Scholars and policymakers alike acknowledge that the informal midstream is an important linkage in Africa’s food system, providing a crucial connec­tion between production and consumption of nutritious fruits and vegetables. In several instances, development practitioners have deliber­ately engaged informal midstream actors in inter­ventions to enhance food systems outcomes, such as introducing plastic crates in Nigeria to reduce postharvest losses. Using this initiative as a case study, we interview key actors to explore the relationship between challenges, motivations, innova­tion capacity, and conditions in the inno­vation and adoption of plastic crates. We conclude from our findings that successful innovation in food system depends on collaboration between informal mid­stream actors and formal sector service providers, and necessitates a deep under­standing of socio­economic realities and power dynamics, especially in relation to gender norms. We highlight approaches that actors in the formal sector can take to enable informal midstream actors to engage in innovation processes for positive food systems outcomes; specifically, decreased postharvest losses, improved food safety, and increased incomes for women.

It is increasingly recognized by academia and policy makers that businesses and workers in the informal economy play a key role in enhancing food systems’ performance by reducing poverty and generating employment, as well as by contributing to food and nutrition security and reinforcing the resilience of low-income households. However, studies into the informal economy have paid little attention to the underlying drivers behind the behaviors and dynamics of economic actors in the sector or their responses to changing socio-economic conditions and external enablers that all affect how food systems function. This article presents an overview of insights from informal economy studies and outlines linkages between the internal structure of the informal agri-food sector, its external functional relationships and the behavioral responses by economic actors. We highlight how informal economy actors contribute to food system outcomes and present an analytical framework to understand their motivations and strategies, showing how they respond to incentives that motivate them to enhance their contributions to improved food system outcomes. The novel framework enables a better understanding of the drivers of change in informal parts of the food system, thus creating new opportunities for policy makers and other actors to influence food system outcomes.

Informal traders, street vendors, and transporters — known as midstream businesses — play a critical role in food systems in the Global South, providing affordable food to low-income households. However, negative impacts relating to these businesses may occur because of unregulated activities, for example, poor working conditions, operating outside of regulation food safety policies, and lack of knowledge around and incentives to enforce adequate hygiene standards. Knowledge on effective approaches to reach out and include informal businesses in enhancing food system outcomes and reducing negative impacts is lacking. This is leading to missed opportunities in achieving zero hunger — Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2 — and other SDGs. There is a need for improved understanding of the motivations, organization, and governance of informal businesses, so policies and interventions can be adjusted to their realities.

Poor diets are a primary cause of malnutrition and a leading constraint to public health in Tanzania. The consumption of fruit and vegetables in Tanzania is well below the recommended standard as recommended by the WHO. Increasing the intake by consumers of fruit and vegetables requires a year-round availability of these foods, as well as their affordability, accessibility and acceptability. The objective of this study is to contribute to an improved understanding of the informal market of fruit and vegetables in the Arusha Region of Tanzania to better address food loss and waste and food safety issues in the fruit and vegetable chains. To do so, it is important to better understand the motivations and business operations of informal midstream actors, who are key in connecting farmers to most consumers. Through a literature review and survey data among 260 traders, we assessed how social capital of midstream actors in the informal fruit and vegetable sector is related to the performance of the individual firms. We conclude that members of groups that exchange business information have both higher self-reported business performance as well as higher calculated revenues. Members of groups that engage in joint sourcing or price setting have higher revenue, and members of groups that engage in the regulation of physical market space or outward representation have higher self-reported business performance. Finally, we found that traders that are part of a trading group have higher self-reported business performance, but we did not find a significant difference in calculated revenue.

The aim of this study is to disclose the social factors of sustainable development goals by exploring the links between three types of social capital (bonding, bridging and linking) and food security in Kibera, an informal settlement located in Nairobi, Kenya. Several studies in the literature have addressed links between food security and social capital. However, a lack of theoretical approaches exist in the literature, which concern the sustainable development theory devoted to urban areas taking into account the sustainable development goals. This study applies a linear regression model on data from 385 households in Kibera to analyze the connection between food security and three types of social capital (bonding, bridging and linking). The results demonstrate that there is a positive impact between our proxies for bonding social capital (cultural diversity and the number of visits to area of origin) and food security. Bridging social capital (measured by trust in strangers) demonstrated a negative impact on food security. Finally, one indicator for linking social capital demonstrated a positive impact on food security (trust in community leaders), whereas the statistical analyses did not find any relationship of the two indicators; ‘trust in local politicians’ and ‘membership of social organisations’, with food security. The results demonstrate that insight into social capital can inform the understanding of household food insecurity in vulnerable urban settlements, by illustrating the critical impacts of social drivers in a food system.

This explorative study identifies and evaluates mechanisms for payment for ecosystem services provided by mussel, oyster and seaweed aquaculture. Concerns about the economic profitability of farming mussels, oysters and seaweeds hamper upscaling of production. It is argued that valuing and capitalizing the ecosystem services provided by the production of these lower trophic species can benefit the business case. The Delphi method is used to consult experts across the world in various sectors, including industry, NGO, science and government. Six payment mechanisms for ecosystem services were considered feasible; tax-payer funded payments, tradeable credits, encouraging subsidies, social licenses to produce, production cost-sharing schemes and increased utility for consumers. The latter was deemed most feasible, with little differences in feasibility found in the other five. There are however barriers to implementation in a lack of solid quantification, inadequate regulatory framework and lack of independent validation. Future payment mechanisms for ecosystem services provided by mussels, oysters and seaweeds need solid, science-based measurements based on sound monitoring indicators to quantify effects on the ecosystem services, liaised with relevant existing carbon and nitrogen credit trading schemes and an independent checks-and-balances for long-term trust in such payment schemes. The need for better mechanisms for capitalization justify further development of better data and knowledge of these mechanisms, inclusion of ecosystem services in new regulations and more political and societal support to implement them.

