1. Prologue — The Forest That Fed Civilizations
Before the first plough touched the earth, the world fed us through leaves, roots, fish, insects, fallen fruits, and the quiet generosity of the wild — the earliest form of wild foods and food security long before the phrase existed. Even now, Home and Wild Food Procurement (HWFP) remains surprisingly common in high-income countries. Across Europe, Japan, North America, the UAE, and beyond, households still grow or harvest part of their own food — sometimes covering 10–50% of key foods like vegetables, eggs, or game meat. Yet our usual “food security” measurements ignore all this. Most tools ask only, “Did you have enough money to buy food?” Consequently, anything outside the market — gardens, wild harvests, shared baskets, gifts — falls into the shadow.
Meanwhile, history walked another road.
Both capitalism and communism built their confidence on production — on the belief that bigger fields, higher yields, and stronger markets or stronger states would guarantee food for all. Instead, they measured progress in tonnes and quotas, not in the quiet strength of wetlands, hedgerows, and forest floors.
Neither Adam Smith nor Karl Marx lived long enough to imagine a world of eight billion bodies or a sky thick with carbon. Likewise, neither could foresee shrinking forests, vanishing insects, the micronutrient threads woven by wild foods, or the way a single degraded landscape can tip a community into hunger. Their ideas were vast — yet rooted in eras where the wild seemed eternal, abundant, and safely outside the calculations of philosophy.
Thus, both ideologies miscalculated the same thing:
They built systems for feeding people
but forgot to understand the landscapes that make feeding possible.
Now, as climate, population, and ecological pressure converge, an old truth rises again from beneath the soil:
We survive not because fields are large,
but because ecosystems are alive.
Our memory of HWFP never vanished. Even so, the wild still waits behind the curtain of our modern kitchens, holding the fragments of resilience that agriculture alone cannot carry.
Finally, perhaps it is time we acknowledge what our ancestors understood without saying:
Abundance is not security.
Green fields can fail. Warehouses can empty. Markets can tremble.
However, ecosystems — when alive, diverse, and unbroken — can bend without breaking.
This is the forgotten equation of human survival:
Civilizations rise on agriculture
but survive on biodiversity.
2. The Invisible Harvest: How Wealthy Nations Still Rely on Wild Foods
In high-income countries, the story of food often appears clean and industrial — supermarkets bright, shelves full, and choices endless. Yet, beneath that surface lives a quieter truth. Even in Europe, Japan, North America, and the UAE, millions of households still grow, gather, fish, or hunt part of their own food. In fact, Home and Wild Food Procurement (HWFP) continues to supply 10–50% of essential items in many places: vegetables from backyard plots, eggs from small flocks, berries from forest edges, and fish from local streams.
However, most national food security assessments overlook all of this. The standard surveys ask only one narrow question:
“Did you have enough money to buy food?”
Every tomato from a balcony pot, every rabbit from a family trapline, every mushroom from a nearby forest is treated as invisible — as if only market transactions count as nourishment.
Consequently, a major part of real food security disappears from view. And when knowledge disappears from data, policy soon follows.
Yet the invisible harvest shapes diet quality in ways store-bought foods rarely match. Garden vegetables often carry higher micronutrients; wild fish bring omega-3s that industrial diets struggle to supply. Even small amounts of wild or home-grown foods can lift a family’s nutrition during economic pressure, job loss, illness, or sudden price swings.
Moreover, HWFP restores something deeper: a sense of agency. People feel anchored when food does not depend solely on distant supply chains.
Still, even with all these benefits, most governments do not track the scale, quality, or resilience role of HWFP. Thus, the harvest that strengthens communities remains hidden behind national statistics.
And this invisibility matters. Because when the wild goes uncounted, it becomes undervalued; when undervalued, it becomes unprotected. Soon, gardens shrink, foraging trails close, small fishing access is lost — not from malice, but from neglect. This is why understanding wild foods and food security together is essential, especially in wealthy nations where these contributions remain hidden behind official data.
The wealthiest nations in the world continue to rely on wild foods, yet they rarely admit it. Their official systems pretend that modernity replaced the forest and the river. Reality whispers another story:
The wild never left. We just stopped looking.
And food security — especially in wealthy nations — is far more ecological than economic.
3. Ecological Memory: Lessons from the Green Famine Belt
In Ethiopia’s green famine belt, hunger does not always look like an empty field. Instead, it hides behind green hills and tall grasses, where the land appears full but the stomach remains empty. Families often walk hours to find the wild roots, tubers, leaves, and small animals that fill the gap between harvests. Consequently, the wild becomes the bridge between survival and scarcity.
During the lean season — the long pause before the next harvest — wild foods often carry more weight than cultivated crops. They provide iron, calcium, vitamin A, and the steady calories that keep children alive when granaries run low. Moreover, they anchor knowledge: elders pass down which roots must be boiled, which leaves must be crushed, which fruits are safe only when ripe.
Yet this knowledge is fading. Younger generations, pushed by schools, cities, and modern diets, lose touch with the forest’s grammar. As a result, people depend more on markets that cannot always protect them. When drought strikes or prices rise, the land may look green, but the household becomes fragile.
This truth is not far from home. During Bangladesh’s liberation war in 1971, many people survived by eating forest leaves, wild roots, water plants, and whatever the land offered when markets collapsed and safe access to villages vanished. Consequently, the wild became both shield and pantry — a living ally in a moment when every formal system broke down. That memory still lives in the stories passed down by elders, reminding us that survival often begins where agriculture ends.
Even modern survivalists echo this wisdom. Bear Grylls, in his jungle expeditions, repeatedly shows how the difference between edible and poisonous plants can mean life or death. In fact, his demonstrations resemble what countless communities have practiced for generations: reading the land, recognizing safe insects, understanding bitter leaves, and knowing which roots can sustain the body. Therefore, his televised lessons mirror ancient ecological memory — the kind that helped people endure war, famine, and isolation long before survival became entertainment.
This is why researchers call wild foods ecological memory — the living record of how people and landscapes survived shock after shock. The forest remembers drought; the river remembers scarcity; the wild plants remember when rain delayed its return. In turn, communities tap into that memory during crises.
However, ecological memory weakens when biodiversity thins. Shrubs disappear, wetlands shrink, grazing pressure grows, and once-common species become rare. Thus, the safety net tears slowly — often silently — until people notice it only when hunger arrives.
The Ethiopian study shows something profound: environmental abundance does not guarantee food security. A landscape can look lush yet hold very little that can be eaten. Therefore, understanding wild foods and food security together becomes essential, because food security depends less on how green a place appears and more on how alive its biodiversity remains.
And this lesson stretches far beyond Ethiopia. Because, in every region, the wild steps forward when formal systems fail. When crops wither, when markets collapse, when wages vanish, the forest becomes the last pantry — not out of romance, but out of necessity.
Wild foods are not “emergency food.”
They are the memory of survival woven into the land.
And when that memory fades, vulnerability grows.
4. Landscape Traps: How Small Decisions Make or Break Biodiversity
A landscape rarely collapses in a single day. Instead, it leans—quietly, slowly—under the weight of countless small decisions made by farmers, herders, and families who simply do what feels practical in the moment. A hedge trimmed here. A shrub cleared there. A tree removed for more sunlight. Eventually, these small changes gather force, reshaping entire ecosystems without a single villain in sight.
In Europe, for example, researchers found that once many farmers intensified—removing hedgerows, enlarging fields, and replacing mixed habitats with uniform crops—the entire region slipped into a new ecological state. Consequently, pollinators declined, insect-eating birds vanished, and the mosaic landscape that once buffered the land became a thin, fragile skin.
What begins as individual logic becomes collective loss.
