The study, based on 14 field stays conducted between June 2023 and September 2025, used focus groups, semistructured interviews, photo-elicitation and ethnographic observation to examine relationships among pastoralists, animals and the surrounding environment. Eight focus groups involved men and women who identified as pastoralists, while 17 individual interviews explored herd management, breed preferences, local vegetation and ideas of modern livestock farming. An additional interview at the Dahra Djoloff Zootechnical Research Center helped triangulate information about the introduction of Brazilian Guzerat cattle and crossbreeding through artificial insemination. The findings describe strategies and perceptions among a bounded set of communities; they do not establish a population-wide trend across Senegal’s Sahel.

Both villages lie in the sylvopastoral zone between the River Senegal and the Ferlo Valley, where Fulani herders keep cattle, sheep, goats and equines alongside smaller communities of Wolof farmers and Moor camel herders. Before pastoral boreholes were installed from the 1950s onward, people occupied the area mainly during the rainy season and moved livestock toward the Senegal River during the dry months. Permanent water, new settlements and changes in land administration altered transhumance routes, while livestock numbers rose roughly threefold between 1945 and 1975. Severe droughts in the 1970s and 1980s, reduced rainfall, habitat loss and limits on herd mobility then contributed to sharp losses and lasting changes in the landscape.

Pastoralists described the bush, known in Pulaar as ladde, as “empty,” “finished” or “broken.” Their accounts identified declining rainfall, shrinking pasture, disappearing trees and wildlife, expanding villages and fenced development plots as interconnected pressures. Historically, communities also used reciprocal arrangements such as lending cattle to relatives in need, while rules called hurum protected crops during the growing season and reserved pasture near camps. Researchers reported that increased settlement and the privatization of formerly communal spaces weakened these practices. A herder’s observation that “the bush has become crowded” captures a local understanding in which human, animal and infrastructural expansion have narrowed the spaces available for grazing, movement and wildlife habitat.

The Great Green Wall and related programs occupy a contradictory position in these accounts. Many residents welcomed projects that provide fodder plots, employment, nurseries, conservation areas and other resources, especially herders unable to move their animals during the dry season. Yet some enclosure-sized restoration plots, reaching as many as 600 hectares in the study area, were criticized for closing areas formerly used collectively for grazing, travel and gathering. Municipal decisions about plot locations could also advantage some settlements over others. The researchers therefore characterized local engagement as neither passive acceptance nor blanket resistance. Pastoralists pragmatically adopted particular technologies and opportunities while navigating the restrictions and unequal access associated with a dense landscape of projects.

Water and forage shortages were especially acute during the hot dry seasons, when herders supplemented cili pods and baobab bark with purchased feed. Grass, crop residues and fodder increasingly entered markets, while cutting tree branches remained constrained both by restrictions from authorities and by local beliefs concerning inhabited trees. A potentially harmful grass known locally as Demba Yaba prompted some herders to move cattle during the rainy season to avoid exposure. Pastoralists reported digestive problems and deaths among cattle after ingestion, although the article notes that no study had yet published evidence for the proposed mechanism. Their accounts nevertheless showed how the plant had become a major practical concern and an uncertain target for intervention.

Against this background, some herders proposed keeping fewer animals. Large herds were described as exhausting to maintain during drought, when borehole fees, feed purchases and water constraints increased. Reducing numbers could improve the possibility of feeding the remaining animals, but it also risked economic and symbolic losses because cattle represented both productive assets and central elements of Fulani identity. Some respondents resisted the idea because of demand for meat, particularly during Eid al-Adha. Others expected to compensate for smaller herds with animals of higher market value. The resulting idea of “modern livestock farming” was therefore locally reworked: it combined reduced herd size, fodder plots, limited transhumance, wage income and continued ownership of cattle rather than simply matching the productivity aims of government policy.

Guzerat bulls from Brazil now form one part of this strategy. They can command higher prices than local Pulfuli, or Gobra, bulls, and are valued for perceived improvements in meat and milk production, but their introduction also creates risks. Direct mating between a purebred Guzerat bull and a Gobra cow may produce difficult calving because of the calf’s size, a concern also recognized by the research center. Guzerat cattle reportedly require more forage than the more resilient local animals, while the purchase price creates greater exposure if an animal falls ill or dies. Consequently, herders differed in their responses: some sought purebred Guzerat, others castrated local bulls, and some favored crossbreeding to retain hardiness while seeking greater weight and value. A minority interviewed respondents wanted to preserve the Pulfuli, while pastoralists unable to be interviewed may have held other preferences.

Livelihood diversification was equally important. Some herders sold selected animals to purchase feed for the rest, invested in children’s education, took work in development projects or entered commerce, and used wages to support livestock production. A salaried livelihood could make continued herding possible even for households unable to maintain large, mobile herds. Transhumance remained close to many herders’ hearts, but it was also described as physically demanding and dangerous because animals could become lost and people had to endure heat, dust, hunger and fatigue. Women, who remained closely involved with animals, were especially prominent in discussing the burdens of this work. These accounts complicate the policy opposition between “traditional” mobility and “modern” settlement by showing that pastoralists themselves were evaluating which combination of movement, work, education and herd management could support the next generation.

The researchers interpret breed change as a reconfiguration of the established human-cattle-environment relationship rather than a purely technical event. Their multispecies approach drew on interviews, photographs, sounds, seasonal observations and local language to examine how people perceive animals, trees, grasses and soils as active parts of a shared environment. This differs from framing biodiversity loss only as the disappearance of ecosystem components or pastoralists only as victims of degradation. The study’s central argument is that herders actively combine environmental knowledge, market opportunities, project-based resources, family aspirations and symbolic values. The findings are qualitative and geographically focused, so they do not measure productivity gains, changes in herd numbers at regional scale or the effect of crossbreeding on income. They do show that, around the Great Green Wall, adaptation can involve fewer but more valuable animals, new breeds, paid work and selective use of projects rather than the wholesale abandonment of pastoralism.

Subject of Research: Qualitative research into how Fulani pastoralists in northern Senegal are changing cattle breeding, herd management and livelihoods in response to environmental pressures and the Great Green Wall.

Article Title: Between Gobra and Guzerat: a reinvention of human-cattle-environment relationships in the Great Green Wall (northern Senegal)

Article References: Laloi, C., Diallo, A. H., Ferrié, J.-N., & Duboz, P. (2026). Between Gobra and Guzerat: a reinvention of human-cattle-environment relationships in the Great Green Wall (northern Senegal). Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice, 16, Article 16069. https://doi.org/10.3389/past.2026.16069

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/past.2026.16069

Keywords: Great Green Wall, Senegal, Sahel, pastoralism, Gobra cattle, Guzerat cattle, livestock breeding, environmental change, rural livelihoods, Fulani herders, Between, Gobra

The investigation took place in Elles, a semi-arid locality in the Sers delegation of Tunisia’s Kef Governorate, where annual precipitation is approximately 350–450 millimetres and mean annual temperature is about 17–19 degrees Celsius. The area has shallow, calcareous soils, hot, dry summers and rainfed agriculture dominated by family farms. Most sampled households cultivated fewer than 10 hectares, and 82% lived on their farm plots. Olive orchards accounted for more than 90% of arboricultural land in the delegation, placing a locally important crop within a landscape of limited land, variable rainfall and recurrent exposure to drought.

Researchers administered a structured questionnaire through face-to-face interviews averaging about 45 minutes, supplemented by field observations to check reported practices. Farms were recruited through snowball sampling initiated with the local Agricultural Development Group, or GDA Elles, and expanded through farmer referrals. The resulting distribution reflected the settlement patterns of participating members and their networks rather than a probability-based sample. The CAET index uses 35 indicators grouped under 10 elements of agroecology: diversity, synergy, efficiency, recycling, resilience, culture and food traditions, co-creation and sharing of knowledge, human and social values, circular and solidarity economy, and responsible governance. Each indicator was scored from zero to four, and the 10 element scores were combined with equal weight to produce an overall percentage. Because the design was cross-sectional, the score represents a farm’s alignment at one point rather than measurable change over time.

