many of these studies have focused on jatropha, a relatively new and untested crop
that received very sudden attention in SSA before its eventual collapse (Sect.
3.3.2.1) (von Maltitz et al. 2014; Ahmed et al. 2019b).
Most studies target a sub-set of mechanisms related to the “access to food” and
“food availability” pillars of food security. Furthermore, the number and type of
mechanisms captured are highly variable between crops. For example, cotton,
jatropha, shea and sugarcane are the best-studied crops in terms of the number of
captured mechanisms (Sect. 3.3.2.1). Conversely, important crops such as oil palm,
rubber, cocoa and coffee feature in comparatively fewer studies, despite their
extensive history and ongoing expansion across the continent (Sect. 3.1).
Industrial crop production facilitates local access to food by generating income
and employment (Sect. 3.3.2.3). At the same time, engagement in industrial crop
production (whether as plantation workers or smallholders) can divert family labour
from food crop production, thus reducing local food availability (Sect. 3.3.2.2). As a
result, there is a great need to ensure the generation of secure employment, and
reliable and sustainable income, while minimizing the negative effects of time and
labour diversion from food crop production in family farms (see also Sect. 3.4.2).
Sustaining income and employment benefits would render the engagement in industrial crop value chains a worthwhile and risk-free endeavour to plantation workers
and smallholders. This is very important lesson learnt from the almost total collapse
of the jatropha sector and lack of materialization of the expected benefits in many
rural contexts of SSA (Ahmed et al. 2019b; von Maltitz et al. 2015).
There is also strong evidence to suggest that industrial crop production often
causes direct land competition with food crop production (Sect. 3.3.2.2). However,
the actual land use change effects depend on the mode of production. However, there
can also be indirect land use change effects that are nevertheless difficult to estimate
accurately and in a non-controversial manner (Khanna and Crago 2012; Finkbeiner
2014). For example, industrial crop smallholders can either choose to expand
(or not) food crop production to other areas to compensate for the land allocated to
industrial crops. Similarly large-scale plantations might displace farmers, who might
in turn clear land elsewhere to establish farms. In any case such direct and indirect
land competition can affect local food availability either through the loss of food
cropland or the loss of communal pasture/forest.
In smallholder settings increasing the use of agricultural inputs use
(e.g. fertilizers, pesticides) and/or adopting improved production practices
(e.g. irrigation, intercropping) could minimize the possible negative effects of land
loss on food availability by increasing crop yields (Sect. 3.3.2.2). However, such
agricultural intensification might lead to negative environmental impacts related to
freshwater depletion, water pollution and soil degradation, all of which have been
shown to have a negative effect to food stability (Sect. 3.3.2.5). The above suggest
hard trade-offs between the food availability and food stability pillars.
Many of the reviewed studies pointed how gender issues mediate the positive or
negative impacts of industrial crop production on food security. This happens
especially through some mechanisms such as income and employment generation
(B4–5), time diversion from unpaid care work (C1) and women empowerment (D6).
3 Linking Industrial Crop Production and Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa:. . .
121
that received very sudden attention in SSA before its eventual collapse (Sect.
3.3.2.1) (von Maltitz et al. 2014; Ahmed et al. 2019b).
Most studies target a sub-set of mechanisms related to the “access to food” and
“food availability” pillars of food security. Furthermore, the number and type of
mechanisms captured are highly variable between crops. For example, cotton,
jatropha, shea and sugarcane are the best-studied crops in terms of the number of
captured mechanisms (Sect. 3.3.2.1). Conversely, important crops such as oil palm,
rubber, cocoa and coffee feature in comparatively fewer studies, despite their
extensive history and ongoing expansion across the continent (Sect. 3.1).
Industrial crop production facilitates local access to food by generating income
and employment (Sect. 3.3.2.3). At the same time, engagement in industrial crop
production (whether as plantation workers or smallholders) can divert family labour
from food crop production, thus reducing local food availability (Sect. 3.3.2.2). As a
result, there is a great need to ensure the generation of secure employment, and
reliable and sustainable income, while minimizing the negative effects of time and
labour diversion from food crop production in family farms (see also Sect. 3.4.2).
Sustaining income and employment benefits would render the engagement in industrial crop value chains a worthwhile and risk-free endeavour to plantation workers
and smallholders. This is very important lesson learnt from the almost total collapse
of the jatropha sector and lack of materialization of the expected benefits in many
rural contexts of SSA (Ahmed et al. 2019b; von Maltitz et al. 2015).
There is also strong evidence to suggest that industrial crop production often
causes direct land competition with food crop production (Sect. 3.3.2.2). However,
the actual land use change effects depend on the mode of production. However, there
can also be indirect land use change effects that are nevertheless difficult to estimate
accurately and in a non-controversial manner (Khanna and Crago 2012; Finkbeiner
2014). For example, industrial crop smallholders can either choose to expand
(or not) food crop production to other areas to compensate for the land allocated to
industrial crops. Similarly large-scale plantations might displace farmers, who might
in turn clear land elsewhere to establish farms. In any case such direct and indirect
land competition can affect local food availability either through the loss of food
cropland or the loss of communal pasture/forest.
In smallholder settings increasing the use of agricultural inputs use
(e.g. fertilizers, pesticides) and/or adopting improved production practices
(e.g. irrigation, intercropping) could minimize the possible negative effects of land
loss on food availability by increasing crop yields (Sect. 3.3.2.2). However, such
agricultural intensification might lead to negative environmental impacts related to
freshwater depletion, water pollution and soil degradation, all of which have been
shown to have a negative effect to food stability (Sect. 3.3.2.5). The above suggest
hard trade-offs between the food availability and food stability pillars.
Many of the reviewed studies pointed how gender issues mediate the positive or
negative impacts of industrial crop production on food security. This happens
especially through some mechanisms such as income and employment generation
(B4–5), time diversion from unpaid care work (C1) and women empowerment (D6).
3 Linking Industrial Crop Production and Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa:. . .
121