Farmers often act from reasons that make perfect sense:
- tradition,
- neighbor influence,
- market pressure,
- risk-aversion,
- and government incentives.
However, when these private decisions align, they form what researchers call social traps—and these social traps soon turn into ecological traps. A single farmer might clear a shrub because it seems useless. Ten farmers might do the same. But a thousand farmers doing it transforms an entire region, driving out open-habitat species and erasing the insects and birds that once kept fields in balance.
In abandoned farmland, the pattern moves in the opposite direction. Shrubs creep in. Grasslands close. Species that depended on open spaces disappear quietly. Thus, whether land is overworked or left untouched, biodiversity can decline when decisions follow a single direction without pause.
Once a landscape reaches this altered state, even farmers who want to restore biodiversity face barriers. The system becomes locked—ecologically and economically. In turn, the region cannot return easily to its more diverse, resilient form. It is the ecological equivalent of a poverty trap:
easy to fall into, hard to escape.
This is why any discussion of wild foods and food security must begin with the land itself, because every edible leaf or hidden root depends on the choices people make with their soil, water, and trees.
And this is where wild foods and food security meet the fate of rural decisions.
Because biodiversity is not an abstract ideal—
it is the living infrastructure that produces edible leaves, fruits, mushrooms, roots, and small animals that help communities survive drought and rising prices.
When hedgerows disappear, wild plants disappear.
As wetlands shrink, edible fish and water plants shrink with them.
Shrubs vanish too, and with them go the insects and birds that keep the fields in balance.
Consequently, the landscape loses the very memory that once held people through hard seasons.
This is why a field may look “well-managed” but taste empty.
And why a landscape may appear green while quietly starving.
The lesson is simple, yet easily forgotten:
Food security is not built only on crops.
It grows—or withers—on the tiny decisions that shape the land.
5. Wild Foods as Crisis Medicine
When crises arrive, they rarely knock gently. Instead, they rush in — through drought, conflict, sudden price spikes, crop failures, or the slow grind of economic stress. And when they do, the formal systems we depend on — markets, wages, supply chains — can falter at the same moment. Consequently, communities must lean on what remains steady when everything else becomes uncertain.
Across continents, that steady ally has always been the wild.
Wild foods offer nutrients that many staple crops cannot match. Forest leaves carry iron and calcium; wild fruits hold antioxidants; edible insects provide dense protein; freshwater fish deliver omega-3s; roots and tubers offer slow energy that lasts through hard days. Moreover, these foods ripen or grow during seasons when fields stand bare, making them vital during lean months.
The WHO–CBD review emphasizes this repeatedly:
wild foods are not side characters — they are central to resilience.
During droughts, streams shrink but do not vanish; edible reeds and water plants continue growing in wetlands even when fields wither. Likewise, many wild fruits and tubers emerge exactly when cultivated crops decline, creating a natural counterbalance that has helped human communities survive for generations. In mountain regions, wild mushrooms appear when grain stores fall; in coastal areas, shellfish sustain households when storms disrupt regular fishing.
This quiet infrastructure is rarely recorded, yet it carries weight during every shock cycle. And shocks are no longer rare — climate change has turned them into frequent visitors.
Furthermore, wild foods hold social and cultural value during crises. For many Indigenous and rural communities, knowing how to identify edible species becomes an inheritance of strength. Families remember which plants stay safe even in drought, which forests hold edible leaves, which riverbanks hide roots that require careful preparation. This knowledge is not superstition; it is survival science shaped by centuries of observation.
However, as biodiversity declines, this crisis medicine weakens. Forest edges thin, wetlands drain, rivers choke, and species disappear quietly. As a result, the pantry of last resort becomes smaller each year, especially in places where climate vulnerability grows fastest.
And here again, wild foods and food security converge.
When the last safety net frays, food security becomes fragile long before markets notice.
The WHO–CBD reminds us that during pandemics, civil unrest, or rapid inflation, households with access to wild foods recover faster. They rely less on cash, less on global supply chains, and more on ecosystems that remain generous even when institutions struggle.
