Three smallholder villages located in typical communal (from 1948), old (1987) and new (2002) resettlement areas, on loamy sand, sandy loam and clay soils, respectively, were selected to explore differences on natural resource management and land productivity. Focus group discussions and surveys were carried out with farmers. Additionally, farmers in three wealth classes per village were chosen for a detailed assessment of their main production systems.

Since mean nitrate concentration along single river channels increases significantly with percent arable land use upstream of sampling points and autumn/early winter flushes in nitrate concentration are widespread, it is generally concluded that farmers contribute most of the nitrate. For the River Derwent in North Yorkshire, the correlation between nitrate concentration and percent arable land use is much poorer when tributary data are included in the equation, because of greater variations in dilution by water draining upland areas and in other N input sources.

The global rush for land has provoked diverse policy responses from host countries. While some governments are facilitating ‘land grabs’ within their borders, others have restricted land acquisitions by foreigners. Drawing from the Brazilian case, I argue that such restrictive regulations may be limited in their effectiveness because they apply a state‐centric geopolitical logic to a threat that is largely de‐territorialized and financialized.

Soil loss, nutrient depletion and land degradation contribute to the skimpy performance of smallholder agriculture and pose serious policy challenges in developing countries. Surprisingly, natural resource management practices that enhance sustainability while improving productivity have not been fully adopted despite continuous efforts of promotion.

The use of co-investment activities to motivate farmers to carry out sustainable land management is increasingly recognized. Several co-investment efforts have been implemented to combat land degradation and increase agricultural production in the Ethiopian highlands. Nevertheless, these co-investment activities have not been documented. Moreover, the impacts of these activities have not been evaluated. This study presents a co-investment initiative for sustainable land management in the Galessa watershed in Ethiopia.

In order to identify sustainable management solutions for small-scale farmer agroecosystems, a better understanding of these dynamic forest–farmland systems, existing farming and forestry strategies, and farmer perspectives is important. We examined the relationship between agricultural land use patterns and farmers’ practices and identified existing and potential characteristics of healthy agroecosystems at local scale in the context of village communities in Zanzibar, Tanzania.

The inverse relationship between land productivity and farm size is an old and puzzling empirical regularity. Most explanations for this relationship rely on market imperfections that jointly determine the farm size and the household's shadow price of some productive inputs. We use plot-level data from the ICRISAT/VLS to assess whether these household-specific theories can explain the puzzle. The data exhibit plots of different sizes being simultaneously cropped by the same household.

This study analyzed examples of sustainable ecosystem-based agriculture where management methods supported livelihoods of smallholders while at the same time local ecosystem services were enhanced in Ethiopia, Brazil, and the Philippines. Participation by farmers and collective actions were found to be a crucial driving force, as local specific knowledge and “learning by doing” were main components of the development. Social cohesion, particularly through associations and cooperatives, and improved marketing opportunities were also important drivers.

In South Patagonia, Argentina, sweet cherry is the main fruit-tree crop grown for export, resulting in a highly seasonal labour demand. Managers of deciduous perennial fruit orchards must consider both biological and economic relationships in selecting crop species and orchard design. This makes decisions at the farm-level extremely complex, as especially in such perennial crops, strategic ('what to plant', 'with which technology' and 'how much area of each activity', i.e.

In recent decades, markets have become widely used for environmental resources. Prime examples include water rights where trade enables water to be allocated to the most profitable crops, and allows farmers more flexibility to cope with climatic variability (Bjornlund 2003). Similarly, tradable rights for air pollution minimize the cost of meeting air quality targets (Stavins 1998). The same principles can potentially be widely applied to biodiversity conservation. In this issue, we are fortunate to have a short but diverse series of papers on tradable rights in conservation.