1 AGROECOLOGY: TRANSITION PATHWAYS TOWARDS
SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS
Agroecology is a dynamic concept that has gained prominence in scientific,
agricultural and political
discourse in recent years (IAASTD, 2009; IPES-Food, 2016). During its
historical evolution,
agroecology has expanded beyond the field, farm and agroecosystem scales to
encompass, over the
last decade, the whole food system. Agroecological approaches explicitly aim at
transforming food
and agriculture systems, addressing the root causes of problems and providing
holistic and long-term
solutions (FAO, 2018a) that consider the complexity of farming systems within
their social, economic
and ecological contexts (Petersen and Arbenz, 2018). Agroecological approaches
are increasingly
considered as possible alternatives to the industrial model of agricultural
improvement,14 representing
concrete transition pathways towards SFSs that enhance FSN (De Schutter, 2010;
HLPE, 2016,
2017a,b).
In September 2014, FAO organized an International Symposium on Agroecology for
FSN, followed in
2015 by three regional meetings in Latin America, Africa and Asia (FAO,
2015a,b; 2016a), a further
three regional meetings in 2016 in Latin America, China and Europe, and the
most recent in 2017 in
North Africa (FAO, 2018b). A second International Symposium was convened by FAO
in April 2018,
the key outcomes of which are documented in Chapter 4 and have informed the
development of some
of the recommendations in this report.
This chapter begins by describing how the concept of agroecology has emerged
from constituent
elements of agriculture and ecology to embrace a transdisciplinary science, a
set of practices and a
social movement. It then presents the definition and development of
agroecological principles over
time, analysing how these principles contribute to FSN and the achievement of
the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs). Finally, some contested areas in current debates
around agroecology
and major knowledge gaps are also highlighted.
1.1 Agroecology: a science, a set of practices and a social
movement
Multiple definitions of agroecology exist as different institutions and
countries adopt definitions that
reflect their own concerns and priorities. This report aims at defining and
characterizing
agroecological approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems that
enhance FSN.
Historically, traditional agricultural systems in many parts of the world could
be considered to be
agroecological. These include traditional agroforestry, incorporation of
organic material into soils,
mixed cropping systems with livestock and the use of a wide variety of edible
crops (Altieri, 2004a).
Dynamic local knowledge systems developed complex approaches to managing pests,
diseases and
ensuring culturally appropriate, nutrient-rich food supplies (Altieri 2004a;
Oteros-Rozas et al., 2013).
Modern agroecological science, as a response to the social and ecological
impacts of the so-called
“industrial” agriculture model, draws on many locally derived concepts and
practices, but is also a
dynamic and active area of scientific research (Migliorini et al., 2018l;
Montalba et al., 2017;
Vandermeer and Perfecto, 2013).
In its report on sustainable agricultural development and the role of
livestock, the HLPE (2016b))
described agroecology from a scientific and technical perspective as the
application of ecological
concepts and principles to farming systems, focusing on the interactions
between plants, animals,
humans and the environment, to foster sustainable agricultural development in
order to ensure FSN
for all, now and in the future. The report acknowledges that “today’s more
transformative visions of
agroecology integrate transdisciplinary knowledge, farmers’ practices and
social movements while
recognizing their mutual dependence”, and calls for looking at a broader
conception of the term.
This is in line with agroecological approaches having broadened in recent
years, to focus on whole
agrifood systems, not only farming systems (Thompson and Scoones, 2009), and to
go beyond
¹⁴ The industrial model of agricultural improvement refers to intensive
agricultural systems, dominated by large-scale
specialized farms, relying in certain cases heavily on fossil fuel and
purchased, non-renewable and synthetic inputs.
These systems are criticized by agroecology proponents who point to their
negative social, health and environmental
impacts (IPES-Food, 2016; HLPE, 2016).
separating scientific and technical dimensions of agroecology from the social
and political dimensions,
by embracing a transdisciplinary outlook.
The notion of agroecology as the application of ecological principles in
agriculture, while apparently
simple, hides complex realities because ecology and agriculture are dynamic
concepts.
Ecology refers to the branch of biology dealing not only with interactions
among organisms and with
their environment (Tansley, 1935) but also to social movements concerned with
the protection of the
environment (Sills, 1974). Although ecological science began as a subdivision
of biology, it has more
recently emerged as an interdisciplinary field with many different branches,
including political ecology
(Robbins, 2004), many of which link biological, physical and social sciences.
Agriculture is basically the set of practices through which people produce food
(Spedding, 1996).
Agriculture, as a concept, is also evolving, with increasing awareness that
agriculture is multi-
functional (Caron et al., 2008; IAASTD, 2009), and that agricultural production
cannot be separated
from the other aspects of food systems, such as food supply chains, the food
environment and
consumption (Jones and Street, eds,1990; HLPE, 2017b).
These trends in ecology and agriculture come together in an emerging
transdisciplinary focus on
understanding and managing coupled social–ecological systems (Berkes and Folke,
eds,1998) in a
context of growing concerns about human activities, and agriculture in
particular, leading to planetary
boundaries being exceeded (Steffen et al., 2015; Campbell, 2017). A key reason
that agroecology is
gaining traction in the discourse on achieving FSN is because it is perceived
to bridge ecological and
social dimensions associated with the development of resilient food systems in
the face of climate
change and other global challenges (Caron et al., 2014).
Agroecology is increasingly seen as a transdisciplinary, participatory and
action-oriented approach
(Méndez et al., 2013; Gliessman, 2018) that embraces three dimensions: a
transdisciplinary science
(Definition 1), a set of practices and a social movement (Wezel et al., 2009;
Wezel and Silva,
2017; Agroecology Europe, 2017) (Box 3). These three dimensions of agroecology,
their articulation
and co-evolution together constitute a holistic approach (e.g. Agroecology
Europe, 2017; Gliessman,
2018).
