Local food system resilience in the context of shocks and crises: vulnerabilities and responses of agroecology-based farmers in Peru, Germany, and the United States

Figures & data

Figure 1. Map of selected case study areas.

Source: Janika Hämmerle.

Table 1. Description of the local agroecology by study area.

Case studies	Regions	Description of the local agroecology
Peru	Ancash, Apurímac, Cusco, Huancavelica, Huánuco, Junín	In Peru, the agroecology took the form of traditional subsistence agriculture practiced by family farmers living in remote areas of the highlands. At high altitudes (2,500–4,000 masl), farmers maintain agrobiodiversity by planting in terraces and mixing crops on steep terrains. In addition to tubers, farmers cultivate beans, horticulture, and root vegetables, while also keeping minor animal species, such as guinea pigs, and livestock, mainly alpacas, goats, and cattle. They preserve vast traditional knowledge related to the production and consumption of these goods (Mayer 2018). The mountainous topography and limited resources available to farmers in these areas often prevent the use of mechanization. Some farmers, even though they consider themselves to be agroecological, reported that they use reduced amounts of agrochemicals on their farms. This type of agroecology we characterize as traditional agriculture, in regards of the ancestral knowledge and practices that prevail around agrobiodiversity management.
Germany	Baden Württemberg, Bavaria, Brandenburg	In Germany, agroecology takes the form of peri-urban, community-supported agriculture projects. The farms are all located either inside cities or a few kilometers outside of urban areas. Farmers interviewed applied various alternative agriculture methods stemming from organic farming, permaculture, and regenerative agriculture. Their products, purposively chosen for selling, range from vegetables, fruits, and wild herbs to dairy and meat. We characterize these experiences as market-oriented agroecology, working toward the establishment of direct marketing channels to local grocery stores and farmer’s markets.
US	California, Florida	In the US, the form of agroecology investigated included urban and peri-urban farms working toward implementing agroecological practices and strengthening local food systems. The farms surveyed ranged from nonprofit community-focused organic farms to for-profit farms. Farms were mainly small-sized, intensive market gardener productive systems of horticultural crops produced in greenhouses oriented to commercialization. Parallel to their productive activities, farms in the US also integrated activities including education and multi-product marketing as part of their business goals. We characterize these experiences as community-based, market-oriented agroecology.

Source: own compilation.

Table 2. Attributes of food system resilience.

Attributes	Meaning	Sources
Diversification	Productive diversification refers not only to the integration of multiple crops characteristic of agroecological farming, but also to the ability of food system actors to change the set of products they offer in the market. Moreover, diversification can also refer to the ability of actors to find different sources from which they obtain their inputs and supplies.	Tukamuhabwa et al. (2015); FAO (2021)
Entrepreneurship and innovation	Refers to the behavior of actors when they proactively adapt, take calculated risks, and innovate in response to internal and external stimuli. Entrepreneurship is considered to have the potential to improve actors’ ability to anticipate and respond to stressors.	FAO (2021); Iza et al. (2019); Kangogo, Dentoni, and Bijman (2020)
Cooperation and Social Networks	Cooperation is an outcome of social capital; it refers to situations where food system actors seek win-win outcomes from working together. Cooperation within or between groups of actors is expected to reduce the negative impacts of shocks and crises.	Pingali, Alinovi, and Sutton (2005); Rose (2014); Downing et al. (2018); FAO (2021)
Farmer – buyer relationships/Connectivity	Connectivity refers to the intensity and nature of relationships (vertical, horizontal, positive, negative) between different actors within and across socio-economic groups (farmers, traders, processors, and consumers). It is argued in the literature that connectivity would reduce the disturbances faced by producers and other actors along the food supply chain, thereby reducing their negative impact on operations and incomes.	Downing et al. (2018); Kangogo, Dentoni, and Bijman (2020);
Subjective resilience, knowledge, and experience	Refers to factors recognized as contributing to the construct of people’s subjective resilience and influencing their choice of responses in the face of adversity, such as risk perception, self-efficacy, aspiration, or perseverance. This is a function of the knowledge and experience that farmers have.	Béné et al. (2019); FAO (2021)

Source: compiled by author.

Table 3. Results (RQ2): Farmers’ responses to shocks and crises.

Case study		Economic responses	Productive responses
Peru	Diversification of income sources Creation of new selling points Innovations in logistics Activation of social networks Retaking practices of reciprocity Increased child labor Self-managed micro-loans to face decapitalization Substitution of potatoes for other crops		Adjusting farming practices Reviving agroecological practices Returning to manual labor Adopting animal breeding Restarting practices of reciprocity Shared labor (faenas) Reconfiguring productive systems Collective action
Germany	Opening new marketing channels Online marketing Selling on farm Strengthening social networks		Adjusting farming practices Maintaining organic practices Crop diversification Using drought resistant crops Abandoning vegetable cultivation Reducing farmland used Monitoring harvests yields and failures
US	Opening new marketing channels Increasing online marketing Activating communal/family networks Strengthening self-sufficiency Diversifying product line Incorporating an educational approach		Productive planning Monitoring environmental conditions in cooperation with neighbors Using of more resistant varieties Using salt-tolerant plant species Increasing regenerative practices Housing external staff

Source: own compilation, based on appendices 7–9.

Mayer, E. 2018. The articulated peasant: Household economies in the Andes. New york, NY, USA: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.

 Google Scholar

Tukamuhabwa, B. J., M. Stevenson, J. Busby, and M. Zorzini. 2015. Supply chain resilience: Definition, review and theoretical foundations for further study. International Journal of Production Research 53 (18):5592–623. doi:10.1080/00207543.2015.1037934.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) 2021. Resilient food systems – a proposed analytical strategy for empirical applications. Working paper, The State of Food and Agriculture 2021. Making agrifood systems more resilient to shocks and stresses. doi:10.4060/cb7508en

 Google Scholar

Iza, C. L. B., D. Dentoni, M. Mordini, P. Isubikalu, J. B. A. Oduol, and O. Omta. 2019. The role of farmers’ entrepreneurial orientation on agricultural innovations in Ugandan multi-stakeholder platform. In The Climate-Smart Agriculture Papers, S. Todd, Rosenstock, World Agroforestry Centre ICRAF, eds. 201–13. Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.

 Google Scholar

Kangogo, D., D. Dentoni, and J. Bijman. 2020. Determinants of farm resilience to climate change: The role of farmer entrepreneurship and value chain collaborations. Sustainability 12 (3):868. doi:10.3390/su12030868.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pingali, P., L. Alinovi, and J. Sutton. 2005. Food security in complex emergencies: Enhancing food system resilience. Disaster 29 (s1):S5–25. doi:10.1111/j.0361-3666.2005.00282.x.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Rose, D. 2014. The moral foundation of economic behavior. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Reprint edition.

 Google Scholar

Downing, J., M. Field, M. Ripley, and J. Sebstad. 2018. Market systems resilience: A framework for measurement. (USAID Bureau of Food Security): 7–8.

 Google Scholar

Béné, C., T. Frankenberger, T. Griffin, M. Langworthy, M. Mueller, and S. Martin. 2019. “Perception matters”: New insights into the subjective dimension of resilience in the context of humanitarian and food security interventions. Progress in Development Studies 19 (3):186–210.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar