Food Systems Transformation towards Resilience

#### **Chapter 1**

## Perspective Chapter: Food System Resilience – Towards a Joint Understanding and Implications for Policy

*Bart de Steenhuijsen Piters, Emma Termeer, Deborah Bakker, Hubert Fonteijn and Herman Brouwer*

#### **Abstract**

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.

**Keywords:** food system, resilience, COVID-19, agency, governance

#### **1. Introduction**

Food system resilience presents a paradox: even when global food markets prove to be quite resilient in the face of different shocks and crises, desired outcomes such as food and nutrition security are not ensured *for al and all timesl*. 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 impacts of the global COVID-19 pandemic remind us of the importance of food systems that can withstand and recover from shocks. The COVID-19 crisis has impacted everyone's life in some way. However, some people live in more vulnerable contexts than others and have different levels of response capacity, hence they experience more profound impacts. The world's poorest people already dealt with unstable livelihoods and chronic food insecurity before the pandemic. This means low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) have a less advantaged starting point in the face of shocks and crises.

The COVID-19 crisis is just one in a series of shocks and stressors that exemplify the importance of building resilient food systems. The global food crisis of 2008 revealed how a convergence of different market shocks and disruptions in food production can cause dramatic increases in global food prices and food shortages [1]. The 2008 food price crisis has, in many cases, compounded the impacts of existing shocks and crises, such as droughts, floods, conflict and insecurity. Despite its apparent resilience under the pressure of the COVID-19 pandemic so far, the global food system remains vulnerable. The blockage of the Suez Canal in 2021 shows how a small technical or human failure can bring global transport to a sudden standstill [2]. COVID-19 related measures, such as restrictions in movement of goods and people, have had direct implications for people's livelihoods, food affordability and food access [3].

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. Food system resilience issues are far from simple to solve. The complex interdependencies within our food systems involve all aspects of life: natural, political, economic, social and cultural. It is therefore key to start from a common understanding between all stakeholders of what food system resilience entails. From there, we can identify the steps that are needed to reform the governance of food systems to obtain and secure the outcomes that we need as a society. This is also the challenge for the United Nations Food Systems Summit, due late 2021, which will create the momentum to acknowledge where we are in building more resilient food systems, and where we want to go.

#### **Key messages**

Building food system resilience is necessary to withstand shocks and stressors and maintain progress towards desired outcomes: food and nutrition security and equitable livelihoods for all in a healthy ecosystem. We identify four key properties of building resilient food systems: ensuring **A**gency, creating **B**uffers,

stimulating **C**onnectivity, and enhancing **D**iversity throughout the system. Implementing these properties will enhance the capacity of food systems to anticipate, prevent, absorb,

and adapt to the impacts of shocks and stressors. Building resilience through these key properties requires transformation of the entire system and this raises questions about the politics and governance of markets and broader food systems.

#### **2. Towards a joint understanding: What is food system resilience?**

A **food system** includes all processes, actors and activities associated with food production and food utilisation, from growing and harvesting to transporting and consuming [4]. A food system also encompasses the wider **food environment**, from markets and trade to policies and innovation. The main challenge for food systems

#### *Perspective Chapter: Food System Resilience – Towards a Joint Understanding and Implications... DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99899*

globally is to increase the supply of safe and healthy food in an inclusive and sustainable way. This is reflected in the desired **outcomes** of a well-functioning food system, which include (**Figure 1**):

#### **Shocks and stressors.**

The ability of our food system to deliver desired outcomes directly depends 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.

#### **Figure 1.**

*Simplified visualisation of a food system. Source: adapted from Van Berkum, Dengerink and Ruben [4].*


In this paper we refer to **food system resilience** as the capacity of food systems to deliver desired outcomes in the face of shocks and stressors. The concept of resilience has its origins in ecological stability theory, explaining the capacity of ecosystems to return to their original state after a disturbance [5]. In the past decades, resilience thinking has been applied in various disciplines (such as ecology, economics and risk management) and different definitions of the concept exist according to the discipline for which they have been developed [6]. In relation to food systems, resilience thinking has been applied to address the complex interactions between nature and society with a focus on maintaining human well-being within planetary boundaries [7]. However, there is confusion and contestation about what the concept means and how it can be measured. This is especially true for the resilience of food systems, where multiple types of resilience interact (such as agricultural, economic, political and social resilience), raising the question of whether a unified conceptualisation of food system resilience is possible. In this context, one suggestion could be to identify

context-specific challenges and policy implications using a 'resilience lens', and translating resilience to contextual, measurable indicators [8]. This paper is an effort to identify starting points to apply such a resilience lens in policy environments.

Considering increasing concerns about undesired outcomes, as well as the rate and scale of global challenges such as climate change, population growth and loss of biodiversity, there is increasing reference to the need for profound, systemic changes in our food systems. Such changes are also referred to as food system **transformation**, raising questions on how these are identified, prioritised and promoted through public policy instruments, private sector responses or civil society agency. The sum of these can be referred to as food system **governance**. Effective governance of food systems needs to take into account that resilience is not a unified, absolute measure, as interventions that make food systems more *robust* to shocks and stressors may also lead to associated vulnerabilities. The key is to continually assess these **trade-offs** and determine whether they are an acceptable consequence [9].

In other words, enhancing food system resilience involves a more complex task than just ensuring the stable delivery of food and nutrition security or other desired outcomes. For example, expanding or intensifying agricultural production may positively contribute to food and nutrition security, but it will also increase the likelihood of pollution and potential loss of biodiversity. Moreover, benefits and losses are often not distributed evenly across stakeholders in food systems. As resilience is not an absolute measure, it is important to take into account who has the power to define it [10]. The awareness of such interactions and trade-offs is at the core of approaches to describe, diagnose, and develop interventions in food systems. Thinking about resilience from a systemic perspective is therefore particularly useful for policymakers who formulate strategies for food system interventions. Building on a common conceptual understanding of resilience in food systems is necessary to avoid that the concept causes confusion and miscommunication between different stakeholders.

Following the concepts used by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), and the Scientific Group of the UN Food Systems Summit, we distinguish five key capacities that together determine the ability of food systems to handle shocks and stressors: anticipation, prevention, absorption, adaptation and transformation:[11–13].

The projected rise in food and nutrition insecurity on a global scale is driven by different **shocks and stressors** that often overlap or interact. We can categorise them in the following four clusters [14, 15] with some illustrative examples:


In summary: conceptual clarity and purpose of building food system resilience are needed for effective communication between stakeholders who define together the governance of food systems. Five capacities of food system to respond to shocks and stressors emerge from recent literature, as well as four distinct clusters of shocks and stressors. In the next sections we explore reasons why food systems are not resilient,

*Perspective Chapter: Food System Resilience – Towards a Joint Understanding and Implications... DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99899*


how food systems evolve after shocks and stresses, and what emerges from literature as key properties of resilient food systems.

#### **3. Why are food systems not resilient and what are the consequences?**

Shocks and stressors rarely happen in isolation and always impact on the wider food system, creating potential trade-offs between different outcomes, such as food and nutrition security, environmental sustainability and secured livelihoods for all. Climate change and global warming increase the incidence of extreme weather conditions and impact the entire ecosystem. Increasingly unpredictable weather and extreme weather incidents mean that farmers are regularly faced with high yield losses. Furthermore, agriculture itself is caught in a double bind: the sector as a whole contributes over 10 per cent to global greenhouse gas emissions, yet it needs to produce sufficient food to feed the growing world population. Public health shocks, such as COVID-19, may compound with economic shocks, which will in turn negatively impact on food and nutrition security. Cases of protracted crises, where conflict, coupled with weather or health shocks, cause severe food insecurity, exemplify the complex interactions between shocks, stressors and the food system.

Even before COVID-19, from 2005 to 2016, developing countries were experiencing an average of 260 natural disasters a year, killing 54,000, affecting 97 million and costing USD 27 billion annually [16]. FAO estimates that 23 per cent of the economic loss and damage due to natural disasters is related to the agricultural sector – which significantly impacts on the ability of disaster victims to rebuild and recover.


#### **Table 1.** *Three areas where SDG progress is stagnating.*

#### **Figure 2.**

*The capacity of a food system to respond to shocks and stressors. Source: This paper.*

Repeatedly, we see shocks trigger systemic crises that disrupt the entire food system, including social services, the economy, and the environment.

The capacity to manage risks and to adapt to changes is unevenly distributed across nations, regions, communities, and households. The poor are especially vulnerable and liable to become trapped in vicious cycles of decline due to shocks and stressors. This poverty and vulnerability trap means that recovery to pre-disaster levels of well-being becomes increasingly difficult [17].

To ensure that food systems can deliver desired outcomes for future generations, resilience building should go hand in hand with sustainable development. After all, a resilient system is a system that can be sustained in the long term. In 2015, the international community agreed on 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to be met by 2030, in an effort to build a more sustainable world. Even though progress has been made towards this end, progress on many of the goals is either stagnating or lost, partly due to the recent COVID-19 crisis (see **Table 1**). This stagnation demonstrates the urgency in designing our food system from a resilience perspective. If it were designed as such, our food systems could have average to even high resilience capacities, rewarding us with the stable or enhanced delivery of the desired outcomes (as stated in the SDGs) despite the occurrence of shocks and stressors (see **Figure 2**).

An example of a food system with a high resilience capacity is found in Ireland, where the shock of the 2008 economic crisis was absorbed by making investments in the dairy sector. This sector became a driver of growth for the whole Irish economy in the following decade, [21] and the shock eventually became the trigger for a new pathway of opportunities. Unfortunately there are many more examples of food systems where the opposite happens: shocks and stressors expose underlying weakness in resilience capacity.1 This can result in deterioration of desired food system outcomes such as food and nutrition security, living income, or protection of natural resources.

<sup>1</sup> See, for early evidence of impact of Covid-19 on agriculture, e.g. [22]. Also: [23].

*Perspective Chapter: Food System Resilience – Towards a Joint Understanding and Implications... DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99899*

#### **4. What can be done to make food systems more resilient?**

To understand how food systems can be more resilient we need to explore the role that resilience capacities play in relation to shocks and stressors. We propose to subdivide these capacities according to three phases of a shock/stressor scenario: the first two capacities (*anticipation* and *prevention*) relate to the phase prior to the occurrence of any shocks. The third capacity (*absorption*) plays the largest role during the occurrence of a shock, while the last two capacities (*adaptation* and *transformation*) are most relevant in the aftermath of the shock and influence the recovery towards post-shock food and nutrition security (the upward trajectory in **Figure 2**). This subdivision is more subtle when examining stresses, since these play out over longer time spans. In this context, it is an interesting question whether the effect of COVID-19 on the food system qualifies as a shock or a stressor.

The first two resilience capacities (*anticipation* and *prevention*) are the closest linked to the shock type or stress itself. For instance, the anticipation of extreme weather events is greatly aided by the distribution of accurate and up-to-date satellite data amongst all stakeholders, allowing preventive action against floods to strengthen local water defences.

To prepare for our future challenges, we need to transform food systems towards food and nutrition security for all in such a way that the economic, social, cultural and environmental bases to generate food security and nutrition are safeguarded for future generations [24]. This is a complex task that requires strong collaboration across disciplines and national borders. First, the need and urgency of this task should be acknowledged. Then, efforts can be made to direct policy objectives towards making food systems more resilient. Regarding these policy objectives, literature on resilient food systems identifies various important measures to consider, ranging from regional and local production and distribution, diversification of production, environment and responses, improved rural infrastructure, accessibility and local self-organisation.2 From these, we derive four summarising aspects that define the response capacity of food systems. These four properties are not exhaustive, but they are always recognisable in systems that are resilient. We suggest that policy makers and other stakeholders recognise what we present as the **A B C D** of resilience building (**Figure 3**):


**Figure 3.** *The ABCD of food system resilience building. Source: This paper.*

<sup>2</sup> See, for example: [25–30].


#### **4.1 Agency**

Human agency is a key factor in determining how individuals and society respond to change, disruptions and crises. Agency can be understood as the ability of people to choose their actions and execute them as they see fit. By emphasising agency, we go beyond the view of vulnerable people as passive victims in the face of external threats or crises. Agency is strongly related to adaptive capacity: the necessary resources for people and systems to adapt and learn, but agency also allows for anticipation and prevention. So far, discussions on food system resilience have focused in large part on resilience at system-level, for example maintaining stable trade relationships. This aggregated view has resulted in much less attention to understanding the role of human agency in the adaptation at the heart of resilient food systems [31]. For example, in situations of protracted crises, people have developed coping strategies, ranging from informal early warning systems to community seed systems, that contribute to the resilience of their livelihoods [32].

• *Understanding individual behaviour, as well as community responses, is essential to strengthening the resilience of a system as a whole.*

#### **4.2 Buffering**

Buffering in food systems can be understood in a broad sense: from buffering strategies by subsistence farmers to the creation and maintenance of national food stocks. Buffering may result in higher costs and lower long-term profit but increase the overall resilience of a system. For example, small- and medium-sized enterprises may choose to increase their savings accounts instead of investing all profits in the growth of their business, in preparation for shortfalls in sales. Buffering strategies are essential for enhancing the absorption capacities in a system. Creating buffers can be seen as an action in anticipation of a shock or stressor. In the financial world, buffering strategies in the form of maintaining adequate capital levels are a crucial part of the risk management toolkit:[33] financial buffers ensure business continuity in the face of low-frequency high-impact events by absorbing the resulting losses and maintaining solvability [34]. Policies may also impact on the buffering capacity of a food system, such as the creation of national food stocks or by providing direct financial support to people and businesses that struggle during a shock.

• *Buffering in food systems should be acknowledged as an economic asset and be preserved or strengthened at the level that is most appropriate (individual, firm, region), even if it may lead to lower economic returns.*

#### **4.3 Connectivity**

In every system, connectivity refers to the nature and strength of the interactions between the various components. Maintaining and building connectivity at *Perspective Chapter: Food System Resilience – Towards a Joint Understanding and Implications... DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99899*

the community, company, and country level helps to build resilience and guard against negative outcomes [35]. Improved connectivity in agricultural value chains improves a food system's capacity to respond to shocks and stressors and is an essential contributor to adaptation and transformation capacities. Connectivity can manifest both in terms of physical infrastructure (roads, ports, airports) and communication infrastructure (internet access), as well as in terms of the existence of economic, political and social relationships between actors and nations. For instance, when a dominant trade partner experiences reduced supplies (e.g., due to local droughts), one has to switch to other suppliers to secure access to food. In this sense, connectivity offers an important protection against local and distant shocks, but it also exposes an actor to unforeseen price fluctuations imposed by alternative supply networks. At the community level, strong infrastructure can ensure mobilisation of support in times of need. At the business level, companies with access to multiple markets can more easily switch between commodities or divert products globally, thereby continuing their business operations [35].

• *Strengthening connectivity at different levels (community, private sector, country) with different means (infrastructure, communication networks, relationships) is a crucial component of a resilient food system.*

#### **4.4 Diversity**

Resilient systems are diverse systems. Diversity means that a loss of one resource may be compensated by another. A shortage can be mitigated by a surplus elsewhere.3 Evidence from studies on the resilience of ecosystems indicates that biodiversity is an important contributor to system stability and continuity [41]. More diverse farming systems have greater capacity to absorb the effects of shocks and stressors, and this capacity stabilises food supplies through value chains to consumer markets [42]. According to a large and growing body of research, a diverse farm system – household plots, mixed multi-crop farms, variety in farm type and size – does indeed enhance the availability and consumption of diverse foods needed for a healthy diet [43]. What is required is a fundamentally different model of agriculture based on diversifying farms and farming landscapes, optimising biodiversity and stimulating interactions between different species, as part of holistic strategies to build long-term resilience, healthy agro-ecosystems and secure livelihoods. Together, a varied and balanced diet, a wide range of crops and foodstuffs, and a diverse system of production and distribution, make a more resilient, stable and healthier food system. ([44], p. 73)

• *It is key to recognise the importance of diversity – not just in nature, but also in the entire food system, including production, consumption, economy, governance and society*.

#### **5. Governance for food system resilience**

Most food systems across the globe do not deliver all the outcomes that society expects. Over time, many food systems have lost levels of agency, buffering capacity,

<sup>3</sup> See, for example: [36–40].

connectivity or diversity. One of the principal causes of a food system's failure to evolve in desired directions is its governance.

Governance encompasses the rules, authorities and institutions that coordinate, manage and steer food systems: not just government, but also markets, cultural traditions and networks, and non-state actors such as businesses and civil society organisations [45, 46]. 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. There are significant differences in vulnerability and response capacities between different groups of people, sectors and regions. Socio-political differentiation and economic inequality are often overlooked in relation to food system resilience, but these factors need to be taken into account to effectively address unequal impacts and outcomes. For example, monopolies by big private sector players, at the expense of a multitude of smaller players, have a potentially negative impact on the overall resilience of food systems. Political economic analysis of the governance model will expose any imbalances in power and interests. Such imbalances are increasing worldwide in food systems where concentration of big corporations is observed. Concentrated firms can shape markets, shape technology and innovation agendas, and shape policy and governance frameworks [47].

Momentum, commitment and a large support base is needed for system transformation. Commitments to actions that are understood and underwritten by many stakeholders have a higher chance of being implemented than those agreed upon by few stakeholders. Multi-stakeholder approval also increases public support for such actions – which can be direly needed in challenging circumstances. Getting a large and diverse enough group of stakeholders on board also increases the "solution space": the pool of resources, creativity and agency needed to develop new innovations in food systems. However, the necessary diversity of actors and values will result in processes of negotiation and contestation. This requires careful and deliberate facilitation of multi-stakeholder processes to build trust and relationships, manage potential conflicts, and prevent elite capture [48]. In addition, multi-sectoral policies are needed to address trade-offs and interdependencies of food system actors and components. This requires boundary spanning capabilities [49] and policy integration in order to connect the different policy subsystems [50]. For example: integrated programmes, coordination schemes, participatory analysis, and multi-stakeholder platforms can help to connect different governance levels and sectors.

Lastly, the challenges of food system transformation call for experimentation, not only in technologies and instruments, but also in concrete governance processes. Various multi-stakeholder collaborations, appropriate to different levels and cultures of governance, need to be tried and tested. New kinds of formal and informal institutions, conflict resolution options that are mediated or legislated, and the generation and use of new kinds of data will be needed. Both bottom-up and top-down innovation will be required, aiming for a broad portfolio of innovation projects, where risks, failures and uncertainties are embraced [51]. Much innovation will happen spontaneously – but most will need financial, legal or policy support to break through and change current food system governance regimes. This support can be delivered at different levels: it can aim to shift structural system characteristics, which prevent innovation; it can be geared towards promoting smaller innovations that offer small wins; or finally, the support can be focused on enabling rapid processes for testing and adapting the innovation to the relevant context.

*Perspective Chapter: Food System Resilience – Towards a Joint Understanding and Implications... DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99899*

#### **6. Conclusions and recommendations**

Initially, the COVID-19 pandemic caused panic about the impacts on food supply at a global scale. Now that worries about basic food supply have mostly faded, attention has moved to broader concerns about the effects of different shocks and stressors on food and nutrition security, economic livelihoods, sustainability, biodiversity and healthy ecosystems. Partially overlapping components of food systems of growing, producing, distributing and consuming food have shown differentiation in terms of resilience. In fact, many food systems do not deliver outcomes such as healthy diets and environmental sustainability, and fail to positively contribute to the livelihoods of large numbers of producers and consumers alike. Over time, food systems have delivered more and new foods, as well as economic opportunities for many people – in part through investments in research and innovation. At the same time, food systems continue to contribute heavily to global warming, waste problems, pollution, obesity, chronic disease and social inequality. This is why we argue that building food system resilience is not only important to withstand and recover from shocks and stressors, but also to maintain progress towards desired outcomes, such as food and nutrition security and equitable livelihoods for all. Even if a system is resilient, specific groups in society may still be vulnerable. A resilient system should therefore also be fair, equitable and inclusive – which implies that building resilience is an inherently political process, aiming for a transformation of the entire food system.

In this paper, we have identified four key properties of building resilient food systems: ensuring agency, creating buffers, increasing connectivity, and enhancing diversity throughout the system. These are certainly not stand-alone or quick-fix solutions. An integrated and context-sensitive approach that focuses on strengthening these properties will certainly increase the capacity of food systems to anticipate, prevent, absorb, and adapt to the impacts of shocks and stressors. This requires tailor-made interventions with attention to potential trade-offs. For example, creating an enhanced balance between reliance on global food markets (import dependency) and domestic food production (self-sufficiency) requires investments in market and value chain development, including incentives for midstream value chain actors and campaigns ("nudging") that bring about changes in consumer behaviour to favour domestic produce. **Table 2** offers some more examples of observed challenges and policy entry points related to these four key properties.

AIn the first sections of this paper we highlighted that more shocks and stressors to food systems can be anticipated in the nearby future. These challenges seem to be unavoidable, but higher levels of resilience will make our food systems better prepared and capable of absorbing their effects without jeopardising essential contributions by food systems to our livelihoods. 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. Aligning these interests is never easy, and must be accompanied by collective negotiation and conflict management processes especially in cases where interests strongly diverge. Besides this, actors will need to be mobilised and incentivised to contribute their resources, innovation capacities and outreach to constituencies in society, ranging from consumers to producers and everybody in between. This requires working with everyone with a stake in food systems to try to look at things


#### **Table 2.**

*Summary of the ABCD of food system resilience building.*

differently and collaborate [52]. This is key to create the conditions for transformation towards sustainable, inclusive and resilient food systems.

#### **Acknowledgements**

The authors would like to acknowledge funding from the Wageningen University & Research Programme on "Food Security and Valuing Water" that is supported by the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality.

*Perspective Chapter: Food System Resilience – Towards a Joint Understanding and Implications... DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99899*

#### **Author details**

Bart de Steenhuijsen Piters1 \*, Emma Termeer2 , Deborah Bakker2 , Hubert Fonteijn3 and Herman Brouwer4

1 Food Systems, Wageningen Economic Research, Netherlands

2 Wageningen Economic Research, Netherlands


\*Address all correspondence to: bart.desteenhuijsenpiters@wur.nl

© 2021 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] Headey, D. (2011). Rethinking the global food crisis: The role of trade shocks. Food Policy, 36(2), 136-146; Headey, D., & Fan, S. (2010). *Reflections on the global food crisis: How did it happen? How has it hurt? And how can we prevent the next one?* (Vol. 165). IFPRI. Retrieved from: https:// www.ifpri.org/publication/ reflections-global-food-crisis

[2] The Guardian (2021). *At least 20 livestock ships caught in Suez canal logjam*. 26 March 2021. Retrieved from: https:// www.theguardian.com/ environment/2021/mar/26/ at-least-20-livestock-ships-caught-insuez-canal-logjam

[3] Béné C., Bakker D., Chavarro Rodriguez M., Even B., Melo J., and Sonneveld A. (2021). Impacts of COVID-19 on people's food security: foundations for a more resilient food system. Report prepared for the CGIAR COVID-19 Hub Working Group 4, CGIAR.

[4] Van Berkum, S., Dengerink, J. & Ruben, R. (2018). *The food systems approach: sustainable solutions for a sufficient supply of healthy food*. Wageningen Economic Research. The Hague.

[5] Holling, C.S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics*,* 4(1), 1-23.

[6] Tendall, D. M., Joerin, J., Kopainsky, B., Edwards, P., Shreck, A., Le, Q. B., ... & Six, J. (2015). Food system resilience: defining the concept. Global Food Security, 6, 17-23.

[7] Folke, C., Biggs, R., Norstrom, A.V., Reyers, B. & Rockstrom, J. (2016). Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecology and Society*,* 21(3), 41.

[8] Wassenaer, L. van, Oosterkamp, E., Van Asseldonk, M. & Ryan, M. (2021 in publication). Food system resilience: ontology development and impossible trinities. *Agriculture and Food Security.*

[9] Janssen, M.A. & Anderies, J.M. (2007). Robustness Trade-offs in Social-Ecological Systems. International Journal of the Commons*,* 1(1), 43-65.

[10] Dewulf, A., Karpouzoglou, T., Warner, J., Wesselink, A., Mao, F., Vos, J., Tamas, P., Groot, A., Heijmans, A., Ahmed, F., Hoang, L., Vij, S. & Buytaert, W. (2019). The power to define resilience in social–hydrological systems: Toward a power-sensitive resilience framework. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 6(6), e1377.

[11] Hertel, T.W., Elouafi, I., Ewert, F. & Tanticharoen, M. (2021). Building Resilience to Vulnerabilities, Shocks and Stresses – Action Track 5. A paper from the Scientific Group of the UN Food Systems Summit. 8 March 2021. Retrieved from: https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/ files/5-action\_track-5\_scientific\_group\_ draft\_paper\_8-3-2021.pdf

[12] OECD (2020). *Strengthening agricultural resilience in the face of multiple risks*. Paris. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from: https://doi. org/10.1787/2250453e-en

[13] UN FAO (2020). *Resilience: FAO in Emergencies*. Retrieved from: http://www. fao.org/emergencies/how-we-work/ resilience/en/

[14] UN FAO (2018). *Conflicts and climatic shocks aggravate current food insecurity in many countries*. 20 September 2018. Rome. http://www.fao.org/news/ story/en/item/1153461/icode/

*Perspective Chapter: Food System Resilience – Towards a Joint Understanding and Implications... DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99899*

[15] UN FAO Regional Office for Africa (2020). *Building Resilient Food and Agriculture Systems in the Context of Climate Change, Conflicts and Economic Downturns: Addressing the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus in Africa*. 26 October 2020. Retrieved from: http:// www.fao.org/3/nc665en/nc665en.pdf

[16] UN FAO (2017). *The impact of disasters and crises on agriculture and food security*. Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/ I8656EN/i8656en.pdf

[17] Brown, K. & Westaway, E. (2011). Agency, Capacity, and Resilience to Environmental Change: Lessons from Human Development, Well-being, and Disasters. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 36, 321-342.

[18] UN FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP & WHO (2020). *The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020*. Rome, FAO. Retrieved from: http://www.fao. org/3/ca9692en/ca9692en.pdf

[19] World Bank (2020). *Updated estimates of the impact of COVID-19 on global poverty: the effect of new data.* Washington, World Bank. Retrieved from: https:// blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/ updated-estimates-impact-covid-19 global-poverty-effect-new-data

[20] United Nations (2020). *The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2020*. New York. Retrieved from: https:// unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2020/ The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2020.pdf

[21] Brouwer, H., Guijt, J., Kelly, S. & Garcia-Campos, P. (2021). Ireland's journey towards sustainable food systems. The processes and practices that made a difference. Rome, FAO.

[22] FAO (2021) *Agricultural livelihoods and food security in the context of* 

*COVID-19: Results from household surveys in 11 countries with high pre-existing levels of food insecurity – Cross-country monitoring report, May 2021*. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb4747en

[23] Fan, S., Pandya-Lorch, R., Yosef, S. (eds) (2014) *Resilience for Food and Nutrition Security.* Washington DC: IFPRI. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2499/9780896296787

[24] Scientific Group for the UN Food Systems Summit (2021). *Food Systems: Definition, Concept and Application for the UNFSS* (by Von Braun, Afsana, Fresco, Hassan, Torrero). Retrieved from https://sc-fss2021.org/wp-content/ uploads/2021/04/Food\_Systems\_ Definition.pdf.

[25] Béné, C. (2020). Resilience of local food systems and links to food security – a review of some important concepts in the context of COVID-19 and other shocks. Food security*,* 12, 805-822.

[26] Hodbod, J. & Eakin, H. (2015). Adapting a social-ecological resilience framework for food systems. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences*,* 5, 474-484.

[27] Schipanski, M.E., MacDonald, G.K., Rosenzweig, S., et al. (2016). Realizing Resilient Food Systems. BioScience*,* 66(7), 600-610.

[28] Seekell, D., Carr, J., Dell'Angelo, J. et al. (2017). Resilience in the global food system. Environ. Res. Lett*,* 12.

[29] Worstell, J. & Green, J. (2017). Eight qualities of resilient food systems: toward a sustainability/resilience index. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development*,* 7(3), 23-41.

[30] Toth, A., Rendall, S. & Reitsma, F. (2016), Resilient food systems: a

qualitative tool for measuring food resilience. Urban Ecosyst*,* 19, 19-43.

[31] Bristow, G. & Healy, A. (2014). Regional Resilience: An Agency Perspective. Regional Studies, 48(5), 923-935.