Box 3 Multiple definitions of agroecology
As a science, agroecology is: (i) the integrative study of the ecology of the
entire food system,
encompassing ecological, economic and social dimensions or, in brief, the
ecology of the food system
(Francis et al., 2003); (ii) the application of ecological concepts and
principles to the design and
management of sustainable food systems (Gliessman, 2007); and, more recently,
(iii) the integration of
research, education, action and change that brings sustainability to all parts
of the food system:
ecological, economic and social (Gliessman, 2018).
Agroecological practices aim at improving agroecosystems by harnessing natural
processes, creating
beneficial biological interactions and synergies among their components
(Gliessman, ed, 1990) and
using, in the best way, ecological processes and ecosystem services for the
development and
implementation of practices (Wezel et al., 2014).
As a social movement, agroecology is seen as a solution to current challenges
such as climate change
and malnutrition, contrasting with the so-called “industrial” model and
transforming it to build locally
relevant food systems that strengthen the economic viability of rural areas
based on short marketing
chains, and fair and safe food production. It supports diverse forms of
smallholder food production and
family farming, farmers and rural communities, food sovereignty, local
knowledge, social justice, local
identity and culture, and indigenous rights for seeds and breeds (Altieri and
Toledo, 2011; Rosset et al.,
2011; Nyéléni, 2015). This dimension of agroecology as a political movement is
becoming increasingly
prominent (Gonzalez de Molina, 2013; Toledo and Barrera-Bassols, 2017).
Sources: FAO (2017a), Agroecology Europe (2017).
Definition 1 Transdisciplinary science
Transdisciplinary science transcends disciplinary boundaries and seeks to
generate transformative
outcomes by having:
(i) a problem focus (research originates from and is contextualized in
”real-world” problems);
(ii) an evolving methodology (the research involves iterative, reflective
processes that are
responsive to the particular questions, settings and research groupings
involved); and
(iii) collaboration (including among transdisciplinary researchers,
disciplinary researchers and
external actors with interests in the research) (Russel et al., 2008).
This has been interpreted in agroecology to involve integration of different
academic disciplines as
well as diverse forms of knowledge, including experiential, cultural and
spiritual (Méndez et al., 2015).
Transdisciplinary science differs from ”multidisciplinary” science, where
people from different
disciplines work together, each drawing on their disciplinary knowledge in an
additive rather than
integrative way, and from ”interdisciplinary” science, where knowledge and
methods from different
disciplines are integrated, encompassing a synthesis of approaches but not
necessarily involving
other stakeholders or focus on generating transformative outcomes (Petrie,
1992).
1.1.1 Agroecology as a science
The term “agroecology” appeared for the first time in the scientific literature
at the beginning of the
twentieth century to designate the application of ecological methods and
principles in agricultural
sciences, including zoology, agronomy and crop physiology (Figure 2a) (Bensin,
1928, 1930;
Friederichs, 1930; Klages, 1942; Gliessman, 1997; Dalgaard et al., 2003; Wezel
et al., 2009; Wezel
and Soldat, 2009). In the 1950s and 1960s, Tischler published several articles
on agroecological
research, analysing different components (plants, animals, soils, climate) and
their interactions, as
well as the impact of human management on them. His book was probably the first
book entitled
Agroecology (Tischler, 1965).
The concept of an “agroecosystem”, considered as a domesticated, human-managed
ecosystem, was
introduced by Odum (1969). Two decades later, agroecology began to move beyond
the field and
farm scales to embrace whole agroecosystems (Altieri, 1987, 1989; Conway, 1987;
Marten, 1988;
Wezel et al., 2009; Wezel and Soldat, 2009). Important contributions also came
from Mexican
scientists emphazing intercultural processes for constructing agroecological
knowledge that combines
ecological science with local peoples’ knowledge (e.g. Hernández Xolocotzi,
1977).
Building on these reflections, Altieri (1995) defined agroecology as “the
application of ecological
concepts and principles to the design and management of sustainable
agroecosystems”. FAO (FAO,
2016d) further refined this definition, stating that: “Agroecological
innovations apply ecological
principles - such as recycling, resource use efficiency, reducing external
inputs, diversification,
integration, soil health and synergies -, for the design of farming systems
that strengthen the
interactions between plants, animals, humans and the environment for food
security and nutrition.”
In the 2000s, the transdisciplinary nature of agroecological science, combining
natural and social
sciences, became increasingly important (Wezel et al., 2015). Agroecology was
identified as “an
integrated discipline that includes elements from agronomy, ecology, sociology
and economics”
(Dalgaard et al., 2003). The focus of agroecological science was broadened
to encompass the whole
agrifood system (Francis et al., 2003; Doré et al., 2006; Gliessman, 2007;
Wezel and David, 2012;
Côte et al., eds, 2019) and to cover various topics such as: alternative
and local food networks;
consumer–producer relationships; social agricultural networks; food markets;
and public food
procurement. This food systems’ approach also includes the
relationships between rural and urban
areas, leading to the development of urban agroecology (AS PTA, 2011; Almeida
and Biazo, 2017;
Renting, 2017; Morales et al., 2018; see also Box 4).
Box 4 Urban agriculture
Potentially, urban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA) can play a role in
enhancing social and
environmental conditions in cities through food security and poverty
alleviation, although some people
caution that this should not be overemphasized (Zezza and Tasciotti,
2010). In Equatorial Africa, Lee-
Smith (2010) found that UPA increases as urban areas expand and that it favours
improvement in
human health as well as alleviation of hunger and poverty. At a global level,
Mok et al. (2014) found that
UPA has potential to make significant contributions to food security, although
more research must be
done around issues such as urban sprawl. On the other hand, some authors
concluded that UPA has
only a limited potential to contribute to urban food security in developing
countries given constraints
related to access to land, water and financial resources to invest in
productive areas in the urban space
(Badami and Ramankutty, 2015).
