Julia Wright

Stabilisation Agriculture has been defined as a focus on enhancing the ecological and social resilience of agricultural communities to withstand and respond to adverse conditions in countries affected by disasters, ranging from climate events to conflict and complex emergencies. However, in this review paper, rather than taking a broad disaster risk management approach to the topic, a focus is made on the nexus between agriculture, food security and conflict. Food insecurity, for example, can trigger instability and conflict, leading to the collapse of agricultural infrastructure, the loss of farm labour, and local farming knowledge through loss of life and forced migration. This cycle becomes endemic and reinforcing, often resulting in chronic food shortages and eventually conflict-driven famine. Hence, why an emphasis on post-conflict “stabilisation” is made in this examination of the emerging concept of Stabilisation Agriculture. Case studies from Afghanistan and Iraq are used to illustrate the benefits of elevating agriculture as a critical response tool in post-conflict and stabilisation settings, and following a subsequent discussion that explores the critical synergies in this emerging field, a redefined definition of Stabilisation Agriculture is proposed along with recommendations for future development through policy inclusion and mainstreaming, post-conflict programming and applied research.

Biotic resistance theory suggests that diverse cover crop mixes may be more effective at weed suppression than a cover crop monoculture. However, evidence for this has so far been inconsistent. To investigate, we designed a trial to explicitly test the role of cover crop diversity in weed suppression by comparing eight cover crop mixes that varied in species diversity, functional diversity, and composition. Mixes contained either one, four, or eight species, in equal proportions. Three mixes contained only cereal species, three contained only legumes, and two contained a mix of cereals, legumes, and brassicas. Research was conducted on two farms in South Africa's winter rainfall region, replicated over 2 yr. Indicators of resource uptake by each mix in terms of light, soil N, and water were measured at three time points throughout the season, approximately 50, 85, and 110 d after emergence (DAE). Aboveground biomass (dry weight) of cover crops and weeds within each mix was measured twice, at approximately 70 and 120 DAE. Regression analyses indicated that cover crop biomass was key to resource uptake and weed suppression, and that early‐season N and later‐season light availability had the strongest influence on weed biomass. Neither species diversity nor functional diversity affected resource uptake or weed suppression by cover crops. These results indicate that it is important to consider the competitiveness of individual species when designing cover crop mixes. Diverse mixes remain valuable to perform multiple functions but may contribute to weed problems if composed of poorly competitive species.

This paper investigates how transformative agroecology may contribute to the critical reframing of social–ecological relationships, and how this might in turn create a foundation for bottom-up peace formation in fragile environments, within which rural communities are often habituated to conditions of control, violence and mistrust that drive social division. Here, we consider the value of social farming in reforging relationships through which social–ecological change may be negotiated and alternative sources of agency and identity may be cultivated in order to transcend entrenched patterns of division. Three case studies are presented, drawing on primary data from participatory action research with farming communities in Zimbabwe that also consider the differential attitudes and experiences of agroecological and conventional farmers. The study finds that, where agroecological farmers were exposed to more plural ways of thinking, being and acting together, levels of autonomy from coercive structures were increasing, as were both a sense of efficacy and optimism to effect social–ecological change. This was particularly pronounced where collective processes to shape physical landscapes were forging bonds of solidarity, reciprocity and trust. In these cases, agroecological farmers were increasingly able to envisage a future together shaped by collective endeavour, evidenced by changing attitudes and relationships with one another and their environment. The paper explores the extent to which farmers in each location were able to instrumentalise resilience and agency for everyday peace, and the variances found according to historical context and local power dynamics that represent barriers to change.

This article describes the methodological challenges encountered in attempting to undertake research into the agricultural sector in Cuba, and the often serendipitous ways in which these challenges may be overcome. The struggles of numerous Cuban researchers who were attempting to continue their work during the resource-poor Special Period are also described. The article examines the views of Cuban colleagues who have informally, and politely, contested interpretations of the ‘snapshot’ of the farming and food systems that the author documented, and discusses their differing perspectives of ‘the real situation’. The author ends with observations about the book that emerged as an adaptation of the doctoral thesis¹ and how it has become a seminal text not only for students but also for civil society groups working for change toward more sustainable systems that are less dependent on fossil fuels.

ISHS II International Symposium on Organic Greenhouse Horticulture URBAN HORTICULTURE AND ORGANIC GREENHOUSE STANDARDS