[32] SNV & WUR (2021). *Covid-19 & Agriculture Review #3: Understanding vulnerabilities and resilience strategies in the context of COVID-19*. May 2021. Retrieved from: https://snv.org/cms/sites/ default/files/explore/download/snv\_wur\_ covid-19\_agriculture\_review\_3\_ compressed.pdf

[33] Bui, C., Scheule, H., & Wu, E. (2017). The value of bank capital buffers in maintaining financial system resilience. Journal of Financial Stability, 33, 23-40.

[34] Bode, C., Wagner, S.M., Petersen, K.J. & Ellram, L.M. (2011). Understanding responses to supply chain disruptions: insights from information processing and resource dependence perspectives. The Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 833-856.

[35] Love, D., Allison, E.H., Asche, F. et al. (2020). Emerging COVID-19 impacts, responses, and lessons for building resilience in the seafood system. Retrieved from: https://www. researchgate.net/publication/ 342504946\_Emerging\_COVID-19\_ impacts\_ responses\_ and\_ lessons\_ for\_building\_resilience\_in\_the\_ seafood\_system

[36] Benton, T.G., Bieg, C., Harwatt, H., Pudasaini, R. & Wellesley, L. (2021). *Food system impacts on biodiversity loss: three levers for food system transformation in support of nature*. Chatham House Research paper. London. https://www. chathamhouse.org/sites/default/ files/2021-02/2021-02-03-food-systembiodiversity-loss-benton-et-al\_0.pdf

[37] Leslie, P. & McCabe, J.T. (2013). Response diversity and resilience in social-ecological systems. Current Anthropology, 54(2), 114-143.

[38] Levia, D.F., Creed, I.F., Hannah, D.M., Nanko, K., Boyer, E.B. et al. (2020). Homogenization of the terrestrial water cycle. Nature geoscience*,* 13, 656-658.

[39] Wageningen University & Research (n.d.). *DiverIMPACTS – crop diversity as the foundation for sustainable European production chains*. Project page. https:// www.wur.nl/en/project/DiverIMPACTScrop-diversity-as-the-foundation-forsustainable-European-productionchains-1.htm

[40] Wageningen University & Research (2016). *Plant diversity is a key factor to the resilience of Amazon forests.* News article. 9 September 2016. https://www.wur.nl/ en/newsarticle/Plant-diversity-is-a-keyfactor-to-the-resilience-of-Amazonforests.htm

[41] Oliver, T.H. (2015). Biodiversity and resilience of ecosystem functions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 30, 673-684.

[42] Lee, J. van der, Kangogo, D., Özkan Gülzari, S., Dentoni, D., Oosting, S., Bijman, J., Klerkx, L. (2020 submitted). Resilience assessment in farming systems: a review.

[43] IPES-Food (2016). *From Uniformity to Diversity: a paradigm shift from industrial agriculture to diversified acroecological systems*. International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems. Retrieved from: http://www.ipes-food. org/\_img/upload/files/ UniformityToDiversity\_FULL.pdf

[44] Report of the 5th SCAR Foresight Exercise Expert Group (2020*). Resilience and transformation. Luxembourg. Publications Office of the European Union*. *Perspective Chapter: Food System Resilience – Towards a Joint Understanding and Implications... DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99899*

Retrieved from: https://scar-europe.org/ images/FORESIGHT/FINAL-REPORT-5th-SCAR-Foresight-Exercise.pdf

[45] Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2003). Unraveling the Central State, but How? Types of Multi-level Governance. American Political Science Review, 97(2), 233-243.

[46] Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory: five propositions. International Social Science Journal, 50(155), 17-28.

[47] Clapp, J. (2021). The problem with growing corporate concentration and power in the global food system. *Nature Food*, published on line https://doi. org/10.1038/s43016-021-00297-7.

[48] Brouwer, H., Woodhill, J., Hemmati, M., Verhoosel, K., & van Vugt, S. (2019). The MSP guide: how to design and facilitate multi-stakeholder partnerships. (3rd ed.) WUR/Practical Action Publishing. https://edepot.wur.nl/543151

[49] Termeer, C.J.A.M., Drimie, S., Ingram, J., Pereira, L., Whittingham, M.J. (2018). A diagnostic framework for food system governance arrangements: The case of South Africa. NJAS/Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences*,* 84, 85-93.

[50] Candel, J.J.L., Pereira, L. (2017). Towards integrated food policy: Main challenges and steps ahead. Environmental Science and Policy*,* 73, 89-92.

[51] Klerkx, L., Begemann, S. (2020). Supporting food systems transformation: The what, why, who, where and how of mission-oriented agricultural innovation systems. Agricultural Systems, 184, 102901.

[52] Kalibata, A. (2021) Transforming food systems is within reach. NatureFood, Vol 2 May 2021, 313-314. https://doi. org/10.1038/s43016-021-00291-z

**Chapter 2**

## Global Food System Transformation for Resilience

*Jasper Okoro Godwin Elechi, Ikechukwu U. Nwiyi and Cornelius Smah Adamu*

#### **Abstract**

Our world is incredibly diverse and beautiful, everything we do has an impact on the environment, and our actions are intertwined. Recognizing how our actions affect the Earth on a global scale means, we need to change the way we do things. We must ensure that the value society derives from our actions comes at a low cost to the environment. A sustainable strategy to establish a resilient food system is to ensure that human demand for the Earth's resources for food is kept within the supply of these resources. While more than 800 million people worldwide suffer from chronic malnutrition, our food systems emit roughly a third of all greenhouse emissions. Also, over 80% of our biodiversity gets lost. Hence, scaling up food system is simply not an option to feed nine to ten billion people by 2050 as we will need to produce more food in the next four decades than all of history's farmers have harvested in the last eight thousand years. Therefore, rather than upscaling, the global food systems require transformation. Four critical aspects of this transformation include: "Boosting the small; Transforming the Big; Losing Less; and Eating Smarter." Examining these four areas more deeply, it becomes evident that, while new technology will be critical to the transformation, government involvement, as well as better financial and behavioral change from residents and consumers, will be required. This chapter focuses on these four pillars that make up the global food system transformation for resilience.

**Keywords:** food system, resilience, livelihoods, global food system transformation, sustainable diet, boosting small, losing less, eating smarter

#### **1. Introduction**

Food, a crucial element of our everyday lives is essential to our health and wellbeing. It forms a part of our identity and culture, and a key component, if not the focal point, of many of our social activities. As a result, it is no surprise that food security (i.e., the availability of food for people) has shaped and continues to shape nations' economies, politics, and histories [1]. However, the current food production system and consumption create a variety of diseases, wreak havoc on the ecosystem, and obliterate the planet's safe operating zone. Transforming our food systems would help achieve a number of development objectives; including health, inclusion, safety, sustainability, efficiency, and resilience (HISSER) [2]. The existing food system is

failing while also damaging the environment and jeopardizing human health [3]. Goals 2 (end hunger), 3 (improve health), 8 (decent work and economic growth), 12 (responsible consumption and production), 13 (climate action), 14 (life below water), and 15 (life on land) are all deeply intertwined with the global food system [3]. Global food system is made up of several types of structures, such as contemporary, mixed, and traditional food systems. To achieve long-term sustainability, deep transformations in food system design are required. Widespread adoptions of sustainable agricultural techniques, environmental conservation and regeneration, dietary adjustments, decrease of food loss and waste, and advances in economic and social justice along food supply chains are a few examples [4].

Food system encompasses all processes, players, and activities related to food production and consumption, from growing and harvesting to transporting and consuming [5]. According to the EC FOOD 2030 Expert Group [6]. Food systems "encompass the entire range of actors and their interconnected value-adding activities involved in the production, aggregation, processing, distribution, consumption, and disposal of food products that originate from agriculture, forestry, or fisheries, as well as parts of the broader economic, societal, and natural environments in which they are embedded, ". This includes the environment, comprehensive networks of people, processes, infrastructure, and institutions, as well as the consequences of their actions on our society, economy, landscape, and climate [7, 8]. (See **Figure 1**). Food environments shape consumers' capacity to obtain food and influence dietary preferences by forming the physical, economic, and social context of their interactions with the food system [10]. Food system structure is not static; rather, its components are influenced by a number of biophysical and socio-economic factors. Therefore, the importance of concentrating not only on individual elements but on all elements of a food system and the various feedback processes between them is crucial, especially in view of global environmental change [4].

According to Bart de Steenhuijsen et al. [11], the resilience of food systems is understood as the ability of food systems to achieve desired results in the face of shocks and

#### **Figure 1.** *Complexity of global food systems and multiple interactions source: ShiftN; Belchior., et al. (2016); [9].*

#### *Global Food System Transformation for Resilience DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.102749*

stressors. The concept of resilience has its origins in ecological stability theory which explains the ability of ecosystems to return to their original state after a disturbance [12], as cited in [11]. Increasing resilience, as defined by the IPCC [13], is the ability of a system and its components to anticipate, cater, absorb, or recover from the effects of a dangerous event in a timely and efficient manner, including by ensuring the maintenance, restoration, or improvement of the system's essential structure and functions is a primary component of adaptation. With regard to food systems, resilience thinking has been applied to address the complex interactions between nature and society, with an emphasis on maintaining human wellbeing within planetary boundaries [14]. Sustainable food system is one that provides food security and nutrition for all in such a way that the economic, social and environmental foundations for creating food security and nutrition for future generations are not compromised. This means that a sustainable food system must be economically viable, have broad benefits for society and have positive or neutral effects on the natural environment. Itebinul, et al. (2021) viewed a sustainable food system as one that is capable of providing adequate, healthy, safe and affordable nutrition, which is the basis for a healthy life and the prerequisite for every individual's successful participation in society and, at the same time, a clean and healthy planet that recognizes it as the basis of all life on earth.

A food system must be viewed in the context of rapid population growth, urbanization, growing prosperity, changing consumer habits and globalization, as well as climate change and the depletion of natural resources. To achieve the SDGs, the global food system must be transformed so that it is more productive, more inclusive of poor and marginalized populations, environmentally sound and resilient, and is able to provide healthy and nutritious food to all. The focus on increasing food production is now deeply anchored in food policy. However, food security and sustainability are more than just the production, provision and consumption of food. Environmental sustainability and resilience of food systems are essential to ensure food security for all by 2050. Developments in food systems have produced many positive results, especially over the past three decades in developing countries. These outcomes include expanding non-farm employment opportunities as the food industry evolves and expanding food choices beyond local staples, thereby satisfying consumer preferences for taste, shape and quality. However, the associated rapid structural change has also led to increasing and considerable challenges, with potentially far-reaching consequences for food security and nutrition. These include the many highly processed, high calorie, and low nutrient foods that are widely available and consumed today; limited access of small producers and agribusinesses to viable markets; high levels of food loss and waste; increased cases of food safety and health problems in animals and humans; and increased energy intensity and ecological footprint associated with the elongation and industrialization of food supply chains. Hence, a better understanding of how different food systems work is critical to ensure that these systems evolve in such a way that their negative effects are minimized and their positive contributions are maximized. A food systems approach is a way of thinking and acting that looks at the food system in its entirety, taking into account all of the elements, their relationships, and their implications. It takes into account all relevant causal variables of a problem and all social, environmental and economic effects of the solutions in order to achieve transformative systemic changes.

However, there is growing recognition that long-term food security cannot be achieved without improving the resilience of food systems [15]. This requires producers and consumers to be able to adapt to unexpected changes in the (natural and political) environment through diversification strategies for livelihoods, nutrition and markets, which enable flexible and timely responses to global change [16]. In order to ensure resilience and a functional link with the circular economy, these strategies must also contribute to the long-term satisfactory functioning of the food systems by providing nutritional, environmental and livelihood benefits in the production, provision, consumption and disposal/recycling of food provide different levels and across different types of food systems [16]. The main reason for the growing interest in the transformation of the food system has to do with the recognition that the multiple problems of poverty, malnutrition, environmental degradation and climate change are combined and cannot be remedied with individual interventions, but instead a fundamental change in the dynamics of food systems [17, 18]. In response to the triple challenge of malnutrition, hunger, micronutrient deficiency and obesity, comprehensive strategies must be defined to support the availability, access, safety, affordability and attractiveness of food.

Food systems transformation occurs when significant and intentional changes are made to any of the food system's components [19], resulting in increased resilience to causes of food insecurity and malnutrition, as well as higher affordability of healthy diets [7]. The urgent need for this transition has become a focal point of a worldwide discussion aimed at tackling some of the most pressing issues facing sustainable development, particularly the challenge of eradicating hunger, food insecurity, and malnutrition in all forms by 2030. A number of significant drivers have had progressively detrimental consequences on food security and nutrition outcomes throughout the world as a result of their impact on food systems. Conflict, climatic variability and extremes, and economic slowdowns and downturns, which are exacerbated by poverty and inequality, are all major factors. Despite these obstacles, if food systems are transformed to be more resilient to the identified drivers, and incentives are put in place to encourage food systems to provide affordable healthy diets in a sustainable and inclusive manner, they can become a powerful driving force in ending hunger, food insecurity, and malnutrition in all forms – and put us on track to achieve SDG 2, while also triggering important synergies for other SDGs [7]. This transformation of food systems necessitates innovative systemic changes, which must be accompanied by an enabling environment of institutions, policies, laws, regulations, and investments that are aligned and complementary across sectors [20]. In addition, to achieve the necessary transformation, small-scale gradual transitions and larger-scale structural changes to institutions, laws, and standards are required – all in a coordinated and integrated manner [21].

The World Research Institute's (WRI) study on how to create a sustainable food future identified 22 solutions that are divided into five broad categories: (1) reduce demand for food and other agricultural products; (2) increase food production without expanding agricultural land; (3) protect and restore natural ecosystems; (4) increase fish supply; and (5) reduce GHG emissions from agricultural production [22]. All of these measures must be implemented simultaneously to close these gaps [22]. Similarly, FAO et al., [7] identified six pathways to global food system transformation, including integrating humanitarian development and peace building policies in conflict-affected areas; scaling up climate resilience across food systems, strengthening the resilience of the most vulnerable to economic adversity; intervening along food supply chains to lower the cost of nutritious foods; tackling poverty and structural inequalities, ensuring interventions are pro-poor and inclusive; improving the food environment and influencing consumer behavior to encourage eating patterns that are good for human health and the environment. However, Richardson, Christensen, and the Sustainability Science Center [23] identified four crucial parts

of this transformation: Boosting the small; Transforming the big; Losing less; and Eating smarter, all of which require new technology, government intervention, and behavioral change from citizens and consumers. It is these four pillars of global food system transformation that are discussed in this chapter.

#### **1.1 A brief overview of our food System's history**

Historically, Lynda [24] identified six food systems, namely: Food System 1 (huntergatherer approach to food); Food System 2 (transition from nomadic life to settlement and development of agriculture); Food System 3 (selection of desirable traits in plants and animals and optimizing of food production for taste, climate, and pest protection); and Food System 4 (agricultural adaptation based on automation, fertilizer, and pesticides, with the selection of higher yielding and pest resistant plants); Food System 5 (convenience, shelf life stability, logistics, and economic optimization). Food system 5 has posed numerous challenges, including marginalization of primary growers, producers, and ranchers, limiting consumer purchasing decisions, increased inequity and lack of parity for critical stakeholders, and, most importantly, the production of processed foods lacking essential nutrients for human health [24]. "As a result, the time has come to rethink our existing food system and usher in humanity's sixth Food System - one that is optimized for the integrated and comprehensive priority of planetary and human health." This system will need to take into account the interrelationships between all stakeholders in the food system, as well as a holistic view of farm viability, sustainable ecosystems, healthy communities, and justice, and equity - features and parts of food production that have been overlooked by food systems 5″ [24].

#### **1.2 The need for change in the food system**

Despite the global efforts toward ending food insecurity and all forms of malnutrition by 2030, food insecurity is on the rise [25] because there has been no progress toward achieving either the SDGs target of "ensuring access to safe, nutritious, and sufficient food for all people all year round or eradicating all forms of malnutrition" [7]. "720-811 million people in the globe suffered hunger in 2020, up to 161 million higher than in 2019," according to the 2021 issues of the state of food security and nutrition in the world study. In 2020, about 2.37 billion people lacked appropriate food, an increase of 220 million individuals in only one year" [7]. Hence, considerable efforts and attention on increasing food production at both the global and regional levels notwithstanding, around 3 billion people in every part of the globe lack access to a good diet due to the high cost of a healthy diet, chronic poverty, and widening inequalities [7]. These factors place the entire world at a "critical juncture," not only in terms of overcoming the enormous challenge of food insecurity, ending hunger, and eliminating all forms of malnutrition, but also in terms of exposing the global food system's fragility and the need to build food system resilience through transformation [7]. "The current covid-19 epidemic and other zoonotic illnesses, the negative effects of climate change (e.g. frequent and severe floods, droughts, storms), pests and plant disease (e.g. locusts), conflicts and wars illustrate how vulnerable food systems are," according to LEAP4FNSSA [26]. These call for urgent need for transformation to systems that can adapt to future shocks, such as pandemics and natural disasters [27].

Similarly, the current status of agricultural and food systems has been dubbed a "triple catastrophe," in which climate change, undernutrition, and obesity are wreaking havoc on human and planetary health [25]. Unhealthy eating habits have made

dietary hazards the third greatest cause of mortality worldwide, and malnutrition a prominent cause of healthy life years lost [28]. Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) caused by poor diet, such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and certain malignancies, are on the rise worldwide, with an estimated 40 million deaths per year [29]. These trends are compounded by the fact that when people become wealthier, their diets move substantially toward more sugar, animal, and fat products, at the expense of traditional and often more sustainable diets.

The global food system, particularly food production, is a key driver of global environmental change, causing huge changes in terrestrial and marine ecosystems. More than 70% of the world's ice-free land is directly affected by human activity, and estimates suggest that up to one-third of terrestrial net primary production is consumed for food, feed, wood, and energy ([30] a). More terrestrial, coastal, and offshore area is being taken up by aquaculture [31], and forecasts suggest that without substantial fisheries reforms, over 80% of world fish stocks would be overfished and below critical biomass by 2050 [31]. Industrialized agriculture is highly reliant on external inputs, contributes to chemical pollution through the use of pesticides and herbicides, alters nitrogen and phosphorous cycles through synthetic fertilizer additions, and has an impact on freshwater stocks through irrigation [32]. It is also energy demanding, contributing to climate change by producing about one-third of all greenhouse gases, including methane [33].

To secure a more equitable and sustainable future, it is clear that a significant structural transformation in food production and use is required [3]. The nature of the sustainability challenge necessitates a reconsideration of previously dominant ways of doing things and understanding the world [3] in order to make room for knowledge systems that can deal with accelerating change, increasing complexity, contested perspectives, and inevitable uncertainty.

#### **1.3 Food systems transformation: Drivers and barriers**

The current spike in hunger and halting progress in eliminating all types of malnutrition is due to conflict, climatic variability and extremes, and economic slowdowns and downturns (exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic). These key drivers are distinct, but not mutually exclusive, in that they wreak havoc on food security and nutrition by causing many, worsening effects across our food system [7]. Conflicts, for example, have a detrimental impact on nearly every part of the food system, from production, harvesting, processing, and transportation to raw material availability, finance, marketing, and consumption. Direct repercussions can include the loss of agricultural commodities and livelihoods, as well as major disruption and restriction of commerce, goods, and services, with severe implications for food supply and costs, especially healthful foods. Similarly, climate fluctuations and extremes have a wide range of repercussions on food systems, which are becoming more pronounced. They have a detrimental impact on agricultural productivity as well as food imports as countries strive to compensate for lost local output. Climate-related disasters have the potential to disrupt the whole food value chain, resulting in severe effects for sector growth and the food and non-food businesses [7].

Economic slowdowns and downturns, on the other hand, largely influence food systems by reducing people's access to food, including the cost of healthy eating, since they result in increased unemployment and lower salaries and incomes. This is true whether market fluctuations, trade conflicts, political turmoil, or a worldwide epidemic like COVID-19 are to blame. These significant global drivers and underlying *Global Food System Transformation for Resilience DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.102749*

structural variables impair food security and nutrition through interrelated and cyclical impacts on other systems, including environmental and health systems, in addition to their direct effects on food systems [7].

When the food system is transformed by making it more resilient to climatic variations and extremes, war, and economic lag and downturns, it becomes a major driving force in the elimination of hunger, food insecurity, and malnutrition in all forms for all people [7]. Therefore, objective of food system transformation is to create a future in which everyone has access to a healthy diet that is produced in a sustainable and resilient way, restores nature, and produces just and equitable livelihoods [34]. Considering the diverse perspectives and arguments toward achieving food system transformation ([35], 202; [36–38]), in the following sections we discuss global food system transformation for resilience based on the concept of the four pillars of food system transformation of "Boosting the Small; Transforming the Big; Losing Less; and Eating Smarter" developed by Richardson, Christensen and Sustainability Science Center, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.

#### **2. Boosting the small**

There is a risk that two constituencies may be left behind as food systems change. On the one hand, there are approximately half a billion self-employed smallholders in rural areas, including farmers, shepherds, and fishermen [39], and approximately two billion men and women who work in the informal economy and are currently unable to secure economic access to basic food supplies [40, 41]. Healthy nutrition, on the other hand, is out of reach for at least three billion people in both the global north and the global south [42, 43]. This number has risen dramatically as a result of the COVID-19 problem [44]. In the future decades, resolving the contradiction between enhancing smallholder livelihoods and guaranteeing an adequate and healthy food supply will be critical to boosting the food system's overall resilience [16].

#### **2.1 Increasing know-how**

By 2050, the globe will need to feed an extra 2 billion people, with Africa hosting the majority of them. Despite the fact that Africa possesses over 200 million hectares of uncultivated land, yearly food imports are predicted to rise from \$35 billion to \$ 110 billion by 2025 [23]. To strengthen the resilient of the people living there to the effects of climate change, the continent has huge food production potential that needs to be harnessed. Farmers with only a few hectares of land are critical to feeding the future population. There are anticipated to be 750 million smallholders in the globe by 2030. To begin with, these farmers require better understanding about best practices, both in terms of increasing productivity and in terms of improving soil quality. According to FAO et al., [7], a best practice is one that has been demonstrated to work, has produced positive outcomes after a thorough examination, and is thus suggested as a model for scaling. This entire compendium, or all of these "best practices," allows farmers to reap a bumper crop [23].

#### **2.2 Better financial access and livelihood adaptation**

Inequality affects access to food. Around 80% of the world's poorest people reside in rural regions, where poverty rates are three times greater than in cities [7]. Policies, investments, and legislation are needed to address the underlying structural inequities that disadvantaged communities in rural and urban regions face, while also boosting their access to productive resources and new technology can help to alleviate severe poverty and structural inequalities by hastening the transformation of pro-poor and inclusive food systems. Lack of access to productive resources and inadequate market integration worsen rural poverty among smallholders in Southeast Asia, which is compounded by climate-related and economic shocks, as well as frequent outbreaks of plant and animal diseases [45]. In this region, public-private producer partnerships (PPPPs) have aided the integration of poor smallholders into the food value chain, which offer opportunities to alleviate poverty and structural inequalities, especially when bolstered by improved governance mechanisms and multi-stakeholder platforms [7].

The adaptation process, which the IPCC describes as "the adaptation to the present or predicted climate and its impacts," is the primary way of mitigating the danger of climate change to rural livelihoods. Adaptation in human systems aims to reduce or eliminate damage while also taking advantage of possibilities. The skills, assets, and activities required for a livelihood that allows individuals to reach a minimal degree of wellbeing are referred to as livelihood. Climate change poses a danger to these livelihoods, necessitating systematic and transformational adaptation, which in turn need more and inventive funding. As the food system transforms, adequate finance is vital to achieving successful transformational adaptation for resilient livelihoods in the agri-food industry. This entails not just increasing the availability of financial resources, but also ensuring that those resources are available to individuals who need them and that suitable finance channels are employed to make them available.

Hence, "dismantling barriers to just and equitable livelihoods, such as lack of access to productive resources requires institutional changes, policy support and investment to empower those whose livelihoods are tied to food systems" [34]. As a result, policy solutions should consider the role of women in agri-food systems and guarantee that their unique requirements as household food security keepers, food producers, farm managers, processors, merchants, wage employees, and entrepreneurs are effectively met [7]. More so, Youth, especially in less developed countries, where more than 80% of youth reside [46], provide a significant potential for revolutionary change in food systems [47]. Young people (aged 15-24) account for around 16 percent (1.2 billion) of the world's population, and as prospective young entrepreneurs, they represent the future agents of change. Unlocking their entrepreneurial and creative potential requires strengthening their skills and agency through training, positive role models, and mentorship [48]. As a result, particular initiatives to increase young people's access to productive resources, financing, markets, and connections, as well as decision-making, are required as part of larger efforts to encourage responsible investing. Social conventions that may inhibit rural young people, particularly vulnerable groups such as young women and indigenous youth, from taking advantage of new possibilities must also be addressed [49].

#### **2.3 Sharing economy**

The sharing economy has long existed in many regions of the world, but the widespread availability of low-cost Android devices has created new possibilities for small farmers to hire a tractor for a certain period of time, giving them access to automation that would otherwise be prohibitively expensive. In the crop production cycle, mechanization is crucial for farmers. It has the potential to boost and affect farmer yields and profits in a variety of ways [23].

#### **2.4 A more fair trade system through good governance**

Many innovative strategies can help smallholder farmers enhance their agricultural output. However, reforms to the trade mechanisms are also essential to truly overhaul the food systems. Farmers in developing nations compete with industrialized countries' subsidized produce. Subsidies from wealthier countries lower prices in poorer countries, discouraging domestic manufacturing. At the same time, agricultural products are subject to high tariffs of up to 50% in both north–south and south–south commerce. This complicates things even further. It will be significantly more difficult for developing nations to disrupt trade patterns as a result of this [23]. Smallholders require more knowledge and green expenditures in order to enhance their output in a sustainable manner. As a result, maintaining excellent governance through a fair trade system is critical to achieving a beneficial food system transformation. Fanzo et al. [34] "proposed a working definition of governance for positive food system transformation as the mode of interaction among the public sector, private sector, civil society and consumers to identify, implement resource and monitor solutions for achieving healthy sustainable, resilient, just and equitable food system without leaving anyone behind".

#### **2.5 Boosting innovative and transformative entrepreneurs**

Given that the current industrial food system is responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, environmental and soil degradation, animal welfare abuses, public health, and labour crises, a wide range of business efforts are required to assist in the resolution of the various problems that the food system faces. Training, promoting, and engaging young innovative and transformational youth and women to take advantage of more mindful and holistic food chain management that considers the connections between people and parts at every level and how they cannot be improved but can be transformed [24]. The rising emphasis on food system transformation by academic institutions and corporate organizations' evaluation of the influence of stakeholders on their business has resulted in a massive rush of innovation and entrepreneurs into the food system [24, 50].

As a result, these new business groups will require assistance in developing and scaling solutions that challenge / distort existing conventional practices and legacy players throughout the food and agriculture value chain, thereby creating value that is based on both the planet's capacities and consumer needs. These revolutionary technologies and entrepreneurs encounter hurdles in their attempts to disrupt the existing actors in the food and agricultural systems, but their novel solutions are more sustainable for planetary resources and have high customer preference and demand. Lynda, [24] also advocated for productive collaboration between bigger incumbents and smaller businesses that does not dilute or eliminate the fundamental value created by innovators. Huge sums of money have been invested in these entrepreneurs all across the world, and they are projected to increase as the new food system matures and iterates.

#### **3. Transforming the big**

Large, multinational food firms confront sustainability difficulties that are vastly different from those encountered by smallholder farmers. They must, figure out

how to develop in a sustainable manner. However, they are also confronted with the task of revamping an existing production plant that has a significant environmental impact. Agriculture, along with transportation, was one of the most essential activities not included in the Kyoto Protocol's quota system. As a result, agriculture has been overlooked in many efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions [23].

#### **3.1 Goal-based planning and shared vision**

In order to determine priority guidelines and desired objectives in all subject areas of the food system transformation, a shared vision refers to integrative, participative procedures [7]. The agriculture industry in Denmark is responsible for around 20% of total Danish greenhouse gas emissions. The majority of these emissions originate from livestock, with cows accounting for 63% and pig production accounting for 32%. These astounding figures are mostly attributable to two additional greenhouse gases: nitrous oxide (laughing gas) and methane, rather than CO2 emissions from equipment. Nitrous oxide (laughing gas), which is mostly emitted by liquid manure and fertilizers, has a greenhouse impact over 300 times larger than CO2. Methane has a 25-fold greater warming effect than CO2, and it is also released by manure. Burps from ruminants like cows and sheep also release methane into the atmosphere. It is critical to address these various emissions in order to meet both the Paris Agreement and the SDGs [23].