Olive monocultures occupied the least aligned end of the index. Their CAET score of 31.18% was below the study’s 40% threshold for an incipient transition, and they recorded particularly low results for diversity, at 20%, synergy, at 13%, and recycling, at 21%. These farms averaged 3.5 hectares and were described as relying heavily on conventional tillage, synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, with little or no organic amendment. The contrast was not uniform across every measure: their efficiency score was 63%, slightly above the 61% recorded for fully integrated farms, showing that structural diversification did not directly determine every element of the index.

Olive–crop farms scored 37%, still below the 40% threshold, despite producing field crops, forage, horticultural crops or fruit trees alongside olives. Their mean area was 6.75 hectares, and household labour averaged three family members. Olive–livestock farms reached 46%, an intermediate position associated with recycling and resilience scores of 45% and 36%. These farms averaged only 1.8 hectares but combined olives with an average of 20 sheep and approximately one head of cattle, with about five family workers. Fully integrated olive–crop–livestock farms averaged 10.7 hectares, combined olives with crops and 37 sheep and seven cattle, and achieved 52%, placing them in the study’s 50–70% “active” transition range. Farmers and local stakeholders at a validation workshop broadly recognized this ordering, although the smaller workshop group could not independently validate every result.

Higher CAET scores were positively associated with several economic indicators in the sample. Monthly income averaged 1,349.7 Tunisian dinars for olive monocultures, 1,278.9 dinars for olive–crop farms, 2,319.3 dinars for olive–livestock farms and 4,892.1 dinars for fully diversified systems. Annual added value followed the same broad pattern, rising from 8,830.7 and 9,011 dinars in the first two types to 18,785.7 dinars in olive–livestock farms and 36,199.8 dinars in integrated farms. Spearman rank correlations between CAET and monthly income, productivity value and annual added value were 0.35, 0.30 and 0.25, respectively. These are associations, not causal effects; market conditions, labour availability, input and production costs, farm size and management could influence both agroecological scores and financial results.

Not every performance measure improved along the same gradient. Productivity value was highest in the olive–livestock group, at 14,153.5 dinars, compared with 4,910.7 dinars for monocultures, 2,584 dinars for olive–crop farms and 7,154.4 dinars for fully diversified farms. Agricultural biodiversity was highest in olive–crop systems, with an index value of 0.62, but only 0.13 in olive–livestock systems. Overall, the measured biodiversity index was moderately negatively correlated with CAET, at ρ = −0.26, while soil health had essentially no correlation with CAET, at ρ = 0.02. Mean soil-health ratings nevertheless occupied a narrow range from 6.2 to 6.8 out of 10. The results caution against treating aggregate agroecological alignment as a direct proxy for every environmental outcome, particularly because cross-sectional survey measures may miss slow changes in soil organic matter, biological activity, soil structure and water infiltration.

Social results likewise showed that transition scores did not automatically translate into inclusive benefits. The Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index had a weak, statistically non-significant correlation with CAET of −0.19, with a 95% confidence interval from −0.41 to 0.05. Forty-five of the 60 households scored zero on that indicator, and only seven were headed by women, leaving too few informative cases for separate analysis. Correlations with youth employment and dietary diversity were also weak. Youth employment averaged 15.6% in fully integrated farms but only 1.3–3.6% in the other three types. By contrast, internal CAET dimensions moved together more strongly: synergy, human and social values, diversity, recycling and co-creation of knowledge correlated with the overall index at ρ = 0.79, 0.78, 0.71, 0.71 and 0.71, respectively. These relationships support the view that ecological and social dimensions can develop together within individual farms, but they do not establish the direction of influence.

The study identifies a practical distinction between adding products to a farm and integrating them functionally. Olive–crop systems had more diversified output than monocultures, yet remained below the transition threshold because crops, trees and farm activities were not linked strongly enough through shared nutrient flows, residue use, biological regulation or coordinated management. The highest-scoring systems combined several activities in a structure that could recycle manure and biomass, connect livestock with crops and trees, and reduce reliance on external inputs. The researchers also identified barriers to wider adoption, including limited collective action, weak market integration, insufficient agricultural extension services and a lack of differentiated market outlets or price incentives. These institutional and market constraints may matter as much as technical feasibility when farmers assess the costs and benefits of changing their systems. Discussions with farmers, the GDA and local extension representatives helped contextualize these results, but participants reacted to analyses already framed by the research team and may have been influenced by social desirability.

Several limitations constrain how the findings can be applied. The sample was small, restricted to one locality and recruited through non-probability methods; with only 13–18 farms in each type, differences among groups are descriptive rather than formally confirmed statistical distinctions. The results do not represent Tunisia’s olive sector nationally, particularly because olive cultivation is more concentrated in central Tunisia. Farm size was not fully separated from diversification: fully integrated farms were the largest on average, although the smallest type, olive–livestock farms at 1.8 hectares, scored above the larger olive–crop group. Sensitivity analysis excluding the diversity and synergy elements produced a CAET-8 score highly correlated with the full index at ρ = 0.96, but the researchers could not determine separately whether the farm-type gradient remained intact under that calculation. The evidence therefore supports further evaluation of differentiated, locally adapted approaches, including stronger extension, training, collective organization and market coordination, but longitudinal or regression-based research would be needed to determine whether agroecological transition itself changes income, biodiversity, soil conditions or social outcomes over time.

Subject of Research: Assessment of agroecological transition and performance in 60 smallholder olive farms in northwestern Tunisia

Article Title: Agroecological transition in olive based farming systems among smallholder farms in northwestern Tunisia

Article References: Mejri, R., Oueslati Zlaoui, M., Gharbi, I., Souissi, A., Ferchichi, G., Soula, R., Dhehibi, B., & Dhraief, M. Z. (2026). Agroecological transition in olive based farming systems among smallholder farms in northwestern Tunisia. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 10, Article 1903591. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2026.1903591

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/fsufs.2026.1903591

Keywords: agroecology, olive farming, smallholder farms, Tunisia, farm diversification, crop–livestock integration, agricultural sustainability, semi-arid agriculture, rural livelihoods, agroecological transition, Agroecological, transition

The reported analysis assessed community knowledge through yes/no items and perceptions and practices through five-point Likert-scale items. Composite and mean scores were categorized using predefined intervals ranging from very low to very high. Most respondents received composite awareness and perception scores in the “good” category, defined as 50–75% of the maximum attainable score. The study used correlation and multiple linear regression to examine relationships between these measures and adoption of soil and water conservation practices.

The abstract reports strong positive correlations among the community measures. Knowledge was correlated with perception at r = 0.64, with practice at r = 0.83 and with perception and practice at r = 0.69; all reported p-values were below 0.05. These correlations and regression coefficients indicate statistical associations within the study area rather than demonstrating that any factor caused adoption. The authors identified institutional support, training, information access, extension services and land-tenure security as areas relevant to sustainable adoption, based on the study’s measured associations.

The findings are based on research conducted in one watershed in the highlands of northwestern Ethiopia, so their direct applicability beyond that setting is uncertain. The available abstract does not report the number of survey respondents or key informants, sampling procedures, confidence intervals, model diagnostics or detailed measures of adoption. It also does not establish whether the reported relationships persist over time. Accordingly, the results identify factors statistically associated with reported conservation practice in the Jema Watershed but do not quantify the effect of an intervention, establish causal mechanisms or demonstrate downstream environmental outcomes.