This resilience is not romantic — it is practical.
It is measurable.
It is scientific.
And above all, it is repeatable across nations.
Wild foods steady the hand when crisis shakes the ground.
They turn landscapes into quiet clinics.
They turn biodiversity into emergency nutrition.
And they remind us that resilience grows wherever ecosystems are allowed to breathe.
6. Cultural Stigma & Political Neglect
For generations, wild foods have carried a strange burden: they nourish the body, yet they are often dismissed by society. Instead of being honored as part of ecological resilience, they are labeled as “foods for people with very little income,” dismissed as “early or rudimentary foods,” or reduced to “emergency rations.” This cultural dismissal cuts across continents — from Africa to Asia, from Indigenous lands to high-income cities — creating a quiet shame around foods that have sustained humanity for millennia.
The Guardian’s reporting revealed this sharply. In several communities, doctors advised pregnant ladies not to eat wild vegetables, even though those greens held more vitamins than market-bought options. Likewise, agricultural extension officers encouraged households to rely on store foods, treating wild harvests as backward or unclean. In some countries, children teased their classmates who brought wild mushrooms or forest leaves for lunch — not because the food was unsafe, but because the culture had been taught to see it as inferior.
Consequently, parents often abandon the very foods that once protected their families during droughts and lean seasons. Knowledge shrinks; market dependence grows.
Political neglect follows the same path.
Governments measure agriculture through tonnes, exports, and productivity indices. Therefore, anything that lies outside farms — forests, wetlands, hedgerows, riverbanks — becomes invisible to policy. National food-security plans include rice, wheat, maize, and livestock, but rarely list wild leafy greens, edible tubers, insects, or freshwater species. This absence shapes budgets, research priorities, land-use rules, and even school nutrition programs.
In some regions, foragers are fined for collecting wild fruits while large industrial loggers take timber freely. As a result, communities with the least power bear the heaviest restrictions, while commercial interests reshape the land without recognition of its ecological role.
The contradiction is striking: the wild has fed people through war, famine, drought, and economic collapse — yet, in political documents, it is treated as marginal.
This neglect travels silently into development programs. Funds go to high-yield seeds, fertilizers, irrigation, and large-scale farms. Meanwhile, the ecosystems that produce emergency nutrition — forests, wetlands, community woodlands — remain underfunded or degraded. Policies praise “modernization,” but overlook the simple truth that food systems collapse when biodiversity collapses.
Cultural stigma and political neglect reinforce each other.
When people feel embarrassed to gather wild foods, governments feel no urgency to protect the places where those foods grow.
When governments ignore those ecosystems, stigma deepens because the wild seems distant, irrelevant, or unsafe.
This is the paradox:
The foods that offer dignity during crisis
are the foods most burdened by shame.
And the ecosystems that keep people fed in silence
are the ecosystems most overlooked in planning.
Thus, any future discussion of wild foods and food security must confront not only ecological loss but also the cultural and political stories that pushed the wild into the margins.
7. Ideology’s Blindspot: Why Both Capitalism and Communism Miscalculated the Wild
Every ideology inherits the limits of the world that birthed it. Consequently, both capitalism and communism stepped into history carrying the same blindspot: they treated the wild as infinite, permanent, and irrelevant to progress. The forest was background, not infrastructure. The river was scenery, not resilience. And biodiversity — the quiet machinery of survival — was almost entirely absent from their theories.
Adam Smith wrote in a world where populations were small, forests large, and carbon insignificant. The idea that soil could lose nutrients, rivers could lose fish, or insects could disappear on a continental scale never entered the economic imagination. Therefore, the market was designed to optimize production, not protect ecosystems. Efficiency mattered; ecological feedback loops did not.