In this study we explore what roles informal midstream businesses have in food systems, and the outcomes they influence – such as food safety, food availability affordability and accessibility, various dimensions of livelihoods (including employment and labour conditions), and the environment. Informal businesses operate outside of the formal economy. They are often not officially registered, do not maintain bookkeeping, pay income taxes, or own a bank account, and do not hold official employment relations with their workers. There are multiple perceptions and theories on informality, but recent insights inform us that the informal economy can play a constructive and rational role in complementing the formal economy. Informality is not a stage in development, which will disappear with modernisation of the economy. informality is an intrinsic part of the whole economy and therefore set to stay. Most efforts by governments to formalise the informal economic sectors have failed. Governmental efforts to regulate the informal economy come with significant risks and may have an adverse effect on economic growth and its inclusivity. We conclude from this study that informal midstream businesses contribute in many ways to food system outcomes, such as access by poor consumers to affordable food. But they sometimes also constrain such outcomes by, for example, maintaining poor workers' conditions. As they operate outside regulation policies for food safety and may lack knowledge on hygiene standards, informal food provisioning may also come with higher health risks compared to formal food suppliers, such as supermarkets. Social capital and trust have significant effects on the performance of informal businesses. This is related to the observation that informal entrepreneurs are often not only driven by economic rationale but also by social goals. Governments can support informal midstream businesses by improving infrastructure, but also including them in policy dialogue. However, the repertoire by governments of incentives that trigger informal midstream businesses to contribute to public goals is limited. Other actors in the food system, such as retailers, consumer (movements) and investors are better positioned to reach out to the informal midstream businesses. Informal midstream businesses can have both positive and negative impacts on food system outcomes. We conclude that private sector-led innovation, in which informal businesses define their priorities, co-operate in networks, take the lead, and contribute to enhanced food system outcomes, is an important yet highly unknown area. If informal businesses are to contribute to enhanced food system outcomes, we must unpack that black box allowing better understanding of their roles, processes to involve them, and what can be done to stimulate them to contribute to enhanced food system outcomes.

The COVID-19 crisis is just one in a series of shocks and stressors that exemplify the importance of building resilient food systems. To ensure that desired food system outcomes are less fluctuating, policy makers and other important stakeholders need a common narrative on food system resilience. The purpose of this paper is to work towards a joint understanding of food system resilience and its implications for policy making. The delivery of desired outcomes depends on the ability of food systems to anticipate, prevent, absorb, and adapt to the impacts of shocks and stressors. Based on our literature review we found four properties of food systems that enhance their resilience. We refer to these as the A B C D of resilience building: Agency, Buffering, Connectivity and Diversity. Over time, many food systems have lost levels of agency, buffering capacity, connectivity or diversity. One of the principal causes of this is attributed to the governance of food systems. Governance is inherently political: as a result of conflicting interests and power imbalances, food systems fail to deliver equitable and just access to food. Moreover, the impacts of shocks and stressors are not evenly distributed across actors in the food system. This paper has highlighted the importance of more inclusive governance to direct food system transformation towards such higher levels of resilience. We conclude that we cannot leave this to the market, but that democratic and before all independent, credible institutions are needed to create the necessary transparency between actors as to their interests, power and influence.

Commissioned by the Dairy Working Group from the Sustainable Agriculture Initiative Platform (SAI Platform) and the European Roundtable for Beef Sustainability, an overview has been made based on literature research and a survey of 28 greenhouse gas mitigation options on dairy and beef farms and their degree of implementation. The mitigation options that have been implemented so far are mainly aiming at improving efficiency and productivity. A majority (63%) of respondents indicate that all or some of their supplying farmers know their individual carbon footprint. The big question is how to stimulate farmers to implement mitigation options.

The COVID-19 crisis is just one in a series of shocks and stressors that exemplify the importance of building resilient food systems. To ensure that desired food system outcomes are less fluctuating, policy makers and other important stakeholders need a common narrative on food system resilience. The purpose of this paper is to work towards a joint understanding of food system resilience and its implications for policy making. The delivery of desired outcomes depends on the ability of food systems to anticipate , prevent , absorb , and adapt to the impacts of shocks and stressors. Based on our literature review we found four properties of food systems that enhance their resilience. We refer to these as the A B C D of resilience building: Agency, Buffering, Connectivity and Diversity. Over time, many food systems have lost levels of agency, buffering capacity, connectivity or diversity. One of the principal causes of this is attributed to the governance of food systems. Governance is inherently political: as a result of conflicting interests and power imbalances, food systems fail to deliver equitable and just access to food. Moreover, the impacts of shocks and stressors are not evenly distributed across actors in the food system. This paper has highlighted the importance of more inclusive governance to direct food system transformation towards such higher levels of resilience. We conclude that we cannot leave this to the market, but that democratic and before all independent, credible institutions are needed to create the necessary transparency between actors as to their interests, power and influence. on its capacity to deal with natural and man-made disturbances: shocks and stressors. Shocks refer to a sudden event that impacts on the functions of a system and its components, as seen for example with COVID-19 and locust plagues. A stressor can be defined as a long-term trend that undermines the functioning and increases the vulnerability of a system. The most acute stressor threatening the current global food system is climate change, which in turn leads to a variety of shocks, such as extreme weather events or crop diseases.