Subject of Research: Household determinants associated with soil and water conservation adoption in Ethiopia’s Jema Watershed

Article Title: Determinants of communities’ adoption and practice of soil and water conservation measures in the Jema Watershed, in the highlands of northwestern Ethiopia

Article References: Fentie, A. Y., & Assefa, Y. (2026). Determinants of communities’ adoption and practice of soil and water conservation measures in the Jema Watershed, in the highlands of northwestern Ethiopia. Discover Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-026-04965-1

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s43621-026-04965-1

Keywords: soil and water conservation, Ethiopia, Jema Watershed, adoption, household survey, key-informant interviews, multiple linear regression, extension services, land tenure security, rural livelihoods, Determinants, communities

The study focuses on two specific blocks within the division: Keshiary and Nayagram. By examining the lived experiences of forest fringe communities, the researchers utilized semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, and statistical analysis to identify the socio-cultural, economic, and institutional barriers to equitable engagement. The findings indicate that despite the theoretical achievements of JFM, practical implementation is heavily skewed by existing power dynamics. These dynamics prevent many community members, especially women, from fully participating in decision-making processes or accessing the benefits of forest resources.

A significant disparity in livelihood strategies was observed between the two study areas. In Nayagram, forest dependency is notably higher, with 78.89% of women engaged in the collection of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) for their livelihoods. This heavy reliance on forest resources makes equitable access to NTFPs a critical issue for gender equality in the region. In contrast, Keshiary shows a more diversified economic landscape, where 68.47% of the population engages in rice cultivation. This agricultural diversification reduces the immediate reliance on forest resources, thereby altering the dynamics of participation and dependency in JFM activities.

Participation in JFM and Executive Committee meetings remains low in both Keshiary and Nayagram. The researchers identified several factors contributing to this disengagement, including a general lack of interest, the long distances required to travel to meeting sites, and the dispersed nature of settlements in these areas. These logistical and social barriers create a significant hurdle for inclusive governance. When community members cannot easily or willingly participate in formal meetings, the decision-making process becomes less representative of the broader population, further entrenching the influence of those who are already present and active.

Mistrust toward the Forest Department (FD) is a pervasive issue, particularly in Nayagram, where 63.87% of respondents expressed significant distrust. This sentiment reflects unequal power dynamics and limited transparency in the operations of the forest bureaucracy. The FD is often perceived as an external authority that imposes rules without adequate consultation, leading to a defensive posture among local communities. This lack of trust hampers the collaborative spirit that JFM is supposed to foster, making it difficult to build the necessary social capital for effective joint management.

Knowledge gaps regarding JFM processes are widespread, further complicating efforts to achieve inclusive governance. In Nayagram, 82.89% of respondents reported a lack of awareness about how JFM processes function. This ignorance is not merely a result of poor communication but is often a consequence of systemic exclusion from information networks. Without a basic understanding of their rights and the mechanisms of JFM, community members, especially women, are unable to advocate for their interests or hold the Forest Department accountable for its actions.

Representation in Village Forest Committees (VFCs) is dominated by upper-caste women, with over 60% of the seats held by this group. This dominance marginalizes women from Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST), who are often the most dependent on forest resources. The intersection of caste and gender creates a double disadvantage for these women, who face both gender-based discrimination and caste-based exclusion. This skewed representation ensures that the priorities of the most vulnerable groups are often overlooked in favor of those with greater social capital and influence.

Gender inequality remains pronounced in both study areas, with 79.38% of women in Nayagram and 68.23% in Keshiary reporting minimal interaction with the Forest Department. These women are constrained by domestic responsibilities, which can consume up to 98.59% of their time, and restrictive social norms that limit their mobility and public participation. The burden of unpaid care work, including childcare, elder care, and household management, leaves women with little time or energy to engage in the often time-consuming and distant JFM meetings. This time poverty is a critical barrier to gender equality in forest governance.

Although Self-Help Groups (SHGs) have fostered limited empowerment for some women, systemic exclusion endures. SHGs provide a platform for financial inclusion and social networking, but they do not necessarily translate into political power or decision-making authority within the JFM framework. The empowerment gained through SHGs is often confined to the economic sphere, leaving the structural barriers to political participation largely intact. To realize the participatory goals of JFM, policy and institutional reforms must promote inclusive, gender-sensitive, and locally tailored strategies that address these deep-seated inequalities.

Enhancing education, ensuring equitable representation, and strengthening community capacity are essential for achieving sustainable and just forest governance in West Bengal’s forest-dependent regions. These efforts must be aligned with the goals of Viksit Bharat 2047 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which emphasize inclusive growth and gender equality. By addressing the socio-cultural, economic, and institutional barriers identified in this study, policymakers can create a more equitable and effective JFM system that benefits all community members, regardless of their gender, caste, or class.

Subject of Research: Gender inequalities and social hierarchies in Joint Forest Management in Eastern India

Article Title: Exploring emic perspectives and gender inequalities in joint forest management: evidence from the Kharagpur Forest Division, Eastern India

Article References: Shit, P. K. (2026). Exploring emic perspectives and gender inequalities in joint forest management: evidence from the Kharagpur Forest Division, Eastern India. SN Social Sciences, 6(10), Article 550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-026-01849-z

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s43545-026-01849-z

Keywords: Joint Forest Management, Gender Inequality, Forest Governance, West Bengal, Social Hierarchy, Community Participation, Non-Timber Forest Products, Village Forest Committees, Feminist Political Ecology, Rural Livelihoods, Exploring, emic

The research team, led by Laila Shahzad of the Sustainable Development Study Center at Government College University, Lahore, surveyed 300 rice–wheat farming households across two tehsils of District Narowal using door-to-door questionnaires and focus group discussions conducted between December 2022 and March 2023. The district, which covers 4,623 square kilometres and is home to roughly 1.7 million people, 85 percent of whom live in rural areas, was deliberately selected because it is classified as highly vulnerable under Pakistan’s National Monsoon Contingency Plan. Major floods in 2010, 2012 and 2022 inundated more than 65 villages and large areas of cropland, particularly affecting rice and livestock systems, while droughts, pest outbreaks, waterlogging and soil degradation create a persistent multi-hazard risk environment.

Methodologically, the study is notable for integrating the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change vulnerability framework—exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity—within a Climate Vulnerability Index (CVI) model, combined with the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for weighting adaptive capacity indicators. Farmers rated 13 climate-related risks on a four-point Likert scale, producing a Climate Change Risk Perception Score that was standardized into an index scaled from 0 to 100. Adaptive capacity was evaluated across five capital assets drawn from the Sustainable Livelihood Framework: natural, physical, financial, human and social. Pairwise comparison matrices were normalized and consistency verified using the Consistency Ratio, with values of 0.09 for Narowal and 0.05 for Shakargarh confirming acceptable expert judgement. Historical temperature and rainfall records for 2002 to 2021 from the Pakistan Meteorological Department were analysed with simple linear regression to validate farmers’ perceptions against measured trends.

The headline finding is a pronounced spatial gradient in vulnerability. The IPCC-CVI was calculated as 0.26 for Tehsil Narowal and 0.91 for Tehsil Shakargarh, with the index ranging from −1, least vulnerable, to +1, most vulnerable. Tehsil Narowal recorded higher exposure, with an index of 0.83 compared with 0.62 in Shakargarh, driven primarily by flood intensity, which ranked highest in both tehsils with standardized risk perception values of 95.48 and 94.01 respectively. Erratic rainfall and temperature fluctuations followed closely behind. Both tehsils demonstrated moderate to high sensitivity, with indices of 0.76 and 0.71, reflecting impacts on fertilizer availability, soil fertility, drinking water scarcity and access to basic health services. Adaptive capacity remained relatively low in both areas, at 0.48 in Narowal and 0.36 in Shakargarh, reinforcing the overall vulnerability pattern and making Tehsil Narowal slightly more vulnerable overall despite Shakargarh’s proximity to the Ravi River.