Karl Marx, though a sharper critic of industrial excess, was also bound by his century. He saw exploitation in factories and fields, but not in landscapes. His theory centered on labor, class, and ownership — not insects, wild plants, or ecological thresholds. In turn, communism focused on controlling production, reorganizing farms, and mobilizing land — but not on conserving biodiversity that makes food possible in the first place.
Both ideologies believed that more production meant more security.
Bigger fields.
Broader plans.
And outcomes that grew in scale rather than wisdom.
Neither predicted a world of eight billion people, of planetary warming, of soil exhaustion, or of global biodiversity decline. Neither imagined a time when the disappearance of a hedgerow or a wild pollinator could trigger food insecurity across an entire region.
Revolutions and markets both changed governments, but neither changed the ecological foundation beneath them.
Thus, capitalism treated nature as a “resource,” and communism treated it as an “instrument,” but both forgot nature as a system — with memory, thresholds, and consequences.
Today’s environmental crises reveal that blindness sharply:
- Markets cannot price the collapse of pollinators.
- Five-year plans cannot restore extinct wetlands.
- Productivity models cannot replace ecological memory.
- Revolutionary slogans cannot regrow forests that took centuries to mature.
And modern think tanks, though well-informed, often lack the cultural force Smith and Marx once held. Because, in an age of information overload, even brilliant ideas drown in noise. Scholars write, but revolutions no longer follow. Reports circulate, but public imagination rarely ignites. We live in a world with more data than ever — yet with less unified vision. This gap between ideas and impact becomes sharper when we consider wild foods and food security, because ecological resilience rarely enters mainstream economic debate.
This is why environmental balance needs a new philosophical lens — one neither capitalist nor communist, but ecological:
- where food security starts with biodiversity,
- where resilience begins with wild foods,
- where land use decisions respect thresholds,
- and where nature is not an afterthought but a foundation.
Ideology without ecology collapses.
Ecology without ideology drifts.
But ecology with narrative — with memory, science, and human meaning — can spark a shift the old systems never managed.
The forest was never outside the economic debate.
It was simply ignored.
And now it stands at the center, asking the question every ideology missed:
How do you feed a civilization
when the landscape that feeds it is dying?
8. Development Without Roots: When Policy Ignores Ecology
Development is often measured in tonnes harvested, markets opened, and calories delivered. Yet, when the focus narrows to yield alone, food systems begin to lose their depth. Policies praise high production, but they rarely ask whether people are getting iron, zinc, vitamin A, or the seasonal foods that carried earlier generations through hunger months. Consequently, micronutrient gaps widen even when national grain reserves look strong.
Across regions, governments treat wild foods as optional, seasonal, or outside the scope of development. Therefore, they overlook the very foods that appear exactly when cultivated crops vanish. Seasonal rhythms — the rise of tubers, the return of mushrooms, the quiet greening of wetland leaves — disappear from planning documents, replaced by calendar targets and market forecasts.
However, communities living close to forests have followed a different script. In Guatemala’s Petén region, community forest enterprises manage their forests with a balance of harvest, protection, and memory. As a result, biodiversity increased instead of declining. Families rely on xate palm, ramón nuts, wild honey, and small game in ways that keep forests standing while still supporting livelihoods.
A similar pattern appears in Burkina Faso and Mali. Community custodianship encourages careful cutting, seed-saving, fire management, and sustainable extraction of fruits, leaves, and oils. Consequently, forests regenerate, wildlife returns, and wild food sources deepen rather than shrink. The land becomes productive not through force, but through familiarity.
These examples challenge a long-standing assumption:
that development must expand by clearing, simplifying, or intensifying the land.
In truth, development rooted in ecology grows in the opposite direction — by listening, observing, and working with the land’s natural intelligence.
This contrast reveals a crucial insight for wild foods and food security:
top-down policy often chases growth, while bottom-up ecology sustains resilience.
Large projects bring irrigation, hybrid seeds, and chemical inputs.
But communities bring patience, seasonal knowledge, and intergenerational understanding of the wild.