Therefore, Denmark's cattle industry has set lofty ambitions for the future: Danish Crown, Europe's largest pork producer, plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030 and achieve CO2 neutrality by 2050 [23]. This might be accomplished by implementing mixed agriculture, biogas usage, sustainable slaughterhouse management, and individual animal treatment, all of which are necessary for reducing environmental and climate consequences. Individualizing treatment for each animal not only extends the animal's life expectancy, but it also allows for more sustainable antibiotic use [23].

#### **3.2 Sustainable soils**

Another issue that plagues industrial agriculture is soil deterioration. Land use, climate, water usage, biosphere intensity, and pollution are the key environmental systems and processes that interact with the food system, and they all alter and are impacted by the Earth system [34]. Agriculture dominates global land usage, with 14.5 billion hectares of arable land used for cultivation and 3.5 billion hectares used for grazing ([34]; Mboro et al., 2019). Around 12.5 percent of agriculture in Europe is thought to be subjected to moderate to severe erosion. This amounts to an area greater than Greece's whole territory [23]. According to FAO and ITPS [51], a third of the world's peaks have been degraded due to highly chemical-induced agriculture, global warming, and deforestation, leaving just sixty years of topsoil on the planet. As a result, the present food and farming system has damaged the topsoil where 95% of our food is grown, necessitating quick action to transform the industrial agricultural production paradigm into regenerative agriculture [24].

Regenerative agriculture, according to Lynda [24], is a farm and food system rehabilitation and conservation approach that focuses on regenerating the topsoil, strengthening the health and vitality of agricultural soil, increasing biodiversity, improving ecosystem services, improving the water cycle, increasing the focus on climate change resilience, and supporting bioequestration. Composted manure created from biodegradable waste is used in regenerative agriculture, as is reusing as much agricultural waste as feasible. Deforestation and land conversion must be stopped in

order to minimize greenhouse gas emissions, enhance water cycles, and safeguard biodiversity. This operation has the ability to dissolve between 200 and 300 gigatons of carbon dioxide [30, 34].

#### **3.3 Closed-system farming**

Precision farming under controlled conditions allows for a more personalized approach to plant care. Precision farming is not just for indoor farming anymore, as new types of sensors and data processing are being developed. As a result, digital agriculture and precision agriculture are two of the most essential strategic future themes. Machine learning in crop production is another example of how current innovations will influence future food systems. To manage pests in these crops, greenhouses and precise engineering in water usage, fertilizer use, and the application of numerous biological control agents. One part of this diverse agricultural method in the Netherlands is the use of LED lights to impact not only plant growth but also, for example, insect resistance and hence pesticide use in plant production in the greenhouse is lowered thereby affecting the product's quality [23].

Plants having helpful traits have been selected for further breeding by humans for as long as they have grown plants. These features represent naturally existing genetic variants and may lead to higher yield, disease resistance, or resilience to environmental stress, among other things. Plants that have been genetically modified (GMOs) are those that have had their genomes altered in a laboratory rather than via breeding. Plant genetic alterations have mostly been used to improve pest resistance and herbicide tolerance. As a result, the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture has been linked to unsustainable, highly industrialized monoculture agricultural methods. More than 93 percent of maize and soy farmed in the United States has been genetically engineered in some form.

Vertical farming is another specialty in greenhouse production. It is seen as a solution to the urbanization problem: People are increasingly relocating to large cities, and there are now numerous cities in the globe with populations exceeding 10 million. They live in a limited region, and their food is imported from all over the world, but an increasing number of people demand fresh, locally produced food. Vertical farming is frequently based on hydroponics, aquaponics, or aeroponics, which are soilless techniques of growing plants. The advantages of vertical agriculture include a high production rate, the use of less area for food production, the use of very little water, the use of very few nutrients, and the use of fewer pesticides, all of which result in extremely high scores on many sustainability criteria. On the other hand, it is pricey, and consumes a lot of energy – lighting, which contributes to the price. As a new technology, there is still much to be improved and refined in future to reduce costs [23].

#### **3.4 Food system synergy and policy monitoring**

Existing national, regional, and global policies, plans, legislation, and investments are divided out into multiple conversations, which is a major barrier to sustainable food system transformation. These issues may be addressed by developing and implementing cross-sectorial policy, investment, and legislative portfolios that fully address the negative effects of diverse elements impacting agricultural systems on food security and nutrition [7]. Given that most food systems are impacted by several factors, each of which has a varied impact on food security and results, broad portfolios of policies, investments, and laws can be developed in multiple ways at the same

time. This will allow them to maximize their collective effect on food system reform, take advantage of win-win solutions, and avoid undesirable tradeoffs. Coherence in the formulation and implementation of policies and investments in the food, health, social protection, and environmental systems is also required to create synergies that lead to more efficient and effective food system solutions that ensure affordable, healthy nutrition in a sustainable and inclusive manner [7].

Fanzo et al. [34] presented a science-based surveillance framework / method to measure and monitor the performance of food system operations globally, which might help achieve real progress, establish priorities, set clear targets for action, and align food system players make a list of trade-offs. According to the authors, such a mechanism can assist "food system actors and other stakeholders (e.g. civil society, governments and international organization) actionable evidence to hold government, consumers and other private sector accountable for food system transformation". The authors have used various food systems frameworks to illustrate the confluence and interrelationships between the components of the food system (see **Figure 2**), in order to address five thematic areas for the food system monitoring mechanism that comprises of (1) nutrition, nutrition and health (2) environment and climate (3) livelihoods, poverty, and justice (4) governance and (5) resilience and sustainability with indicators, domains and tables.

Similarly, Hebirick et al. [52] developed a sustainability compass for political navigation in the transformation of food systems, based on four interrelated, desirable societal perspectives: healthy, adequate, and safe nourishment for all; a clean and healthy world; and a fair, ethical, and fair food system. The compass (see **Figure 3**) provides an all-encompassing framework for assessing sustainability that allows for an integrative and transparent political discussion and can deliver practical findings. The compass may be utilized at many levels of policy development to promote inclusive multi-stakeholder discussions and assure reflective and thorough evaluations, setting the framework for building integrated policies that deal with trade-offs in a reflexive manner [52].

#### **Figure 2.** *Food system components, drivers, and outcomes. Source: Fanzo et al., [34].*

*Global Food System Transformation for Resilience DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.102749*

**Figure 3.** *A sustainability compass for policy navigation to sustainable food systems. Source: Hebinck et al.,[52].*

#### **4. Losing less**

While the problem is obvious, the narrative that we must feed the globe legitimizes present production systems erroneously [23]. Even though food production is already high, a third of it is lost or wasted. Inevitably, this implies that a large portion of the resources utilized in food production are squandered, as are the greenhouse gas emissions associated with producing food that is lost or wasted. These losses occur at several points along the food supply chain, including harvesting, processing, shipping, marketing, and consumption, and they could feed 2 billion hungry people each year. Food loss and waste costs the economy \$940 billion each year.

Losing less therefore, is critical to fulfilling the needs of an expanding population while also driving production in a more sustainable path. Food losses are defined as a reduction in the mass of edible food in the segment of the supply chain that leads to edible food for human consumption. Food losses occur in the food supply chain during the production, post-harvest, and processing phases [53]. Food losses at the end of the food chain (retail and final consumption) are more likely to be labeled as waste, which has to do with retailer and consumer behavior [53].

Food is obviously wasted more at the consumption level in industrialized nations, that is, it is thrown away even while it is still fit for human consumption. Developing countries have higher post-harvest agricultural losses, which mean that considerably

less food is wasted at the consumer level. One-sided investments in agricultural resources are to blame for the substantial post-harvest losses in underdeveloped nations.

#### **4.1 Circular food systems**

Food system transformations are interactive processes that need adaptive skills in order to respond properly to unanticipated obstacles. Food system development is not a linear process, and various trends occur at the same time [16]. Diverse sorts of food systems have different and unique means of delivering nutritious, economical, safe, and long-term nourishment, necessitating customized solutions. The move to circular systems based on resource recycling, on the other hand, benefits all types of food systems by enhancing resource responsiveness and efficiency. A thorough understanding of the major leaks underpins the promotion of circular food systems [16]. Post-harvest losses and waste (PHL) must be reduced, which necessitates physical infrastructure and food management expenditures. Recycling and reusing materials can help to improve material balances. Many perishable items can have their shelf lives prolonged by adopting upstream drying or fermentation techniques to improve food integrity downstream in the food system [54]. Local indigenous food improvement strategies that focus on resource recycling can also help foster youth employment and women's entrepreneurship [54]. Because global food production is the leading cause of environmental deterioration, methods for making the best use of biomass from plant-based systems, as well as approaches for reducing pressure on forests and biodiversity, and opportunities to improve feed conversion and circularity within animal husbandry systems are all given special attention.

#### **4.2 Transport and storage**

Food loss and waste is a worldwide issue, yet while it affects people everywhere, the issues are different in each country [55]. Several studies suggest that investment in rural transportation and communication infrastructure helps farmers and merchants minimize transaction costs, improve the quality and freshness of local products, and boost output [56]. Dorosh et al. [57] show that in Sub-Saharan Africa, agricultural yield and adoption of high-input technologies are greater when farmers reside closer to metropolitan areas, emphasizing the relevance of accessibility.

Both pre-harvest and post-harvest infrastructure, such as collecting centres, (refrigerated) storage, distribution, or processing centres, are critical. Farmers who have access to storage space might boost their revenue by taking advantage of seasonal price changes if they can wait [58].

#### **4.3 Connectivity: Connecting producers and consumers**

The type and strength of the interactions between the various components of any system is referred to as Connectivity. Connectivity at the neighborhood, business, and national levels helps people build resilience and protect themselves from negative repercussions. The food system's resilience may be improved by tying rural and urban populations together [55] and expanding agricultural and non-agricultural job options to absorb surplus labour. Investing in small and medium-sized businesses for local processing, storage, and retailing produces crucial new job possibilities, encourages value creation, and allows for cyclical resource usage [59]. Connecting farmers and consumers to dependable and transparent informal and formal markets has the potential

#### *Global Food System Transformation for Resilience DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.102749*

to improve access to inexpensive and good nourishment, as well as boost nutrition, inclusiveness, and sustainability, as well as increase food supply stability [60].

Therefore, improved agricultural value chain connectivity increases a food system's ability to respond to shocks and stresses, as well as its adaptive and transformation capacities. As a result, food waste is not only a technological issue, but also a question of enhancing the interaction between producers and consumers [23]. Prices in European supermarkets and businesses do not frequently change during the day. Too Good To Go is an app that helps consumers avoid wasting food by linking them with establishments that have leftover foods at the end of the day. This allows these customers to reserve food at the store at the end of the day, and after the store closes, the customer will pick up those items and take them home to eat instead of the business throwing them away. There are several benefits to this, the most notable of which is that the shop does not have to waste out food, and the consumer receives a wonderful dinner at a reasonable price [23].

The problem of date marking is one of the political concerns that the app handles with similar success in both Denmark and France. According to research conducted by the European Union, up to ten percent of all food thrown out in Europe each year is due to a misinterpretation of the date marking on everyday items like breakfast cereals or rice. Basically, people get the two date labels 'best before' and 'use by' mixed up ahead of time and use them interchangeably [23]. That is, when food passes its best before date, consumers just toss it away. Consumers who frequently use the app to assist in the battle against food waste will be able to understand this in a very relevant way. Additionally, food makers can frequently add 'often good after' to their best-before date, indicating that the product has passed its best-before date but is still edible days or weeks afterwards [23].

#### **4.4 Decreasing food miles**

By 2050, emerging nations will account for 97 percent of the world's increase population with 70 percent of the new population settling in cities. As a result, there is a significant gap between where food is produced and where it is consumed. Farmers must relocate further from cities in order to feed this rising population, while rural residents must relocate further from farms to cities thereby increasing food miles. As a result, real food markets are critical for connecting rural production with urban demand. Cities in Sub-Saharan Africa are planning and constructing markets, or retrofitting existing ones with proper sanitation, storage, and lighting [61]. Investing in informal market infrastructure and spatial design is thus at least as essential as investing in official markets. Understanding how to effectively preserve these informal market connections is also important, yet this information is frequently absent [62].

#### **4.5 Food wastage resilience through agroecology, insurance, and agroforestry**

Strategies which guarantee that less food is lost in the food chain, is critical to build resilience. Building resilience to ensure higher food production and reduced loss necessitates the implementation of a food production system that respects the natural environment by making the best use of the limited land area available, particularly for animal production. The adoption of agrocology, agroforestry, and insurance is a sustainable strategy to buffer shocks and stressors in the food production and supply chain, preventing post-harvest losses and securing the livelihood of food system operators [23].

Agroecology is an alternative that advocates a variety of ecosystem-based ideas that encourage natural processes to minimize dependency on chemical inputs and cut production costs [63]. Anderson et al. [64] highlighted six key areas in agroecological transformation that must be considered: (1) access to natural ecosystems; (2) knowledge and culture; (3) trade systems; (4) networks; (5) equality; and (6) discourse.

It is not enough to adjust agricultural methods to climate change to boost the overall resilience of food production. Farmers should be insured not only for the food they have already produced, but also for their whole operation. Steps to better adapt to climate change for farmers go hand in hand with insurance preparation for extreme weather events, as on-farm activities come with premiums. In this approach, decreasing food waste and loss is about strengthening farmers' resilience as well as enhancing storage, transportation, and the relationship between producers, sellers, and consumers [23].

#### **4.6 Diversity**

While efficient, dependable, and sustainable food production is still critical, focusing only on agricultural output has resulted in certain unforeseen and unpleasant consequences that are not all insufficient [16]. Furthermore, the manner in which the intensification was carried out has generated environmental issues [17], and the food system's 37 percent contribution to greenhouse gas emissions necessitates a significant decrease to satisfy the Paris Agreement and mitigation demands [15]. Diversification is important for strengthening the food system's resilience. Diverse diets will only benefit nutrition and health if they are supported by greater affordability and accessibility to nutrient-dense foods [65]. Diversification of food production can enhance rural livelihoods while also promoting biodiversity and natural resource landscape management.

Diverse systems make up resilient systems. The loss of one resource can be compensated for by another. An excess elsewhere can compensate for a shortfall. According to studies on environmental resilience, biodiversity contributes significantly to system stability and continuity [66]. More varied agricultural systems have a better capacity to absorb the effects of shocks and stresses, which helps to stabilize food supply as they travel through value chains to consumer markets [67].

#### **4.7 Peace building**

During times of violent conflict, entire food systems are frequently disrupted, making it difficult for people to get nourishing meals. Food security, as defined by FAO [68] and WHO (1996), is all people having physical and economic access to safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary preferences at all times for an active and healthy lifestyle. Economic growth and social progress, as well as political stability and peace, are all linked to food security [69]. Wars, political unrest, insecurity, insurgency, banditry, and terrorism limit access to food, resulting in increased hunger, malnutrition, and loss of livelihood, all of which wreak havoc on the food system's resilience. Conflicts are causing a rise in the number of displaced people in many regions of the world, who are living in risky situations and unable to satisfy their food and nutritional demands. In Africa, the number of wars grew by 90% in the fourth quarter of 2020 compared to the fourth quarter of 2019, causing more economic disruption [70].

#### *Global Food System Transformation for Resilience DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.102749*

In addition, ending wars and promoting peace should be a regional and global priority. The combination of humanitarian, development, and peace building initiatives in conflict zones, according to FAO et al., [7], is critical. It is vital to remember that the majority of chronically hungry people, as well as many undernourished people, live in nations plagued by insecurity and violence. As a result, conflict-sensitive policies, investments, and actions to alleviate acute food insecurity and malnutrition must be implemented concurrently with conflict-reduction measures and reconciled with long-term socio-economic development and peace initiatives [67]. Policy actions backed by institutional and legislative changes should strive to minimize and, if feasible, avoid these underlying causes' consequences on food systems, food security and nutrition, and the economy as a whole [7].

#### **4.8 Sustainable food safety practices and management**

Inadequate food safety and quality endangers food production, distribution, and consumption [71]. Foodborne illness lowers the quality and amount of agricultural produce, lowering food availability and access for communities whose livelihoods are dependent on its sale [72]. When people are on the verge of starving, they will eat whatever food is available, even if it is dangerous. Food safety is a critical component of successfully transforming food systems, strengthening supply networks, diversifying value chains, and fostering the circular economy. As a result, there is no food security without food safety, and food that is not safe is not food [73–77]. Climate change and extremes, agricultural intensification, and the evolution of antibiotic resistance are all issues that can impact food safety at the production level. Changes in food processing, value creation, and packaging are being driven by technological advancements, research, and creativity, all of which necessitate careful attention to food safety. Furthermore, if not carefully handled, globalization, new digital distribution networks, e-commerce, and informal markets might have an impact on food safety [73–77]. Food safety, as a component of food security, is also a key component of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), since the FAO/WHO estimates that over 600 million instances of foodborne illness and 420,000 fatalities result from contaminated food intake each year [36, 69, 73–77]. Apart from the fact that SDG2, which covers a wide range of themes such as eliminating hunger, establishing food security, enhancing nutrition, and supporting sustainable agriculture, can only be realized if food is available and safe to eat [69]. Similarly, Nwiyi and Elechi [72] argued that in order to safeguard a people's food, the food system's safety and nutritional-physiological characteristics must be assured at all times, regardless of how primitive, cultural, indigenous, traditional, contemporary, or technically sophisticated it is.

Strengthening high-level political involvement for food safety, prioritizing sustainable investments in effective national food control systems, and mobilizing enough public and private resources within dynamic systemic change are all important, according to FAO [73–77]. With the declaration of June 8 as World Food Safety Day and the recent establishment of a dedicated food safety and quality department by FAO in recognition of the urgent need for sustainable food safety management, with the mission of supporting science-based governance and food safety decisions, improving food safety management along the food chain to reduce disease and trade disruption, and evaluating new technologies to improve food safety and protect public health [69, 73–77].

#### **4.9 Reducing global postharvest skill technology gaps**

There are technological deficits, particularly in poor countries, as a result of the loss of post-harvest investment. To overcome this problem, we urgently require more sustainable post-harvest initiatives as well as new technologies. The "World Food Preservation Centre" meets this need by training young post-harvest scientists from developing countries in advanced food preservation technologies that are appropriate for their countries, as well as conducting research and developing innovative food preservation technologies that are suitable for developing countries.

#### **4.10 Building food systems climate resilience**

Humans and environment can survive and prosper in a climate-positive future if we change the way we produce food and utilize natural resources [78]. This is significant not just because environmental degradation and climatic events have an impact on food systems, but also because food systems influence the status of the environment and are key drivers of climate change. These initiatives are centered on protecting the environment, managing current food production and supply systems sustainably, and restoring and rehabilitating natural habitats [7]. Stronger partnerships and multi-year, substantial funding are needed to support (among other things) integrated disaster risk reduction and response programs, climate change adaptation strategies, and short-, medium-, and long-term practices [19] to mitigate the effects of climate variability and extremes, such as persistent poverty and inequality. The adaptation and upgrading of instruments and interventions such as risk monitoring and early warning systems, emergency preparedness and response, measures to reduce vulnerability and measures to build resilience, shock-active social protection mechanisms, risk transfers (including climate risk insurance), and forecast-based funding, as well as strong risk governance structures in the environment, are all required for the implementation of climate resilience policies and programs. Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA), has shown triple success in the transformation of food systems, is a proven approach to building climate resilience. CSA builds resilience in a variety of ways through climate-sensitive and socio-economically advantageous approaches that boost agricultural production and incomes while also strengthening climate change resilience and reducing greenhouse gas emissions [79].

#### **5. Eating smarter**

It is not only a question of cost and affordability to have access to nutritious meals and a balanced diet. Culture, language, culinary traditions, patterns of knowledge and consumption, food preferences, attitudes, and values all have an impact on how food is sourced, produced, and consumed [7]. Dietary habits have shifted, with both beneficial and harmful consequences for human health and the environment [8]. Most food systems today neglect the hidden costs to human health and the environment. Because they are not frequently quantified, they are not taken into consideration and are not included into food pricing, putting the sustainability of food systems in jeopardy. As a result, action, legislation, and investment are required, depending on the specific country context and current consumption patterns, to create a healthier food environment and empower consumers to follow nutritious, healthy, and safe eating patterns with a lower nutritional impact on the environment [74].

#### **5.1 Ensuring diet biodiversity through local foods**

Many family recipes have been passed down for centuries. According to McCouch et al., [80], 80 percent of human caloric intake is reliant on less than a dozen of the world's 300,000 flowering plant species. As a result, the vast genetic variety that each of these 300,000 species contains is largely untapped. According to McCouch et al., [80], a more concentrated worldwide effort is needed to better use agrobiodiversity in the global food supply.

Local foods, defined as foods produced and/or processed in close proximity to where they are consumed [81], are an important part of the food system: rural and urban communities in many developing countries are reliant on endogenous, locally available vegetable and food products as well as animal resources [82]. There is evidence that improving urban inhabitants' awareness of the economic and health benefits of buying locally grown vegetables, fruits, and grains may aid rural communities by increasing demand for these items [55, 83].

#### **5.2 Using unconventional food**

When it comes to environmental sustainability, adding local wild plants in the diet not only serves to diversity the plate, but it also helps to promote environmental sustainability by lowering dependency on commercially farmed veggies and connecting people to nature. On farms, in urban parks, and even in backyards, wild edible plants abound. On agricultural ground, these plants can be found growing along the borders of fields, in hedges, or in small woods. Even in the lean months leading up to the yearly harvest, they can supplement food and nutritional needs and provide seasonal alternatives, especially in low-income nations where agriculture is dependent on rainfall and seasons influence. It is critical that arable land maintains biodiversity in many low-income nations where people still rely on edible wild plants for subsistence [84]. Wild edible plants, on the other hand, are prevalent in the British countryside. Some of these unusual food sources include algae, fungus, insects, invading species, and weeds. These resources can assist in achieving long-term nutrition and meeting the 2050 target of feeding 9-10 billion people.

#### **5.3 Replacing meat**

Despite the advantages of meat eating and livestock production in poorer nations, farm animal food contributes significantly to climate change, habitat damage, and biodiversity loss [30]. Non-communicable illnesses claim the lives of 41 million people each year, accounting for 71% of all fatalities globally. 18 million of these fatalities are caused by cardiovascular disease, which is linked to our food in many cases [23].

Artificial meat or meat derived from the culture of animal cells, has attracted a lot of research investment and has the potential to drastically reduce the cost of meat. However, because this process consumes a lot of energy right now, it's unknown how essential such items will be in the shift to more sustainable food systems.

In several European nations, plant-based meat replacements are already available in supermarkets. Consumers accept plant-based meat replacements easily; however they lack nutritional value when compared to actual meat. Insects, on the other hand, have sparked widespread attention as a food source due to their high protein content and fatty acid composition present in many insects. Up to 2 billion people worldwide

are estimated to eat insects in some form or another [23]. Insects are a rich source of vitamins that are otherwise difficult to receive through a vegetarian diet and can only be gained in adequate quantities through a carnivorous diet. In recent years, various ecological arguments have been made for eating insects, claiming that insects have an extraordinarily efficient nutritional turnover compared to cows and pigs. Insects are also better at turning food into weight than humans. That implies we will use less land and resources to generate the same amount of food energy, which is a good thing [23].

Insect output must be enhanced if insects are to become a viable source of food on a global scale. This necessitates ethical, economic, and health considerations: one of the most difficult challenges in developing a food system that can produce insects, is to increase production; and for that, we need some knowledge; it is said that many insects thrive particularly close to one another, and mealworms thrive in dark and narrow spaces; thus, having many of them in one place in the production system is beneficial. We also need to figure out how to automate the process because this would be a costly production. Some argue that one of the benefits of insects is that they are significantly different from humans, implying that they have a lesser risk of spreading diseases known as zoonoses when consumed. In addition, the EU has decided to legalize the consumption of insects, as well as the production of insects as animal feed in all EU nations [23].

#### **5.4 Changing habits**

Brouwer et al. [65] argues that influencing eating habits requires the application of social norms to promote a healthy diet. Social norms around healthy eating, as defined by culture and circumstance, might impact a person's food choices, implying that a code of suitable conduct exists [65]. In low- and middle-income countries, there are well-established societal norms and taboos, such as those around the feeding of young children (e.g., avoiding eggs) and the treatment of pregnant and nursing mothers. Understanding individual behavior and community reactions is critical for a system's overall resilience. Government policies may have a significant impact on a country's dietary patterns. Institutions that encourage sustainable consumption and nutrition are required. Dietary guidance is a fantastic illustration of how politics may play a role in this whole puzzle in the Nordic nations. Nudging is a psychological phenomena that may be utilized to alter eating habits on a personal and societal level. It can be used to get someone to consume something else in a tiny situation and foster healthy eating habits in a wider context, such as lowering in certain areas while growing in others. Another idea is to use smaller dishes in the cafeteria to prevent food waste [23].

#### **5.5 Citizen-driven transformation**

Nutrition democracy, according to Baldy and Kruse [85], is a notion that is gaining traction in nutrition policy research. It is about citizens reclaiming democratic control over the food system and allowing long-term change. Nutrition democracy research has thus far overlooked the potential of state-driven nutrition-related participatory procedures due to its concentration on civil society efforts. The authors looked at how local actors shape state-driven participation processes for long-term food system transformation along eight key dimensions of food democracy: mutual knowledge exchange, legitimacy and credibility of knowledge claims, transparent processes for generating ideas, common language for exchanging ideas, expectations and experiences with effectiveness, and role model.

#### **5.6 Improving aquaculture**

Today, fish remains a nutritious alternative to red meat. Between 1961 and 2016, the average yearly rise in worldwide fish consumption was 3.2 percent per year, outpacing population growth. Fish contributes over 20% of the average per capita animal protein consumption for more than 3 billion people. Whereas average per capita consumption in Central Asia is roughly 2 kg per year, it is around 50 kg per person in the Small Island Developing States (SIDS) [23]. Blue proteins would play a critical role in protein shifting. They are not spoken about as often as green ones, but they have a far less ecological imprint than red ones and come in a variety of sustainability levels [23]. In poor nations where red meat is not as readily available as it is in Europe, for example, Blue proteins are even more significant, as they have been connected to a slew of positive health benefits. Fish are high in vital nutrients, thus they should be included more in the protein shift discussion [23].

#### **5.7 Lowering the cost of nutritious foods**

Food supply chain interventions are needed to boost the availability and affordability of safe and nutritious food, particularly to make healthy eating more affordable. To accomplish these targets, this approach necessitates coordinated effort and investment from production to consumption focused at increasing efficiency and lowering food losses and waste [86]. Incentives should encourage, among other things, diversification of production in the food and agriculture sectors toward nutritious foods such as fruits, vegetables, pulses, and seeds, as well as foods of animal origin and bio-enriched plants, as well as investments in innovation, research, and expansion, and productivity increases. The nutritional content of food and drinks can be increased at various points in the supply chain by fortifying staple foods after harvest in accordance with international norms. Fortification and biofortification have been used to address micronutrient shortages while simultaneously improving the availability and affordability of healthy meals (WHO. 2016).

#### **6. Case examples of global food system transformations**

The facts and examples that illustrate that transformation of food systems is conceivable and is currently occurring are far more compelling. This section exemplifies efforts of global transformation for resilience as reviewed by FAO *et al.,* [7].

When the structural roots of conflict are connected to competition for natural resources, such as fertile land, forests, fisheries, and water supplies, deep economic crises can occur. The following scenario is for Somalia, where people have suffered from chronic food insecurity and hunger for three decades (including famine in 2011) as well as numerous harsh weather occurrences (mainly droughts and floods) [7]. Drought-related severe food insecurity and malnutrition affected up to 6 million people in 2017-2019, including acute malnutrition in 900,000 children (FEWS Net, 2019). Appropriate measures were taken in recent years to respond, for example, to the severe food insecurity and malnutrition caused by drought. In 2018, the FAO launched the Cash + nutrition-sensitive program, which combines unconditional long-term cash transfers with livelihood support to increase resilience to future shocks while sustaining production capacity and food supply networks [73–77]. Seeds and tools for home gardening were sent to farming households, and shepherds were

given assistance in raising livestock, which boosted animal health and milk output. The initiative has increased access to food for families in need, improved the quality and diversity of their meals, and enhanced program members' nutritional awareness via nutrition and food safety education.

A landscape restoration initiative in Ethiopia from 2015 to 2020 not only increased agricultural output by protecting soil and water, but also effectively linked farmers to markets, improving their economic potential. Food security improved for households, average family income increased considerably, and minimum nutritional diversity levels increased [45]. In India, a 2012-2016 project to restore land and intensify crops combined traditional water storage systems with infrastructure investments and technology transfers, resulting in positive effects on degraded and rain-harvested soils: crop yields increased by 10 to 70% and average household income increased by 170 percent [7]. This method also allowed for groundwater recharging, which improved the long-term sustainability of water consumption.