UPA is also valued for the environmental benefits that it might promote, such
as biodiversity
conservation, reduction of food miles and therefore carbon emissions, and
increasing the green areas in
urban landscapes. UPA in its many forms – allotment gardens, rooftop gardens,
home orchards, urban
arborization and community gardens, among others – can contribute to a number
of ecosystem services
such as pollination, pest control, climate resilience and water regulation
(Lin et al., 2015). In fact, locally
produced food in urban areas can contribute to create short circuits of
commercialization, reducing
transportation and also helping to develop direct selling schemes.
Finally, UPA has historically contributed to improve living conditions,
increase income and alleviate
poverty in cities, strengthening their resilience (Barthel and Isendahl, 2013).
In many African countries,
where agriculture is the main source of income for the majority of families,
UPAs may provide a
substantial share of income in addition to promoting a substantial improvement
in household diets,
contributing to food security and nutrition (Zezza and Tasciotti, 2010). In
Mexico City, around 20 percent
of all food consumed is produced in urban and peri-urban areas;
however, the recognition of the
importance of UPA in economic terms and as a source of employment is quite
limited. A symbolic
dimension of UPAs in Mexico is the pre-Hispanic chinampas system
(floating gardens) developed by
the Aztecs that were greatly reduced following European colonization
(Dieleman, 2017). The
machambas are small agricultural plots in urban and peri-urban areas in
Mozambique where small
entrepreneurs, in general women, cultivate vegetables to sell in the cities;
they are an important source
of food and income for many households in cities such as Maputo (Sheldon,
1999).
In the historical evolution of agroecology as a science (Figure 2b), the scale
and dimension of
research in agroecology have been enlarged from (i) the plot, field or animal
scale to (ii) the farm or
agroecosystem scale and, finally, to (iii) the whole food system, which is
increasingly becoming a
focus for agroecology (Wezel and Soldat, 2009).
Figure 2 Historical evolution of Agroecology
1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s
1990s 2000s 2010s
A Elements
Policies for
agroecology
Policies
and laws
Indigenous
knowledge
and family
farms
Agrobiodiversity
and rights to
food
Food systems, rural and
territorial development
food sovereignty
Agroecology as a social movement
Indigenous
agriculture
knowledge for
natural resource
management
Agroecological practices are
introduced or further
developed (conservation
agriculture, intercropping,
biological control, etc.)
Agroecological practices
as an alternative paradigm
to conventional agriculture
Agroecology as a set of practices
Scale: field/plot
agro-ecosystem
Scope: biology, zoology,
ecology, crop physiology
From descriptive to analytical
Scale: field and
agro-ecosystem
Scope: ecology, agronomy
Analytical nature
Conceptual framework to
design and manage
agro-ecosystems; from
analytical to prescriptive
Further increases in
disciplines, scope and
scale: agroecology as the
ecology of food systems
Agroecology as a scientific discipline
B Scale/dimension
Food system
Farm, agroecosystem
Plot, field
C Disciplines
Agricultural, environmental
Political
Economic
Social and cultural
1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s
1990s 2000s 2010s
Sources: (A) adapted from Silici (2014), based on Wezel et al. (2009) and
Wezel and Soldat (2009);
(B) adapted from Wezel et al. (2009).
Note: (C) illustrates the disciplinary basis of the principles of agroecology
articulated in Section 1.2.
1.1.2 Agroecology as a set of practices
In the 1960s, in particular following the publication of Rachel Carson’s book
Silent spring (Carson,
1962), concerns emerged about unexpected impacts of the intensive use of
synthetic inputs in
agriculture on the environment, particularly about the concentration of
pesticide residues through food
chains impacting birds of prey.
Partly in response to this, a set of agroecological practices emerged over the
next few decades (see
Section 1.5, Figure 3) aiming at moving away from what has been called an
“industrial agriculture
model” towards more environmentally friendly and sustainable agricultural
systems, optimizing the
use of biological processes and ecosystem functions (Hernández Xolocotzi, 1977;
Rosset and Altieri,
1997; Wezel et al., 2009; Vanloqueren and Baret, 2009; Altieri et al., 2012a;
Wibbelmann et al., 2013;
Pimbert, 2015; IPES-Food, 2016; FAO, 2016b; Wezel et al., 2014; Deguine et al.,
eds, 2017; Wezel,
2017). Agroecology, as a set of practices, aims at designing complex and
resilient agroecosystems
that, by “assembling crops, animals, trees, soils and other factors in
spatially and temporally
diversified schemes, favour natural processes and biological interactions that
optimize synergies so
that diversified farms are able to sponsor their own soil fertility, crop
protection and productivity”
(Altieri, 2002).
Attempts to define which specific practices can be qualified as agroecological
are only recently
emerging. For example, Wezel et al. (2014) describe agroecological practices as
“agricultural
practices aiming to produce significant amounts of food while valuing
ecological processes and
ecosystem services by integrating them as fundamental elements”. For Shiming
and Gliessman
(2016), “agroecological practices are those ecologically sound methods which
can balance and
enhance all ecosystem services provided by agroecosystems and hence benefit to
the sustainable
development of agriculture”.