The meteorological data corroborate farmers’ lived experience. Regression analysis revealed a declining trend in mean maximum annual temperature alongside an increasing trend in mean minimum temperature, with the highest mean maximum of 30.42 degrees Celsius recorded in 2009 and the highest mean minimum of 26.03 degrees Celsius in 2018. Rainfall showed a significant increasing trend, with extreme events of 133 millimetres in 2003, 116 millimetres in 2013 and 110 millimetres in 2014 contributing to severe floods that damaged crops and livestock. Farmers reported erratic rainfall and rising temperatures particularly during the Kharif season from May to October, when monthly maximum temperatures ranged between 31 and 38 degrees Celsius, disrupting rice–wheat cropping cycles and reducing productivity.

Beyond direct climatic impacts, the study documents how biological hazards compound risk. Farmers reported increased pest attacks, locust swarms and persistent weeds despite pesticide use, alongside livestock disease outbreaks such as lumpy skin disease that reduce household income and food security. These pressures have intensified chemical use, degrading soil and water quality while raising production costs and health risks. Financial vulnerability is compounded by the near-total absence of crop insurance, with 87.9 percent of respondents in Narowal and 91.3 percent in Shakargarh reporting no coverage, limited access to formal credit, and reliance on exploitative informal lending systems. Land tenure insecurity further constrains adaptation, as smallholders without ownership rights have limited access to government support and reduced incentives to invest in long-term resilience measures.

Socio-economic and demographic factors emerged as key determinants of vulnerability and adaptation. Age, farming experience, landholding size and ownership rights all shaped household responses, with older farmers tending to rely on traditional practices and resource-intensive irrigation that increase environmental stress. Education levels were low, with 37.1 percent of respondents in Narowal and 43.8 percent in Shakargarh having only primary education, while roughly 29 percent were illiterate, constraining awareness of climate risks and preparedness for extreme events. Gender dynamics further shape vulnerability: while farming is predominantly male-led, with 90.7 percent of household heads in Narowal and 82.5 percent in Shakargarh being male, women contribute through off-farm activities such as handicrafts and home gardening, yet mechanization and sociocultural barriers limit their participation in modern agricultural practices and technology adoption.

Farmers exhibit moderate adaptation through crop diversification and altered sowing dates. The survey revealed that 40 percent of farmers in Narowal and 48.8 percent in Shakargarh moderately changed their sowing calendars, while 52.8 and 41.9 percent had high capacity to adjust crop calendars. Fertilizer and pesticide adjustments were common, with 43.6 and 50.6 percent of respondents reporting moderate changes to maintain soil fertility. Switching from traditional cereals to cash crops was moderately practiced by 50 and 42.5 percent of farmers to manage financial risks, while a significant proportion, 50.7 and 43.8 percent, left land fallow for one or more cycles to restore soil organic matter and moisture. However, most farmers did not adopt climate-tolerant crop varieties, showing low adaptive capacity at 48.6 and 50.8 percent, and tree planting remained limited in Narowal.

The study’s implications are urgent and policy-relevant. The authors call for mainstreaming climate resilience into agricultural development projects and provincial policies, expanding access to finance through crop insurance schemes and affordable credit, and linking the economic trade-offs inherent in rice–wheat systems to actionable responses such as crop diversification, improved irrigation efficiency, climate-smart agriculture and land restoration approaches including Land Degradation Neutrality. Investments in infrastructure, including efficient irrigation systems, improved market access and reliable early warning services, are deemed essential to strengthening system-wide resilience, alongside targeted capacity-building initiatives and gender-inclusive approaches that empower women and broaden participation in climate-smart practices.

Comparative evidence from other regions reinforces the patterns observed in Narowal. Smallholder farmers in Tanzania adopt strategies such as crop diversification, early sowing and drought-tolerant varieties, closely paralleling behaviours observed among rice–wheat farmers in Punjab, while studies from Ethiopia identify crop diversification, planting date adjustments and livestock management as key determinants of adaptation. These similarities highlight the broader relevance of localized adaptation strategies across diverse agro-ecological contexts and support the evidence from Narowal that adaptive capacity is shaped by both environmental pressures and socio-economic conditions. With agriculture contributing 24 percent to Pakistan’s gross domestic product and providing 37.4 percent of employment, and with 65 to 70 percent of the population depending on agriculture for income, the findings underscore that safeguarding rural livelihoods in districts like Narowal is not merely a local concern but a matter of national economic stability under increasing water stress and climate uncertainty.

Subject of Research: Climate Vulnerability and Economic Impacts on Rural Livelihoods in Narowal, Punjab

Article Title: Understanding climate vulnerability and economic impacts on rural livelihoods: lessons from Narowal, Punjab

Article References: Shahzad, L., Saleem, M., Sharif, F., Shedayi, A. A., Hayyat, M. U., Farhan, M., & Dogar, M. (2026). Understanding climate vulnerability and economic impacts on rural livelihoods: lessons from Narowal, Punjab. Frontiers in Environmental Economics, 5, Article 1781478. https://doi.org/10.3389/frevc.2026.1781478

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/frevc.2026.1781478

Keywords: climate vulnerability, Pakistan, Punjab, rice-wheat farming, adaptation strategies, multi-hazard, socio-economic determinants, rural livelihoods, Understanding, climate, vulnerability, economic

The study, led by researchers examining mountain socio-ecological systems in sub-Saharan Africa, collected data from 83 participants through 74 semi-structured interviews, two focus group discussions, and nine key informant interviews conducted between September and November 2025. Participants included rural household representatives, community leaders, and tourism stakeholders, providing perspectives from both subsistence-based and commercial livelihood pathways. The researchers grounded their analysis in three interrelated theoretical frameworks: environmental justice theory, which examines the fair distribution of environmental benefits and meaningful participation in decision-making; political ecology, which interrogates power relations and historical processes shaping resource access; and resilience thinking, which focuses on how communities absorb disturbances and adapt to changing conditions. Together, these lenses allowed the team to trace how governance processes influence access to ecosystem services, which in turn shapes livelihood strategies and adaptive outcomes under climate stress.

The Amathole Mountains were selected because they constitute a socio-ecological system where climate-sensitive ecosystem services such as water provision, forest resources, and soil fertility are directly linked to rural livelihoods, where unequal access to land continues to influence uneven resource distribution, and where governance arrangements are fragmented across stakeholders producing contested decision-making spaces. The Raymond Mhlaba Local Municipality, where the study sites are located, is characterized by significant socio-economic disadvantage. Approximately 59 percent of residents in the broader Amathole District earn less than R1,600 per month, and unemployment reaches 42.8 percent. In Hopefield and Bold Point specifically, 65 percent of residents live below the upper-bound poverty line, with unemployment around 45 percent. Social grants remain the primary income source for many households, while limited employment opportunities increase reliance on natural resources for water, grazing, small-scale agriculture, and firewood.

Participants across all three study sites consistently reported that rainfall patterns have become increasingly unpredictable. Seasonal rains that previously arrived in early spring now occur irregularly or are delayed, resulting in shorter growing seasons and declining water availability. Streams and rivers that once flowed throughout the year now dry up earlier during the dry season. In Hopefield, drying rivers reduce soil moisture and limit irrigation for household gardens and small-scale farming, contributing to declining yields for staple crops such as maize, beans, spinach, cabbage, and potatoes. One female participant explained during a focus group discussion that the river often dries up because the rain does not come as before. Another young male participant highlighted the uncertainty that climate variability introduces into agricultural decision-making, noting that sometimes it rains too much and other times there is no rain at all, making farming difficult because households do not know when to plant. From a resilience perspective, this uncertainty itself emerged as a significant livelihood stressor because it undermines the ability to anticipate and respond effectively to environmental change.