Interventions that remove some of the age-specific limits on young people's capacity to be productive in agricultural and food systems can also benefit them [7]. Professional and life skills training significantly increased the likelihood of adolescent girls of working age participating in safe income-generating activities (by 48 percent), while also reducing teenage pregnancies (by 34 percent) and the likelihood of marrying or living together prematurely (by 62 percent) according to evidence from a youth empowerment and livelihood program in Uganda [87].

#### **7. Conclusion**

A transition is neither a gradual enhancement of an existing system nor a complete revolution. A transformation is the outcome of a large number of little changes occurring at the same time in various regions of the system. These desired changes or initiatives are self-contained, but they are all linked because they are all measured against the same challenge: How can 8 billion people coexist with the planet's natural resources while also making room for 2 billion more? We begin to believe that a transformation of the global food system is possible when we combine all of the elements we have examined, all of the actions, large and small, of people changing their habits, work, and way of thinking. According to the World Resources Institute's baseline scenario, with 10 billion people on the planet in 2050, greenhouse gas emissions from food systems will be 15 gigatons per year, measured in CO2 equivalents.

These emissions only need to be 4 gigatons per year to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius. As a result, the change will need to save 11 gigatons of CO2 from our food systems. In 2050, we can save 5 gigatons of CO2 emissions by lowering the demand for food and other agricultural goods. This is accomplished mostly by lowering food losses and waste by 50% and consuming 30% less ruminant meat than in the baseline scenario. We can save an additional 2 gigatons of CO2 per year by improving food production on current agricultural regions using new technology. This, however, necessitates a 25% increase in productivity over the original condition. In addition, agricultural yields have improved by 56% since 2010. The next minor step is to boost fish supply by improving wild fisheries management and increasing productivity aquaculture. Cutting greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural output has a higher impact, such as reducing methane emissions from ruminants by 30%. Wet manure emissions are cut in half, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80%. A 50% decrease in energy emissions per agricultural unit and a reduction in nitrogen fertilizer

*Global Food System Transformation for Resilience DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.102749*

consumption. All of these advances in agricultural productivity might result in CO2 reductions of about 3 gigatons per year. In the end, 80 million hectares of previously unforested land will be totally reforested, resulting in significant CO2 reductions when combined with an ambitious moor renaturation program.

Overall, improvements will cover an increase of 15 gigatons of CO2 emissions from global food systems to a shocking 6 gigatons of the shortfall, allowing for land use changes. This entails altering the planet's appearance. And it demonstrates that transformation is not only essential, but also beautiful. In the countryside, there is less manure smell, whereas in the metropolis, there is more vertical green. A better quality of life with a healthier diet. And a world that is teeming with life. People with a variety of abilities from all over the world must adapt to this transformation. Political action, technical innovation, improved financial institutions, and behavioral improvements are all required. So let us get started on this transformation right now!

#### **Acknowledgements**

This chapter discusses the four pillars of global food system transformation developed by Katherine Richardson, Jakob Fritzbøger Christensen and the Sustainability Science Center. Grateful acknowledgement and credit is thereby made to Katherine Richardson, Jakob Fritzbøger Christensen and the entire Sustainability Science Center of the University of Copenhagen, Denmark**,** for permission to reproduce their materials. The authors equally acknowledge **Ana I. Ribeiro-Barros Ph.D**, the Academic Editor of this book for providing access to huge scientific literature that significantly improved this chapter.

#### **Conflict of interest**

The author declares no conflict of interest.

#### **Thanks**

The authors appreciate Ms. Eno-Obong Abia Sampson for typing the draft manuscript.

#### **Author details**

Jasper Okoro Godwin Elechi1 \*, Ikechukwu U. Nwiyi2 and Cornelius Smah Adamu3

1 Department of Food Science and Technology, College of Food Technology and Human Ecology, University of Agriculture, Makurdi, Nigeria

2 Faculty of Biosciences, Department of Applied Microbiology and Brewing, Nnmadi Azikwe University, Awka, Nigeria

3 Department of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Agriculture, Makurdi, Nigeria

\*Address all correspondence to: helloeljasper@gmail.com

© 2022 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

*Global Food System Transformation for Resilience DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.102749*

#### **References**

[1] Elissavet G. Food Safety Management Strategies Based on Acceptable Risk and Risk Acceptance [PhD Thesis]. Wageningen, The Netherlands: submitted to Wageningen University; 2019. DOI: 10.18174/496132

[2] Cees L, Boogaard BK, Atta-Krah K. How food systems change (or not): Governance implications for system transformation processes. Food Security. 2021;**13**:761-780. DOI: 10.1007/ s12571-021-01178-4

[3] Pereira LM, Drimie S, Maciejewski K, Tonissen PB, Biggs RO. Food system transformation: Integrating a political– economy and social–ecological approach to regime shifts. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020;**17**:1313. DOI: 10.3390/ ijerph17041313

[4] Sperling F, Havlík P, Denis M, Valin H, Palazzo A, Gaupp F, et al. IIASA–ISC Consultative Science Platform: Resilient Food Systems. Paris: Thematic Report of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, and the International Science Council (ISC); 2020

[5] Van Berkum S, Dengerink J, Ruben R. The Food Systems Approach: Sustainable Solutions for a Sufficient Supply of Healthy Food. The Hague: Wageningen Economic Research; 2018

[6] EC FOOD 2030 Expert Group. A Recipe for Change. An Agenda for a Climate-Smart and Sustainable Food System for a Healthy Europe. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission; 2018

[7] FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2021. Transforming Food

Systems for Food Security, Improved Nutrition and Affordable Healthy Diets for all. Rome: FAO; 2021. DOI: 10.4060/ cb4474en

[8] High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE). Food Security and Nutrition: Building a Global Narrative towards 2030. Rome; 2020. (also available at www.fao.org/3/ ca9731en/ca9731en.pdf)

[9] SWAC/OECD (2021), Food system transformations in the Sahel and West Africa: Implications for people and policies, Maps & Facts, no. 4, 2021

[10] HLPE (High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition). Nutrition and Food Systems: A Report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. Rome, Italy: HPLE; 2017. Available from: http://www. fao.org/3/a-i7846e.pdf [Accessed 9 December 2021]

[11] de Steenhuijsen Piters B, Termeer E, Bakker D, Fonteijn H, Brouwer H. Food system resilience towards a joint understanding and implications for policy. Wageningen Economic Research. 2021 | Policy paper June 2021

[12] Holling CS. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 1973;**4**(1): 1-23

[13] IPCC. In: Field CB, Barros V, Stocker TF, Qin D, Dokken DJ, Ebi KL, Mastrandrea MD, Mach KJ, Plattner G-K, Allen SK, Tignor M, Midgley PM, editors. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. The Edinburgh Building, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8RU

ENGLAND: Cambridge University Press; 2012, 582 pp

[14] World Bank. Four Steps to Feeding the World in 2050 (Online). 2012. Available at: http://www.worldbank.org/ en/news/feature/2012/10/16/four-stepsfeed-world-2050 [Accessed 15 October, 2021]

[15] Leslie L, Cavatassi R, Symons R, Gordes A, Page O. Financing adaptation for resilient livelihoods under food system transformation: The role of multilateral development banks. Food Security. 2021. DOI: 10.1007/ s12571-021-01210-7

[16] Ruerd R, Cavatassi R, Lipper L, Smaling E, Winters P. Towards food systems transformation—Five paradigm shifts for healthy, inclusive and sustainable food systems. Food Security. 2021. DOI: 10.1007/ s12571-021-01221-4

[17] Giller K et al. Farming for food, for income, or for lack of better options? Small farms, sustained food insecurity and poverty in sub-Saharan Africa. Food Security. 2021a (In Press)

[18] Giller K et al. The future of farming: Who will produce our food? Food Security. 2021b (In Press)

[19] FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP & WHO. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2018. Building Climate Resilience for Food Security and Nutrition. Rome: FAO; 2018. (also available at www.fao.org/3/I9553EN/ i9553en.pdf)

[20] EAT-Lancet Commission. Food, Planet, Health: Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems. London, The Lancet: Summary Report of the EAT-Lancet Commission; 2019

[21] HLPE. Agroecological and Other Innovative Approaches for Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems That Enhance Food Security and Nutrition. A Report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. Rome; 2019

[22] Janet R, Waite R, Searchinger T, Hanson C. How to Sustainably Feed 10 Billion People by 2050, in 21 Charts December 5, 2018. World Resources Institute; 2018. Available from: https://www.wri.org/insights/ how-sustainably-feed-10-billion-people-2050-21-charts

[23] Katherine R, Christensen JF, The Sustainability Science Center. Transformation of the Global Food System. The Sustainability Science Center, the University of Copenhagen; 2021. Available at: https://www.coursera. org/learn/transformation-global-foodsystem [Accessed 22 October, 2020]

[24] Renske L. Innovation & entrepreneurship driving food system transformation. Physiology & Behavior. 2020;**220**(2020):112866. DOI: 10.1016/j. physbeh.2020.112866

[25] Canfield M, Anderson MD, McMichael P. UN food systems summit 2021: Dismantling democracy and resetting corporate control of food systems. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021;**5**:661552. DOI: 10.3389/ fsufs.2021.661552

[26] LEAP4FNSSA Europe-Africa Partnership for Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture (LEAP4FNSSA). FOOD SYSTEM RESILIENCE: Recommendations for the EUR-Africa R&I Partnership on FNSSA a Report Submitted to the LEAP4FNSSA Project in June 2021. 2021

*Global Food System Transformation for Resilience DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.102749*

[27] European Commission. Farm to Fork Strategy. For a Fair, Healthy and Environmentally- Friendly Food System. 2020a. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/ food/sites/food/files/safety/docs/ f2f\_action-plan\_2020\_strategy-info\_ en.pdf [Accessed: 1st October 2020]

[28] GBD (Global Burden of Disease Study). Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990– 2019: A systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2019. The Lancet. 2020;**396**: 1204-1222

[29] WHO. Guideline: Fortification of Rice with Vitamins and Minerals as a Public Health Strategy. Geneva, Switzerland; 2018

[30] IPCC. In: Shukla PR et al., editors. Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); 2019. Available from: https://spiral.imperial. ac.uk/ bitstream/10044/1/76618/2/SRCCL-Full-Report-Compiled-191128.pdf

[31] Lester SE, Stevens JM, Gentry RR, Kappel CV, Bell TW, Costello CJ, et al. Marine spatial planning makes room for offshore aquaculture in crowded coastal waters. Nature Communications. 2018;**9**:945. (CrossRef)

[32] IPES-Food. From Uniformity to Diversity: A Paradigm Shift from Industrial Agriculture to Diversified Acroecological Systems. International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems; 2016. Retrieved from: http:// www.ipes-food.org/\_img/upload/files/ UniformityToDiversity\_FULL.pdf

[33] Vermeulen SJ, Campbell BM, Ingram JSI. Climate change and food systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 2012;**37**:195-222. (CrossRef)

[34] Jessica F, Haddad L, Schneider KR, et al. (2021) viewpoint: Rigorous monitoring is necessary to guide food system transformation in the countdown to the 2030 global goals. Food Policy. 2021;**104**:102163. DOI: 10.1016/j. foodpol.2021.102163

[35] Herrero M, Thornton PK, Mason-D'Croz D, et al. Innovation can accelerate the transition towards a sustainable food system. Nat. Food. 2020;**1**:266-272. DOI: 10.1038/s43016-020-0074-1

[36] FAO. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2019. 2019b. Available through http://www.fao.org/ publications/sofi/en/ 20

[37] FAO. The Future of Food Safety, First FAO/WHO/AU International Food Safety Conference, Addis, 12-13 February. 2019a. Available through: http://www. fao.org/3/CA3247EN/ca3247en.pdf [Accessed: 21 November 2019] 19

[38] Loboguerrero AM, Thornton P, Wadsworth J, Campbell BM, Herrero M, Mason- D'Croz D, et al. Perspective article: Actions to reconfigure food systems. Global Food Security. 2020;**26**:100432. DOI: 10.1016/j. gfs.2020.100432

[39] Woodhill J, Hasnain S, Griffith A. Farmers and Food Systems: What Future for Smallscale Agriculture? Oxford: University of Oxford; 2020

[40] Global Nutrition Report. Global Nutrition Report: Action on Equity to End Malnutrition. Bristol: Development Initiatives Poverty Research Ltd; 2020

[41] International Labour Office. Women and Men in the Informal Economy: A Statistical Picture. 3rd ed. International Labour Organization ILO; 2018

[42] Herforth A, Masters W, Bai Y, Sarpong D. The cost of recommended diets: Development and application a food Price index based on food-based dietary guidelines (P10-033-19). Current Developments in Nutrition. 2019;**3**. DOI: 10.1093/cdn/nzz034.P10033-19

[43] Hirvonen K, Bai Y, Headey D, Masters WA. Affordability of the EAT– lancet reference diet: A global analysis. The Lancet Global Health. 2020;**8**(1): e59-e66. DOI: 10.1016/S2214-109X(19) 30447-4), 10.1016/S2214-109X(19) 30447-4)

[44] Swinnen J, McDermott J, editors. COVID-19 and Global Food Security. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI); 2020. DOI: 10.2499/p15738coll2.133762

[45] FAO. Making Climate-Sensitive Investments in Agriculture – Approaches, Tools and Selected Experiences. Rome; 2021. (also available at doi:10.4060/ cb1067en)

[46] United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). 2014. The State of World Population 2014. The power of 1.8 billion adolescents, youth and the transformation of the future. New York, USA. Also Available at: www.unfpa.org/ sites/default/files/pub-pdf/EN-SWOP14- Report\_FINAL-web.pdf

[47] United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). World Population Prospects. New York, USA: UNDESA (online); 2019. (Cited 25 May 2021). https://population. un.org/wpp

[48] Betcherman G, Khan T. Youth Employment in Sub-Saharan Africa: Taking Stock of the Evidence and Knowledge Gaps. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre (IDRC); 2015

[49] IFAD. IFAD RDR 2021 – Framework for the Analysis and Assessment of Food Systems Transformations Background Paper IFAD Rural Development Report 2021. 2019

[50] Hartle JC, Cole S, Chrisinger BW, Gardner CD. Interdisciplinary foodrelated academic programs: A 2015 snapshot of the United States landscape. J. Agric. Food Syst. Commun. Dev. 2017;**7**(4):35-49. DOI: 10.5304/ jafscd.2017.074.006

[51] FAO and ITPS, Status of the World's Soil Resources (SWSR) – Main Report, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils, Rome, Italy. 2015. Available online at: http://www.fao. org/3/ai5199e.pdf

[52] Aniek H, Kuiper M, Zurek M, Nørrung B, Achterbosch T, van't Veer P, et al. A sustainability compass for policy navigation to sustainable food systems. Global Food Security. 2021;**29**(2021): 100546. DOI: 10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100546

[53] Parfitt J, Barthel M, Macnaughton S. Food waste within food supply chains: Quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. 2010;**365**:3065-3081

[54] Schoustra S, Materia V, et al. Empowering actors in the value chain of local foods: Traditional fermented foods in Africa. Food Security. 2021 (In Press)

[55] Sophie d B, Dengerink J, van Vliet J. Urbanisation as driver of food system transformation and opportunities for rural livelihoods. Food Security. 2021;**13**:781-798. DOI: 10.1007/ s12571-021-01182-8

*Global Food System Transformation for Resilience DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.102749*

[56] Torero M. Infrastructure challenges and potential for Africa south of the Sahara. In: Badiane O, Makombe T, editors. Beyond a Middle Income Africa: Transforming African Economies for Sustained Growth with Rising Employment Incomes (pp. 157179): Resakss Annual Trends Outlook Report. 2014

[57] Dorosh P, Wang HG, You L, Schmidt E. Road connectivity, population, and crop production in sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural Economics. 2012;**43**(1):89-103. DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-0862.2011.00567.x

[58] Sheahan M, Barrett CB. Food loss and waste in sub-Saharan Africa: A critical review. Food Policy. 2017;**70**:1-12

[59] Reardon T et al. The SMEs' Quiet Revolution in the hidden middle of food systems in developing regions. Food Security (Submitted). 2021

[60] Van Berkum S, Ruben R. Exploring a food system index for understanding food system transformation processes. Food Security. 2021 (in press)

[61] Minten BR, Thomas, Chen KZ. Agricultural value chains: How cities reshape food systems. In: 2017 Global Food Policy Report. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI); 2017. pp. 42-49

[62] Resnick D. Governance: Informal food markets in Africa's cities. In: IFPRI Book Chapters. 2017. pp. 50-57

[63] Dumont B, Groot JCJ, Tichit M. Review: Make ruminants green again – How can sustainable intensification and agroecology converge for a better future? Animal. 2018;**12**(S2):s210-s219

[64] Ray AC, Bruil J, Chappell MJ, Kiss C, Pimbert MP. From transition to domains

of transformation: Getting to sustainable and just food systems through agroecology. Sustainability. 2019;**2019**(11):5272. DOI: 10.3390/ su11195272

[65] Brouwer ID, Lachat C, van Liere MJ, Omosa EB, de Brauw A, Talsma EF, et al. Reverse thinking: Taking a healthy diet perspective towards food systems transformations. Food Security. 2021. DOI: 10.1007/s12571-021-01204-5

[66] Oliver TH. Biodiversity and resilience of ecosystem functions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2015;**30**:673-684

[67] FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2017. Building Resilience for Peace and Food Security (Online). Rome: FAO; 2017. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-I7695e.pdf [Accessed: 15 October, 2021]

[68] FAO & Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS Net). More than 1.5 million people in Somalia still facing acute food security crisis or worse outcomes. Mogadishu and Washington, DC, FAO and FEWS Net. 2019. Also Available at: www.ipcinfo.org/ fileadmin/ user\_upload/ipcinfo/docs/FSNAU-FEWSNET\_Somalia\_Post-Deyr-Technical-Release\_2019FebJune.pdf

[69] Corina E. Food security and food safety: Meanings and connections. Economic Insights – Trends and Challenges. 2020;IX(LXXII) No. 1/2020:59-68

[70] Herforth A, Bai Y, Venkat A, Mahrt K, Ebel A, Masters WA. Cost and affordability of healthy diets across and within countries. Background paper for the state of food security and nutrition in the world 2020. In: FAO Agricultural Development Economics Technical Study No. 9. Rome: FAO; 2020. (also available at doi:10.4060/cb2431en)

[71] Eke MO, Elechi JO. Food safety and quality evaluation of street vended meat pies sold in Lafia Metropolis, Nasarawa state, Nigeria. Int. J. Sci. Res. in Biological Sciences. 2021;**8**(1)

[72] Ikechukwu NU, Elechi JOG. Evaluation of food safety and nutritional quality of indigenous beverages vended in informal market of Nasarawa state, north central, Nigeria. Ukrainian Food Journal. 2021. Submitted

[73] FAO. Rationale for a new FAO food safety strategy. Committee on Agriculture. 2020a

[74] FAO. COVID-19 and its Impact on Agri-Food Systems, Food Security and Nutrition: Implications and Priorities for the Africa Region. Rome: FAO Regional Conference for Africa, thirty-first session, 26-28 October 2020; 2020b. (also available at: www.fao.org/3/ ne079en/ne079en.pdf)

[75] FAO. Nutrition-Sensitive Cash+ in Somalia. Rome; 2020c. (also available at www.fao.org/3/ca9824en/ca9824en.pdf)

[76] FAO. FAO COVID-19 Response and Recovery Programme: Economic Inclusion and Social Protection to Reduce Poverty: Pro-Poor COVID-19 Responses for an Inclusive Postpandemic Economic Recovery. Rome; 2020d. (also available at: DOI:10.4060/cb0282en)

[77] FAO. Gendered Impacts of COVID-19 and Equitable Policy Responses in Agriculture, Food Security and Nutrition. Rome: FAO; 2020e. (also available at doi:10.4060/ca9198en)

[78] UN. Discussion Starter Action Track 3: Boost Nature-Positive Food Production at Scale. New York, USA; 2020. (also available at: www.un.org/sites/un2. un.org/files/unfss-at3-discussion\_ starter-dec2020.pdf)

[79] Lipper L, Thornton P, Campbell BM, Baedeker T, Braimoh A, Bwalya M, et al. Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nature Climate Change. 2014;**4**(12):1068-1072

[80] McCouch S, Baute GJ, Bradeen J, Bramel P, et al. Agriculture: Feeding the future. Nature. 2013;**499**(7456):23-24

[81] Waltz CL. Local Food Systems: Background and Issues. Incorporated: Nova Science Publishers; 2010

[82] Chadare FJ, Fanou Fogny N, Madode YE, Ayosso JOG, Honfo SH, Kayodé FPP, et al. Local agro-ecological condition-based food resources to promote infant food security: A case study from Benin. Food Security. 2018;**10**:1013-1031

[83] Bizzotto-Molina P, D'Alessandro C, Dekeyser K, Marson M. Sustainable Food Systems through Diversification and Indigenous Vegetables: An Analysis of the Arusha Area. ECDPM; 2020

[84] Shumsky SA, Hickey GM, Pelletier B, Johns T. Understanding the contribution of wild edible plants to rural socialecological resilience in semi-arid Kenya. Ecology and Society. 2014;**19**(4):34. DOI: 10.5751/ES-06924-190434. [Accessed 22 October 2017]

[85] Jana B, Kruse S. Food democracy from the top down? State-driven participation processes for local food system transformation towards sustainability. Politics and Governance. 2019;**7**(4):68-80

[86] FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP & WHO. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020. Transforming Food Systems for Affordable Healthy Diets. Rome: FAO; 2020. (also available at: 10.4060/ca9692en)

*Global Food System Transformation for Resilience DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.102749*

[87] Bandiera O, Buehren N, Burgess R, Goldstein M, Gulesci S, Rasul I, et al. Women's Empowerment in Action: Evidence from a Randomized Control Trial in Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2018. (also available at: https:// openknowledge.worldbank.org/ handle/10986/28282)

#### **Chapter 3**

## Bundling Weather Index Insurance with Microfinance: Trekking the Long Road between Expectations and Reality – A Study on Sub-Saharan Africa

*Dorcas Stella Shumba*

#### **Abstract**

Food production in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is exposed to climatic variations and weather-related shocks which affect agricultural output beyond the manageable limits of smallholder farmers. To manage food production uncertainties, weather index insurance (WII) pilot projects have been launched across SSA since the early 2000s. Due to low adoption rates among smallholder farmers, insurance providers have partnered with risk aggregators such as microfinance institutions to foster the demand for and uptake of WII. Despite this, demand for WWI remains low. This chapter seeks to explore the gap between the assertion, that WII is a promising risk transfer mechanism for smallholder farmers in SSA and the realisation that, even where microfinance is made available, subscription rates among smallholder farmers rarely rise. The practice of linking insurance with credit is considered to be important because, in principle, when smallholder farmers have access to insurance, they pose less risk to creditors. In this sense, insurance can crowd-in credit, the lack of which has long been identified as a major, if not the main, constraint for smallholders in developing countries.

**Keywords:** weather index insurance, microfinance, food systems resilience, climate change, risk transfer, smallholder farmers, sub-Saharan Africa

#### **1. Introduction**

Agriculture is a major source of food in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), and a primary source of livelihood [1]. The sector employs more than half of the total labour force and accounts for roughly a third of the gross domestic product (GDP) [2–4]. The share of agriculture in GDP varies significantly by country ranging from below 3% in Botswana to over 50% in Chad [5]. Due to the fragmentation of land caused by population pressure in most rural areas, farm sizes are typically less than 2 hectares each [6]. As a result, smallholder farms are dominant across the subcontinent [7]. They make up 80% of the farms, which translates to approximately 33 million smallholder

farms [8]. Although the widely accepted view is that, smallholder farmers produce the majority of the food, because they farm land very intensively resulting in high levels of productivity per unit of land [9, 10], their farms are often too small to provide a sustainable income at the household level, let alone food security [7]<sup>1</sup> . In addition, smallholder farmers are known to face several challenges associated with missing markets for credit, insurance, information including economies of scale in marketing and transportation [10]. Problematically, they are also reliant on non-drought tolerant crops and seed varieties2 , non-mechanised farming systems and subsistence rain-fed farming3 , factors which jointly contribute to the volatility of agriculture and the vulnerability of the smallholder farmers [13]. Having a full grasp of the character of risks that affect smallholder farmers is key to developing appropriate solutions to deal with risks. Similarly, it is important to understand how farmers respond to the solutions designed to ameliorate risk as this will help to establish the effectiveness and compatibility of the measures apropos the target market.

This chapter seeks to explore the gap between the assertion, that weather index insurance (WII) is a promising risk transfer mechanism for smallholder farmers in SSA and the realisation that, even where microfinance is made available, subscription rates among smallholder farmers rarely rise. The chapter pays attention to the risk response behaviour of smallholder farmers when presented with the option of purchasing WII that is bundled with microfinance. Weather index insurance is crucial because it potentially addresses welfare losses due to weather risk and complements existing informal risk management strategies [14]. The linkage between WII and credit has been discussed widely in theory but rarely investigated empirically, yet a lot of recommendations have been put forward by scholars for WII to be bundled with microfinance (see [15–19]). This is because, when smallholder farmers are believed to pose less risk to creditors when they have access to insurance [20]. In this sense, agriculture insurance can crowd-in credit, the lack of which has long been identified as a major, if not the main, constraint for smallholders in developing countries [21].

Access to agriculture insurance is crucial for smallholders because agriculture is generally prone to production failure due to the risk of catastrophic events such as those linked to extreme weather events [22]. Weather extremes have been repeatedly seen to have long-lasting impacts on farming livelihoods [23–26]. Sub-Saharan Africa is especially vulnerable to weather-related risks because of the strong reliance on climate-sensitive rainfed agriculture [27]. While extreme weather shocks are not new to this region, the frequency and intensity of the events have increased over the past few decades. Based on the Human Cost of Disasters 2000–2019 Report, there has been a sharp increase in weather-related disasters4 over the past 20 years. Notably, disasters

<sup>1</sup> Smaller farms are generally thought to have an advantage over large farms in per capita productivity due to higher labour utilisation (e.g., using family labour) and intensive farming on smaller pieces of land [9]. <sup>2</sup> Gollin et al. [11] revealed for example that, in 2000, only 17% of the area planted for maize had modern maize varieties in sub-Saharan Africa compared to 57% in Latin America and the Caribbean.

<sup>3</sup> According to Demeke et al. [12] the irrigated area in this region which extends over six million hectares, makes up just 5 per cent of the total cultivated area, compared to 37 per cent in Asia 14 per cent in Latin America. Two-thirds of that area is in three countries: Madagascar, South Africa, and Sudan.

<sup>4</sup> To be recorded as a disaster in EM-DAT, one or all the following must take place: 10 or more people must be reported killed, 100 or more people must be reported affected, a state of emergency must be declared by the State, and a call for international assistance made. Based on this delineation, hazards only become disasters when human lives are lost, and livelihoods are equally damaged or destroyed [28].

*Bundling Weather Index Insurance with Microfinance: Trekking the Long Road… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101742*

including extreme weather events rose from 4212 in the period 1980 to 1999, to 7348 in the period 2000 to 2019 [28]. Weather events figure large among the recorded disasters5 .

Equally alarming are the rising patterns of loss and damage in the agricultural industry that are strongly correlated to the increasing catastrophic events [29]. For example, it is estimated that more than 75% of recent economic losses caused by natural hazards in Sub-Saharan Africa are attributable to climate change-induced weather events [30]. Outcomes linked to economic loss include livelihood insecurity, poverty, food insecurity and poor nutrition – cyclical patterns which can be ameliorated through adaptation financing [31]. What smallholders need therefore is access to perfect financial markets (savings, credit and insurance) and economic incentives to (re)invest in agriculture [7]. Reducing the economic impact of severe weather events is thus a crucial step towards supporting agricultural growth, sustainable livelihoods, poverty alleviation as well as bolstering food security and nutrition [32]. Given the foregoing, the vulnerability of smallholder farmers in lower-income countries is acute in part because they repeatedly lack access to financial mechanisms to efficiently manage production uncertainties [33]. In the absence of effective insurance and credit markets, households remain vulnerable to the financial consequences of highmagnitude loss events.