However, there is no definitive set of practices that can be labelled as
agroecological, nor clear,
consensual boundaries between what is agroecological and what is not (Wezel,
2017). On the
contrary, agricultural practices can be classified along a spectrum and
qualified as more or less
“agroecological”, depending on the extent to which: (i) they rely on ecological
processes as opposed
to the use of agrochemical inputs; (ii) they are equitable,
environmentally friendly, locally adapted and
controlled; and (iii) they adopt a systemic approach, rather than focusing only
on specific technical
measures.
Agroecological practices involve processes such as: nutrient cycling;
biological nitrogen fixation;
improvement of soil structure and health; water conservation; biodiversity
conservation and habitat
management techniques for crop-associated biodiversity; carbon sequestration;
biological pest control
and natural regulation of diseases; diversification, mixed cultivation,
intercropping, cultivar mixtures;
and waste management, reuse and recycling as inputs to the production process,
for example use of
manure and compost (Reijntjes et al., 1992; Altieri 1995; Nicholls et al.,
2016; Wezel et al., 2014;
Wezel, 2017). Agroecological practices include, for instance, agroecological
responses to new pest
epidemics such as the recent spread of fall armyworm in Africa (Box 5) or
crop–animal integration in
traditional systems such as the rice–duck–fish system in Asia (Box 6).
Some of these practices have been applied to varying extents in different parts
of the world for
decades, while others have emerged more recently with as yet limited levels of
adoption (Wezel et al.,
2014; Wezel and Silva, 2017). For example, organic fertilization, split
fertilization, reduced tillage, drip
irrigation, biological pest control, integrated pest management and choice of
cultivars
resistant/tolerant to biotic stresses (diseases, insect pests and
parasitic weeds) are already widely
integrated into temperate agriculture, in small- and larger-scale
farms. Biofertilizers, natural pesticides
and biopesticides, diversified rotations, intercropping and relay
intercropping, agroforestry,
allelopathic plants, direct seeding into living cover crops or mulch, and
integration of semi-natural
landscape elements at field, farm and landscape scales are less present in
temperate agriculture, but
prevalent in some tropical contexts (Leakey, 2014). Some agroecological
practices, such as organic
fertilization and intercropping, came into use with the development of organic
agriculture in the 1940s.
Box 5 Agroecological practices to control fall armyworm in Africa
Fall armyworm (FAW), a voracious agricultural pest native to North and South
America, was first
detected on the African continent in 2016 (Goergen et al., 2016). Since then it
has spread across sub-
Saharan Africa affecting thousands of hectares of cropland, causing up to USD13
billion per annum in
crop losses (Abrahams et al., 2017) and threatening the livelihoods of millions
of farmers. In their haste
to respond to FAW, governments have sometimes relied heavily on agrochemicals
that, beyond the
risks they can pose on human health and the environment, are likely to
undermine biological pest
management strategies (Abate et al., 2000; van Huis and Meerman, 1997; Wyckhuys
and O’Neil, 2010).
Agroecological approaches can offer locally adapted, low-cost, biological pest
control options, including:
• sustainable soil and land management (e.g mulching), which improves crop
health and resilience to
pest attack (Altieri and Nicholls, 2003; Clark et al., 1993; Rivers et al.,
2016);
• intercropping, which can reduce egg-laying by pests through deterrence
by volatile chemicals released
by intercrop plants (Midega et al., 2018), trapping emerging FAW larvae,
increasing their mortality (van
Huis, 1981) and providing habitat for natural enemies within the field (Rivers
et al., 2016);
• crop rotation, which improves soil fertility and diversifies the farm
environment (Wyckhuys and O’Neil,
2007; Meagher et al., 2016; Rivers et al., 2016);
• weeds, shrubs, trees and (semi-) natural habitats managed at multiple
spatial scales, in fields or at field
margins, which can provide habitat for a variety of natural pest enemies
(Bàrberi et al., 2010; Maas et
al., 2013, 2016; Meagher et al., 2016; Wyckhuys and O’Neil, 2007; Bàrberi et
al., 2010; Sisay et al.,
2018; Leakey, 2014; Morris et al., 2015; van Huis, 1981; Offenberg, 2015);
• regular scouting by the farmer to identify pests and assess damage that
informs pest management
decisions (McGrath et al., 2018);
Agroecological practices are now being advocated as a core component of
integrated pest management
programmes for FAW in sub-Saharan Africa in combination with crop breeding,
classical biological
control and selective use of chemical pesticides (Harrison et al.,
2019; Thierfelder et al., 2018).
Box 6 Traditional rice–fish–duck system in Hani terraces, Southwest China
The rice–fish–duck system is an important traditional agroecosystem in Hani
terraces in Yunnan
Province, Southwest China. Integration of crops and animals and circular
economy are at the heart of
this system. Fish and ducks eat weeds and pests and loosen the soil to improve
the growing
environment for rice, while rice provides food, shade and shelter for fish and
ducks.
Pesticides and herbicides cannot be used in this system because of their
toxicity to fish and ducks.
Therefore, products from rice–fish–duck systems are very popular in consumer
markets. Their prices
are usually several times higher than the prices of conventional products.
For example, the prices of red
rice, fish and ducks raised in paddies in Hani terraces are respectively 5, 3
and 2.5 times higher than
conventional prices.
An improved rice–fish–duck system has been experimented with in Hani terraces
and is now
popularized. The agroecosystem efficiently exploits the three-dimensional space
(and seasonality) of
paddies for developing rice–fish co-culture during the crop growing season
while ducks are reared in
winter during the fallow period. Its economic value is estimated to be 7.8
times that of the current
conventional model that only grows the hybrid rice monoculture in summer for
half the year and fallows
the field in winter (Zhang et al., 2017).
This is an example of a Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System (GIAHS)
that combines
agricultural biodiversity, resilient ecosystems, local communities and a
valuable cultural heritage.15
There is a network of 50 GIAHS sites in 20 countries of the world (FAO,
2002; Koohafkan and Altieri,
2010; Koohafkan and Cruz, 2011; HLPE, 2017b).