In Bold Point, reduced rainfall has weakened streamflow and increased sedimentation, limiting the reliability of mountain-fed water systems. Many households previously relied on piped water drawn directly from mountain sources, but broken infrastructure and declining streamflow have forced residents to rely on distant streams or purchase water during dry periods. The interaction between climate stress and deteriorating infrastructure emerged as a critical mechanism shaping water insecurity. While climatic factors reduce water availability, inadequate maintenance of local water systems amplifies exposure to risk. This finding supports political ecology perspectives that vulnerability is co-produced through interactions between environmental change and institutional conditions rather than resulting solely from biophysical processes. Beyond agricultural and domestic water use, climate variability also affects cultural and spiritual practices tied to mountain ecosystems. Participants from both Hopefield and Bold Point consistently reported that medicinal plants used for healing, rituals, and household protection are becoming more difficult to locate due to changing rainfall patterns, vegetation shifts, and recurring drought conditions. One older female participant explained that some herbs do not grow like before because the rain is not the same, and communities now search for them higher up the mountain. This loss of medicinal plants represents more than a decline in biodiversity; it threatens cultural identity, traditional ecological knowledge, and intergenerational practices central to community well-being.

In Hogsback, where the local economy is driven primarily by tourism and hospitality, climate-related changes were also evident. Participants linked declining precipitation and reduced snowfall to falling groundwater levels and reduced spring recharge. Older residents recalled that snow historically contributed to groundwater replenishment and sustained local streams and wetlands. One tourism stakeholder noted that the area receives far less snow than in previous decades, and that a stream which had flowed for 140 years dried for the first time. These findings reveal that climate variability affects multiple sectors simultaneously, but the consequences differ according to livelihood dependence and resource access. Whereas rural households experience direct impacts on food production, water access, and energy security, tourism stakeholders are primarily affected through changes in landscape quality, water availability, and visitor experiences. Firewood collection patterns are also shifting across the landscape, with increasing travel distances, vegetation stress, and periodic wildlife movement reducing the availability of easily accessible fuelwood. Households reported collecting firewood less frequently, spending more time harvesting resources, or traveling further into mountain areas to meet household energy needs. Collectively, these observations suggest that climate variability is affecting multiple ecosystem services simultaneously rather than individual resources in isolation, producing an interconnected cascade of impacts that constrains livelihood options, food security, cultural practice, and local economic activities.

The findings further indicate that climate-related pressures are inseparable from governance dynamics because access to ecosystem services is mediated by institutions, power relations, and historical land-use arrangements. Across Hopefield and Bold Point, participants described a lack of formal representation in decision-making structures related to land use, water management, and forest resources. Forest areas remain controlled by private tourism operators and forestry companies, restricting access to grazing areas, trails, and other natural resources. A tourism guide explained that the forestry company managing roughly 55,000 hectares restricts access, and that communities are currently in arbitration to improve access to some mountain resources. Participants frequently linked these governance challenges to historical land dispossession and long-standing struggles for recognition and restitution, emphasizing that communities continue to rely on landscapes that were historically part of their ancestral territories but are now managed by commercial forestry or tourism enterprises. These accounts reflect recognitional injustice because participants perceived that their historical relationships with the landscape, indigenous knowledge systems, and cultural claims to natural resources receive limited acknowledgment within contemporary governance arrangements. Land restitution processes were also described as incomplete or delayed, with one female participant from Hopefield reporting that some families were paid but others are still waiting, and that communities are not part of the decision even though the land was historically theirs.

Water governance emerged as another major concern, with participants reporting inconsistent municipal water supply, poor communication during water shortages, and limited coordination between upstream and downstream users. The unequal distribution of water resources between upstream and downstream users further illustrates distributive injustice, as communities located downstream frequently experience shortages while possessing limited influence over decisions affecting water allocation and management. Although Hogsback maintains a tourism-led forum, participants acknowledged that commercial and forestry interests dominate discussions, limiting genuine community representation. One tourism stakeholder explained that the forum does not currently have direct community representatives but that they are working toward appointing one soon. The findings therefore reveal that environmental justice concerns extend beyond resource scarcity to encompass questions of power, representation, and recognition. Communities most dependent on ecosystem services frequently possess the least influence over governance processes that determine access to those resources, and these governance arrangements reproduce historical inequalities that shape contemporary patterns of resource access and exclusion.

Despite growing climate pressures and governance constraints, communities across the Amathole Mountains have developed a range of adaptation strategies combining local ecological knowledge, household coping mechanisms, and sector-specific innovations. Rural households in Hopefield and Bold Point rely heavily on ecosystem-based strategies to manage climate risks, drawing water from rivers, mountain springs, or storage tanks when the municipal water system fails. Farmers adapt by adjusting planting schedules and diversifying livelihood activities, with some households supplementing agricultural income through wild honey harvesting and small-scale trading. Seasonal livestock mobility remains a key adaptation strategy, with one young male shepherd explaining that during droughts livestock are moved up the mountain because the grass stays soft and green even in winter, and are brought back down in December. This practice illustrates the importance of local ecological knowledge in sustaining livelihoods under changing climatic conditions. In contrast, tourism enterprises in Hogsback demonstrate higher adaptive capacity due to greater financial resources and infrastructure. One tourism operator explained that they increased water storage through an artesian well, several good springs on the farm, and a large dam. Some hotel establishments have also adopted ecological technologies to manage wastewater more efficiently, with one tourism employee noting that a biological digester system was installed so wastewater can be recycled safely and used for irrigation. A central finding emerging from the data is that resilience is unevenly distributed across stakeholder groups. Tourism enterprises possess greater financial, technical, and infrastructure resources enabling capital-intensive adaptation measures, while rural households depend primarily on ecosystem-based and labor-intensive coping strategies. During recent droughts, tourism operations were able to maintain water supply through private infrastructure while nearby households faced severe shortages.

The study contends that ecosystem-based, participatory governance rooted in local knowledge and attentive to differentiated livelihood pathways is essential for biodiversity conservation, rural well-being, and climate adaptation in mountain socio-ecological systems. The researchers argue that strengthening resilience in the Amathole Mountains requires approaches that extend beyond technical adaptation measures to address inequalities in resource access, participation, and decision-making. Enhancing multi-stakeholder collaboration, improving governance accountability and transparency, supporting ecosystem restoration, and promoting climate-resilient livelihoods may strengthen adaptive capacity while advancing environmental justice. Building on existing local institutions and community networks offers a feasible pathway toward more inclusive and sustainable mountain governance. The findings highlight the need for governance approaches that simultaneously address ecological sustainability, social equity, and climate resilience in vulnerable mountain regions, demonstrating that livelihood vulnerability and resilience are co-produced through environmental and governance processes rather than environmental change alone. The study is limited by its focus on three communities within the Amathole Mountains and its reliance on qualitative stakeholder perspectives, and the researchers recommend that future research adopt longitudinal and mixed-method approaches and undertake comparative studies across mountain regions to better understand evolving relationships among climate variability, ecosystem services, governance, and environmental justice.

Subject of Research: Ecosystem services and livelihood pathways: the nexus between biodiversity governance and environmental justice in rural Eastern Cape, South Africa

Article Title: Ecosystem services and livelihood pathways: the nexus between biodiversity governance and environmental justice in rural Eastern Cape, South Africa

Article References: Effossou, K. A., & Moyo, P. (2026). Ecosystem services and livelihood pathways: the nexus between biodiversity governance and environmental justice in rural Eastern Cape, South Africa. Nature Conservation, 64, 185-212. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.64.191936

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.64.191936

Keywords: Amathole Mountains, ecosystem services, environmental justice, biodiversity governance, climate variability, rural livelihoods, South Africa, Eastern Cape, resilience thinking, political ecology, water security, mountain socio-ecological systems

The study was conducted by Mriganka Dolui and Sanjit Sarkar of the Department of Geography at Central University of Karnataka, who surveyed households across an eastern Indian state between 2023 and 2024. Their central question was deceptively simple: do households that send migrants away build different economic lives from those that stay put? To answer it, the researchers combined a classic tool of ecology, the Simpson Diversification Index, with econometric modeling, treating a family’s income sources the way an ecologist might treat species in a ecosystem—as a portfolio whose balance determines resilience.