#### **2. Understanding the nature of climate change risk in SSA**

While SSA is not a single unit and challenges vary spatially and temporally, agriculture, and especially crop production in this region is predominantly rainfed and as such reliant on unpredictable climatic events [24, 31, 34, 35]. Under the current variable climate conditions, SSA already experiences a major deficit in food production especially in semi-arid and subhumid regions and areas [1]. This means a further drop in soil moisture due to mounting climate extremes will have devastating effects on agricultural production and will worsen food insecurity [26]. SSA is vulnerable to climate change also because the economies of most countries in this region are dominated by subsistence agriculture, the productivity of which is grossly susceptible to changing weather patterns [36]. Furthermore, the sub-continent is prone to complex natural climatic phenomena such as the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the West African Monsoon and the Indian Ocean Dipole [37], which influence climate variability (inter-annual and intra-seasonal rainfall), trends (upward or downward) and the persistence thereof [38]. The natural climatic phenomena give rise to regional climatic patterns which are impacted to some degree by climate change [37]. Because of the regional climatic phenomena, SSA has a long history of rainfall fluctuations of varying lengths and intensities (ibid) and is prone to cyclical drought patterns which are a frequent event in the semi-arid countries of the sub-continent [1]. The droughts in SSA have in recent times become more frequent and protracted, ostensibly due to climate change [39].

Climate forecasts have shown warming of approximately 0.71°C over much of the African continent in the twentieth Century [1], and an increase of over 1°C in the twenty-first Century [40]. Rather, average near-surface temperatures across parts of the continent have risen by more than twice the global rate of temperature increase

<sup>5</sup> For example, floods were the highest recorded disaster event – 3254, followed by storms – 2043 (ibid).

in the twenty-first Century [41]. According to WMO [40], the year 2019 was among the three warmest years on record for the continent. Recent decadal predictions encompassing a five-year period from 2020 to 2024, signify continued warming and decreasing rainfall markedly over North and Southern Africa (ibid). Further predictions by Woetzel et al. [42] suggest that, due to climate change, the number and intensity of extreme weather events in SSA are set to increase. This is consistent with findings submitted in the Human Cost of Disasters 2000–2019 Report, which revealed that 1192 extreme weather events were recorded in Africa over the last 20 years (see [28]).

An enquiry on climate change and its likely impacts on SSA cannot be achieved by examining long term weather changes alone [43], as most countries in SSA suffer from intersecting stressors that give rise to low resilience and limited adaptative capacity to climate-related shocks [1]. Incidentally, climate change acts to exacerbate pre-existing conditions and has thus been dubbed a threat multiplier [25]. As such, the effects of drought and other climate extremes in SSA are exacerbated by endemic poverty, complex governance and institutional dimensions; limited access to capital, including markets, infrastructure and technology; ecosystem degradation; and complex disasters and conflicts ([36], p. 435).

SSA accounts for more than half of the world's extreme poor, amounting to approximately 400 million people, most of which are smallholder farmers [37]. Poverty is among the key reasons why a lot of smallholder farmers in SSA are continuously exposed to inter-annual variations and occasional shocks caused by weather which affect agricultural output beyond their manageable limits [30]. As a result, at the 25th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that took place in Madrid in December 2019, it was revealed that 7 out of the 10 most climate-vulnerable nations in the world are located in Africa [44]. The figure is consistent with findings published in the Human Cost of Disasters 2000–2019 Report, which pointed out that, the top 10 list of countries with the highest share of affected populations by extreme weather shocks over the last 20 years is dominated by Sub-Saharan African countries, which make up 6 out of the 10 countries on the list [28].

#### **3. Risk response mechanisms used by smallholder farmers in SSA**

Risk is the aggregate of the likelihood or possibility of a shock event occurring, and the severity of loss or impact caused by the event [45]. Three aspects make up risk, namely, threat, uncertainty, and loss. Climate change poses significant risks for food systems and has thus emerged as one of the greatest challenges of the twentyfirst Century. Climatic extremes affect the primary sources of farm income, such as crops and livestock, and can further destroy household assets such as farming equipment – investments accumulated over time that are needed to generate future income [46]. Loss and damage due to extreme weather events can push farming households into cycles of poverty. According to GlobalAgRisk [47], households that are just above the poverty line can be pushed instantly below the poverty line by a major weather event. In the absence of perfect financial markets, including savings, credit and insurance, smallholdings in SSA generally struggle to recover from loss and damage caused by extreme weather events [34].

In the absence of perfect financial markets, an array of behavioural responses often emerge to fill in the gaps created by market failures [48]. Despite having

#### *Bundling Weather Index Insurance with Microfinance: Trekking the Long Road… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101742*

considerable experience dealing with weather extremes, smallholders are much less likely to plan for low probability, high consequence risks [49]. This is a result of a cognitive bias that causes people to ignore risks with low probability, except when the likelihood of occurrence is well-known [50]. This psychological phenomenon influences the willingness of poor households to spend their limited income to cover low probability risks. Be that as it may, from a risk perspective, behavioural responses to shocks consist of three types of choices, namely, risk mitigation, risk coping and risk transfer [51]. The behavioural responses are characterised as being *ex ante* or *ex post* based on chronology and functional objective [52]. *Ex ante* strategies are those measures taken before shocks occur to avoid, transfer or reduce risk exposure, while *ex post* strategies are measures taken after shocks occur to mitigate or insulate welfare impacts of the shocks [52–54]. According to Frankenberger et al. [54], *ex ante* strategies are about preparation, whereas *ex post* strategies are about coping and recovery.

Smallholder farmers in SSA are more susceptible to weather fluctuations than farmers in developed countries, who for instance, can more easily alter crop varieties, irrigate their fields, or secure crop insurance [42]. In more developed countries financial markets exist which allow farmers to insure against shocks *ex ante*, or to borrow *ex post* to achieve *quasi*-insurance through *ex post* loan repayment [55], increasing the options for recovery in the event of loss events. Because smallholder farmers in SSA are risk averse, they ordinarily choose to rely on traditional methods of risk management in the absence of ready access to savings, insurance and credit markets [21].

Faced with no savings, credit or insurance, they typically manage risk by smoothing consumption through choosing low-risk activities or technologies, which generally yield low to average returns [56]. Smallholder farmers in SSA also smooth consumption through asset attrition. According to Carter and Lybbert [57], since the rural poor have limited access to financial markets, consumption smoothing typically involves amassing assets in good times to use as a fallback in bad times. For example, a study on the impacts of drought on rural households in Burkina Faso showed that a good number of households that sell livestock do so to offset consumption shortfalls due to negative income shocks. Similar findings were observed in studies carried out in the rural Districts of Buhera and Nyanga in Zimbabwe where farmers mentioned the sale of livestock as a means of buffering income losses caused by production uncertainties [58]. Wealth for the rural poor is usually not in the form of cash or savings [47], but productive assets such as livestock [48]. Thus, when a severe weather event occurs, livestock is often sold off, often at a loss [59], because the distressed sale of large numbers of livestock at the same time flood the market, significantly reducing their value [60]. In contrast, insurance has been seen to positively influence households' behavioural responses to risk through enabling them to reduce the need to rely on costly coping strategies such as selling productive, as this undermines future productivity. Results from an index-based livestock insurance (IBLI) pilot in Marsabit District of northern Kenya, showed that insured households are less likely to sell livestock [61]. Nonetheless, because insurance is not readily available in most rural areas, and where available, demand for it is low, smallholders tend to rely more on on-farm risk mitigation strategies. Thus, to preserve assets, households may smooth consumption further by cutting back on meals and diverting children from school which undermines crucial investments in human capital, hampering current and future productivity (ibid). In terms of its functional objective, consumption smoothing involves creating a balance between spending and saving to achieve a higher overall standard of living and can for that reason be used as a welfare dimension to assess a household's preparedness to deal with climate change risk [62].

In addition to consumption smoothing, smallholder farmers in SSA also smooth income when dealing with climate change risk [44]. Income smoothing refers to the different strategies and approaches used by households to control the impact of extreme volatility in household income [48]. It is most often achieved *ex ante*, through diversifying economic activities and employment choices (ibid). Since most farming households in SSA lack access to savings, credit and insurance, they try as much as possible to prepare for loss events *ex ante* through income generation [63]. Thus, to smooth income, households take steps to protect themselves from adverse income shocks before they occur [47]. To achieve this, households can pool together labour supplies, allocating them across different local employers over time. However, as most farming households in SSA earn wages through agriculture (e.g., from working on neighbouring farms or plantations, and rendering services to local businesses that deal with agricultural supplies) pooling labour supplies across different divisions of the climate-sensitive agriculture industry will not solve their income problems in the event of climatic extremes. Diversifying into non-agricultural activities or more profitable alternatives is difficult for many rural households [64]. The barriers to entry include working capital and vocational skills and or education requirements. Examples from Tanzania and Ethiopia cited in Dercon's study support the view that the poor typically enter into activities with low entry costs such as those linked to subsistence farming or casual agricultural wage employment. Since diversifying income sources is costly for poor rural households, Village Savings and Loans Associations (VSLAs)6 are sometimes used as a collective means to smooth income. Fumagalli and Martin [65] share findings from a cluster randomised control trial (RCT) carried out between 2009 and 2012 in the Nampula Province of Mozambique, which shows the usefulness of pooling income. Based on the study, VSLA money has been used by households to buffer shortfalls in income due to unforeseen shocks. It is unclear, however, to what extent VSLAs would be effective in responding to covariate risk. If all households in a community are affected by a catastrophic event, informal risk-sharing activities are unlikely to be sufficient. Nonetheless, access to financial markets presents a greater opportunity for income smoothing and less vulnerability to weather shocks [62].

In all, there is an overlap between different types of shocks and behavioural responses to shocks. As the discussion above attests, high-frequency low losses are usually managed at the farm level and mitigated in part through access to household investments [63]. In an ideal world, residual risk (low frequency, medium loss) that cannot be retained by the farmer is better of transferred to third parties, usually insurance companies [45], which is not always an option for smallholders in SSA. Where insurance is an option, smallholders often deem it too costly for their limited income. Nonetheless, transferring a portion of income risk to a third party enables the farmer to have enough money to invest in higher-risk/higher-yield production technologies, such as improved seeds and inputs [20]. When weather-related shocks strike, households that receive indemnity payments have more response options, which notionally should reduce their reliance on detrimental coping strategies [66]. Although smallholder farmers in SSA have developed numerous adaptation mechanisms to cope with weather fluctuations over time, evidence has repeatedly shown that their methods are not adequate to deal with climate change [36]. If climate

<sup>6</sup> VSLAs are typically composed of 15 to 20 self-selecting households, who meet regularly to pool income into a common fund, which can be lent out to group members at group agreed interest rates [65].

*Bundling Weather Index Insurance with Microfinance: Trekking the Long Road… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101742*

change adaptation investments are not made (e.g. by governments, multinational corporations and donor communities), the adaptation mechanisms used by smallholder farmers in SSA will not keep up with climate change impacts [22]. The Paris Agreement underlined the global importance of adaptation and contains provisions related to adaptation finance that follow guidelines from the Cancun Adaptation Framework [67]. Paragraph 28 of the Cancun Adaptation Framework stressed the need to explore options for risk-sharing and risk insurance, including options for micro-finance to reduce the devastating impacts of disasters among vulnerable populations [68].

#### **4. Weather index insurance**

Risk-sharing or risk transfer is a risk management strategy that involves the contractual shifting of risk from one party to another [51]. Risk transfer is most often achieved through an insurance policy, where the insurance carrier assumes the defined risks for the policyholder in exchange for a fee, or insurance premium [69]. Agricultural insurance is one risk transfer tool that farmers can use to manage risks that cannot be mitigated at the farm level [30]. It offers a promising means of cushioning in times of climate change-induced loss and damage for smallholder farmers [35]. Globally, however, less than 20% of smallholder farmers have any form of agricultural insurance [22]. Although the estimated global agricultural insurance premium volume almost doubled in the period 2004–2007, it remained low in African countries where it roughly reached an average of 0.13% of the 2007 agricultural GDP [70]. As a result, some scholars claim that only about 1.3% of the smallholder farmers in SSA have agricultural insurance [71]. Raithatha and Priebe [22] set the figure at 3%, while a more recent study suggests that the figure is around 3.5% which at any rate is far below the rates in Asia (46.2%) and Latin America (15.8%) [72]. Despite the low uptake of agricultural insurance by smallholder farmers in SSA, agriculture insurance is firmly believed can reduce the economic impact of severe weather events and help stimulate economic development through supporting agricultural growth, poverty alleviation, and the development of rural finance [14]. Based on the functional objective of agriculture insurance, it is an income smoothing *ex ante* strategy, actioned before the occurrence of a shock event [16].

There are various types of agriculture insurance, the main ones being, indemnitybased crop insurance (e.g., named peril crop insurance and multiple peril crop insurance) and index-based insurance (e.g., index-based livestock insurance, area yield index insurance and weather index insurance). This chapter looks specifically at weather index insurance (WII). Weather index insurance has been presented as an important risk transfer mechanism that can assist smallholder farmers to deal better with climate risk [22, 35, 73]. The underlying risk for a WII product is the behaviour of the specific weather variable that contributes to production losses [14]. WII focuses on weather-related shocks because rainfall and temperature patterns for instance pose a serious threat for farmers [20]. The pervasive nature of catastrophic weather events is especially well-suited for index products, which explicitly insure against covariate shocks (ibid). Unlike traditional insurance, index-based insurance compensates policyholders according to a pre-determined index value [69] that serves as a proxy for losses rather than upon the assessed losses for individual policyholders [51]. Thus, some of the advantages of WII are that it has low operational costs, fast claim settlement speed and low risk of moral hazard and adverse selection [35].

Low operational costs give WII a critical advantage over traditional insurance, yet the hedging effectiveness of weather index-based insurance tends to be diminished by the often imperfect correlation between the index and realised losses. This is caused for instance, by the non-insurable difference between the weather events happening at the farm site and those occurring at the reference weather station, which is referred to as geographical basis risk [74]. In light of this, some of the drawbacks of WII include high basis risk, high actuarial difficulty, and high set-up costs [75].

The earliest applications of WII in emerging economies in the Americas and Asia are said to have taken place respectively in Mexico in 2002, followed by India in 2003 [47]. In SSA, the first application of weather index is said to have taken place in Malawi in 2005 [76] followed by Ethiopia in 2006 [77]. Almost 2 decades later, however, index insurance markets are still very thin in most African countries. To lessen the limitations of WII, insurance providers have initiated changes to their products being guided by scholarly recommendations and emerging best practices. Some of the key recommendations submitted by the scholarly community include interlinking reliable weather data with location-specific crop and agronomic conditions using flexible geospatial crop modelling tools (see [78]), interlinking WII with subsidies (see [79]) and interlinking WII with microfinance (see [16]). The mixed results of many WII pilot projects to date, for example, as presented by the lack of widespread implementation of even those projects considered successful, followed by the consistently low adoption rate by smallholder farmers, warrant an investigation into the changes needed for the products to become more scalable and sustainable.

#### **5. Bundling weather index insurance with microfinance: expectations vs. reality**

Smallholder farmers often do not qualify for credit provided by mainstream banks due to the lack of usable collateral (e.g. savings, reliable earnings, effective land titles and other tangible and intangible assets) to guarantee loan repayments [49, 80]. In addition, the large fluctuations in farm revenue generally make it less commercially attractive to lenders, thus hampering credit provision to the agriculture sector [16]. Credit constraints discourage farmers from investing in higher-risk/higher-yield production technologies, such as improved seeds and inputs [20], which would otherwise boost their capacity to withstand the negative impacts of extreme weather events. In some instances, however, if no collateral is present, lenders may require crop insurance to securitize the repayment of the loan [16]. Thus, crop insurance can facilitate credit. Microfinance Institutions (MFIs) specialise in the supply of credit to segments of the population that is typically unattended by mainstream banks. The promise of microfinance is centred on the awarding of microloans to the poorest of the poor without requiring collateral [81]. What makes microfinance different from traditional forms of credit is its focus on small loans and other low-cost financial services which the poor can use to generate income and become self-reliant [82, 83]. However, while insurance may in some instances unlock credit, bundling microfinance with insurance is far from being the panacea for the credit constraint problem [21]. This is why more insight into the impact of linking insurance and credit is needed, particularly since the adoption rate of WII in SSA has remained low even in cases where microfinance has been made available.

Studies have indicated an uptake of less than a fourth of the smallholder population [80], which shows clearly that demand for WII is low. Actual demand according

#### *Bundling Weather Index Insurance with Microfinance: Trekking the Long Road… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101742*

to the preceding scholars varies from 2 to 40% or 50% maximum. In general, low demand is ascribed to several factors which include farmer budgetary constraints, lack of trust in financial institutions, poor understanding of the contract, and the often imperfect correlation between the index and realised losses (basis risk) [84]. Marr et al. [80] have gone on to group the reasons for low demand into 3 categories namely, (1) neoclassical (i.e., risk aversion, risk mitigation, basis risk and price), (2) behavioural (i.e., understanding, trust and education), and (3) pecuniary determinants capturing credit and liquidity constraints (i.e., wealth, liquidity, credit and income). To weigh in briefly on the effect of the given determinants of low demand, firstly, it has been noted already in this chapter that smallholders are generally risk averse, which causes them to depend more on traditional risk mitigation strategies. Secondly, because, their risk mitigation strategies are limited, they are among the most vulnerable populations to climate change. Thirdly, when presented with risk mitigation strategies such as insurance, smallholders are not always willing to pay for indemnity. Aside from being risk averse, they are poor and often credit and liquidity constrained. Inevitably, price is a crucial factor that the smallholders consider before signing up for an insurance policy. There are thus tensions between what must be charged to insure low-probability high-consequence events and the willingness of households to pay for insurance products designed to protect against losses caused by these events [33].

Fourthly, basis risk interacts with other factors such as price and is an important factor known to drive price beyond the reach of smallholders. To increase demand for WII, suppliers need to focus on minimising basis risk. Even as basis risk is an inherent problem for index insurance, it can be reduced through product design and application [47]. To increase demand for WII, suppliers need to additionally educate smallholders about the benefits of insurance, which should be followed up by cultivating relationships of trust [85]. There is a further need for suppliers to come up with innovative ways to make insurance more attractive to smallholders. This involves adapting financial services and products to match the risk profile of the market demographic [33], for example through bundling WII with microfinance.

#### **5.1 Expectations**

Bundling index-insurance with credit is a practice that is widely debated in literature but mainly at a theoretical level [80]. There are several benefits that come with combining microcredit with insurance, some of which have already been discussed in this chapter. Since both insurance and credit are recognised as important tools for smoothening and enhancing income [16], it is believed that when bundled together, they can enhance on-farm efforts (e.g., through increased input, improved seed varieties and investments in and specialised and diversified farming) to mitigate climate risks. Meyer et al. [21] are of the view that neither credit nor insurance markets can exist independently in low-collateral environments. This makes perfect sense considering that insurance can ensure the success of credit by promoting lending to smallholders in credit constrained environments where farmers have weak collateral to offer, and systemic risks are the main cause of loan defaults. While credit on the other hand can ensure the success of insurance by enhancing household income and protecting farmers against the financial risk of crop failure. Linking the two contracts thus seems beneficial for farmer productivity, food systems resilience and incidentally, the growth of rural financial markets. A potential downside of this practice, however, which cannot be overlooked by this chapter is that, if a loss occurs which is

not covered by the insurance because the index was not correlated to the realised loss and an indemnity payment was not triggered, the farmer may not be able to repay their loan. On its own, index insurance can harm farmers by extracting insurance payments while providing little or no actual risk coverage [20]. When combined with credit, the farmer may be worse off than if their loan were not insured because they have to pay the insurance premium as well as repay the loan [21]. This shows that while insurance could unlock credit and produce desired results such as higher investments, it could also produce undesired results such as higher default rates (ibid).

#### **5.2 Reality**

A few empirical studies have been carried out to understand the credit insurance linkage in different parts of SSA, and the results have been conflicted. Among these, a study by Giné and Yang [19] sought to test whether reducing risk through WII induces greater demand for credit among smallholder farmers in Malawi. Half the farmers were randomly selected to be offered credit to purchase high-yielding hybrid maize and groundnut seeds for planting. The other half were offered a similar credit package but were also required to purchase (at actuarially fair rates) a weather insurance policy that partially or fully forgave the loan in the event of poor rainfall. The uptake of credit was 33% for farmers offered a loan without insurance and 17.6% for farmers offered a loan bundled with weather insurance. The findings suggest that smallholders do not always value insurance as the demand for credit fell when bundled with insurance. An explanation for the behavioural response given by the authors is that farmers understood that they were implicitly insured by the limited liability inherent in the loan contract so that going for a loan bundled with insurance (for which an insurance premium was charged) would effectively increase the interest rate on the loan. On the other hand, the overall poor uptake rate could be taken to mean that smallholders generally do not trust financial institutions [86].

In a study carried out by Karlan et al. [87]. A randomised control trial was conducted to investigate whether price risk affected the demand for credit by smallholders in Eastern Ghana. Farmers were offered loans with an indemnity component that forgave 50% of the loan if crop prices dropped below a threshold price. A control group was offered a standard loan product at the same interest rate. Loan uptake was high among all farmers. The indemnity component had little impact on the uptake or other outcomes of interest. The indemnity product had incorporated insurance into the loan rather than as an add on, to avoid potential choice overload problems that arise sometimes when too many choices cause stagnation in decision making. Yet, findings showed a high take-up rate of credit despite indemnity, which made it difficult for the authors to assess heterogeneity in behavioural response. What is apparent from the findings is that insurance made no difference to the demand for credit. This again implying that smallholders do not always value insurance. To explain the outcome, the authors suggested among other reasons that, the farmers perhaps did not understand the contract.

In a different study carried out by Mishra et al. [88] in Northern Ghana, results also found no evidence that insurance has a significant impact on increasing the uptake of credit. The study investigated whether coupling agricultural loans with micro-level and meso-level drought index insurance can stimulate the demand and supply of credit and increase technology adoption. Based on empirical findings, if at all, bundling loans with insurance increased the likelihood of loan applications for female farmers. Gallenstein et al. [84] published a paper on the same population in

#### *Bundling Weather Index Insurance with Microfinance: Trekking the Long Road… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101742*

Northern Ghana. The authors investigated the willingness to pay for drought index insurance backed loans and found out that insurance lowered overall demand for loans. In fact, adding an insurance policy to an agricultural loan reduced the demand for credit as 75.3% of the population were willing to pay the market interest rate for the uninsured loan. What is also apparent from the findings of this study is that smallholders do not always value insurance. In this case, insurance had a bearing on demand for credit, albeit in a negative way.

Different results were observed, however, in a study carried out in Machakos County, Kenya by Ndegwa et al. [89]. The authors sought to investigate the causal effect of bundling WII with credit on uptake of agricultural technology among smallholders. 1170 sample households were randomly assigned to one of three research groups, namely, control, risk contingent credit and traditional credit. Based on the findings the average credit uptake rate was 33% with the uptake of bundled credit being significantly higher than that of traditional credit. In this case, insurance was seen to influence the uptake of credit. By and large, the study observed that risk rationing was among the key reasons responsible for the negative credit uptake among smallholders.

In another study, Pelka et al. [74] analysed the influence of weather variations on the repayment performance of credit among smallholder farmers in Madagascar. The farmers studied primarily grow rice in monoculture. The weather risk for rice cultivation in the central highlands of Madagascar is the excessive amount of rain in the harvest period (between the end of February to April), which reduces rice yields and, thus, leads to revenue losses for farmers. Findings demonstrated a high correlation between precipitation and credit risk, where credit risk is defined as whether or not a borrower can pay back all loan instalments by the due date. Thus, findings revealed in particular that, the credit risk of loans granted to smallholders increased in the harvesting period due to the excessive amount of precipitation. Based on the analysis given by the authors, credit risk would reduce significantly if the farmers had weather index insurance policies. This assumption is based on the hypothesis that, "the effect of weather events on the repayment performance of loans equals the effect of the returns of weather index-based insurance on the repayment performance of loans" Pelka et al. [74]. As such, the authors surmise that weather index-based insurance might have the potential to mitigate a portion of the risk in agricultural lending. In this study, the authors do not seem to argue for the bundling of credit and WII, but instead, propose that WII would be instrumental in mitigating credit risk in cases where lending is involved which would work only where the weather index is perfectly correlated to the realised loss. To avoid issues of credit risk, the weather index insurance programs in Malawi often bundle credit with mandatory weather index insurance [78]. However, while making insurance mandatory is good in that it assures worried lenders, the downside is that it may discourage farmers from seeking loans [21] as seen in experiments carried out in Malawi and Ghana earlier cited in this section.

#### **6. Discussion and conclusion**

A review of the literature showed mostly mixed results regarding the impact of bundling WII with microfinance among smallholders in SSA. The literature confirmed the premise that, even where microfinance has been made available, the demand for WII has remained consistently low across the sub-continent. Thus, a wide gap still exists between the expectations of what WII can achieve for smallholder

farmers in dealing with climate change risk, and the reality that is on the ground, which is that current demand varies from 2 to 40% (50% at the most). While WII may not provide complete protection against losses, it can improve the financial protection coverage needed for smallholders to effectively deal with the financial consequences of high-magnitude climatic loss events. In this way, WII can play an instrumental role in creating an enabling environment for rural financial services including banking and microfinance. For WII to work, it must complement existing risk management strategies, to ensure all round cover against climate change risks.

The chapter focused mainly on demand side dynamics paying considerable attention to the risk behavioural responses of the smallholders. It is crucial to understand how farmers respond to solutions designed to mitigate against risk as this will help to establish the effectiveness and compatibility of the measures apropos the target market. Based on the reviewed studies, the determinants of low demand for WII are many, ranging from risk aversion, liquidity and credit constraints, lack of trust in financial institutions, poor understanding of the indemnity contract to risk rationing. To improve demand for WII, suppliers need to design products to match the needs of target markets. A needs-based approach or deficit model recognises all needs, including underlying needs as valid claims. And so, insurance providers must be fully cognizant of community needs in their entirety for them to package WII more attractively. This would entail tackling more than just weather risk. Some insurance providers are already doing this. For example, research has shown that the uptake of WII is higher in Ethiopia when insurance is channelled through group-based informal insurance schemes *iddir* (a funeral society) or when bundled with input schemes [78]. Bundling insurance with microfinance is another way of catering to a community's secondary needs through targeting liquidity and constraints. However, evidence has shown that, this does not always work in communities with lower risk-taking behaviour. This is why a needs-based approach should be carried out alongside a people-centered market research of the target population.

Demographical information and behavioural economics make generalisations about populations which can help insurance providers to know what the customers are looking for and how their product meets customer needs [90]. Since WII takes on an anti-poverty approach, insurance providers should go beyond tactical strategies, and understand and view things from the perspectives of smallholder farmers. Thus, customer empathy is a requirement for the design of WII packages that meet the underlying needs of customers, while factoring in customer feelings about the products being offered. A typical market research seeks to understand the obvious characteristics of population (e.g., age, sex, income, employment, level of education, farm size, cropping activities). While a person-centered market research would seek to understand further information such as, how cultural beliefs and attitudes/religious views/willingness to adopt change/willingness to pay for change/ value placed on change (in monetary terms) influence technological preferences. Other information that could be sought by insurance providers include, household structure/headship and gender practices, to ascertain who does what? who has what? and who decides what? at the household level. SSA is home to more than 500 million women who account for about half of the continent's population [91]<sup>7</sup> . Based on data

<sup>7</sup> According to Menashe-Oren & Stecklov [92], SSA is characterised by balanced sex ratios at birth, so the primary factors creating divergence in rural/urban age structures are sex differences in mortality and migration.

#### *Bundling Weather Index Insurance with Microfinance: Trekking the Long Road… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101742*

from 45 countries in SSA for the periods 1980–2015, until the ages of 15–19, there are more boys than girls in the rural sector and fewer boys than girls in the urban sector, which changes dramatically between the ages 20–24 [92]. This suggests that in a lot of countries in SSA, there are more women than men who live and work in rural areas from the age of 20 onwards. This is consistent with reports which state that, in SSA, women are responsible for much of the food production in rural areas [93]. According to WorldBank [91], the share of labour varies across countries, ranging from 24% in Niger to 56% in Uganda, but remains consistently well below the commonly cited 60–80%. Despite their contribution to agriculture, women in male headed households have very little say in decision-making compared to women who head their own homes (female headed households) [94]. The point is, if women are a major demographic in rural areas, gender differences and practices are important factors that should be incorporated into the design and application of WII in SSA. In a study on Northern Ghana carried out by Gallenstein et al. [84], bundling loans with microinsurance was seen to increase the likelihood of loan applications for female farmers more than men. An analysis into such behavioural patterns could help WII providers to package their products in a gender sensitive manner so as to appeal to the needs of both male and female smallholders, which will potentially increase demand.