¹⁵ See: http://www.fao.org/giahs/en/
1.1.3 Agroecology as a social movement
Traditional agricultural systems, in their diversity, are the result of the
co-evolution of ecosystems and
human communities across many generations. Therefore, agroecosystems cannot be
separated from
the human communities living in them: social and political dynamics are at the
heart of agroecology
(Altieri, 2004b; Wibbelmann et al., 2013; Ploeg and Ventura, 2014).
Agroecological approaches often arise in response to agrarian crises, and along
with broader efforts
of social movements to initiate widespread changes (Mier y Terán et al., 2018 ;
Box 7). These social
movements advocate for a strong connection to be made between agroecology, the
right to adequate
food and food sovereignty.
The concept of food sovereignty was first introduced in international
discussions during the World
Food Summit in 1996, Rome, by La Via Campesina, an international movement of
peasants. In 2007,
civil society organizations (CSOs) and social movements gathered in Nyéléni,
Mali, defined food
sovereignty as “the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food
produced through
ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own
food and agriculture
systems” (Nyéléni, 2007). The initial set of seven principles of food
sovereignty included: (i) food as a
basic human right; (ii) the need for agrarian reform; (iii) protection of
natural resources; (iv)
reorganization of food trade to support local food production; (v) reduction of
multinational
concentration of power; (vi) fostering of peace; and (vii)
increasing democratic control of the food
system (La Via Campesina, 1996).
In February 2015, eight years after this first International Forum for Food
Sovereignty, diverse social
movements and organizations representing small-scale food producers gathered
again in Nyéléni for
an International Forum on Agroecology (Nyéléni, 2015). In their final
declaration, they consider
“agroecology as a key element in the construction of food sovereignty”. For
them, agroecology is not
only “a narrow set of technologies” but, above all, a political struggle,
requiring people to “challenge
and transform structures of power in society”, addressing power imbalances and
conflicts of interest,
in order to “generate local knowledge, promote social justice, nurture identity
and culture, and
strengthen the economic viability of rural areas”.
Agroecology has thus become the political framework under which many social
movements and
peasant organizations around the world defend their collective rights and
advocate for a diversity of
locally adapted agriculture and food systems practised by small-scale food
producers in different
territories (Anderson et al., 2015; Nyéléni, 2015). Agroecology is seen as a
bottom-up pathway to
food sovereignty, building on traditional knowledge systems, supported rather
than led by science,
where small producers, their communities and organizations, rather than
agrifood business, play a
central role. Agroecological approaches aim at building resilient and
sustainable local food systems,
strongly linked and adapted to their territories and ecosystems (Varghese and
Hansen-Kuhn, 2013;
Nyéléni, 2015; Anderson et al., 2015). Some national governments have adopted
policies embracing
the principles of agroecology and food sovereignty in order to transform food
systems (Altieri et al.,
2012b; Wezel et al., 2009; Lambek et al., 2014).
Box 7 Rede Ecovida in Southern Brazil
The Rede Ecovida or ”Ecolife Network” is a decentralized system of
cooperatives, farmer groups and
non-profit organizations that practise agroecology in 150 municipalities in
three southern Brazilian
states. The network developed in the 1970s as part of broader social movements
mobilizing around
issues of environmental damage from agriculture, of high social inequalities
and uneven land
distribution.
Ecovida currently comprises 29 farmers’ organizations, 2 700 farming
households, 10 cooperatives, 25
associations, 180 farmers’ markets and 30 agrifood private companies. Beyond
profit, this network
promotes a solidarity economy between producers and consumers in local markets
(including door-to-
door sales, community canteens, farmers’ markets and restaurants). It uses
participatory certification to
ensure that farming practices are rooted in agroecology and strengthen the
relationships/links/trust
among farmers and with urban consumers. Overall, this network promotes
horizontal learning methods,
solidarity, justice and care for nature.
Sources: Perez-Cassarino (2012); Mier y Terán et al. (2018).
1.1.4 Agroecology as an innovative approach to sustainable food
systems for food security and nutrition
As discussed above, there are an increasing number of definitions for
agroecology provided in recent
years that have different nuances depending on the authors, institutions or
CSOs that provide them.
What they have in common is the goal to develop SFSs. Regarding these different
definitions and the
specific focus of this report on FSN, rather than presenting yet another
definition of agroecology per
se, a definition of an agroecological approach to SFSs for FSN is offered
based on the analysis and
information presented in this chapter (Definition 2).
Definition 2 Agroecological approach to sustainable food systems for food
security and
nutrition
Agroecological approaches favour the use of natural processes, limit the use of
purchased
inputs, promote closed cycles with minimal negative externalities and stress
the importance of
local knowledge and participatory processes that develop knowledge and practice
through
experience, as well as more conventional scientific methods, and address social
inequalities.
Agroecological approaches recognize that agrifood systems are coupled
social–ecological
systems from food production to consumption and involve science,
practice and a social
movement, as well as their holistic integration, to address FSN.
1.2 Principles of agroecology
Scientists have developed different sets of agroecological principles
(Reijntjes et al., 1992; Altieri,
1995; Altieri and Nicolls, 2005; Stassart et al., 2012; Dumont et al., 2013,
2016; Nicholls et al., 2016;
Peeters and Wezel, 2017; all summarized in Migliorini and Wezel, 2018). Civil
society networks also
conducted the same exercise (e.g. Nyéléni, 2015; CIDSE, 2018). Today,
agroecology is associated
with a set of principles for agricultural and ecological management of
agrifood systems as well as
some wider ranging socio-economic, cultural and political principles (e.g.