The numbers are striking. Migrant households recorded an average Simpson Diversification Index value of 0.420, notably higher than their non-migrant counterparts, indicating a broader spread of income across activities. Nearly four in ten migrant households—39.23 percent—adopted what the researchers call a combination livelihood strategy, mixing farm and non-farm earnings rather than relying on a single source. And across every livelihood category examined, migrant households earned more than non-migrant households, a pattern that challenges the assumption that out-migration necessarily signals household decline.

The statistical core of the paper rests on two models. A multinomial logistic regression was used to estimate how migration status shifts the odds of choosing particular livelihood strategies, while a Tobit censored model handled the bounded nature of the diversification index, which cannot fall below zero. The results showed that migration was associated with a 2.389-fold higher likelihood of pursuing non-farm livelihoods and a 6.502-fold higher likelihood of combining multiple strategies, compared with households that did not migrate. In plain terms, a migrant household was more than six times as likely to juggle several income streams as a comparable non-migrant one.

Migration was not the only lever. The models also identified structural factors that independently shaped diversification. A higher wealth index increased the diversification score by 0.173, access to Self-Help Group assistance added 0.201, and participation in MGNREGA—the national rural employment guarantee scheme—contributed 0.149. These coefficients matter because they point to institutional scaffolding: households plugged into collective savings groups or guaranteed public works were measurably better at spreading their economic bets, regardless of whether anyone in the family had migrated.

The context behind these findings is a landscape of agrarian insecurity. Scheduled Tribe communities in India remain among the most marginalized populations, often holding little or no land and facing limited local employment. When harvests fail or wages stagnate, the household economy has few buffers. The authors frame migration not as a rupture but as one thread in a web of livelihood strategies—a calculated response to structural constraint rather than a pure act of desperation. That reframing carries weight for how policymakers read census and survey data on rural mobility.

Methodologically, the study leaned on bivariate analysis using the chi-square statistic to test associations between migration status and livelihood choices before moving to the multivariate models. The survey instrument captured sociodemographic characteristics—household size, education, landholding, caste and tribal identity—alongside income sources, allowing the researchers to disentangle the effect of migration from the confounding influence of household endowments. The work formed part of a doctoral thesis by the first author, supported by a research fellowship from the University Grants Commission.

The implications reach beyond West Bengal. If migration functions as a diversification engine, then policies that treat out-migration purely as a problem to be curbed may miss the point. Instead, the findings suggest that safe migration corridors, skill development, and portability of social entitlements could amplify the income gains that migrant households already achieve, while Self-Help Groups and employment guarantee schemes provide complementary stability for those who stay. The authors argue that policy efforts and targeted interventions should be integrated to stabilize household income and welfare, rather than addressing migration and rural livelihoods in separate silos.

There are, of course, limits to what a cross-sectional survey of 450 households can establish. The study identifies associations, not causal proof; households that migrate may differ from those that do not in ways the models cannot fully capture. Yet the consistency of the pattern—higher diversification, higher incomes, and a strong statistical association between migration and mixed livelihood strategies—makes a compelling case that mobility and rural development are intertwined rather than opposed. For India’s tribal communities, the road out of the village, the study suggests, may be one of the most important roads into a more secure economic future.

Subject of Research: The relationship between migration and livelihood diversification among Scheduled Tribe households in West Bengal, India

Article Title: Nexus of migration and differentiated livelihood mobility among scheduled tribes in West Bengal

Article References: Dolui, M., & Sarkar, S. (2026). Nexus of migration and differentiated livelihood mobility among scheduled tribes in West Bengal. Discover Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-026-04968-y

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s43621-026-04968-y

Keywords: migration, livelihood diversification, Scheduled Tribes, West Bengal, Simpson Diversification Index, multinomial logistic regression, MGNREGA, Self-Help Groups, rural livelihoods, India, agrarian insecurity, household income

The team employed a mixed-methods design that combined a cross-sectional survey with qualitative narratives from participants. Of 384 questionnaires distributed across selected districts of the Guji Zone, 337 were completed and returned, an 88 percent response rate that is unusually strong for household surveys in rural settings and lends considerable statistical weight to the findings. The quantitative strand measured how mining participation related to household income and broader livelihood outcomes, while the qualitative strand captured miners’ own accounts of working conditions, safety, and their dealings with officials. This dual approach matters because income figures alone can mask the fragility of a livelihood that depends on unregulated pits, rudimentary tools, and daily exposure to physical hazard.

The headline economic result is unambiguous: artisanal gold mining significantly enhances household income. For many families in the study area, income from gold provides essential economic support that subsistence agriculture cannot match on its own. This aligns with a growing body of evidence from across sub-Saharan Africa, where artisanal and small-scale mining, often abbreviated as ASM, employs millions of people directly and indirectly. Studies in Ghana, Tanzania, and Sierra Leone have documented similar patterns, with mining income smoothing consumption, funding school fees, and buffering households against crop failures and price shocks. In the Guji Zone, where gold has long been dug by hand alongside farming, the researchers found that the two livelihoods are not simply competitors but interwoven strands of household survival strategy.

But the qualitative narratives reveal the costs that income statistics conceal. Participants described persistent safety concerns in the pits and processing sites, a lack of adequate training in both mining technique and financial management, and a striking absence of trust in government support institutions. Occupational injury is a documented hazard in Ethiopian artisanal mining; prior research cited in the study records high rates of nonfatal injuries among small-scale gold workers, including in the Oddo Shakiso district of the Guji Zone itself. Without formal safety standards, protective equipment, or emergency response systems, miners absorb the physical risk of extracting a commodity whose price is set on global markets far beyond their control.

The study’s most distinctive contribution lies in its treatment of government policy as a moderating variable rather than a background condition. The researchers explicitly tested whether policy interventions altered the relationship between mining and household livelihood outcomes. They did, but not always in the way policymakers might hope. Government policies were shown to affect the socio-economic impact of artisanal gold mining, yet they tend to prioritize regulation over direct economic assistance. In other words, the state’s presence is felt chiefly through rules, permits, and oversight rather than through training programs, credit, safety infrastructure, or market support that would strengthen miners’ economic position. Regulation without accompaniment, the findings suggest, moderates livelihood outcomes in ways that can diminish rather than amplify the benefits of mining.

This regulatory emphasis has deep roots in the governance literature. The study draws on institutional frameworks associated with scholars such as Elinor Ostrom, whose work on governing the commons emphasized that resource outcomes depend on institutions that users perceive as legitimate and fair. Trust, as the Guji Zone data make plain, is not a soft variable. When miners distrust the agencies that license and inspect them, they are less likely to adopt safer practices, report hazards, or participate in formalization schemes. Research on knowledge exchange in environmental science and policy has repeatedly shown that trust is a precondition for effective cooperation between communities and authorities. The Ethiopian findings extend that insight into the everyday economics of gold digging.

The Guji Zone case also sits within a broader continental debate about whether artisanal mining is a poverty trap or a development springboard. In Ghana, studies of mining communities have traced how gold digging reshapes rural livelihood trajectories, sometimes pulling labor away from farming and sometimes complementing it through cash income that funds agricultural inputs. Comparable work in Tanzania has examined state-led efforts to reduce the environmental footprint of small-scale mining and their implications for the Sustainable Development Goals. The Ethiopian study contributes an important moderating lens to this literature: the same mining activity can produce different livelihood outcomes depending on the policy environment that surrounds it. That makes policy design not an afterthought but a central determinant of whether gold helps or harms rural households.

The researchers’ recommendations follow directly from their evidence. First, they call for balanced policies that ensure miners’ safety while promoting sustainable economic growth, a formulation that implicitly criticizes the current tilt toward regulation alone. Second, they urge increased investment in community training initiatives, which would address both the technical deficits that contribute to accidents and the financial skills needed to convert mining income into durable household assets. Third, they recommend enhanced stakeholder engagement in the policymaking process so that local needs, as articulated by miners themselves, are reflected in the rules that govern them. Each recommendation targets one of the three deficits the qualitative data exposed: safety, training, and trust.