The more information is understood about the characteristics and preferences of the target population, and the more inclusive the insurance product or package is, the more likely it is to influence demand in a positive way. For as long as WII suppliers do not genuinely put the people first, combining WII with other innovations will not increase demand. Bundling WII with key farm inputs such agricultural inputs (i.e., fertilisers, seeds, loans, etc.), key agricultural institutions (e.g., Agri-banks, input suppliers, farmers' organisations, etc.) has not boosted demand for WII in Malawi [27]. From the lessons learned in this chapter, a 'One Size Fit All' WII design does not work well in SSA – what worked in Machakos County, Kenya did not work in Eastern and Northern Ghana.

#### **Acknowledgements**

This publication was made possible (in part) by a grant from Carnegie Corporation of New York. The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the author.

#### **Conflict of interest**

The author declares no conflict of interest.

#### **Notes/thanks/other declarations**

I would like to acknowledge my academic supervisor Professor Mark New whose comments enabled me to improve this chapter.

*Food Systems Resilience*

#### **Author details**

Dorcas Stella Shumba African Climate and Development Initiative (ACDI), University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

\*Address all correspondence to: stella.shumba@uct.ac.za

© 2022 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

*Bundling Weather Index Insurance with Microfinance: Trekking the Long Road… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101742*

#### **References**

[1] Niang I, Ruppel OC, Abdrabo MA, Essel A, Lennard C, Padgham J, et al. Africa. In: Barros VR, Field CB, Dokken DJ, Mastrandrea MD, Mach KJ, Bilir TE, et al editors. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press; 2014

[2] AFDB. Feed Africa: Strategy for Agricultural Transformation in Africa 2016-2025. Abidjan: African Development Bank Group (AFDB); 2016

[3] Diop M. Foresight Africa 2016: Banking on agriculture for Africa's Future. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute; 2016

[4] OBG. Agriculture in Africa. Oxford, UK: Oxford Business Group; 2021

[5] OECD/FAO. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2016-2025. Special Focus: Sub-Saharan Africa. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2016

[6] Shimeles A, Verdier-Chouchane A, Boly A. Introduction: Understanding the challenges of the agricultural sector in Sub-Saharan Africa. In: Shimeles A, Verdier-Chouchane A, Boly A, editors. Building a Resilient and Sustainable Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan; 2018

[7] Giller KE. The food security conundrum of sub-Saharan Africa. Global Food Security. 2020;**26**:100431. DOI: 10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100431

[8] Goedde L, Ooko-Ombaka A, Pais G. Winning in Africa's Agricultural Market. 2019. Available from: https://www. mckinsey.com/industries/agriculture/ our-insights/winning-in-africasagricultural-market

[9] Abraham M, Pingali P. Transforming smallholder agriculture to achieve the SDGs. In: Paloma SG y, Riesgo L, Louhichi K, editors. The Role of Smallholder Farms in Food and Nutrition Security. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020. pp. 173-209. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-42148-9\_9

[10] Gollin D. Smallholder agriculture in Africa: An overview and implications for policy. In: Working Paper October 2014. London: IIED; 2014

[11] Gollin D, Morris M, Byerlee D. Technology adoption in intensive post-green revolution systems. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2005;**87**(5):1310-1316

[12] Demeke M, Kiermeier M, Sow M, Antonaci L. Agriculture and Food Insecurity Risk Management in Africa: Concepts, Lessons Learned and Review Guidelines. Rome: FAO; 2016

[13] ASFG. Supporting Smallholder Farmers in Africa: A Framework for an Enabling Environment. Africa: African Smallholder Farmers Group (ASFG); 2013

[14] Collier B, Skees JR, Barnett B. Weather index insurance and climate change: Opportunities and challenges in lower income countries. The Geneva Papers. 2009;**34**:401-424

[15] Akotey JO, Adjasi CKD. Microinsurance and consumption smoothing among low-income households in Ghana. The Journal of Developing Areas. 2018;**52**(4):151-165. DOI: 10.1353/jda.2018.0057

[16] Asseldonk MV, Burger K, d'Hotel EM, Muller B, Cotty T, Meijerink G. Linking Crop Insurance and Rural Credit. Paris: AGRINATURA-EEIG; 2012

[17] Farrin K, Miranda MJ. A heterogeneous agent model of creditlinked index insurance and farm technology adoption. Journal of Development Economics. 2015;**116**:199- 211. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2015.05.001

[18] Gallenstein R, Flatnes JE, Dougherty JP, Sam AG, Mishra K. The impact of index-insured loans on credit market participation and risk-taking. Agricultural Economics. 2021;**52**(1): 141-156. DOI: 10.1111/agec.12611

[19] Giné X, Yang D. Insurance, credit, and technology adoption: Field experimental evidence from Malawi. Journal of Development Economics. 2009;**89**(1):1-11

[20] Jensen ND, Barrett CB. Agricultural index insurance for development. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy. 2016;**39**(2):199-219

[21] Meyer R, Hazell P, Varangis P. Unlocking Smallholder Credit: Does Credit-Linked Agricultural Insurance Work? Washington D.C: World Bank; 2017

[22] Raithatha R, Priebe J. Agricultural Insurance for Smallholder Farmers: Digital Innovations for Scale. London: GSMA; 2020

[23] Berhanu M, Oljira Wolde A. Review on climate change impacts and its adaptation strategies on food security in sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural Social Economic Journal. 2019;**19**(3):145-154. DOI: 10.21776/ub.agrise.2019.019.3.3

[24] Blanc É. The Impact of Climate Change on Crop Production in Sub-Saharan Africa. New Zealand: University of Otago; 2011

[25] Brown OLI, Hammill A, McLeman R. Climate change as the 'new' security threat: implications for Africa. International Affairs (London). 2007;**83**(6):1141-1154. DOI: 10.1111/j. 1468-2346.2007.00678.x

[26] Gizaw MS, Gan TY. Impact of climate change and El Niño episodes on droughts in sub-Saharan Africa. Climate Dynamics. 2017;**49**(1-2):665-682. DOI: 10.1007/s00382-016-3366-2

[27] Makaudze EM. Weather Index Insurance for Smallholder Farmers in Africa: Lessons Learnt and Goals for the Future. Stellenbosch: African SUN Media; 2012

[28] UNDRR. Human Cost of Disasters 2000-2019. Geneva, Switzerland: UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR); 2020

[29] Mano R, Nhemachena C. Assessment of the economic impacts of climate change on agriculture in Zimbabwe: A ricardian approach. Policy Research Working Paper 4292. Washington DC: World Bank; 2007

[30] WorldBank. Zimbabwe: Agriculture Sector Disaster Risk Assessment. Washington DC: World Bank; 2019

[31] Coulibably BS. Foresight Africa: Top Priorities for the Continent 2020-2030. Washington, DC: The Brookings; 2020

[32] Carter MR, Little PD, Mogues T, Negatu W. The long-term impacts of short-term shocks: poverty traps and environmental disasters in ethiopia and honduras. In: ASIS Collaborative Research Support Program (CRSP) Brief *Bundling Weather Index Insurance with Microfinance: Trekking the Long Road… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101742*

Number 28. Madison, WI: Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wisconsin; 2005

[33] Skees JR. Challenges for use of index-based weather insurance in lower income countries. In: 101st EAAE Seminar. Berlin, Germany: Management of Climate Risks in Agriculture; 2007

[34] Bjornlund V, Bjornlund H, Van Rooyen AF. Why agricultural production in sub-saharan africa remains low compared to the rest of the world – A historical perspective. International Journal of Water Resources Development. 2020;**36**(1):S20-S53. DOI: 10.1080/07900627.2020.1739512

[35] Weber EJ. Weather Index Insurance in Sub-Saharan Africa. 2019. Available from: https://ssrn.com/ abstract=3396489

[36] Boko M, Niang I, Nyong A, Vogel C, Githeko A, Medany M, et al. Africa. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, Linden PJVD, Hanson CE, editors. Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2007

[37] Miller KA, Mcunu N, Anhäuser A, Farrow A, Santillo D, Johnston P. Weathering the Storm: Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change in Africa. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Greenpeace; 2020

[38] Gommes R, Petrassi F. Rainfall Variability and Drought in Sub-Saharan Africa. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO); 1996

[39] Hulme M, Doherty R, Ngara T, New M, Lister D. African climate change: 1900-2100. Climate Research. 2001;**17**(2):145-168

[40] WMO. State of the Climate in Africa 2019. Geneva: World Meteorological Organization (WMO); 2020

[41] Engelbrecht F, Adegoke J, Bopape M-J, Naidoo M, Garland R. Projections of rapidly rising surface temperatures over Africa under low mitigation. Environmental Research Letters. 2015;**10**(8):085004

[42] Woetzel J, Pinner D, Samandari H, Engel H, Krishnan M, McCullough R, et al. How will African farmers adjust to changing patterns of precipitation? In: Climate Risk and Response. Case Study: Agriculture in Africa. McKinsey Global Institute; 2020. Available from: https:// www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/ business%20functions/sustainability/ our%20insights/how%20will%20 african%20farmers%20adjust%20to%20 changing%20patterns%20of%20 precipitation/mgi-how-will-africanfarmers-adjust-to-changing-patterns-ofprecipitation.pdf

[43] Williams CJR, Kniveton DR. Introduction. In: Williams CJR, Kniveton DR, editors. African Climate and Climate Change: Physical, Social and Political Perspectives. Cham: Springer; 2011

[44] AFDB. Climate change in Africa. In: African Development Bank at COP25. Available at. Abidjan: African Development Bank Group (AFDB); 2019

[45] Tedesco, I. A holistic approach to agricultural risk management for improving resilience. In Proceesings of 2nd International Workshop on Modelling of Physical, Economic and Social Systems for Resilience Assessment. Luxembourg; European Commission Joint Research Centre; 2017

[46] Zhang L. Assessing the Demand for Weather Index Insurance in Shandong

Province, China University of Kentucky]. 2008. Available from: https://uknowledge. uky.edu/gradschool\_theses/559

[47] GlobalAgRisk. Designing Agricultural Index Insurance in Developing Countries: A GlobalAgRisk Market Development Model Handbook for Policy and Decision Makers. Lexington, KY: GlobalAgRisk; 2009

[48] Morduch J. Income smoothing and consumption smoothing. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 1995;**9**(3):103- 114. DOI: 10.1257/jep.9.3.103

[49] Skees JR, Murphy A, Collier B, McCord MJ, Roth J. Scaling Up Index Insurance: What is needed for the next big step forward? Berlin: Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (German Financial Cooperation); 2007

[50] Camerer CF, Kunreuther H. Decision processes for low probability events: Policy implications. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 1989;**8**(4): 565-592. DOI: 10.2307/3325045

[51] WorldBank. Weather Index Insurance: Guidance for Development Practitioners. In Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper 50. Washington DC: World Bank; 2011

[52] Lekprichakul T. Ex Ante and Ex Post Risk Coping Strategies: How Do Subsistence Farmers in Southern and Eastern Province of Zambia Cope? Japan Research Institute for Humanity and Nature: Kyoto; 2009

[53] Abid M, Ali A, Rahut DB, Raza M, Mehdi M. Ex-ante and ex-post coping strategies for climatic shocks and adaptation determinants in rural Malawi. Climate Risk Management. 2020;**27**:100200. DOI: 10.1016/j. crm.2019.100200

[54] Frankenberger T, Swallow K, Mueller M, Spangler T, Downen J, Alexander S. Feed the Future Learning Agenda Literature Review: Improving Resilience of Vulnerable Populations. Rockville, MD: Westat; 2013

[55] Barnett BJ, Barrett CB, Skees JR. Poverty traps and index based risk transfer products. World Development. 2008;**36**(2008):1766-1785

[56] Reyes CM, Agbon AD, Mina CD, Gloria RAB. Agricultural insurance program: Lessons from different country experiences. In: PIDS Discussion Paper Series, No. 2017-02. Quezon City: Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS); 2017

[57] Carter MR, Lybbert TJ. Consumption versus asset smoothing: Testing the implications of poverty trap theory in Burkina Faso. Journal of Development Economics. 2012;**99**(2012):255-264

[58] Shumba D. Understanding the Gender Dimensions of Environmental Change: An Exploration of the Experiences and Perceptions of Zimbabwean Rural Men and Women. New Zealand: Massey University; 2017

[59] Dercon S. Risk, insurance, and poverty: A review. In: Dercon S, editor. Insurance Against Poverty. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004

[60] Swift J. Why are rural pople vulnerable to famine. IDS Bulletin. 2006;**37**(4):41-49

[61] Janzen SA, Carter MR. The impact of microinsurance on consumption smoothing and asset protection: Evidence from a drought in Kenya. In: Paper prepared for Presentation at the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association's 2013 AAEA & CAES Joint

*Bundling Weather Index Insurance with Microfinance: Trekking the Long Road… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101742*

Annual Meeting. Washington, DC; 4-6 August 2013

[62] Sugiyanto C, Kusumastuti SY, Donna DR. Managing Risks: How do Poor Households Smooth Their Income and Consumption? (An Examination of Poor Households in Yogyakarta, Indonesia). Institute for Money Technology and Financial Inclusion (IMTFI); 2012. Available from: https:// www.imtfi.uci.edu/files/blog\_working\_ papers/2012-3\_sugiyanto.pdf

[63] WorldBank. Agriculture for Development. Washington D.C: World Bank; 2008

[64] Dercon S. Income risk, coping strategies, and safety nets. The World Bank Research Observer. 2002;**17**(2): 141-166. DOI: 10.1093/wbro/17.2.141

[65] Fumagalli L, Martin T. Income smoothing, child labor and schooling: A randomized field experiment in the Nampula Province of Mozambique. Milan, Italy: AlpPop The Alpine Population Conference, Dondena Centre for Research on Social Dynamics; 25-28 January 2015

[66] Jensen ND, Barrett CB, Mude AG. Index insurance and cash transfers: a comparative analysis from Northern Kenya. Journal of Development Economics. 2017;**129**(November): 14-28

[67] UNFCCC. (2015). Adoption of the Paris Agreement, 21st Conference of the Parties. New York: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

[68] UNFCCC. The Cancun Adaptation Framework: Reopor of the Conference of the Parties on its Sixteenth Session held in Cancun from 29 Novermber to 10

December 2010. New York: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; 2010

[69] Skees JR, Collier B. The Potential of Weather Index Insurance for Spurring a Green Revolution in Africa. Nairobi, Kenya: AGRA Policy Workshop; 2008

[70] Di Marcantonio F, Kayitakire F. Review of pilot projects on index-based insurance in Africa: Insights and lessons learned. In: Tiepolo M, Pezzoli A, Tarchiani V, editors. Renewing Local Planning to Face Climate Change in the Tropics. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017. pp. 323-341. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-59096-7\_16

[71] Hess U, Hazell P. Innovations and Emerging Trends in Agricultural Insurance: How Can We Transfer Natural Risks Out of Rural Livelihooods to Empower and Protect People? Bonn, Germany: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH; 2016

[72] Nshakira-Rukundo E, Kamau JW, Baumüller H. Determinants of uptake and strategies to improve agricultural insurance in Africa: A review. Environment and Development Economics. 2021;**26**(5-6):605-631. DOI: 10.1017/S1355770X21000085

[73] Binswanger-Mkhize HP. Is there too much hype about index-based agricultural insurance? Journal of Development Studies. 2012;**48**(2): 187-200

[74] Pelka N, Musshoff O, Weber R. Does weather matter? How rainfall affects credit risk in agricultural microfinance. Agricultural Finance Review. 2015;**75**(2):194-212. DOI: 10.1108/ AFR-10-2014-0030

[75] Kemeze FH. The impact of agricultural insurance on the demand for supplemental irrigation: A randomized controlled trial experimental evidence in Northern Ghana. In: Shimeles A, Verdier-Chouchane A, Boly A, editors. Building a Resilient and Sustainable Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2018

[76] Mapfumo S. Weather Index Crop Insurance: Implementation, Product Design, Challenges and Successes – Lessons Learned in the Field. MicroEnsure; 2008. Available from: https://www.findevgateway.org/sites/ default/files/publications/files/mfg-enpaper-weather-index-crop-insuranceimplementation-product-designchallenges-and-successes-lessonslearned-in-the-field-nov-2008.pdf

[77] Vhurumuku E. Use of weather-based index as a tool to reduce food insecurity and vulnerability: A case of Ethiopia. In: Makaudze EM, editor. Weather Index Insurance for Smallholder Farmers in Africa: Lessons Learnt and Goals for the Future. Africa: African SUN Media; 2012

[78] Tadesse MA, Shiferaw BA, Erenstein O. Weather index insurance for managing drought risk in smallholder agriculture: Lessons and policy implications for sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural and Food Economics. 2015;**3**(26):1-21

[79] Carter MR, Janvry Ad, Sadoulet E, Sarris A. Index-based weather insurance for developing countries: A review of evidence and a set of propositions for up-scaling. In: Development Policies. France: Foundation for Studies and Research on International Development (FERDI); 2014

[80] Marr A, Winkel A, van Asseldonk M, Lensink R, Bulte E. Adoption and impact of index-insurance and credit for

smallholder farmers in developing countries. Agricultural Finance Review. 2016;**76**(1):94-118. DOI: 10.1108/ AFR-11-2015-0050

[81] Ruben M. The Promise of Microfinance for Poverty Relief in the Developing World. Proquest CSA Discovery Guides; 2007. Available from: https://www.findevgateway.org/sites/ default/files/publications/files/mfg-enpaper-the-promise-of-microfinance-forpoverty-relief-in-the-developing-worldmay-2007.pdf

[82] Goldberg M, Palladini E, Bank W. Managing Risk And Creating Value With Microfinance. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2010

[83] Pomeranz D. The Promise of Microfinance and Women's Empowerment: What Does the Evidence Say? London: Ernest & Young; 2014

[84] Gallenstein R, Mishra K, Sam A, Miranda M. Willingness to pay for insured loans in Northern Ghana. Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2019;**70**:640- 662. DOI: 10.1111/1477-9552.12317

[85] Singh P, Agrawal G. Efficacy of weather index insurance for mitigation of weather risks in agriculture: An integrative review. International Journal of Ethics and Systems. 2019;**35**(4):584- 616. DOI: 10.1108/IJOES-09-2018-0132

[86] Langyintuo A. Smallholder farmers' access to inputs and finance in Africa. In: Paloma SG y, Riesgo L, Louhichi K, editors. The Role of Smallholder Farms in Food and Nutrition Security. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020. pp. 133-152. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030- 42148-9\_7

[87] Karlan D, Kutsoati E, McMillan M, Udry C. Crop price indemnified loans for farmers: A pilot experiment in

*Bundling Weather Index Insurance with Microfinance: Trekking the Long Road… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101742*

rural Ghana. The Journal of Risk and Insurance. 2011;**78**(1):37-55. DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6975.2010.01406.x

[88] Mishra K, Gallenstein R, Sam AG, Miranda MJ, Toledo P, Mulangu F. You are Approved! Insured Loans Improve Credit Access and Technology Adoption of Ghanaian Farmers. 2017. Available at: https://thedocs.worldbank. org/en/doc/570041495654735804- 0010022017/original/D2Mishraetal. ABCA20170518.pdf

[89] Ndegwa MK, Shee A, Turvey CG, You L. Uptake of insurance-embedded credit in presence of credit rationing: evidence from a randomized controlled trial in Kenya. Agricultural Finance Review. 2020;**80**(5):745-766. DOI: 10.1108/AFR-10-2019-0116

[90] Bahlinger D. Innovate to Win: Why Market Research is Key to Insurance Industry Success. Washington, DC: Milliman; 2020

[91] WorldBank. Inequalities in Women's and Girls' Health Opportunities and Outcomes: A Report from sub-Saharan Africa. Washington D.C: World Bank; 2016

[92] Menashe-Oren A, Stecklov G. Rural/ urban population age and sex composition in sub-Saharan Africa 1980-2015. Population and Development Review. 2018;**44**(1):7-35. DOI: 10.1111/ padr.12122

[93] FAO. Women, Agriculture and Rural Development: A Synthesis Report of the Africa Region. Rome: FAO; 1995

[94] Lowe-Morna C, Dube S, Makamure L, Robinson KV. SADC Gender Protocol Report. Johannesburg: Gender Links; 2014

#### **Chapter 4**

## Toward Safe Food Systems: Analyses of Mycotoxin Contaminants in Food and Preventive Strategies Thereof for Their Formation and Toxicity

*Dikabo Mogopodi, Mesha Mbisana, Samuel Raditloko, Inonge Chibua and Banyaladzi Paphane*

#### **Abstract**

Mycotoxin contaminants in food pose a threat to human and animal health. These lead to food wastage and threaten food security that is already a serious problem in Africa. In addition, these affect trading and especially affect incomes of rural farmers. The broad impacts of these contaminants require integrated solutions and strategies. It is thus critical to not only develop strategies for analysis of these toxins but also develop removal and preventive strategies of these contaminants to ensure consumer safety and compliance with regulatory standards. Further within the aim of promoting food safety, there is need for operational policy framework and strategy on the management of these contaminants to promote their mitigation. This chapter discusses integrated strategies for monitoring and control of mycotoxin contamination in food matrices to promote their mitigation and build resilient food systems in Africa and thus reinforce efforts to reach sustainable food security.

**Keywords:** food safety, mycotoxins, nanotechnology, analytical strategies, food security

#### **1. Introduction**

Food safety indirectly affects a wide range of social, economic, and environmental processes including food production and hence environmental impacts of agriculture, food trade, and energy use [1]. Foodborne illness, in particular, places an undue burden on health and socioeconomics of society, and this burden is the highest in developing countries especially in marginalized communities. Thus, the integration of food safety considerations is critical in achieving a wide range of sustainable development goals (SDGs) including SDG2 (*End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture*) [2]. It is important to make food safety

a development priority and to ensure that food security policies and initiatives give attention to food safety.

In order for African Governments to make food safety a public health priority, there is need for rigorous analysis of food contaminants that would give evidence on the burdens of food safety and thus lead to establishing and implementing effective and resilient food safety systems [3]. Of concern is the presence of chemical contamination that poses an enormous threat to food safety and security, and these influence the development of African agri-food system. Chemical contamination imposes a huge economic burden across the health and other sectors [4]. Chemical contamination also leads to food loss, which could otherwise have served millions of people and assisted in achieving food security [5]. Food loss not only threatens food security but also represents the lost labor, capital, water, energy, land, and other resources that went into producing the food and thereby threatening sustainability [2]. Chemical contamination includes many substances such as agrochemicals, pesticides, heavy metals [6], persistent organic pollutants, and natural toxins [7]. Among chemical contaminants that are troublesome are naturally occurring toxins and these include mycotoxins, marine biotoxins, cyanogenic glycosides, and toxins occurring in poisonous mushrooms [8]. It is of particular interest to focus on mycotoxins due to their severity in Africa and their impact on agro-economies [9–13].

Mycotoxins are secondary metabolites of a range of filamentous fungi and saphrophytic molds [14]. Among all the toxic filamentous fungi species, *Aspergillus, Fusarium, and Penicillium* are important genera, producing regularly widely studied toxins including aflatoxins, patulin, ochratoxin A (OTA), deoxynivalenol (DON), trichothenes: T-2 toxin, fumonisin, tremorgenic toxins, ergot alkaloids, and zearalenone (ZON) [15]. Mycotoxins can contaminate food or food crops throughout the food chain, in the field or after harvest and during storage [16]. In addition to food- and feed-born intoxication, humans can also be affected through exposures *via* surface water contamination. Pathogenic fungi, including *Fusarium* species, have been demonstrated to be capable of continuing to produce their secondary metabolites in water [17], and this process has been indicated to be a potential route of human exposure to mycotoxins [18].

#### **1.1 Impact of mycotoxins on public health**

The consumption of mycotoxins-contaminated food/feed products has had an adverse impact on public health for many centuries [19]. Mycotoxins can be found in many food products including cereals, nuts, spices, dried fruits, apples, and coffee beans [20]. Exposure to mycotoxins can produce both acute and chronic toxicities ranging from death to deleterious effects on the central nervous, cardiovascular, pulmonary, and digestive systems of most farm animals and humans. Mycotoxins may also be carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, and immunosuppressive [12, 19].

Aflatoxins are among the most potent carcinogens of all mycotoxins. Studies have revealed that aflatoxins occur at extremely high levels in many African countries such as Ghana, Benin, Togo, Egypt, Guinea, and Gambia [20]. Repetitive incidents of aflatoxicosis, which, in severe cases, lead to death, have been reported. The greatest recorded fatal mycotoxin-poisoning outbreak occurred in Africa in 2004 where a 125 people in Kenya died due to consumption of contaminated maize [9]. A similar outbreak occurred in Eastern Kenya in 2005 where 75 cases were admitted in Hospital resulting in 25 deaths. Maize samples collected from these areas had high aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) levels with 55% contaminated above the Kenyan legal limit of 20 μg/kg [10].

#### *Toward Safe Food Systems: Analyses of Mycotoxin Contaminants in Food and Preventive… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101461*

AFB1 levels have been extensively linked to human liver cancer in which they act synergistically with HBV hepatitis B virus infection [10, 21]. There is up to 30 times greater risk of acquiring liver cancer from chronic infection with hepatitis B virus and dietary exposure to aflatoxin as compared with exposure to either of the two factors alone [21]. Both aflatoxin exposure and chronic hepatitis B infection predominate in rural Africa, which explains why the highest incidence of liver cancer occurs in Africa. In Tanzania, there was about 1480 per 100,000 persons cases of aflatoxininduced liver cancer in 2016 [12]. Further AFB1 could also lead to increased susceptibility to infectious diseases such as malaria and HIV-AIDS [10].

Consumption of fumonisins has been associated with elevated human esophageal cancer incidence in various parts of Africa [10, 22]. Fumonisins have also been implicated in the high incidence of neural tube defects in rural populations of Eastern Cape province, the former Transkei region of South Africa [11, 22]. Fumonisins may also cause stunted growth in children. A study carried out to investigate the relationship between infant and young child growth and fumonisin exposure revealed that children with fumonisins intake of greater than the maximum tolerable daily intake (PMTDI) were significantly shorter (1.3 cm) and lighter (328 g) compared with children whose fumonisin intake is less than the PMTDI [20]. Recently, children in Tanzania showed impaired growth, which is associated with exposure to fumonisns from maize [23]. Another study done in sorghum grown in different parts of Northern Uganda showed that 80% of all samples contained aflatoxins, 93% fumonisins, and 67% OTA. The presence of mycotoxins in staple such as sorghum has been linked to the development of edema and kwashiorkor in undernourished children in this region [24].

Aflatoxin exposure in young children in West Africa has also been associated with Reye's syndrome, child neurological impairment, Kwashiorkor, and stunted growth [25]. The chronic incidence of aflatoxin in diets is evident from the presence of aflatoxin M1 (AFM1) in human breast milk in Ghana, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and Sudan as well as in umbilical cord blood samples in Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone [9]. Another study on aflatoxin exposure in the Gambia revealed that aflatoxins can be transported from the mother to the infant. This shows a significant association between maternal exposure to aflatoxin and impaired infant growth [26].

#### **1.2 Economic impact of mycotoxins**

The economic impacts of mycotoxins to human society can be thought of in terms of the direct market costs associated with lost trade or reduced revenues due to contaminated food or feed, and the human health losses from the adverse effects associated with mycotoxin consumption covered in Section 1.1. Mycotoxins are known to affect almost one quarter (25%) of global feed and food output [27]. This leads to huge agricultural and industrial losses in billions of dollars [20]. About 10% of the 2010 Kenyan maize harvest was withdrawn from the food supply in a responsible move taken by the Kenyan government to protect public health, which translates to economic losses [16]. These toxins account for economic losses in the magnitude of millions of dollars due to reduced agricultural production. In Africa, factors such as poverty and climate change further complicate the mycotoxin situation; thus, the economic impact due to mycotoxins is alarming [19]. This impact includes high cost of research and regulatory activities aimed at reducing health risks because of the existence of causal relationships between mycotoxins and their impact on health.

In domestic markets, economic losses occur at various levels, from the commodity producers to the brokers, the processors, and the animal producers. Several countries, particularly some industrialized ones, have set specific regulations defining maximum admissible levels for major mycotoxins in numerous commodities. Limits for AFB1 in foodstuffs range from 0 to 30 μg/kg, while those for total aflatoxins range from 0 to 50 μg/kg [28]. As of 2003, only 15 African countries, accounting for approximately 59 percent of the continent's population, are known to have specific mycotoxin regulations [29], and this is still the current status to date. In countries like Ethopia, only a few food commodities have mycotoxin legislation largely because they are exported to European and American markets [28]. While these regulations limit their presence in food and feed, these also adversely affects access to attractive export market for many developing countries due to the difficulty in meeting required standards [1]. For example, Africa could earn up to US\$1 billion per year from groundnut exports by regaining the 77% share of the global groundnut export market it enjoyed in the 1960s instead of the current share of 4%, which is valued at just US\$64 million [1].

