable the adaptive capacity of society. Environmental Science and Policy 13 (6): 459–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, J., Pouw, N.R.M. and Ros-Tonen, M.A.F. (2015) Towards an elaborated theory of inclusive development. European Journal for Development Research 27 (4): 541–559.

  • Hart, A.K., Milder, J.C., Estrada-Carmona, N., DeClerck, F.A.J., Harvey, C.A. and Dobie, P. (2015) Integrated landscape initiatives in practice: Assessing experiences from 191 landscapes in Africa and Latin America. In: P.A. Minang, M. van Noordwijk, O.E. Freeman, C. Mbow, J. de Leeuw and D. Catacutan (eds.) Climate-Smart Landscapes: Multifunctionality in Practice. Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF).

    Google Scholar 

  • Helmsing, A.H.J. and Vellema, S. (eds.) (2011) Governance, inclusion and embedding: Raising the issues. In: Value Chains, Inclusion and Endogenous Development Contrasting Theories and Realities. Oxon, UK/New York: Routledge, pp. 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt Giménez, E. and Altieri, M.A. (2013) Agro-ecology, food sovereignty, and the new green revolution. Agro-ecology and Sustainable Food Systems 37 (1): 90–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt Giménez, E. and Shattuck, A. (2011) Food crises, food regimes and food movements: Rumblings of reform or tides of transformation? Journal of Peasant Studies 38 (1): 109–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hospes, O. (2013) Food sovereignty: The debate, the deadlock, and a suggested detour. Agric Hum Values 31: 119–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hounkonnou, D. et al. (2012) An innovation systems approach to institutional change: Smallholder development in West Africa. Agricultural Systems 108: 74–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development) (2013a) Smallholders, Food Security, and the Environment. Rome, Italy: IFAD and UNEP.

  • IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development) (2013b) IFAD and public-private partnerships: Selected project experiences. Rome: IFAD, http://www.ifad.org/pub/partnerships/ppp.pdf, accessed May 2014.

  • Insaidoo, T.F.G., Ros-Tonen, M.A.F. and Acheampong, E. (2013) On-farm tree planting in Ghana’s high forest zone: The need to consider carbon payments. In: R. Muradian and L. Rival (eds.) Governing the Provision of Ecosystem Services. Studies in Ecological Economics 4 Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Publishers, pp. 437–463.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplinski, R. (2000) Globalisation and unequalisation: What can be learned from value chain analysis? The Journal of Development Studies 37 (2): 117–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirsten, J. and Sartorius, K. (2002) Linking agribusiness and small-scale farmers in developing countries: Is there a new role for contract farming? Development Southern Africa 19 (4): 503–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kissinger, G., Brasser, A. and Gross, L. (2013) Scoping Study. Reducing Risk: Landscape Approaches to Sustainable Sourcing. Washington DC: Landscapes for People, Food and Nature Initiative.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klerkx, L., Hall, A. and Leeuwis, C. (2009) Strengthening agricultural innovation capacity: Are innovation brokers the answer? International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 8 (5/6): 409438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klerkx, L., Aarts, N. and Leeuwis, C. (2010) Adaptive management in agricultural innovation systems: The interactions between innovation networks and their environment. Agricultural Systems 103 (6): 390–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kooiman, J. and Bavinck, J.M. (2013) Theorizing governability – The interactive governance perspective. In: M. Bavinck, R. Chuenpagdee, S. Jentoft and J. Kooiman (eds.) Governability of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Theory and Applications. MARE Publication Series No. 7 Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, pp. 9–30.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Laven, A.C. (2010) The Risks of Inclusion: Shifts in Governance Processes and Upgrading Opportunities for Cocoa Farmers in Ghana (PhD thesis University of Amsterdam). Amsterdam: KIT Publishers.

  • Laven, A. and Pyburn, R. (2015) Facilitating gender inclusive agri-business. Knowledge Management for Development Journal 11 (1): 10–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leminen, S., Westerlund, M. and Nyström, A.G. (2012) Living labs as open-innovation networks. Technology Innovation Management Review (September): 6–11.

  • Long, A. and van der Ploeg, J.D. (1994) Endogenous development: Practices and perspectives. In: J.D. van der Ploeg and A. Long (eds.) Born From Within. Practice and Perspectives of Endogenous Rural Development. Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, N. (2008) Resistance, agency and counterwork: A theoretical positioning. In: W. Wright and G. Middendorf (eds.) The Fight Over Food. Producers, Consumers and Activists Challenge the Global Food System. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press, pp. 69–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsden, T. (2013) Sustainable place-making for sustainability science: The contested case of agri-food and urban – Rural relations. Sustainability Science 8 (2): 213–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMichael, P. (2014) Historicizing food sovereignty. Journal of Peasant Studies 41 (6): 933–957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minang, P.A., Dungama, L.A., Alemagi, D. and Noordwijk, M. van (2015) Scale considerations in landscape approaches. In: P.A. Minang, M. van Noordwijk, O.E. Freeman, C. Mbow, J. de Leeuw and D. Catacutan (eds.) (2015) Climate-Smart Landscapes: Multifunctionality in Practice. Nairobi, Kenya: World Agroforestry Centre, pp. 121–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • MOFA (Ministry of Food and Agriculture) (2007) Food and agriculture sector development policy (FASDEP II), http://mofa.gov.gh/site/?page_id=598, accessed May 2014.