What makes these findings resonate beyond Ethiopia is the sheer scale of the phenomenon they describe. Artisanal and small-scale gold mining is one of the fastest-growing rural livelihoods in the Global South, driven by rising gold prices, population growth, and the erratic returns of rain-fed agriculture. It is also a sector under intensifying scrutiny for its environmental impacts, including mercury use and land degradation, and for its labor conditions. The Guji Zone study suggests that the lever for improvement is not simply stricter enforcement, which risks pushing miners further underground, but a reconfigured relationship between the state and mining households in which assistance, safety investment, and genuine consultation precede or accompany regulation. The alternative, the data imply, is a sector that generates income while quietly eroding the human capital and institutional trust needed to sustain it.

The study, which received ethical approval from the Bule Hora University Institutional Research Review Committee and was conducted with informed consent from all adult participants, was published as volume 6, article 366 of SN Social Sciences. Its authors span three disciplines at Bule Hora University, management, water resources engineering, and natural resource management, a combination that reflects the inherently multidisciplinary character of the problem. For the farming households of the Guji Zone, the message of the research is double-edged. Gold is real income, and for many families it is indispensable. But without safer pits, better training, and policies built with miners rather than merely imposed upon them, the yellow metal will continue to deliver its benefits at a discount, paid for in risk, insecurity, and foregone opportunity.

Subject of Research: The impact of artisanal gold mining on rural household livelihoods in Ethiopia and the moderating role of government policy

Article Title: Impact of an artisanal gold mining on rural household livelihoods in selected districts of the Guji Zone: the moderating effect of government policy interventions

Article References: Gede, D. U., Hidi, D., & Gede, D. U. (2026). Impact of an artisanal gold mining on rural household livelihoods in selected districts of the Guji Zone: the moderating effect of government policy interventions. SN Social Sciences, 6(9), Article 366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-026-01663-7

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s43545-026-01663-7

Keywords: artisanal gold mining, Ethiopia, Guji Zone, rural livelihoods, household income, government policy, mining safety, occupational injuries, rural development, sub-Saharan Africa, livelihood framework, policy intervention

Green grabbing describes the appropriation of land and resources legitimized by environmental agendas, whether for biodiversity conservation, carbon sequestration, ecosystem services, ecotourism, or renewable energy production. The term emerged from the older concept of land grabbing, which gained prominence in 2008 after the global food price crisis triggered a wave of large-scale land acquisitions in the Global South by foreign investors seeking to secure agricultural production. But as the new analysis makes clear, environmental concerns themselves have become core drivers of land appropriation, creating novel forms of valuation and accumulation. Unlike classical land grabs, which rely on overt coercion or market mechanisms alone, green grabbing operates through a distinctive mechanism in which environmental justifications disarm opposition and attract support from constituencies unlikely to endorse conventional dispossession.

At the center of the debate is the conservation concession model, a contractual arrangement in which a government or landholder transfers management rights over a specified territory to a concessionaire, typically a conservation organization, private company, or hybrid entity, in exchange for payments or investments to achieve defined conservation outcomes. Proponents, including major international financial institutions and conservation organizations, frame these concessions as pragmatic and efficient mechanisms for protecting ecologically valuable landscapes while generating economic benefits for host nations. Crucially, contemporary concessions are increasingly funded not by philanthropic donations but by anticipated revenues from carbon credit sales, transforming the incentive structure from an ongoing donor subsidy to financial self-sufficiency through the commodification of forest carbon. This shift, the authors argue, fundamentally alters the politics of conservation.

To evaluate when a conservation intervention crosses the line into green grabbing, the researchers propose a set of analytical criteria drawn from critical agrarian studies and political economy. These include changes in access rights, dispossession or exclusion of land users, the absence of meaningful consent under the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent framework, inequitable distribution of costs and benefits, and the transfer of decision-making authority from customary institutions to external actors. The framework also examines how livelihoods are affected across natural, social, human, physical, and financial capital, and how power asymmetries shape who benefits and who loses from conservation interventions.

The empirical heart of the study lies in Malawi, where the authors draw on fifteen years of fieldwork experience, 67 key informant interviews, 12 focus group discussions, and non-participant observation conducted between December 2025 and March 2026. The primary case is the Mamaland carbon concession, announced in early 2026 as the most significant and controversial conservation initiative in the country’s history. The agreement involves the Portuguese construction conglomerate Mota-Engil, through its agroforestry subsidiary, and the Singaporean commodity trader Trafigura, who together will market carbon credits generated from 550,000 hectares of Malawian forest reserves over a 40-year period. The reserves include South Viphya, Dwambazi, Dzalanyama, Michiru, and Chimaliro, forests that surrounding communities have relied upon for generations.

The Mamaland concession exhibits what the authors identify as four critical governance failures. First, Malawi’s Forestry Act and Land Act contain no reference to carbon rights, meaning the ownership of carbon sequestered on forest reserves remains legally untested and potentially subject to dispute. Under the prevailing operational assumption that land or tree ownership confers carbon ownership, the concession effectively claims rights to ecosystem services that were never explicitly allocated through any legislative process. Second, no publicly disclosed benefit-sharing terms exist; the government’s framework suggests a 5 percent community entitlement, but its application remains unclear. Third, community leaders reported meetings that could not adequately explain how long the land would remain under concession or what share of revenue would return to local people, raising serious questions about whether genuine consent was ever obtained. Fourth, the 40-year term contains no review clause for renegotiation as carbon prices evolve, locking in communities and government to a fixed arrangement that exceeds standard cycles of democratic accountability.

The consequences of these design failures are not abstract. With over 96 percent of Malawian households relying on biomass for cooking fuel, restrictions on forest access for carbon preservation impose immediate costs on the most vulnerable populations. In practice, the avoided-deforestation model criminalizes traditional livelihood practices such as shifting cultivation, fuelwood collection, and the harvesting of non-timber forest products like medicinal plants, honey, and thatch grass. These activities constitute the daily subsistence strategies of surrounding communities, and their reclassification as illegal extraction risks exacerbating poverty and generating local resistance that ultimately undermines long-term conservation goals. As one key informant observed during a community meeting, if people are fenced out to protect the carbon, the result is not a project but a conflict.

The study also documents how conservation concessions reconfigure rural class dynamics. In Majete Wildlife Reserve, managed by African Parks under a delegated management agreement, new community-based organizations were established that report to park managers rather than to democratically elected village development committees, creating what community members describe as a parallel governance system. Employment opportunities are concentrated among those with formal education or political connections, while poorer households who rely more directly on common-pool resources for subsistence are disproportionately harmed by access restrictions. This pattern of differentiated dispossession empowers a new cadre of conservation-oriented elites while marginalizing the agrarian poor, a dynamic also documented in Madagascar, where the collapse of state capacity led to a stark division between high-paid foreign workers and low-wage local staff.

Yet the analysis is not uniformly pessimistic. The Kulera REDD+ Programme, operating in the Nyika and Vwaza landscapes of Malawi, demonstrates that inclusive benefit-sharing is operationally feasible when communities are structured as partners rather than passive beneficiaries. The Nyika-Vwaza Association and the Nkhotakota Wildlife Reserve Association employ their own staff, participate in carbon credit pricing decisions, and engage in participatory budgeting, with 25 percent of park resources and fees flowing to registered community associations. This stands in sharp contrast to the Mamaland model and suggests that the problem lies not in conservation itself but in the institutional conditions under which it is implemented. The authors also document forms of community resistance, from deliberate non-compliance with access restrictions to vocal opposition at meetings and social ostracism of perceived collaborators.