#### **1.3 Mycotoxin contamination: what is it to Africa?**

Mycotoxin research has attracted huge interest among scientists, farmers, and policy makers and regulatory bodies alike. Despite mycotoxins being a much more pronounced problem in the developing world than in the developed world, much of the work in this area is concentrated in the developed world, while Africa, especially Sub-Saharan Africa, is lagging behind. Only few and fragmented studies have been conducted on mycotoxins in Africa (examples are shown in **Table 1**). This is of concern given that most of African countries rely on staple food such as sorghum and maize and other oil seeds such as groundnuts that are subject to contamination by a range of fungi, both in the field and after harvest. This predisposes a high number of populations in Africa to consumption of mycotoxin contaminated food products and thus increases the chance of chronic and detrimental exposure to mycotoxins [34]. Further, Africans rely on preservation of grains through traditional storage, where the grains stored for more than a few days are susceptible to fungal attack.

Increased climate variability and harsh climate conditions in Africa such as high relative humidity and high temperatures conducive for mycotoxigenic fungal colonization and mycotoxin production pre- and/or post-harvest [46] may aggravate the situation. The stress of hot dry conditions, especially in places such as Botswana and Namibia, may result in significant mycotoxigenic fungal infections during the preharvest phase and hence mycotoxin production. Climate change can also increase host susceptibility to hull cracking [46]. As a result, this can lead to decreased phytoalexin production, which increases susceptibility of peanuts to mycotoxin and may compromise maize kernel integrity leading to increased mycotoxin contamination.

All these factors require a rigorous mycotoxin management system, especially the continued monitoring of mycotoxins in Africa. Thus, Africa is challenged with driving mycotoxin research to (a) provide scientific evidence for consumers from health and economic perspective; (b) to provide regulatory bodies with data for relevant risk of exposure and risk assessment to enable them to set regulatory legislations for mycotoxins in food commodities, as well as (c) to ensure that international regulatory levels are met. It is within this context that it is necessary to come up with cost-effective strategies in determining the identity and level of mycotoxins in food commodities as well as to come up with sustainable preventive strategies. Without an *Toward Safe Food Systems: Analyses of Mycotoxin Contaminants in Food and Preventive… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101461*


#### **Table 1.**

*Examples of mycotoxins studies in Africa.*

aggressive research program to prevent, treat, and contain outbreaks of mycotoxins in grain, grain producers will suffer the consequences of reduced marketability of their products. In this regard, nanotechnology-based solutions present themselves as attractive solutions and the use of affordable detections such as point-of-care (POC) diagnosis and electrochemistry are areas that present a lot of potential.

#### **2. Analytical strategies toward mycotoxin adsorption and detection**

The accurate and rapid qualitative and quantitative analysis for mycotoxins has been topic of interest by many researchers [47, 48]. A mycotoxin analysis method should be simple, rapid, reproducible, robust, accurate, sensitive, and selective to enable simultaneous determination. Analytical methods for the determination of mycotoxins commonly have the following steps: sampling, homogenization, extraction, and cleanup, which might include sample concentration and then detection [49].

#### **2.1 Cost-effective strategies for adsorption of mycotoxins (either for extraction or for decontamination)**

Several strategies on pre-harvest and post-harvest prevention of mycotoxin contamination have been reported including the use of resistant varieties, the use of biological and chemical agents, crop rotation, improved drying methods, good storage conditions, and irradiation. However, these methods do not solve the problem as mycotoxins still get detected in food ready for consumption [50]. Therefore, greater attention should be paid to mycotoxin adsorption or removal strategies as they have greater potential in complete elimination of mycotoxins from food commodities. These adsorption strategies are also very useful for extraction of mycotoxin in contaminated samples prior to instrumental analysis, needed especially for trace analysis. An efficient method for adsorption of mycotoxin should be inexpensive, able to adsorb or remove/inactivate the mycotoxins without producing toxic residues and affecting the technological properties, nutritive value, and palatability of products [51]. Several adsorption materials are discussed herein.

#### *2.1.1 Zeolites*

Zeolites are micro-porous crystalline-hydrated aluminosilicates structurally based on three-dimensional anionic network of SiO4 and AlO4 tetrahedra linked to each other by sharing all of the oxygen atoms [52]. The potential for using zeolites as mycotoxin adsorbents is based on their adsorption capacity, cation-exchange, dehydration-rehydration, and catalysis features. Zeolites can also be modified specifically to enhance selectivity of specific mycotoxins. Mycotoxins are structurally diverse; thus, they have varying chemical and physical properties. Some are polar, others are non-polar, and there are several that fall in between. This diversity can be resolved by such a material that can change its properties under various physicochemical conditions [52].

Surfactant-modified zeolites have proven to be effective adsorbents of mycotoxin and potential food additives due to their "non-toxic" traits. The clinoptilolite type that has been approved by European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavorings and Processing Aids (CEF) is one of the safe substances for feed and food additives [53]. The *in vitro* mycotoxins adsorption by natural clinoptilolite-heulandite rich tuff-modified with octadecyldimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride (Do) and dioctadecyldimethyl ammonium chloride (Pr) (organo-zeolites) has been investigated [54]. Results from the mycotoxin-binding

*Toward Safe Food Systems: Analyses of Mycotoxin Contaminants in Food and Preventive… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101461*

studies showed that the organo-zeolites effectively adsorbed AFB1, ZON, OTA, and the ergopeptine alkaloids.

ZON adsorption by organozeolites prepared *via* treatment of the natural zeolites—organoclinoptilolites (ZCPs) and organophillipsites (PCPs) with cetylpyridinium chloride (CP), has also been studied [55]. Results showed that adsorption of ZON increases with increasing amounts of CP at the zeolitic surfaces for both ZCPs and PCPs even though the adsorption mechanism was different. The increased adsorption of ZON with increasing amount of organic cation at the zeolitic surface confirmed that CP at both zeolitic surfaces is responsible for ZON adsorption. Although there has not been much work done on multi-mycotoxin adsorption by zeolites, studies show that there is potential in that area.

Due to their adsorption efficiency, zeolites have also developed for the analytical determination of mycotoxins, especially aflatoxins and ZON. Aflatoxins in milk have successfully been determined with an ionic liquid-modified magnetic zeolitic imidazolate framework-8 (M/ZIF-8) [56] and the application potential of M/ZIF-8 was extended successfully for the trace liposoluble pollutants analysis in foodstuffs. Natural zeolite treated with benzalkonium chloride has also showed great potential as an OTA and ZON adsorbent [55].

#### *2.1.2 Molecularly imprinted polymers (MIPs)*

MIPs are synthetic polymers with a predetermined selectivity for a certain analyte or several analytes that are structurally similar, making them ideal for separation and adsorption purposes. MIPs have been widely investigated as suitable adsorbents for mycotoxin analysis and determination [57–59] and only have been applied to food commodities to solve the challenge associated with detecting trace quantity of mycotoxins in food. AFB1-specific molecularly imprinted solid phase extraction sorbent has been developed for the selective pre-concentration of toxic AFB1 in child-weaning food, tsabana. The MIPs successfully achieved a pre-concentration factor of 5 and therefore significantly increased AFB1 signal intensity for easier detection [59].

MIPs have also been applied to extract AFM1 from milk spiked with 0.5–50 ng/mL AFM1. The MIPs removed 87.3–96.2% of the AFM1 without any notable effects on the milk composition [60]. MIPs that constituted of (i) Fe3O4, to make the MIP magnetic, (ii) chitosan (CS), and SiO2 to improve the biocompatibility, stability and dispersibility of the MIP, were developed for removal of patulin from apple juice. This Fe3O4@ SiO2@CS-GO@MIP demonstrated to be a promising adsorbent with the adsorption capacity of 7.11 mg/g maximally and ability to remove over 90% of the total patulin in apple juice [61].

#### *2.1.3 Carbon nanomaterials*

The application of nanotechnology in adsorbents is especially attractive due to increased adsorption capacities of nanomaterials. Nanotechnology is a field of science, which deals with production, manipulation, and use of materials ranging in nanometers [62] with unique and improved properties of commercial and scientific relevance such as large surface-to-volume ratio and improved physiochemical properties such as color, solubility, strength, diffusivity, toxicity, magnetic, optical, thermodynamic properties [63]. In particular, the large surface area-to-volume ratios of nanomaterials can greatly enhance the adsorption capacities of sorbent materials.

Carbon nanoforms have large surface area per weight, colloidal stability upon various pH [64], strength, elasticity, and great conductivity and thus have great potential as mycotoxin adsorbents [65]. Fullerene, an allotrope of carbon has been found to adsorb aflatoxins. Another form, nanodiamonds, has the same advantages as carbon nanomaterials and is considered inexpensive [65]. Furthermore, their chemical structure allows surface modifications including carboxylation, hydrogenation, and hydroxylation which could enable effective adsorption of mycotoxins. The binding and mechanism of mycotoxins and nanodiamonds have been studied. Nanodiamond aggregates (~40 nm) have been shown to adsorb AFB1 and OTA *via* electrostatic interactions with functional groups on their surfaces [66] and demonstrated adsorption capacities greater that clay mineral, which are conventional adsorbents for mycotoxins.

Single/multiwalled carbon nanotubes (CNT) have been utilized in solid phase extraction of various mycotoxins due to their good adsorption capacity. A multiwalled CNT-based magnetic solid-phase extraction sorbent for the determination of ZON and its derivatives were developed and applied in maize samples [67]. The main parameters affecting the cleanup efficiency were investigated using ultra-highperformance liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS), and high purification efficiencies for all analytes were obtained. The method proved to be a powerful tool for monitoring ZON and its derivatives in maize. The good adsorption capacity of CNT has also been utilized in extraction of tricothecenes [68, 69] and aflatoxins [70].

#### **2.2 Cost-effective methods for the detection and analysis of mycotoxins**

There are numerous analytical methods having different technical details for accuracy, which have been developed for analysis of mycotoxins [71]. Commonly used methods to analyze mycotoxins are thin-layer chromatography, high-performance liquid chromatography with UV or fluorescence detection (FD), LC–MS [71], gas chromatography–mass spectroscopy, and immunoanalytical techniques with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) being the most prevailing method [72]. Whereas these methods are offering good detection limits and exceptional specificities and sensitivities, they are still drawbacks associated with these methods. These methods are time-consuming, and they use expensive analytical instruments, and require a lot of technical knowledge and operational expertise. They are therefore unsuitable for point-of-care diagnosis and will certainly not be accessible to farmers and many developing country laboratories. Therefore, the development of rapid, simple, relatively easy to use, and possibly non-instrumental cost-effective and convenient sampling and accurate detection methods for mycotoxin analysis are extremely essential and desirable. Methods with such properties are especially attractive for routine laboratory and on-site screening by untrained personnel and could also be affordable to farmers and to African Laboratories.

#### *2.2.1 Lateral flow immunoassays*

The lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) has gained increasing interest and exhibits promise as a tool to overcome the complexities associated with traditional methods of mycotoxin analysis [73]. With LFIA, expensive equipment is not required, less skill is involved in administering LFIAs, and there is easy interpretation of results. The userfriendly operation and easy storage of the LFIA platform allow them to be used at the

*Toward Safe Food Systems: Analyses of Mycotoxin Contaminants in Food and Preventive… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101461*

POC or industry setting as well as for in-home diagnoses/farm diagnosis especially with remote settings, administered with little training and with little chance of error [73, 74]. The POC diagnosis would also enable the decentralization of laboratory testing to POC sites. LFIA also offers advantages of prolonged shelf-life, small volumes required, rapid screening, and sometimes sensitive detection. Rapid detection of mycotoxin levels in food is of key importance in both mycotoxin monitoring and exposure assessment [71].

Recently, LFIA has been studied to detect mycotoxins such as AFB1, ZON, OTA and T-2 toxin DON, and fumonisin B1 [73, 74]. A one-step lateral flow test has been developed for the quantitative determination of total type B fumonisins in maize with a test range up to 4000 μg/kg and a limit of detection of 199 μg/kg [75]. A multiplex LFIA with luminescent quantum dots as label was developed with cutoff limits of 1000, 80, and 80 μg/kg for DON, ZON, and T2/HT2-toxin, respectively. The LFIA gave within 15 minutes with a low false-negative rate of less than 5% [73]. Further, LFIA has been used for the determination of AFB1, ZON, DON where analysis of naturally contaminated maize samples showed high sensitivity of LFIA proven by a good agreement between the multiplex LFIA and LC–MS/MS (100% for DONs and AFs, and 81% for ZONs) [74].

While traditionally built commercial LFIAs have many advantages, issues including poorer sensitivity and lower specificity than laboratory tests such as LC–MS and HPLC affect their efficacy and availability to the full market potential. Decreasing these disadvantages and complexity of these tests may increase the availability of diagnostic testing and quality of food commodities to farmers unable to make it to expensive testing facilities. To overcome this, several strategies are currently being developed such as reducing the components utilized in the manufacturing of these tests, which will consequently reduce cost and increase the manufacturability, improving adsorption capabilities and improving detection capabilities [76].

#### *2.2.1.1 Improvement of LFIAs using electrospun nanofibers*

With LFIAs, bio-reagents are immobilized in defined areas of the strip, normally referred to as the membrane, where the formation of colored bands due to the accumulation of suitably labeled species yields a yes/no information [77]. In particular, the analytical response is observed in the test line (T-line), while a second control line (C-line) allows to verify that the test has been correctly performed and therefore that results are reliable. There is potential for use of electrospinning to develop adsorbent pad and the support membrane for use in lateral flow device to improve adsorption flow rate and hence decrease incubation time [78, 79]. In conventional LFIA, nitrocellulose is used as a solid phase support. These are affordable, simple to produce, and easy to use in remote settings. These same materials can be used in conjunction with electrospinning technology to develop novel platforms for the detection of mycotoxins.

Electrospinning is a technique that utilizes electrostatic force to process a variety of native and synthetic polymers into highly porous materials composed of nanoscale to micron-scale diameter fibers. By nature, electrospun materials exhibit an extensive surface area and highly interconnected pore spaces and thus offer the advantages of high surface area-to-volume ratio for active reaction sites, tunable porosity and morphology, and high mechanical strength. For the ability to directly regulate the physical properties of an electrospun material through the manipulation of the fundamental variables such as electrospinning solvent and the air gap

distance, accelerating voltage affords considerable control over the process. Further electrospun nanofibers can be functionalized very easily and materials can easily be combined together to make fibers and thus manipulate nanofiber composition to get the desired properties and function. Electrospun fibers can also be deposited unto other surfaces such as microfibrious mats. Electrospinning has shown great potential including water and air filtration as well as a gateway to the development and fabrication of physiologically relevant tissue engineering scaffolds, hemostatic agents, wound care products, and solid phase drug and peptide delivery platforms. Despite the growing research in this area, electrospinning techniques have not been widely employed for the development of LFIAs. Although the potential application of combining electrospun nanofiber membranes and biosensing has been recognized, limited studies have been done in this area of LFIAs. To date, electrospinning has not penetrated to any great extent into product lines designed for diagnostic and research applications.

Electrospun materials, by nature, exhibit an extensive surface area-to-volume ratios and therefore increase chances of interaction with target analytes such as mycotoxins [63]. Increasing the surface area of the detector substrate offers the advantage of increasing the number of sensing sites available without increasing the amount of overall sample required. A small volume electrospun mat can provide a very large surface for sensing and easy access for mycotoxins to the sensing sites [63]. The sequential deposition of the discreet, individual fibers that are formed in this process also results in a unique and complex interconnected network of pores. Thus, exploiting these characteristic to fabricate LFIA platforms designed for mycotoxins detection is desirable. The electrospun membrane can then be manipulated with gold nanoparticles (NPs) and antibodies to achieve functionality required for the mycotoxin detection. Gold nanoparticles are the most preferred candidate materials and have been widely used for the fabrication of aflatoxin-sensing devices. Gold nanoparticles offer excellent compatibility with antibodies, and their functionality remains unaffected even after immobilization. A fiber-based immunoassay system could also be incorporated in multiple configurations, which may not necessitate individual housing and packaging of tests.

Developing a fiber-based immunoassay system, by incorporating immunoassay technology that is currently used for diagnostic tests into a fiber-based system, presents a great potential. This could increase the sensitivity, decrease the number of components in manufacturing, reduce cost, and facilitate simpler and more comfortable sample collection to simplify the procedure. Electrospun membranes have been tested as immunoassay substrates. Polycaprolactone on nitrocellulose has been successfully electrospun membrane to form a hydrophobic coating to reduce the flow rate and increase the interaction rate between the targets and gold NPs-detecting probes conjugates [79]. This resulted in the binding of more complexes to the capture probes. With this approach, the sensitivity of the PCL electrospin-coated test strip was increased by approximately 10-fold as compared with the unmodified test strip. The approach holds great potential for sensitive detection of targets at point-of-care testing.

#### *2.2.1.2 Improvement of detection in LFIAs*

As there is an increasing need for high-performing LIFA in the clinical, environmental, self-diagnosis, agriculture, and food safety areas, conventional LFIA having readout errors to the naked eye is up against some major problems such as poor

*Toward Safe Food Systems: Analyses of Mycotoxin Contaminants in Food and Preventive… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101461*

quantitative discrimination and low analytical sensitivity. To make the most out of LFIA's advantages such as rapid point-of-care diagnosis, LFIA readers measuring the optical densities of the LFIA detection area have been developed for point-of-care applications [80] provided for quantitative or semi-quantitative analysis.

Further to provide the basis for a global monitoring of mycotoxins, highly sensitive, low-cost diagnostic tests developed can also be linked to smart phones applications as shown in **Figure 1**. The resulting digital information can be transmitted to a database of mycotoxin occurrence developed country by country and thus improved communication channels within the food chain. This could lead to comprehensive information systems that can support farm management decisions and thus help producers of many crops to produce higher quality and/or avoid losses, and also increase consumer confidence in agro-food products. A simple, rapid, and accurate one-dot LFIA detection method for AFB1 has been developed for point-of-care diagnosis [80] using competition between colloidal gold-AFB1-BSA conjugates for antibody-binding sites in the test zone. This was coupled with smartphone application for quantitative or semi-quantitative analysis.

#### **2.3 Electrochemical detection of mycotoxins**

Electrochemistry provides powerful analytical techniques that are sensitive, reliable, portable, and low-cost procedures that are associated with food safety [81, 82]. Electrochemistry deals with relationship between electrical energy and chemical energy and inter-conversion of one form to another. To transform the toxin interaction to analytical signal, a variety of electrochemical techniques have been used.

Amperometry is an important electrochemical analysis method in food analysis. In amperometry, the potential of the working electrode is constant and the resulting current from Faradaic processes occurring at the electrode is monitored with the function of time. It has a working response over a wide range of mycotoxin concentrations that gives an improved signal to ratio since the current is integrated over relatively longer time intervals [83].

**Figure 1.**

*Low-cost rapid mycotoxin test system combined with ICT solutions.*

Voltammetry is another method in the analysis of mycotoxins. The current in the cell is measured with respect to the variation of the potential in the cell. Constant or varied potential is applied at the electrode surface, and the resulting current is measured with a three-electrode system (work, auxiliary, and reference electrode). Chemically modified electrodes are employed for highly sensitive electrochemical determination of mycotoxins. Hernandez-Hernandez et al. 2021 studied ZON using cyclic voltammetry (CV), differential pulse voltammetry (DPV), and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS). The method for the determination ZON was developed and applied for the quantitative analysis with low detection limits and multiplex analysis [84].

#### *2.3.1 Electrochemical sensors*

A biosensor is an analytical device that incorporate a bio-component or bio-receptor such as isolated enzymes, whole cell, tissues, aptamers with a suitable transducing system to detect chemical compound [85]. The numerous examples in the literature illustrate the high potential of the electrochemical biosensors in mycotoxin analysis, contributing to their sensitive determination in a variety of food and commodities. Measurement of the signal is generally electrochemical for biological, and this bioelectrochemical serves as transduction component in electrochemical biosensors. The biological reaction generates change in signal for conductance or impedance, measurable current, or change accumulation, which can be measured by conductometric, potentiometric, or amperometric techniques. The interaction between the target molecule and the electrical signal of bio-component produced can be measured [86].

Immunosensors are devices based on the detection of analyte-antibody interaction. Three main groups have been developed, which are luminescent or colorimetric sensors, surface plasmon resonance, and electrochemical sensors. An electrochemical immunosensor for the simultaneous detection of fumonisin B1 and DON has been designed and fabricated, which attained very low detection limits [87]. Furthermore, a third-generation enzymatic biosensor for quantification of sterigmatocystin (STEH), which was based on modified glassy carbon electrode, has been developed. The biosensor was also used to determine STEH in corn samples inoculated with *Aspergillus flavus*, which is an aflatoxins fungus producer [88].

#### *2.3.1.1 Nanosensors*

In many situations, it is necessary to detect multiple analytes or pathogens simultaneously, especially in mycotoxins detection where various mycotoxins can contaminate one single product. This would not be possible with conventional sensors. Sensors in nanoscale are especially attractive for such purposes. Nanosensors are characterized by one of the following attributes: Either the size of the sensor or its sensitivity is on the nanoscale or the spatial interaction distance between the sensors and the object is given in nanometers. These have advantages of improved sensitivity, specificity, and limits of detection, and reduced assay complexity and cost. Relatively small amount of analyte is required to register a response due to the small area of the sensing surface. Recently, a CeO2 NPs-based sensor to detect OTA was developed [89]. The biosensor was assembled by functionalizing CeO2 particles with OTA-specific ssDNA aptamers resulting in higher dispersibility and activity. Changes in the redox properties at the CeO2 surface upon binding of the ssDNA

*Toward Safe Food Systems: Analyses of Mycotoxin Contaminants in Food and Preventive… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101461*

and its target, measured using TMB, enabled rapid visual detection of OTA. In the presence of OTA, the ssDNA aptamer changed its structure from loose random coils to a compact tertiary form following target binding. As a result, a decreased catalytic effect against TMB oxidation was observed. The system was able to detect as low as 0.15 nM OTA.

During fungal growth, carbon dioxide is secreted due to the metabolic activity of microorganisms. In particular, gas nanosensors can be applied to detect the presence of CO2 [89]. The detection of CO2 is critical for environmental monitoring, chemical safety control, and many industrial applications; hence, nanosensors have been developed to assess changes in CO2 concentration [90]. Electrochemical CO2 nanosensors have been developed based on the principle that when CO2 comes in contact with a semiconductor nanomaterial layer, a surface interaction may occur through oxidation/reduction, electron charge transfer, adsorption, or chemical reaction. The chemical interaction of the adsorbate (CO2) with adsorbent semiconducting nanomaterial causes a charge depletion layer with upward bending energy bands that lead to change in electrical properties [91]. Although literature is scarce on CO2 nanosensors associated with mycotoxin monitoring, there is a great potential in the area.

#### **3. Preventive strategies**

#### **3.1 Food packaging**

It is important to maintain the integrity of the food during storage and transportation through the supply chain before reaching the end consumer. Food packaging is one of the most critical steps in the food industry to protecting and preserving food commodities from any unacceptable alteration in quality and safety [92]. Traditional packaging systems such as use of polyethylene, polypropylene, and polyethylene terephthalate have several limitations related to extending shelf-life and maintaining the safety of food products. Thus, food packaging continues to evolve along with the innovations in material science and technology critical for food commodity preservation and effective distribution. Moreover, the increased desire of both food producers and consumers for quality food is encouraging researchers to seek novel, innovative, and resourceful food packaging systems with committed food safety, quality, and traceability and also to find ways to improve food quality while least compromising nutrition product value [93]. Innovative packaging systems facilitate communication at the consumer levels. These interventions and developments in food packaging must be commercially feasible and effectively acceptable, which must meet regulatory guidelines along with a justified outcome that outweighs the associated expenses of added novel technology [93].

Nanotechnology, in particular, has brought advances in the domain of food packaging. It offers a variety of options in the improvement of food packaging based on functionality nanomaterials, which can significantly address the food quality, safety, and stability concerns and thus reduce food waste and economic losses associated with mycotoxin contamination.

Advanced technologies based on applications of nanomaterials for food packaging, including active and intelligent packaging systems, have been developed in response to increased concerns for food safety and stringent regulatory requirements, and market globalization [94].

#### *3.1.1 Active packaging*

An active packaging is a designed packaging system that incorporates components that would release or absorb material into or from the packaged food or the food environment [94] thereby stimulating actions, which extends the shelf-life, and improves or maintains food quality and safety and/or sensory properties of the food product. Nanotechnology can be used to incorporate the active constituent into a food package material. Active packaging incorporates robust ways to control oxidation, microbial growth, hydrolysis, and other degradation reactions. The most promising active packaging technologies applicable to mycotoxin control include antimicrobial packaging, which significantly improve the micro-biological safety, oxygen scavengers, and moisture regulators/absorbers [94].

#### *3.1.1.1 Antimicrobial active packaging*

An antimicrobial packaging in particular antifungal active packaging is attractive in dealing with mycotoxins. This packaging allows its interaction with the food product or the headspace inside to reduce, inhibit, or retard the growth of spoilage or pathogenic microorganisms that may be present on food surfaces [95] and thus extends food shelf-life. Antimicrobial packaging could be achieved either by incorporation of nanomaterial active agent onto or applying a coating layer onto or within the packaging material. The active agent can inhibit the essential metabolic pathways of microorganisms or destroy cell wall/membrane structure. Higher surface areato-volume ratio of nanomaterials antimicrobial agents in comparison with classical material enables their efficient inhibitory activity against food microbes resulting in an enhanced reactivity as photocatalysts and improved interactions between NPs and microbial membranes.

Nanomaterials such as chitosan NPs, metal NPs (AgNPs, Copper NPs and gold NPs), and metal oxide NPs (TiO2, ZnO, MgO, and CuO) and CNTs are suitable agents that are well known for their antimicrobial activity and thus show great potential in providing antimicrobial and scavenging activity to food packaging. AgNPs are known to be inhibitory against multiple fungi [62, 96]. The AgNPs have been shown to inhibit fungal growth, when they are deposited over multilayered linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE), and this resulted in 70% reduction of *Aspergillus niger* [76]. In another study, the application of 45 ppm Ag NPs caused a decrease in mycotoxin production (up to 80%) and changes in the enzymatic profile in *Aspergillus niger* [97]. The biosynthesized AgNPs showed outstanding activities for inhibiting four mycotoxigenic fungal strains (including *Alternaria alternata*, *A. ochraceus*, *Aspergillus flavus*, and *Fusarium solani*) [98]. Chitosan/silver, chitosan/gold, and chitosan/cinnamaldehyde nanocomposite films have also demonstrated antimicrobial activity against *Aspergillus niger* [99]. TiO2 NPs, used as a food additive and for food contact material, have been applied to food packaging [92]. ZnO NPs have been an extremely promising antifungal agents for inhibiting the growth of mycotoxin-producing fungi [98]. CuNPs with the size range of 3–10 nm have also been found to have a superior antifungal activity toward *Fusarium oxysporum* [100]. NPs are especially attractive when exploiting eco-friendly energy-efficient, cost-effective, and green approaches. The use of extract of *Cymbopogan citratus* (DC) stapf, commonly known as lemon grass [100] and leaf extract of *Cinnamomum camphora* [101] in NPs synthesis, has been reported and has been found to be efficient in terms of reaction time as well as stability of the synthesized NPs. Essential oil-loaded biopolymeric nanocarriers also

*Toward Safe Food Systems: Analyses of Mycotoxin Contaminants in Food and Preventive… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101461*

show promising antimicrobial and antioxidant activity and are suitable material for active food packaging due to inhibition of microbial growth in different food products [102].

#### *3.1.1.2 Incorporation of moisture repellents and moisture absorbers in food packaging*

Excess water reduces food shelf-life as it can promotes fungal proliferation inducing undesired changes in food quality. Thus, the moisture absorbers that are active non-migratory packaging and anti-wetting agents can be used in food packaging to reduce food water activity and provide an environment less suitable for mycotoxincausing fungi [94]. Anti-wetting/moisture repellents can be made up of hydrophobic coatings on the surfaces of packaging materials.