CIDSE, 2018). These latter
principles have emerged only recently in the literature, arising from the
activity of agroecological
social movements (Figure 2c).
FAO (2018c) identified ten elements of agroecology to guide the transition
towards sustainable
agriculture and food systems.16 These consolidated FAO ten elements are based
upon seminal
scientific literature on agroecology (in particular: Altieri, 1995; Gliessman,
2007) and upon the
extensive and inclusive multi-stakeholder dialogues, gathering states and
intergovernmental
organizations, CSOs and private actors, held at global, regional and national
levels since the first FAO
International Symposium on Agroecology (September 2014).
Building on all these efforts, the HLPE elaborated a consolidated list of 13
principles, combining and
reformulating principles from the three principal sources (Nicholls et al.,
2016; CIDSE, 2018; FAO,
2018d) to produce a minimum, non-repetitive but comprehensive set of
agroecological principles.
These are organized around the three operational principles for SFSs set out in
the introduction –
improve resource efficiency, strengthen resilience and secure social
equity/responsibility (see
Table 1). Each agroecological principle was allocated to the operational
principle to which it most
clearly contributes. However, given the interlinkages among these three
categories, this classification
is not fully discrete. For example, principles 3, 5 and 6 contribute not only
to resilience but also to
resource efficiency. Principles are also related to the FAO ten elements.17
¹⁶ Diversity; co-creation and sharing of knowledge; synergies; efficiency;
recycling; resilience; human and social values;
culture and food traditions; responsible governance; circular and solidarity
economy.
¹⁷ See: http://www.fao.org/3/i9037en/I9037EN.pdf
Different principles can be implemented at or impact different scales, from
local to global, from the
field to the whole food system. At the agroecosystem or landscape scale, some
ecological processes,
such as water flows, operate over large distances so that what farmers do in
one location may impact
other people positively (clean water supply) or negatively (flooding or
contaminated water) many
kilometres away, across administrative and national boundaries (Jackson et al.,
2013). Soil eroded
from one place may be deposited and support food production elsewhere.
Recent research has
shown that not only surface water flow but also atmospheric transfers across
continents are
important, so that change in vegetation cover in the East African highlands
impacts rainfall and hence
agricultural productivity in the Sahel (van Noordwijk et al., 2014).
This means that concepts of resource cycles and flows (principles 1 and 5) need
to be related to the
scales at which they operate, and many ecosystem services, such as pollination,
quantity and quality
of water provision and habitat provision for biodiversity conservation, only
manifest at landscape scale
and, hence, can only be managed by collective action of farmers and other
stakeholders (Pagella and
Sinclair, 2014). Application of agroecological principles often aims at
reducing externalities associated
with current models of agricultural production. Measuring and valuing ecosystem
service provision at
a range of scales is a key area of innovation required to measure performance
of food systems in
ways that address their sustainability. This is further developed in Chapters 2
and 3.
All these agroecological principles contribute, in different direct and
indirect ways, to FSN. For
instance, principle 2 (reducing the dependency on purchased inputs) can reduce
food insecurity in
particular for smallholders and for poor farmers because less money is spent on
buying inputs and so
there is less reliance on credit and, therefore, potentially more resources to
buy food (Snapp et al.,
2010; Kangmennaang et al., 2017; Hwang et al., 2016). This is a primary
motivation for the Zero
Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) agroecological movement in India (Box 8).
Principle 9 (social values
and diets) together with 5 (biodiversity) impact nutrition directly (Jones et
al., 2014b; Powell et al.,
2015; Bellon et al., 2016; Demeke et al., 2017; Lachat et al., 2018; HLPE,
2017a,b). Co-creation of
knowledge (principle 8) can also have indirect positive impacts on FSN (Box 9).
Principle 11
(connectivity) may contribute to strengthen local economies, increasing the
proportion of value added
remaining on farms and enabling producers to better meet the food needs and
demands of local
consumers. This latter point can be supported by strong social organizations,
which foster greater
participation of local food producers and consumers in decision-making
(principle 13).
Table 1 Consolidated set of 13 agroecological principles
Principle
FAO’s ten
elements
Scale
application*
Improve resource efficiency
1. Recycling. Preferentially use local renewable resources and close
as far as possible resource cycles of nutrients and biomass.
2. Input reduction. Reduce or eliminate dependency on purchased
inputs and increase self-sufficiency
Recycling FI, FA
Efficiency FA, FO
Strengthen resilience
3. Soil health. Secure and enhance soil health and functioning for
improved plant growth, particularly by managing organic matter and
FI
enhancing soil biological activity.
4. Animal health. Ensure animal health and welfare.
5. Biodiversity. Maintain and enhance diversity of species, functional
diversity and genetic resources and thereby maintain overall
agroecosystem biodiversity in time and space at field, farm and
landscape scales.
6. Synergy. Enhance positive ecological interaction, synergy,
integration and complementarity among the elements of
agroecosystems (animals, crops, trees, soil and water).
7. Economic diversification. Diversify on-farm incomes by ensuring
that small-scale farmers have greater financial independence and value
addition opportunities while enabling them to respond to demand from
consumers.
Part of diversity
Synergy
Part of diversity
FI, FA
FI, FA
FI, FA
FA, FO
Secure social equity/responsibility
8.Co-creation of knowledge. Enhance co-creation and horizontal
sharing of knowledge including local and scientific innovation,
especially through farmer-to-farmer exchange.
9. Social values and diets. Build food systems based on the culture,
identity, tradition, social and gender equity of local communities that
provide healthy, diversified, seasonally and culturally appropriate diets.
10. Fairness. Support dignified and robust livelihoods for all actors
engaged in food systems, especially small-scale food producers, based
on fair trade, fair employment and fair treatment of intellectual property
rights.
