Training programs should be led by African farmers who understand the nuanced underpinnings of each respective region, as opposed to outside actors. Some argue that “food sovereignty based on genuine agrarian reform, and the defense of land territory against land grabbing, offers a real alternative……is the only way to protect national food economies from predatory dumping, hoarding, and speculation” . However, if government self-sufficiency programs involve no costs to farmers, there is no competition or innate bias towards the wealthy who would theoretically consolidate and redistribute land at the expense of poorer farmers. In this model, it would be most important for there to be representation for peasant farmers in meetings with leadership to ensure the voice of their constituents are heard and integrated into the planning and implementation of food projects, but smallholders do not necessarily need to possess control over the food system in order for food security to be restored. The role of the government is important in streamlining and managing collections of effective indigenous stores of knowledge and heirloom seeds, consolidating and dispersing them through state programs that involve free or low costs training and seed. It is observed that “hen profits are not forthcoming for commercial products, companies lose interest in agricultural development, soil conservation…and in peasant farmers as consumers of seeds and fertilizers and producers of commodities” . Furthermore, when a nation’s exports diminish in value, its people do not become less hungry nor burn less energy; they must still be fed in the absence of capital to purchase imports. It is the duty of governments to prioritize efforts for the public good, where private enterprise and international markets fail to do so. The economic incentive for leadership lies within having a well-fed, and therefore,dutch buckets healthy and cognitively-engaged workforce; and in the ability to eventually invest in export-focused opportunities with less risk, once populations are adequately fed on domestic supplies.

It is imperative that at least some of the current export-focused efforts are redirected towards food self-sufficiency until rates of malnutrition decline and hunger remedied. As previously mentioned, rural areas of SADC nations lack much needed infrastructure and surplus storage facilities. This, among other things, eventually must change. In the meantime, more attainable goals include cultivating and pooling knowledge of agroecological methods and disseminating said knowledge through government extension networks. State programs such as these formerly existed in Southern and East African nations but were cut in favor of neoliberal interventions under the strict guidelines of structural adjustment programs. In the 1960s and 1970s, newly independent African nations deliberately focused on self-sufficiency efforts, even as almost all export relationships with former-colonial powers remained intact- an example for the present day. The production-driven approach of the first Green Revolution had many shortcomings. Participation in initiatives that promised greater yields, and subsequent higher earnings, required upfront investments that priced out certain groups. These programs privileged the relatively well off, leaving broadening wealth gaps in their wake and increased poverty and displacement among those hit hardest by hunger and malnutrition. Lessons from the past are meant to better inform the present, yet it is observed that new initiatives on the continent of Africa, specifically those led by the Gates Foundation’s Alliance for a New Green Revolution in Africa and agrochemical company, Monsanto, are repeating these mistakes. Numerous assessments of AGRA programs in East and Southern Africa determined that “here was no clear trend between the increased use of Green Revolution technologies and nutritional outcomes; instead, it depended on the particular historical, social and political context under which the changes took place. Gender and class relationships played a critical role in determining who gained from these technologies” . It is curious that contemporary initiatives continue to follow failed models.

Perhaps the repackaging and rebranding of past ideas has rendered old strategies unrecognizable to those who witnessed the first GR and are viewed as new innovations by those unaware of the 20th century program. Agribusiness corporatists have appropriated terms commonly used by grassroots and socially-focused organizations that promote food self sufficiency and bottom-up agriculture, conflating opposing ideologies and effectively convincing audiences and donors, as well as participants, that all programs which evoke the terms “food security” and “hunger alleviation” are equal. Often, vulnerable populations who, having been promised higher incomes and crop yields, readily convert lands for intensive agriculture before fully comprehending the complete and ongoing costs involved. Producing surpluses without the capacity to dry, preserve, store, and transport them results in food waste and continued missed opportunities for smallholders, having fruitlessly invested in exports without access to buyers. Such methods are in congruent with the fiscal realities and sociocultural orientations of the communities in which they are being promoted. Africa needs a new plan. Case studies of recent AGRA programs in Malawi and Tanzania demonstrate that costs are prohibitive for many smallholders, and those who take out loans or invest in upfront costs of participation neither see those costs offset by domestic nor export sales. In the best outcomes, smallholders quickly determined these programs are not profitable, lost interest, and had remaining capital to return to producing locally-preferred varieties. Export focused initiatives do not immediately address the local need for a greater diversity and quantity of food. Production-driven efforts for export and have been confused for hunger alleviation campaigns, but a corporate desire to prematurely push into new markets must not be mistaken for aid work. These initiatives carry multiple implied costs which go unmentioned in agribusiness marketing and branding schemes. In addition to royalty payments on proprietary seed, farmers pay for costly inputs and fertilizers, since such seed lacks resistance to local pests and climates. Industrial agriculture also produces waste contaminants in freshwater sources which need to be mitigated and managed using costly monitoring and purification technologies which rural Africa is unprepared to take on.