Another strategy could involve the preparation of nano-engineered silicate-based hybrids coated onto both the intercalated and exfoliated silicate-based nano-composites. These materials are known to play an important role as agents that prevent the permeability of gaseous agents (e.g., O2, CO2). An attractive feature of using nanoengineered silicate-based hybrids arises from the fact that they are among minerals that are widely found in nature abundantly. Silicate minerals can have the surface easily modified due to the high possibility of ion exchange whereby a hydrophobic silicate can be modified/converted to an organophilic by exchanging a cation on its surface with an organic cation.

#### **3.2 Smart packaging/intelligent packaging systems**

In processing facilities, packaged foods are tested randomly during a production run. The downside to this is that there is no assurance that unsampled packages meet quality and safety standards. Recent efforts have thus been directed to the development of intelligent packaging systems that allow for real-time monitoring of food quality and boosting communicating with suppliers or the consumer at any point of the supply chain, or at the time of use [103]. These give ability to continually monitor the content of a package headspace and also provide a means to assess the safety and quality of the contained food long after it has left the production chain [62]. This can assist in ensuring adequate control after delivery to the supermarket, which is often not possible.

Intelligent systems use different innovative communication methods, which include sensors (already discussed under 2.3.1.1), indicators, and data carriers, that can measure changes in the environmental conditions inside packaging. These systems are attractive in mycotoxin research. The inclusion of nanosensors especially in food packaging systems could help in detecting the spoilage-associated changes and mycotoxin-causing fungi and thus can be alerted consumer and producer on food contamination [104]. These selective and sensitive nanosensors have been efficiently incorporated into food packaging, applied as labels or coatings to add an intelligent function to food packaging [105].

#### **4. Conclusion**

Analytical detection methods for mycotoxin that are affordable, easy to operate, and including LFIAs and electochemistry have been discussed. LFIA especially offers point-of-care diagnosis, which could be affordable to laboratories and farmers.

#### *Food Systems Resilience*

The means of improving the LFIAs such as using electrospinning for production of membrane are recommended for increasing the acceptability LFIA. Food packaging is recognized as a means of preventing/controlling formation of mycotoxins. Aggressive research programs and yet affordable are needed to prevent, treat, and contain outbreaks of mycotoxins in grain, and grain producers and thus increase marketability of African products.

#### **Author details**

Dikabo Mogopodi1 \*, Mesha Mbisana1 , Samuel Raditloko1 , Inonge Chibua1 and Banyaladzi Paphane2

1 University of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana

2 Botswana University of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Gaborone, Botswana

\*Address all correspondence to: dikmog@yahoo.co.uk

© 2022 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

*Toward Safe Food Systems: Analyses of Mycotoxin Contaminants in Food and Preventive… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101461*

#### **References**

[1] Kraemer K, et al. The critical role of food safety in ensuring food security. In:Good Nutrition: Perspectives for the 21st Century.Basel, Switzerland: Karger Publishers; 2016. pp. 312-325. DOI: 10.1159/000452395

[2] Vågsholm I, Arzoomand NS, Boqvist S. Food security, safety, and sustainability—Getting the trade-offs right. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 2020;**4**:16. DOI: 10.3389/ FSUFS.2020.00016

[3] Kussaga JB, Jacxsens L, Tiisekwa BP, Luning PA. Food safety management systems performance in African food processing companies: A review of deficiencies and possible improvement strategies. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 2014;**94**(11): 2154-2169. DOI: 10.1002/JSFA.6575

[4] Cai X, Gao Y, Sun Q, Chen Z, Megharaj M, Naidu R. Removal of co-contaminants Cu (II) and nitrate from aqueous solution using kaolin-Fe/Ni nanoparticles. Chemical Engineering Journal. 2014;**244**:19-26. DOI: 10.1016/J. CEJ.2014.01.040

[5] Thakali A, MacRae JD. A review of chemical and microbial contamination in food: What are the threats to a circular food system? Environmental Research. 2021;**194**:110635. DOI: 10.1016/J. ENVRES.2020.110635

[6] Mogopodi D, Paphane B, Mmolawa TB, Lenamile O. Investigation of disposal processes by manufacturing companies in Gaborone. The International Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Research. 2018;**4**(11): 6-14. DOI: 10.5281/ZENODO.1745078

[7] Rather IA, Koh WY, Paek WK, Lim J. The sources of chemical contaminants in food and their health implications. Frontiers in Pharmacology. 2017;**8**:830. DOI: 10.3389/FPHAR.2017.00830

[8] Fletcher MT, Blaney BJ. Mycotoxins. The Encyclopedia of Food Grains Second Definition. 2016;**2**(4):290-296. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-394437-5.00112-1

[9] Probst C, Njapau H, Cotty PJ. Outbreak of an acute aflatoxicosis in Kenya in 2004: Identification of the causal agent. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2007;**73**(8):2762. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.02370-06

[10] Shephard GS. Impact of mycotoxins on human health in developing countries. Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A. 2008;**25**(2):146-151. DOI: 10.1080/ 02652030701567442

[11] Shephard GS et al. Multiple mycotoxin exposure determined by urinary biomarkers in rural subsistence farmers in the former Transkei, South Africa. Food and Chemical Toxicology. 2013;**62**:217-225. DOI: 10.1016/J. FCT.2013.08.040

[12] Kimanya ME, Routledge MN, Mpolya E, Ezekiel CN, Shirima CP, Gong YY. Estimating the risk of aflatoxin-induced liver cancer in Tanzania based on biomarker data. PLoS One. 2021;**16**(3):e0247281. DOI: 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0247281

[13] Degraeve S et al. Impact of local pre-harvest management practices in maize on the occurrence of fusarium species and associated mycotoxins in two agro-ecosystems in Tanzania. Food Control. 2016;**59**:225-233. DOI: 10.1016/ J.FOODCONT.2015.05.028

[14] Pérez-Fuentes N et al. Single and combined effects of regulated and

emerging mycotoxins on viability and mitochondrial function of SH-SY5Y cells. Food and Chemical Toxicology. 2021;**154**:112308. DOI: 10.1016/J. FCT.2021.112308

[15] Martínez-Culebras PV, Gandía M, Boronat A, Marcos JF, Manzanares P. Differential susceptibility of mycotoxinproducing fungi to distinct antifungal proteins (AFPs). Food Microbiology. 2021;**97**:103760. DOI: 10.1016/J. FM.2021.103760

[16] Kebede H, Liu X, Jin J, Xing F. Current status of major mycotoxins contamination in food and feed in Africa. Food Control. 2020;**110**:106975. DOI: 10.1016/J.FOODCONT.2019.106975

[17] Picardo M, Filatova D, Nuñez O, Farré M. Recent advances in the detection of natural toxins in freshwater environments. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry. 2019;**112**:75-86. DOI: 10.1016/J.TRAC.2018.12.017

[18] Russell R, Paterson M. Zearalenone production and growth in drinking water inoculated with fusarium graminearum. Mycological Progress. 2007;**6**(2):109-113. DOI: 10.1007/S11557-007-0529-X

[19] Magnoli AP, Poloni VL, Cavaglieri L. Impact of mycotoxin contamination in the animal feed industry. Current Opinion in Food Science. 2019;**29**:99-108. DOI: 10.1016/J.COFS.2019.08.009

[20] Wu F, Groopman J, Pestka J. Public health impacts of foodborne mycotoxins. Annual Review of Food Science and Technology. 2014;**5**(1):351-372. DOI: 10.1146/ANNUREV-FOOD-030713-092431

[21] Groopman J, Kensler T, Wild C. Protective interventions to prevent aflatoxin-induced carcinogenesis in developing countries. Annual Review of Public Health. 2008;**29**:187-203. DOI: 10.1146/ANNUREV. PUBLHEALTH.29.020907.090859

[22] Marasas WFO et al. Fumonisins disrupt sphingolipid metabolism, folate transport, and neural tube development in embryo culture and In vivo: A potential risk factor for human neural tube defects among populations consuming Fumonisin-contaminated maize. The Journal of Nutrition. 2004;**134**(4):711-716. DOI: 10.1093/ JN/134.4.711

[23] Mollay C, Kassim N, Stoltzfus R, Kimanya M. Childhood dietary exposure of aflatoxins and fumonisins in Tanzania: A review. Cogent Food & Agriculture. 2020;**6**(1):1859047. DOI: 10.1080/ 23311932.2020.1859047

[24] Wokorach G, Landschoot S, Anena J, Audenaert K, Echodu R, Haesaert G. Mycotoxin profile of staple grains in northern Uganda: Understanding the level of human exposure and potential risks. Food Control. 2021;**122**:107813. DOI: 10.1016/J.FOODCONT.2020.107813

[25] Egal S et al. Dietary exposure to aflatoxin from maize and groundnut in young children from Benin and Togo, West Africa. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2005;**104**(2):215-224. DOI: 10.1016/J.IJFOODMICRO. 2005.03.004

[26] Turner P et al. Aflatoxin exposure in utero causes growth faltering in Gambian infants. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2007;**36**(5):1119-1125. DOI: 10.1093/IJE/DYM122

[27] Eskola M, Kos G, Elliott CT, Hajšlová J, Mayar S, Krska R. Worldwide contamination of food-crops with mycotoxins: Validity of the widely cited 'FAO estimate' of 25%. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition.

*Toward Safe Food Systems: Analyses of Mycotoxin Contaminants in Food and Preventive… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101461*

2019;**60**(16):2773-2789. DOI: 10.1080/ 10408398.2019.1658570

[28] Ayelign A, De Saeger S. Mycotoxins in Ethiopia: Current status, implications to food safety and mitigation strategies. Food Control. 2020;**113**:107163. DOI: 10.1016/J.FOODCONT.2020.107163

[29] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Mycotoxin regulations in 2003 and current developments. In: Worldwide Regulations for Mycotoxins in Food and Feed 2003. pp. 9-28, 2004. Accessed: Nov. 01 2021. [Online]. Available: ftp://ftp. fao.org/

[30] Mupunga I. A Comparative Study of Natural Contamination with Aflatoxins and Fumonisins in Selected Food Commodities from Botswana and Zimbabwe. Johannesburg: University of South Africa; 2013

[31] Mokgatlhe TM, Siame AB, Taylor JE. Fungi and fusarium mycotoxins associated with maize ( Zea mays ) and sorghum ( Sorghum bicolor ) in Botswana. African Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology. 2011;**5**(1):26-32

[32] Korley Kortei N, Akomeah Agyekum A, Akuamoa F, Baffour VK, Wiisibie Alidu H. Risk assessment and exposure to levels of naturally occurring aflatoxins in some packaged cereals and cereal based foods consumed in Accra, Ghana. Toxicology Reports. 2019;**6**:34- 41. DOI: 10.1016/J.TOXREP.2018.11.012

[33] Kortei N et al. The occurrence of aflatoxins and human health risk estimations in randomly obtained maize from some markets in Ghana. Scientific Reports. 2021;**11**(1):1-13. DOI: 10.1038/ S41598-021-83751-7

[34] Gruber-Dorninger C, Jenkins T, Schatzmayr G. Multi-mycotoxin

screening of feed and feed raw materials from Africa. World Mycotoxin Journal. 2018;**11**(3):369-383. DOI: 10.3920/ WMJ2017.2292

[35] Mutiga SK et al. Multiple mycotoxins in Kenyan rice. Toxins. 2021;**13**(3):203. DOI: 10.3390/TOXINS13030203

[36] Birgen JK, Cheruiyot RC and Exodus Akwa T. Exodus Akwa, "Mycotoxin contamination of stored maize in Kenya and the associated Fungi". The Journal of Plant Pathology. 2020;**2**(1):7-13. DOI: 10.36959/394/620

[37] Nafuka S, Misihairabgwi J, Bock R. Variation of fungal metabolites in sorghum malts used to prepare namibian traditional fermented beverages Omalodu and Otombo. Toxins (Basel). 2019;**11**(3):165. DOI: 10.3390/ TOXINS11030165

[38] Misihairabgwi JM, Ezekiel CN, Sulyok M, Shephard GS, Krska R. Mycotoxin contamination of foods in Southern Africa: A 10-year review (2007-2016). Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 2019;**59**(1):43-58. DOI: 10.1080/10408398.2017.1357003

[39] Niyibituronsa M et al. Assessment of aflatoxin and fumonisin contamination levels in maize and mycotoxins awareness and risk factors in Rwanda. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development. 2020;**20**(5):16420- 16446. DOI: 10.18697/AJFAND.93.19460

[40] Niyibituronsa M et al. Evaluation of mycotoxin content in soybean (Glycine max L.) grown in Rwanda. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development. 2018;**18**(3):13808- 13824. DOI: 10.18697/AJFAND.83.17710

[41] Meyer H, Skhosana ZD, Motlanthe M, Louw W, Rohwer E. Long term monitoring (2014-2018) of multi-mycotoxins in South African commercial maize and wheat with a locally developed and validated LC-MS/ MS Method. Toxins (Basel). 2019;**11**(5): 271. DOI: 10.3390/TOXINS11050271

[42] Motloung L et al. Study on mycotoxin contamination in south African food spices. World Mycotoxin Journal. 2018;**11**(3):401-409. DOI: 10.3920/WMJ2017.2191

[43] Hanvi DM, Lawson-Evi P, De Boevre M, Goto CE, De Saeger S, Eklu-Gadegbeku K. Natural occurrence of mycotoxins in maize and sorghum in Togo. Mycotoxin Research. 2019;**35**(4):321-327. DOI: 10.1007/ S12550-019-00351-1

[44] Baglo DE, Faye A, and Fall M. "Determination of aflatoxin in maize produced in two regions of Togo". Advances in Food Technology and Nutritional Sciences – Open Journal. Jun 2020;**6**(1):42-46. DOI: 10.17140/ AFTNSOJ-6-167

[45] Kachapulula PW, Akello J, Bandyopadhyay R, Cotty PJ. Aflatoxin contamination of groundnut and maize in Zambia: Observed and potential concentrations. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 2017;**122**(6):1471-1482. DOI: 10.1111/JAM.13448

[46] Botana LM, Sainz MJ. Climate Change and Mycotoxins. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG; 2015

[47] Guo W et al. Development of a QuEChERS-Based UHPLC-MS/MS Method for Simultaneous Determination of Six Alternaria Toxins in Grapes. Toxins (Basel). 2019;**11**(2):87. DOI: 10.3390/ TOXINS11020087

[48] Agriopoulou S, Stamatelopoulou E, Varzakas T. Advances in occurrence,

importance, and mycotoxin control strategies: Prevention and detoxification in foods. Food. 2020;**9**:518. DOI: 10.3390/ foods9020137

[49] Alshannaq A, Yu JH. Occurrence, toxicity, and analysis of major mycotoxins in food. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2017;**14**(632):1-20. DOI: 10.3390/ ijerph14060632

[50] Salim SA, Sukor R, Ismail MN, Selamat J. Dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME) and LC-MS/ MS analysis for multi-mycotoxin in Rice bran: Method development, optimization and validation. Toxins (Basel). 2021;**13**(280):1-21. DOI: 10.3390/ toxins13040280

[51] Pankaj SK, Shi H, Keener KM. A review of novel physical and chemical decontamination technologies for aflatoxin in food. Trends in Food Science and Technology. 2018;**71**:73-83. DOI: 10.1016/J.TIFS.2017.11.007

[52] Breck D. Zeolite Molecular Sieves Structure, Chemistry and Use, New York. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1974

[53] EFSA. Food contact materials, enzymes and processing aids|EFSA. EFSA Journal. 2013;**11**:3155 Accessed: Nov. 01, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/science/ scientific-committee-and-panels/cep

[54] Tomašević-Čanović M, Daković A, Rottinghaus G, Matijašević S, and Duričić M. "Surfactant modified zeolites–– New efficient adsorbents for mycotoxins". Microporous and Mesoporous Materials.2003;**61**(1-3): 173-180. DOI: 10.1016/ S1387-1811(03) 00365-2

[55] Marković M et al. Ochratoxin A and zearalenone adsorption by the natural

*Toward Safe Food Systems: Analyses of Mycotoxin Contaminants in Food and Preventive… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101461*

zeolite treated with benzalkonium chloride, Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects. 2017;**529**:7-17. DOI: 10.1016/j. colsurfa.2017.05.054

[56] Gao S et al. Determination of aflatoxins in milk sample with ionic liquid modified magnetic zeolitic imidazolate frameworks. Journal of Chromatography B. 2019;**1128**:121778. DOI: 10.1016/J.JCHROMB.2019.121778

[57] Lucci P et al. Molecularly imprinted polymer as selective sorbent for the extraction of zearalenone in edible vegetable oils. Foods. 2020;**9**(10):1439. DOI: 10.3390/FOODS9101439

[58] Liang Y et al. An aminofunctionalized zirconium-based metalorganic framework of type UiO-66-NH 2 covered with a molecularly imprinted polymer as a sorbent for the extraction of aflatoxins AFB1, AFB2, AFG1 and AFG2 from grain. Microchimica Acta. 2019;**187**(1):1-8. DOI: 10.1007/ S00604-019-3959-7

[59] Semong O, Batlokwa BS. Development of an aflatoxin B1 specific molecularly imprinted solid phase extraction sorbent for the selective pre-concentration of toxic aflatoxin B1 from child weaning food, Tsabana. Molecular Imprinting. 2017;**5**(1):1-15. DOI: 10.1515/molim-2017-0001

[60] Bodbodak S, Hesari J, Peighambardoust SH, Mahkam M. Selective decontamination of aflatoxin M1 in milk by molecularly imprinted polymer coated on the surface of stainless steel plate. International Journal of Dairy Technology. 2018;**71**(4):868-878. DOI: 10.1111/1471-0307.12551

[61] Sun J et al. Removal of patulin in apple juice based on novel magnetic molecularly imprinted adsorbent Fe3O4@ SiO2@CS-GO@MIP. LWT. 2019;**118**(1):108854. DOI: 10.1016/J. LWT.2019.108854

[62] Duncan TV. Applications of nanotechnology in food packaging and food safety: Barrier materials, antimicrobials and sensors. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science. 2011;**363**(1):1-24. DOI: 10.1016/J. JCIS.2011.07.017

[63] Oketola AA, Torto N, Oketola AA, Torto N. Synthesis and characterization of poly(styrene-co-acrylamide) polymers prior to electrospinning. Advances in Nanoparticles. 2013;**2**(2):87- 93. DOI: 10.4236/ANP.2013.22015

[64] Gibson N et al. Colloidal stability of modified nanodiamond particles. Diamond and Related Materials. 2009;**18**(4):620-626. DOI: 10.1016/J. DIAMOND.2008.10.049

[65] Horky P, Skalickova S, Baholet D, Skladanka J. Nanoparticles as a solution for eliminating the risk of mycotoxins. Nanomaterials. 2018;**8**(9):727. DOI: 10.3390/NANO8090727

[66] Puzyr A, Purtov K, Shenderova O, Luo M. The adsorption of aflatoxin B1 by detonation-synthesis nanodiamonds. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications. 2007;**417**(1):299-301. DOI: 10.1134/S1607672907060026

[67] Han Z et al. Multi-walled carbon nanotubes-based magnetic solid-phase extraction for the determination of zearalenone and its derivatives in maize by ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Food Control. 2017;**79**:177-184. DOI: 10.1016/J. FOODCONT.2017.03.044

[68] Dong M et al. Multi-walled carbon nanotubes as solid-phase extraction

sorbents for simultaneous determination of type a trichothecenes in maize, wheat and rice by ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography. A. 2015;**1423**:177-182. DOI: 10.1016/J.CHROMA.2015.10.068

[69] Dong M et al. Determination of type a trichothecenes in coix seed by magnetic solid-phase extraction based on magnetic multi-walled carbon nanotubes coupled with ultra-high performance liquid chromatographytandem mass spectrometry. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry. 2016;**408**(24):6823-6831. DOI: 10.1007/ S00216-016-9809-0

[70] Singh C et al. Carboxylated multiwalled carbon nanotubes based biosensor for aflatoxin detection. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical. 2013;**185**:258- 264. DOI: 10.1016/J.SNB.2013.04.040

[71] Rahmani A, Jinap S, Soleimany F. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of mycotoxins. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety. 2009;**8**(3):202-251. DOI: 10.1111/J. 1541-4337.2009.00079.X

[72] Tittlemier S, Cramer B, Dall'Asta C, Iha M, Lattanzio V. Developments in mycotoxin analysis. World Mycotoxin Journal. 2019;**12**(1):3-29. DOI: 10.3920/ WMJ2018.2398

[73] Foubert A et al. Development of a rainbow lateral flow immunoassay for the simultaneous detection of four mycotoxins. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2016;**65**(33):7121-7130. DOI: 10.1021/ACS.JAFC.6B04157

[74] Song S et al. Multiplex lateral flow immunoassay for mycotoxin determination. Analytical Chemistry. 2014;**86**(10):4995-5001. DOI: 10.1021/ AC500540Z

[75] Molinelli A, Grossalber K, Krska R. A rapid lateral flow test for the determination of total type B fumonisins in maize. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry. 2009;**395**(5):1309-1316. DOI: 10.1007/S00216-009-3082-4

[76] Sánchez-Valdes S, Ortega-Ortiz H, Valle LFR, Medellín-Rodríguez FJ, Guedea-Miranda R. Mechanical and antimicrobial properties of multilayer films with a polyethylene/silver nanocomposite layer. Journal of Applied Polymer Science. 2009;**111**(2):953-962. DOI: 10.1002/APP.29051

[77] Liu S et al. Nanozyme amplification mediated on-demand multiplex lateral flow immunoassay with dual-readout and broadened detection range. Biosensors & Bioelectronics. 2020;**169**:112610. DOI: 10.1016/J. BIOS.2020.112610

[78] Yew C, Azari P, Choi J. Electrospun polycaprolactone nanofibers as a reaction membrane for lateral flow assay. Polymers (Basel). 2018;**10**(12): 1387. DOI: 10.3390/POLYM10121387

[79] Yew CHT, Azari P, Choi JR, Li F, Pingguan-Murphy B. Electrospin-coating of nitrocellulose membrane enhances sensitivity in nucleic acid-based lateral flow assay. Analytica Chimica Acta. 2018;**1009**:81-88. DOI: 10.1016/J. ACA.2018.01.016

[80] Lee S, Kim G, Moon J. Performance improvement of the one-dot lateral flow immunoassay for aflatoxin B1 by using a smartphone-based Reading system. Sensors. 2013;**13**(4):5109-5116. DOI: 10.3390/S130405109

[81] Fernández H. Mycotoxins quantification in the food system: Is there any contribution from electrochemical biosensors? Journal of Biosensors and Bioelectronics. 2013;**04**(03):e121. DOI: 10.4172/2155-6210.1000E121

*Toward Safe Food Systems: Analyses of Mycotoxin Contaminants in Food and Preventive… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101461*

[82] Fernandez H, Electroanalytical Properties of Mycotoxins and their Determinations in the Agroalimentary System. 2012 https://www.researchgate. net/publication/287267796\_ Electroanalytical\_properties\_of\_ mycotoxins\_and\_their\_determinations\_ in\_the\_agroalimentary\_system (Accessed 01 November 2021)

[83] Raeisossadati MJ et al. Lateral flow based immunobiosensors for detection of food contaminants. Biosensors & Bioelectronics. 2016;**86**:235-246. DOI: 10.1016/J.BIOS.2016.06.061

[84] Hernández-Hernández AA et al. A novel voltammetric approach for the quantification of aflatoxin b1 using a bismuth-modified electrode. The Electrochemical Society. 2021;**168**(2): 026512. DOI: 10.1149/1945-7111/ ABE349

[85] Evtugyn G, Porfireva A, Kulikova T, Hianik T. Recent achievements in electrochemical and surface plasmon resonance aptasensors for mycotoxins detection. Chemosensors. 2021;**9**(7): 180. DOI: 10.3390/CHEMOSENSO RS9070180

[86] Rovina K, Shaeera SN, Vonnie JM, Yi SX. Recent biosensors technologies for detection of mycotoxin in food products. Mycotoxins and Food Safety. IntechOpen; 2019. pp. 1-17. DOI: 10.5772/INTECHOPEN.89022

[87] Lu L, Gunasekaran S. Dual-channel ITO-microfluidic electrochemical immunosensor for simultaneous detection of two mycotoxins. Talanta. 2019;**194**:709-716. DOI: 10.1016/J. TALANTA.2018.10.091

[88] Nieto DC et al. Development of a third-generation biosensor to determine sterigmatocystin mycotoxin: An early warning system to detect aflatoxin B 1.

Talanta. 2019;**194**:253-258. DOI: 10.1016/J.TALANTA.2018.10.032

[89] Biji KB, Ravishankar CN, Mohan CO, Srinivasa Gopal TK. Smart packaging systems for food applications: A review. Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2015;**52**(10):6125-6135. DOI: 10.1007/ S13197-015-1766-7

[90] Rezk MY, Sharma J, Gartia MR. Nanomaterial-Based CO2 Sensors. Nanomater. 2020;**10**(11):2251. DOI: 10.3390/NANO10112251

[91] Shinde PV et al. Room-temperature synthesis and CO2-gas sensitivity of bismuth oxide nanosensors. RSC Advances. 2020;**10**(29):17217-17227. DOI: 10.1039/D0RA00801J

[92] Sharma C, Dhiman R, Rokana N, and Panwar H. "Nanotechnology: An untapped resource for food packaging". Frontiers in Microbiology. 2017;**0**(SEP): 1735. DOI: 10.3389/ FMICB.2017.01735

[93] Vanderroost M, Ragaert P, Devlieghere F, De Meulenaer B. Intelligent food packaging: The next generation. Trends in Food Science and Technology. 2014;**39**(1):47-62. DOI: 10.1016/J.TIFS.2014.06.009

[94] Drago E, Campardelli R, Pettinato M. Innovations in smart packaging concepts for food: An extensive review. Foods (Basel, Switzerland). 2020;**9**(11):1628. DOI: 10.3390/FOODS9111628

[95] de F Soares FN, Pires ACS, Camilloto GP, Santiago-Silva P, Espitia PJP, Silva WA. Recent patents on active packaging for food application. Recent Patents on Food, Nutrition & Agriculture*.* 2010; **1**(2):171-178. DOI: 10.2174/1876142910901020171

[96] Bradley EL, Castle L, Chaudhry Q. Applications of nanomaterials in food

packaging with a consideration of opportunities for developing countries. Trends in Food Science and Technology. 2011;**22**(11):604-610. DOI: 10.1016/J. TIFS.2011.01.002

[97] Pietrzak K, Twarużek M, Czyżowska A, Kosicki R, and GB. "Influence of silver nanoparticles on metabolism and toxicity of moulds". Acta Biochimica Polonica. 2015;**62**(4): 851-857. DOI: 10.18388/ ABP.2015\_1146

[98] Abdel-Hadi AM, Awad MF, Abo-Dahab NF, and Elkady ME. "Extracellular synthesis of silver nanoparticles by aspergillus terreus: Biosynthesis, characterization and biological activity." Biosciences, Biotechnology Research Asia. Dec 2014;**11**(3):1179-1186. DOI: 10.13005/ BBRA/1503

[99] Youssef AM, Abdel-Aziz MS, El-Sayed SM. Chitosan nanocomposite films based on Ag-NP and Au-NP biosynthesis by bacillus subtilis as packaging materials. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules. 2014;**69**:185-191. DOI: 10.1016/J. IJBIOMAC.2014.05.047

[100] Geetha N, Geetha T, Manonmani P, Thiyagarajan M. Green synthesis of silver nanoparticles using cymbopogan citratus (dc) Stapf. extract and its antibacterial activity. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences. 2014;**8**(3):324-331

[101] Huang H, Yang X. Synthesis of polysaccharide-stabilized gold and silver nanoparticles: A green method. Carbohydrate Research. 2004;**339**(15): 2627-2631. DOI: 10.1016/J.CARRES. 2004.08.005

[102] Maurya A, Prasad J, Das S, Dwivedy AK. Essential oils and their application in food safety. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 2021;**5**:133. DOI: 10.3389/FSUFS.2021.653420

[103] Mustafa F, Andreescu S. Chemical and biological sensors for food-quality monitoring and smart packaging. Foods. 2018;**7**(10):168. DOI: 10.3390/FOODS 7100168

[104] Majid I, Ahmad Nayik G, Mohammad Dar S, Nanda V. Novel food packaging technologies: Innovations and future prospective. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences. 2018;**17**(4):454-462. DOI: 10.1016/J. JSSAS.2016.11.003

[105] Kuswandi B, Wicaksono Y, Abdullah A, Yook Heng L, Ahmad M. Sensing and instrumentation for food quality and safety smart packaging: Sensors for monitoring of food quality and safety. Sensing and Instrumentation for Food Quality. 2011;**5**:137-146. DOI: 10.1007/s11694-011-9120-x

Section 2