Looking forward, the researchers call for a foundational shift toward radical land tenure security, community-led forest governance, and agroecological perspectives that treat agricultural production and forest conservation as complementary rather than oppositional objectives. They propose that any future conservation investment be assessed against threshold questions: whether it respects existing governance structures, whether benefit-sharing terms are publicly disclosed and legally enforceable, whether communities hold genuine decision-making authority beyond mere consultation, and whether viable alternatives to displaced livelihoods are provided. Investments failing to satisfy all four criteria should be subject to heightened scrutiny. The stakes could not be higher, as the 40-year lock-in of the Mamaland concession means decisions made today will shape Malawian forests and livelihoods until 2066. Whether this legacy is judged as climate leadership or carbon colonialism depends on actions taken in the immediate window to retrofit transparency, accountability, and genuine inclusion into agreements that remain dangerously opaque.

Subject of Research: The socio-ecological impacts and governance failures of conservation concessions as a form of green grabbing in the Global South

Article Title: Conservation concessions or green grabbing? A critical perspective on mega conservation investments

Article References: Makwinja, Y. H., & Makare, B. (2026). Conservation concessions or green grabbing? A critical perspective on mega conservation investments. Frontiers in Sustainable Resource Management, 5, Article 1819454. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsrma.2026.1819454

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/fsrma.2026.1819454

Keywords: green grabbing, conservation concessions, carbon credits, land rights, Malawi, critical agrarian studies, forest governance, rural livelihoods, neoliberal conservation, dispossession, REDD+, political economy

Researchers from the University of Mpumalanga and the University of Pretoria examined two communities in Mpumalanga’s Gert-Sibande District, Jabulani and Thuthukani, both of which received forest plantations through settled restitution claims. Jabulani’s claim covered 325 hectares and was tied to an agri-village development that resettled 500 beneficiaries in 110 Reconstruction and Development Programme houses. Thuthukani’s beneficiaries reclaimed 230.6 hectares and entered a management partnership with the plantation’s previous owner. In both cases, the law required beneficiaries to establish a Communal Property Association, a legal entity created under the Communal Property Associations Act of 1996, to represent them during negotiations and to manage the land collectively after handover. It is precisely this institutional machinery, the researchers found, that has begun to break down.

The study, published in Frontiers in Sustainable Resource Management, combined a household survey with focus group discussions in what the authors describe as a mixed-methods design. Using a standard sample size formula, the team randomly selected 105 households in Jabulani and 75 in Thuthukani from beneficiary lists supplied by the community property associations. Semi-structured questionnaires captured demographic details, engagement with government institutions, access to ecosystem services, fire frequency and firefighting resources. Focus groups of 39 participants in Jabulani and 36 in Thuthukani, drawn from committee members, adult beneficiaries and youth, provided the qualitative depth. Household survey data were analysed with descriptive and inferential statistics, including the non-parametric Friedman’s test to rank challenges, while the discussion transcripts were processed through content analysis.

The demographic profile of the two communities immediately revealed the stakes. Female-headed households made up the majority in both, exceeding half of all respondents, and young heads of household aged 18 to 35 formed the largest age group. Educational attainment was strikingly low: fewer than three percent of respondents in either community had tertiary education, and in Jabulani a third of household heads were illiterate. Unemployment ranged from roughly 26 percent in Jabulani to 40 percent in Thuthukani, and pensioners constituted between a quarter and 38 percent of household heads. Monthly incomes sat far below the national minimum wage, with more than half of Thuthukani households earning under 1,000 rand per month. These figures matter for land management because, as the authors note, low literacy can limit a community’s ability to navigate the complex institutional and technical demands of running a commercial plantation.

Perhaps the most telling finding concerns engagement with the state. Since their land claims were settled, neither community had held a single meeting with the Regional Land Claims Commission. Contact with the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, local municipalities and the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment was nearly nonexistent, reported by no more than two percent of respondents in either community. In the absence of sustained post-settlement support, the researchers argue, beneficiaries lacked the expertise needed to manage commercial forests, plantation productivity declined, and the conditions of the land deteriorated. The partnerships with private companies that initially provided infrastructure investment and technical support had not consistently delivered equitable benefits either, and in Thuthukani the loss of the private sector partner removed a critical source of firefighting assistance.

Fire emerged as the most visceral threat. Commercial plantations are inherently flammable assets, and South Africa’s statutory fire season, running from the first of June to the end of October, concentrates the danger into a few dry months. Between 89 and 97 percent of respondents in the two communities reported that fires occur only during this season, yet focus group participants emphasised that blazes remain a relentless management problem. Thuthukani participants described how the absence of firefighting resources had turned previously well-managed plantations into poorly maintained areas choked with high fuel loads, raising the risk further. The survey quantified the desperation: 46.7 percent of Jabulani respondents said obtaining firefighting resources was fairly difficult, while 40 percent of Thuthukani respondents called it very difficult. Without collateral, the community associations cannot access credit, cannot hire or equip firefighting teams, and cannot finance the revitalisation of burned or degraded stands.

Access to the ecosystem services that motivated the claims in the first place has become starkly uneven. Every single Jabulani respondent reported access to commercial timber, yet not one Thuthukani respondent could say the same, a reversal of fortunes between two communities that began with similar expectations. Grazing access was nearly universal in Jabulani at 97.1 percent but only 32 percent in Thuthukani, while firewood access showed the opposite pattern, exceeding 97 percent in Thuthukani against under half in Jabulani. More than 80 percent of respondents in both communities reported no access to medicinal plants, and in Thuthukani 98.7 percent lacked crafting materials. The authors link this patchy availability to declining plantation productivity under poor governance, warning that communities already burdened by poverty, unemployment and inequality are losing the natural resource safety nets that functional forests provide.

When respondents were asked to rank the obstacles facing their associations, the results upended the conventional assumption that money and skills are the binding constraints. Lack of benefit sharing scored the highest mean rank at 5.82, followed almost identically by elitism at 5.81, then lack of transparency at 5.59 and infighting at 5.34. Funding, expertise, monitoring and mentorship ranked lowest. The differences were statistically significant, with a Friedman test statistic of 501.141 across seven degrees of freedom and a p-value of 0.001. In other words, beneficiaries perceive governance failures, not technical gaps, as the central problem. This aligns with a broader literature on elite capture in land restitution, in which well-connected committee members monopolise benefits, beneficiary lists are manipulated, and decision-making happens behind closed doors, eroding the trust that collective forest management depends on.

The researchers conclude that revitalising these forests will require communities to organise themselves, agree on clear strategies and establish mutually beneficial benefit-sharing mechanisms, backed by strengthened committee governance, equitable distribution of gains and sustained institutional support from government. Technical capacity building and collaborative partnerships involving public institutions, private partners and local communities are, they argue, essential to restoring plantation productivity and the ecosystem services that flow from it. The lesson extends beyond Mpumalanga. Around the world, returning land to dispossessed communities is increasingly recognised as a matter of environmental justice, but this study is a sobering reminder that restitution without post-settlement investment can leave forests to burn and communities waiting. Land back, the findings suggest, is only the first step in a far longer restoration.

Subject of Research: Challenges to revitalizing and sustaining forest plantations returned to communities through South Africa's land restitution programme

Article Title: Challenges affecting revitalization and sustainability in forest-based land reform projects: lessons from the Thuthukani and Jabulani communities, South Africa

Article References: Tshidzumba, R. P., Ntshingila, F. B., & Chirwa, P. W. (2026). Challenges affecting revitalization and sustainability in forest-based land reform projects: lessons from the Thuthukani and Jabulani communities, South Africa. Frontiers in Sustainable Resource Management, 5, Article 1815402. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsrma.2026.1815402

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/fsrma.2026.1815402

Keywords: land restitution, forest plantations, South Africa, communal property associations, ecosystem services, governance, elite capture, benefit sharing, wildfire management, rural livelihoods, Mpumalanga, community forestry