While it is easy to agree that there is a need to engage better techniques to improve food production and the distribution of surpluses in Southern and East Africa, it is not necessary that these approaches involve expensive proprietary seed. SADC nations need to adopt solutions which are tailored to the region, not blindly integrate those which have worked in the United States or for Asian Tigers. Addressing non-seed issues related to outputs, such as poor transportation, storage, and soils, for example, would have a substantially positive impact on food security for the continent. But the most immediately solution harnesses local talent and techniques and pushes these knowledge sets and applications across broader zones through state supported programming. Farmer-managed seed systems capture existing community assets, and governments can multiply their efforts. Intensive agriculture is a major driver of biodiversity loss, and predicted intensification of agriculture suggests major shifts in land use patterns and biodiversity . Agricultural intensification is characterized by increased chemical and mechanical inputs, limited non-crop vegetation, and lower levels of planned biodiversity . Although intensive agricultural production tends to erode biodiversity,grow bucket ecological communities provide substantial benefits to humans, such as suppression of crop pests . In many agroecosystems, insectivorous bats facilitate crop production by suppressing economically important insect pests . The negative consequences of intensive agricultural systems on biodiversity and ecosystem services have spurred the development of agroecological farming schemes that promote ecological interactions, lead to the provisioning of ecosystem services, and support biodiversity . Through the diversification of crops and habitats and the reduced use of pesticides, agroecological practices may improve habitat quality for insectivorous bats. These practices may increase bat dispersal across the landscape and provide more stable populations of insect prey, although bats in different functional guilds may have different responses to these practices. The addition of linear habitat – strips of perennial vegetation, such as treelines and hedgerows – can increase bat activity because many bat species utilize linear habitat as flyways for foraging and commuting . Linear habitats may reduce energy costs for commuting bats by providing shelter from wind and predators, increase foraging efficiency by concentrating insect prey, and serve as navigational aids . Open area bats are well-suited for crossing vast agricultural fields, whereas clutter adapted bats are more strongly associated with forest and tend to stay closer to linear habitat . Lower levels of pesticide applications and increased plant diversity may also improve foraging habitat quality for bats by providing a more abundant insect prey base, although this mechanism has not yet been tested. Insect communities are more abundant in organic systems with lower pesticide use levels . Intercropping, crop diversification, and the maintenance of non-crop vegetation can all help to maintain insect populations by providing a variety of insect habitat niches, which is especially important in annual cropping systems with frequent disturbances . Many studies that investigate the impact of agricultural intensification on bats focus on categorical comparisons of management intensity . These studies show mixed responses , perhaps because few studies consider both local farming practices and the effect of the surrounding landscape . Categorical comparisons are limited by the reality that farming practices likely vary within and may be shared among management intensity categories , making it difficult to pinpoint which practices drive observed patterns in biodiversity. Because bats respond to factors at both local and landscape scales , landscape context must be considered when evaluating the impact of local practices on bats.

Farms with similar practices may be spatially aggregated , making it difficult to disentangle the effects of local management practices from confounding landscape factors. A nested sampling design can be used to minimize variation in the surrounding landscape when evaluating the effect of local management intensity . Accounting for specific on-farm practices and minimizing variation in the surrounding landscape between paired farms provides a more nuanced understanding of which on-farm management strategies or practices are likely to impact bat conservation outcomes. Landscape-scale conservation efforts are important for bat conservation in agricultural landscapes , but may be challenging to coordinate among multiple private landowners . In productive agricultural regions, such as California’s Central Coast Region , the high cost of cropland encourages intensification, resulting in the conversion of perennial habitat to arable fields, the destruction of edge habitat, and simplified, homogenous landscapes . With little remaining natural habitat, few incentives for growers to restore habitat, and the challenges associated with coordinated grower participation, a focus on local management practices as conservation solutions may be a more effective approach than landscape-scale conservation efforts, although the efficacy of local practices may depend on the landscape surrounding the farm . We investigate how bats use farms compared to surrounding natural habitat, assess which local practices may benefit bats, and ask if the influence of local practices on bats depends on the surrounding land use. Specifically, we ask: 1) How do bat activity, species richness, diversity, and community composition differ among natural habitat, organic farms, and conventional farms? 2) Which on-farm management practices underlie any observed differences in bat activity, species richness, and diversity? 3) Which on-farm management practices influence insect abundance, and are these the same practices that influence bat activity? 4) Does the influence of on-farm management practices on bats depend on the amount of semi-natural habitat in the surrounding landscape? For each question, we explore bat activity for all bat species and by functional guild. We conducted acoustic surveys in the CCR and compared bat responses across site types and in response to local practices by comparing paired organic and conventional farms that vary in their adoption of agroecological farming practices. We hypothesized that focusing on specific practices would better explain bat activity, diversity, and richness than categorical comparisons between organic and conventional farms.We conducted research in the CCR, an economically and ecologically valuable area. Farms in the CCR produce 13% of vegetables in the USA . To understand how bats respond to agricultural intensification at the farm scale, we worked on farms and nearby natural areas in Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, San Benito, and Monterey Counties, CA within a 60 km by 70 km region . We selected woodland patches as natural habitat sites because remnant woodlands are important bat habitat in agricultural landscapes . Study sites in the CCR were selected to be representative of the range of farms and remnant woodland patches present in the study area using a combination of aerial imagery and based on the interest of private landowners and growers in participating in this research.