11. Connectivity. Ensure proximity and confidence between producers
and consumers through promotion of fair and short distribution
networks and by re-embedding food systems into local economies.
12. Land and natural resource governance. Strengthen institutional
arrangements to improve, including the recognition and support of
family farmers, smallholders and peasant food producers as
sustainable managers of natural and genetic resources.
13. Participation. Encourage social organization and greater
participation in decision-making by food producers and consumers to
support decentralized governance and local adaptive management of
agricultural and food systems.
*Scale application: FI = field; FA = farm, agroecosystem; FO = food system
Source: derived from from Nicholls et al., 2016; CIDSE, 2018; FAO, 2018c.
Co-creation and
sharing of
knowledge
Parts of human
and social values
and culture and
food traditions
Circular and
solidarity economy
Responsible
governance
FA, FO
FA, FO
FA, FO
FA
FA, FO
FO
It has been suggested that for agroecology to significantly impact FSN and
generate sustainable
diets,18 power inequalities must be addressed within the food system at
multiple scales and in
different dimensions (HLPE, 2017a; Mier y Teran et al., 2018; Pimbert and
Lemke, 2018). Horizontal
teaching methods (principle 8) are options for agroecology to address social
inequalities; principles
10–13 articulate how other inequalities can be addressed as part of an
agroecological approach.
Potential trade-offs must also be considered in each specific context. For
instance, depending on
quantity and type of inputs, reduced input use (principle 2) could lead to
lower productivity, lower
income and thus higher food insecurity. In addition, agroecological methods, if
more labour-intensive,
could increase women’s workload, leading to worsening the nutritional status of
children if gender
relationships within households are not changed (principle 9).
Box 8 Zero Budget Natural Farming – Scaling-up agroecology in India
Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) is both a set of farming methods and a
grassroots peasant
movement in India born in Karnataka. It is estimated that ZNBF methods are used
by 100 000 farming
families in Karnataka, and by millions of families at the national level. In
2015 the Government of
Andhra Pradesh announced its objective to reach 500 000 farmers with ZBNF by
2020.
Interest in ZBNF methods arose partly because of the high rates of farmers’
debt, originating from the
costs of fertilizers, seeds, energy and equipment (mechanization and
irrigation), which have been linked
to high suicide rates. More than a quarter of a million farmers have committed
suicide in India in the last
two decades.
”Zero Budget”, which means not relying on credit, and not buying inputs,
promises to put an end to
heavy debt, by drastically reducing production costs. “Natural Farming” means
farming with nature and
without purchased chemical inputs. ZBNF methods include: mulching;
intercropping; controlled
irrigation; contour bunds; use of local earthworm species and fermented
microbial culture; combined
seed treatment with cow dung, sugar, pulse flour, urine and soil.
At the local level, ZBNF operates mainly through volunteers, members of farmer
organizations and
community leaders, motivated by the founder of the movement, Subhash Palekar,
an agricultural
scientist who has written many publications on ZNBF methods. At the
state level, intensive five-day
training camps are held, with support from volunteers and allied organizations.
A survey of 97 ZBNF
farmers reported increased yield, seed diversity, product quality, household
food autonomy, income and
health, along with reduced farm expenses and credit needs.
The following strategic elements were critical for the successful
implementation of ZBNF in India:
• Charismatic leadership. A highly charismatic teacher, Subhash Palekar
has played a key role in
motivating and promoting ZBNF methods through books, training courses and other
public
appearances.
• Horizontal pedagogical practices. While Palekar teaches in a more
vertical manner, most of the
teaching is done through farmer-to-farmer exchanges and mentoring.
• Supportive public policy. Training is provided at the state level in
several Indian states.
• Local and favourable markets. At least eight shops exclusively retail
ZBNF products in cities such
as Bangalore and Mysore, but marketing remains a challenge.
• Strong social organization. States organize training camps and informal
networks support training
and ongoing support for ZBNF with links to allied organizations.
• Efficient farming practices. Farmers report improved yields, food
quality and income, and reduced
farm expenses and credit.
• Cultural relevance. ZBNF methods address the credit and debt concerns of
farmers in socially and
culturally adapted ways.
Sources: Khadse et al. (2018) ; Kumar (2018); La Via Campesina (Undated)
¹⁸ “Sustainable diets are those with low environmental impacts which
contribute to food and nutrition security and to
healthy life for present and future generations. Sustainable diets are
protective and respectful of biodiversity and
ecosystems, culturally acceptable, accessible, economically fair and
affordable; nutritionally adequate, safe and
healthy; while optimizing natural and human resources” (FAO, 2012a).