  • Morsello, C. (2006) Company-community non-timber forest product deals in the Brazilian Amazon: A review of opportunities and problems. Forest Policy and Economics 8 (4): 485–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muñoz, D and Viaña, J (2012) Small Producers in Latin America: New Ways of Thinking and Acting in Markets Position. London/The Hague, The Netherlands/La Paz, Bolivia: IIED/HIVOS/Mainumby.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mwangi, E. and Wardell, A. (2012) Multi-level governance of forest resources (Editorial to the special feature). International journal of the Commons 6 (2): 79–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagendra, H. and Ostrom, E. (2012) Polycentric governance of multifunctional forested landscapes. International Journal of the Commons 2: 104–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nederlof, S. and Pyburn, R. (2012) One Finger Cannot Lift a Rock. Facilitating Innovation Platforms to Trigger Institutional Change in West Africa. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: KIT Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • NPC (National Planning Commission) (2012) Our future – Make it work. National development plan 2030. Pretoria: National planning commission, http://www.gov.za/documents/detail.php?cid=348761, accessed May 2014.

  • O’Farrell, P.J. and Anderson, P.M.L. (2010) Sustainable multifunctional landscapes: A review to implementation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2 (1-2): 59–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oosten, C. van, Gunarso, P., Koesoetjahjo, I. and Wiersum, F. (2014) Governing forest landscape restoration: Cases from Indonesia. Forests 5 (6): 1143–1162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pahl-Wostl, C. (2009) A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change 19 (3): 354–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patel, R. (2006) International agrarian restructuring and the practical ethics of peasant movement solidarity. Journal of Asian and African Studies 41 (1/2): 71–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perfecto, I., Vandermeer, J. and Wright, A. (2009) Nature’s Matrix: Linking Agriculture, Conservation and Food Sovereignty. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfund, J.L. (2010) Landscape-scale research for conservation and development in the tropics: Fighting persisting challenges. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2 (1): 117–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitse-Boshomane, M.M. et al. (2008) Catalysing innovation: The promise of the Living Lab Approach in South Africa. Refereed paper presented at Prato CIRN 2008 Community Informatics Conference: ICTs for Social Inclusion: What is the Reality? http://researchspace.csir.co.za/dspace/handle/10204/3224, accessed June 2014.

  • Ploeg, J.D. van der (2008) The New Peasantries: Struggles for Autonomy and Sustainability in an Era of Empire and Globalization. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ploeg, J.D. van der (2010) The peasantries of the twenty-first century: The commoditisation debate revisited. The Journal of Peasant Studies 37 (1): 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ploeg, J.D. van der (2014) Peasant-driven agricultural growth and food sovereignty. The Journal of Peasant Studies 41 (6): 999–1030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2011) Creating social value. Harvard Business Review11/30/2011,http://hbr.org/2011/01/the-big-idea-creating-shared-value/ar/pr, accessed June 2014.

  • Potschin, M. and Haines-Young, R. (2006) ‘Rio+10’, sustainability science and landscape ecology. Landscape and Urban Planning 75 (3-4): 162–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potschin, M. and Haines-Young, R. (2013) Landscapes, sustainability and the place-based analysis of ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology 28 (6): 1053–1065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purnomo, H. (2014) The hypothetical landscape. In: Haze crisis and landscape approach, http://www.slideshare.net/CIFOR/haze-crisis-and-landscape-approach, accessed February 2015.

  • Pyburn, R. (2014) Gender equitable and inclusive innovation platforms. In: S. Sanyang, R. Pyburn, R. Mur and G. Audet-Bélanger (eds.) Against the Grain and to the Roots. Maize and Cassava Innovation Platforms in West and Central Africa. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: CORAF/WECARD and KIT Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Röling, N. et al. (2012) Diagnosing the scope for innovation: Linking smallholder practices and institutional context: Introduction to the special issue. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 60–63: 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosset, P. (2011) Food sovereignty and alternative paradigms to confront land grabbing and the food and climate crises. Development 54 (1): 21–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ros-Tonen, M.A.F., Derkyi, M. and Insaidoo, T.F.G. (2014) From co-management to landscape governance: Whither Ghana’s modified taungya system? Forests 5 (12): 2996–3021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ros-Tonen, M.A.F., Pouw, N.R.M. and Bavinck, J.M. (2015) Governing beyond cities: The urban-rural interface. In: J. Gupta, K. Pfeffer, H. Verrest and M. Ros-Tonen (eds.) Geographies of Urban Governance: Advanced Theories, Methods and Practices. Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahan, E. and Fischer-Mackey, J. (2011) Making markets work for the poor. Oxfam Discussion Paper,http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/making-markets-empower-the-poor-programme-perspectives-on-using-markets-to-empo-188950, accessed February 2015.