Policies may build farms, but communities keep ecosystems alive.
When communities become custodians, biodiversity rises.
When biodiversity rises, wild foods return.
And when wild foods return, food security gains a deeper foundation than markets alone can offer.
Thus, development without roots becomes fragile.
Development with ecological memory becomes future-proof.
9. Toward a New Intelligence: Food Security as Ecological Memory
The world has argued about food through the lens of ideology for centuries. However, the future will not be shaped by capitalism’s markets or communism’s quotas. It will be shaped by ecosystems — by whether forests remain standing, wetlands breathing, rivers flowing, and hedgerows alive with insects. In truth, the next chapter of food security is ecological, not ideological.
Resilience grows where biodiversity thrives. When wetlands host fish, when forests cradle edible leaves, when grasslands support insects, and when hedgerows shelter birds, communities become steadier against floods, droughts, and market shocks. Consequently, biodiversity forms the first layer of food security — long before grain prices, fertilizer subsidies, or market forecasts enter the conversation.
Wild foods stand at the center of this new intelligence. They bridge the distance between crisis and continuity, offering nutrients when fields fail, anchoring diets when wages collapse, and holding ecological memory in their roots and leaves. Moreover, they remind us that survival is not built on a single harvest, but on the many species that keep landscapes alive.
Forests, rivers, wetlands, and hedgerows are therefore not scenery — they are food-security infrastructure. They store protein, vitamins, minerals, forage, and freshwater nutrition in forms no warehouse can replace. When these ecosystems collapse, food security collapses silently behind them.
This is the intelligence we need now:
to see ecology as memory,
memory as resilience,
and resilience as the true architecture of food security.
Thus, food security becomes not just a human goal but a landscape condition.
When ecosystems remember how to recover, communities remember how to survive.
And this philosophy — born from ecology, history, science, and quiet human experience — carries a message the old ideologies missed:
Feed the land, and the land will feed you back.
Forget the land, and no ideology can save you.
🍂 Hello, Artista
The sun was settling low, staining the meadow in a color somewhere between honey and memory. Organum and Artista leaned on the wooden fence side by side, the boards warm beneath their arms. Bees drifted around the clover, unhurried, as if they carried small lanterns of their own.
Artista broke the silence first.
“Organum,” she said softly, “did you notice how the bees never rush, even though their whole world depends on gathering enough nectar?”
Organum smiled, lines of thought gathering around his eyes.
“They move with purpose,” he replied, “but never with panic. Maybe that’s the difference between survival and fear.”
A breeze slid through the field, bending the clover heads.
Artista watched them sway. “We treat food security as if it’s only grain and markets. But the land has its own logic… one we keep forgetting.”
Organum tapped a finger against the fence, considering her words.
“Maybe forgetting,” he said, “is our real famine.”
Artista turned to him, eyebrows raised.
“How so?”
“Because,” Organum continued, “when a community forgets its wild foods, it forgets its own resilience. When it forgets its wetlands, it forgets its lungs. When it forgets its forests, it forgets its backbone.”
He paused, then added, “And when an ideology forgets ecology, it forgets what keeps people alive.”
Artista let the words sink in, as bees circled her wrist like they understood.
“You think the land remembers for us?”
“I do,” he said. “And the land keeps remembering even when we don’t. But there’s a limit. When biodiversity weakens, memory thins. The land becomes forgetful, and so do we.”
Artista took a long breath.
“Organum… what if food security is really just the art of remembering? Remembering which roots heal, which leaves feed, which rivers give fish, which seasons hide hunger?”
He nodded.
“And remembering that the wild isn’t the past — it’s the safety net of the future.”
The sun dropped lower, touching the barn roof with gold.
Artista leaned a little closer, her voice steady.
“I think our biggest mistake was believing civilization could stand without the wild. As if the field could survive without the forest that protects it.”
“And when we look closely, Artista,” Organum added, “we see how wild foods and food security lean on the same roots — each surviving only as long as ecosystems stay alive.”