  • Sayer, J. et al. (2013) Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. PNAS 110 (21): 8349–8356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherr, S.J. and McNeely, J.A. (2008) Biodiversity conservation and agricultural sustainability: Towards a new paradigm of ‘ecoagriculture’landscapes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 363 (1491): 477–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherr, S., Shames, S. and Friedman, R. (2012) From climate-smart agriculture to climate-smart landscapes. Agriculture & Food Security 1: 12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spierenburg, M., Cousins, B., Bos, A. and Ntsholo, L. (2012) Connecting communities and business: Public-private partnerships as the Panacea for Land reform in Limpopo Province, South Africa. In: M. de Bruijn and R. van Dijk (eds.) Reforming Land and Resource Use in South Africa. Impact on Livelihoods. Oxon, UK/New York: Routledge, pp. 161–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spielman, D.J., Ekboir, J. and Davis, K. (2009) The art and science of innovation systems inquiry: Applications to Sub-Saharan African agriculture. Technology in Society 31 (4): 399–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Struik, P.C., Klerkx, L., van Huis, A. and Röling, N.G. (2014) Institutional change towards sustainable agriculture in West Africa. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 12 (3): 203–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swinnen, J. F. and Maertens, M. (2007) Globalization, privatization, and vertical coordination in food value chains in developing and transition countries. Agricultural Economics 37 (s1): 89–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swinnen, J., Colen, L. and Maertens, M. (2013) Constraints to smallholder participation in high-value agriculture in West Africa. In: A. Elbehri (ed.) Rebuilding West Africa’s Food Potential. Rome, Italy: FAO/IFAD, pp. 287–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Traub, N.L. (2012) Bureau for food and agricultural policy (BFAP): Your partner in decision making. The futures of agriculture. Brief No. 10 – English. Rome: Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR), http://www.fao.org/docs/eims/upload/305832/Brief%2010.pdf, accessed May 2014.

  • Tscharntke, T. et al. (2012) Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification. Biological Conservation 151 (1): 53–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ton, G., Hagelaar, G., Laven, A. and Vellema, S. (2008) Chain Governance, Sector Policies and Economic Sustainability in Cocoa: A Comparative Analysis of Ghana, Côte d’Ivoire, and Ecuador. Markets, Chains and Sustainable Development Strategy & Policy paper #12 Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen UR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vorley, B., Del Pozo-Vergnes, E. and Barnett, A. (2012) Small producer agency in the globalised market: Making choices in a changing world. UK and the Netherlands: IIED/HIVOS, http://pubs.iied.org/16521IIED.html, accessed June 2014.

  • Wagner, M.M. and Gobster, P.H. (2007) Interpreting landscape change: Measured biophysical change and surrounding social context. Landscape and Urban Planning 81 (1): 67–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wambugu, S.W., Chomba, S.W. and Atela, J. (2015) Institutional arrangements for climare-smart landscapes. In: P.A. Minang, M. van Noordwijk, O.E. Freeman, C. Mbow, J. de Leeuw and D. Catacutan (eds.) (2015) Climate-Smart Landscapes: Multifunctionality in Practice. Nairobi, Kenya: World Agroforestry Centre, pp. 257–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittman, H., Desmarais, A.A. and Wiebe, N. (eds.) (2010) Food Sovereignty. Reconnecting Food, Nature and Community. Oakland, CA: Food First.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (2007) World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development. Washington DC: World Bank.

  • WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) (2004) Integrating Forest Protection, Management and Restoration at a Landscape Scale. Gland, Switzerland: WWF Forests for Life Programme.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This article is part of a research programme on inclusive value-chain collaboration for sustainable landscapes and greater food sovereignty among tree crop farmers in Ghana and South Africa, financed by WOTRO Science for Global Development of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) (project no. W 08.250.2013.122). The first version of this paper was written during the first author’s sabbatical leave, spent at the Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) in Bogor, Indonesia, whose hospitality is kindly acknowledged. Terry Sunderland’s contribution to this article was funded through USAID’s Biodiversity Earmark.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ros-Tonen, M., Van Leynseele, YP., Laven, A. et al. Landscapes of Social Inclusion: Inclusive Value-Chain Collaboration Through the Lenses of Food Sovereignty and Landscape Governance. Eur J Dev Res 27, 523–540 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2015.50

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2015.50

Keywords

  • value-chain collaboration
  • food sovereignty
  • smallholder agency
  • landscape governance
  • learning platforms
  • inclusive development