“And as if humans could survive without the intelligence of ecosystems,” he murmured.
They fell silent again — not from emptiness, but from fullness.
A bee landed on the fence between them.
Artista smiled. “Our small teacher.”
Organum chuckled.
“It came to remind us: feed the land, and the land will feed you back.”
“And forget the land,” Artista whispered, “and no ideology can save you.”
The meadow held its breath as the two friends watched the last light fold itself into the horizon.
In that quiet, they were not professor and nutritionist, not guide and listener —
but two travelers, resting in the same twilight,
learning again how the Earth speaks when we sit still enough to hear it.
✍️ Author’s Reflection
I wrote this piece with the feeling that the world is standing at a strange threshold — one where we have more data than ever, more charts, more frameworks, more strategies, yet less ability to hear the simple wisdom of the land. Somewhere inside this journey, I realized something small but steady: food security is not only a policy term; it is a kind of remembering.
It became clear to me that wild foods and food security are not separate concepts at all, but reflections of the same ecological memory—one held in landscapes, the other held in our daily lives.
When I think of wild foods — roots pulled after a late rain, leaves gathered before the sun grows harsh, fish appearing in the shimmer of a swollen river — I understand that resilience was never born in boardrooms. It was born in ecosystems, in the quiet intelligence of landscapes that knew how to cradle human hunger long before economics learned its first equation.
But we drifted.
We built ideologies instead of listening posts.
We counted calories instead of conversations with the land.
And gradually, we forgot the wild that once guarded us like an unseen parent.
This article is a small attempt to restore that memory — not through nostalgia, not through alarm, but through a simple truth: the land is not a backdrop to human survival; it is a partner. Perhaps that is the philosophy our time needs — a gentle shift from control to companionship, from production to presence, from yield to balance.
If any of these pages offered you a pause — a moment where your mind became a small meadow again — then I am grateful. And if you felt, even for a heartbeat, that the wild is not far away but quietly waiting behind our modern walls, then this journey has done its work.
I was not alone when I wrote this. Others spoke, and I listened.
🌼 Articles You May Like
From metal minds to stardust thoughts—more journeys await:
- The Geometry Principle: From Cosmic Harmony to Human Thought
The Geometry Principle: cosmic harmony shaping nature, art, and ethics—from constellations and shells to sundials and clocks. - Agriculture and River Health: A Tale of Zarvan’s Water Journey
Agriculture and river health entwine in Zarvan’s tale—rivers wounded by farming, yet carrying hope of balance through nature’s wisdom.
Curated with stardust by Organum & Artista, under a sky full of questions.
📚 Principal Sources
- Bliss, S., McCarthy, A. C., Anderzén, J., Mitchell, R. C., Merrill, S. C., Schattman, R. E., & Niles, M. T. (2025). Does home and wild food procurement enhance food security in high-income countries? Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-025-00495-6
- Campbell, D., Moulton, A. A., Barker, D., Malcolm, T., Scott, L., Spence, A., Tomlinson, J., & Wallace, T. (2021). Wild food harvest, food security, and biodiversity conservation in Jamaica: A case study of the Millbank farming region. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.663863
- Caspar van Vark. (2013, July 3). Wild foods: A food security strategy that’s hard to swallow? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2013/jul/03/wild-foods-security-nutrition
- Ferede Guyu, D., & Muluneh, W.-T. (2015). Wild foods (plants and animals) in the green famine belt of Ethiopia: Do they contribute to household resilience to seasonal food insecurity? Forest Ecosystems, 2(1). https://forestecosyst.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40663-015-0058-z
- World Health Organization, & Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2015). Connecting global priorities: Biodiversity and human health – A state of knowledge review. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241508537
Relevant chapters and sections were interpreted through a narrative lens rather than cited academically.
This article is also archived for open access on Zenodo: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17703073
Archiving ensures its permanence in the scholarly record.
Leave a Reply