Box 9 Participatory agroecology research to address food security and
nutrition in
Malawi
Using participatory education and agroecology in Malawi, thousands of rural
families have seen
dramatic improvements in maternal and child nutrition, food security, crop
diversity, land management
practices and gender equality. Central to the success of this long-term
programme has been iterative,
participatory, transdisciplinary research methods that used multiple measures
to assess and improve
farming and social change with participating farmers (Bezner Kerr and
Chirwa, 2004; Nyantakyi-
Frimpong et al., 2017). Agroecology education was integrated with nutrition
and social equity issues
through interactive, dialogue-based methods, such as recipe days, discussion
groups and theatre
(Satzinger et al. 2009; Bezner Kerr et al., 2016a; Bezner Kerr et al.,
2018a). Peer-driven farmer-led
methods mobilized communities to test and use agroecological practices such as
legume intercrops,
compost, agroforestry and crop diversification (Bezner Kerr et al., 2007;
Bezner Kerr et al. 2018b;
Owoputi et al., 2018). When farmers used more agroecological practices,
such as the incorporation of
nutrient-rich legumes into maize-based cropping systems, yields stabilized,
fertilizer costs fell and soil
cover increased (Snapp et al., 2010; Kangmennaang et al., 2017; Owoputi et
al., 2018). Households
using agroecological practices who participated in community education
programmes had significant
improvements in child growth, food security, maternal dietary diversity and
self-reported health (Bezner
Kerr et al., 2010; Nyantakyi-Frimpong et al., 2016a; Owoputi et
al,. 2018). There was also evidence of
improved gender and other forms of social equity in communities for households
with HIV-positive
family members (Bezner Kerr et al., 2016b, 2019; Nyantakyi-Frimpong et al.,
2016b). In households
where spouses began discussing farming practices with each other, there were
higher levels of food
security and dietary diversity. Farmers began to take more pride in their own
experimentation, traditional
knowledge and ability to mentor others (Bezner Kerr et al., 2018b). Some
communities organized the
sharing of seeds and agroecological knowledge, and reported greater
resilience under conditions of
poor rainfall due to improved soil quality (Bezner Kerr et al., 2018b, 2019).
Key findings from the case study:
• Farmer-to-farmer teaching and experimentation were the primary teaching
approaches and were
effective at sharing knowledge.
• Unequal social relationships including gender inequalities were
assessed, discussed and improved
over time.
• Relevant educational strategies were developed by local communities to
address these inequalities in
an iterative way.
• Linking agroecology to FSN outcomes took at least two years before such
outcomes were realized,
and required transdisciplinary and participatory approaches.
1.3 Contribution of agroecological approaches to food security
and nutrition for rural consumers in low-income countries
Not only do agroecological practices contribute to FSN, but they also
contribute to 10 of the 17 SDGs
(UN, 2015) through integrated practices that cut across many areas (FAO, 2018a)
and help address
poverty and hunger, education, gender equality, decent work and economic
growth, reduced
inequalities, responsible consumption and production, climate action, life on
land, and peace and
justice. Along with the SDGs, agroecology can also contribute to the
Koronivia Joint Work on
Agriculture (KJWA) (St-Louis et al., 2018) on adaptation, soils, nutrient use,
manure management and
livestock systems (see points 2.c, 2.d, and 2.e of the KJWA), and help realize
the aims of the Paris
Climate Agreement, the CBD and the United Nations Convention to Combat
Desertification (FAO,
2018a).
Beyond yield and production, an assessment of the contribution of
agroecological approaches to FSN
needs to incorporate multiple metrics that take into account social, economic
and environmental
impacts of agriculture.
Agroecological approaches could play an important role in securing sustainable
diets for all now and
in the future as part of a transition towards more sustainable food systems
that enhance FSN (De
Schutter, 2011, 2012; IPES-Food 2016, DeLonge et al., 2016). Numerous studies
have found positive
relationships between diversified farming systems (a key principle of
agroecology), household dietary
diversity and nutrition (Talukder et al., 2000; De Clerck, 2013; Oyarzun et
al., 2013; Jones et al.,
2014b; Khoury et al., 2014; Carletto et al., 2015; Kumar et al., 2015; Olney et
al., 2015; Shively and
Sununtnasik, 2015; Jones, 2017).
Bliss et al. (2017) examined the diversified farming systems of 30 Nicaraguan
households. For the
farmers, dietary diversity was a driver for diversification on fields, and the
related higher crop diversity,
with difference in harvest time, meaning greater food availability throughout
the year. In Southern
Benin, Bellon et al. (2016) found a positive correlation between on-farm
diversity and women’s dietary
diversity score (DDS),19 as most of the food grown on-farm was for consumption
rather than for sale.
Jones et al. (2018) also found that on-farm agrobiodiversity was associated
with more diverse and
micronutrient-adequate diets among women in the Peruvian Andes.
In a survey of 390 households in Mexico, Becerril (2013) found improved body
mass indexes in
households using the diversified traditional “milpa” system (intercropping of
maize, beans and
squash) compared to other households with less diversified farming systems. In
their study on
Guatemala's Mayan Achí people, Luna-González and Sørensen (2018) found that
nutritional
functional diversity and DDSs were positively correlated with higher crop and
animal species diversity
(derived from traditional intercropped milpa systems, home gardens, local
market, wild gathering) but
higher DDDs were not correlated with better child anthropometric status. Other
factors, such as
limited access to health care or safe water, may have prevented improved child
growth. In northern
Malawi, studies have shown that legume intercropping, along with a
participatory approach sensitive
to cultural values and promoting gender equality, enhanced both food and
nutritional security (Bezner
Kerr et al., 2016c; Nyantakyi-Frimpong et al., 2016b; see Box 9). These results
are especially
significant as many Malawian households experience food insecurity and
malnutrition (Ecker and
Qaim, 2011) leading to poor health outcomes including stunting in young
children (FAO, 2014a).
In Uzbekistan, Gotor et al. (2018), studying a programme related to
conservation and use of fruit
species, showed that families growing more fruit species consumed a greater
proportion of fruits in
their diets, increasing their dietary diversity. Dawson et al. (2013) showed
that agroforestry practices
exploit differences in the phenology of fruit-tree species to provide critical
nutritional supplements
(particularly Vitamins A, C and B6) and maintain dietary diversity throughout
the year. They
highlighted that their extensive root systems allow trees to store
water, be productive and contribute
to dietary diversity, even in dry environments, in seasons when herbaceous
vegetation cannot survive
without irrigation. In Machakos (Kenya), an average household can achieve
year-round dietary
diversity with 20 trees of ten species either dispersed throughout their farm
(on borders, around the
home and in fields) or in a 8×18 m² (0.015 ha) fruit orchard (Kehlenbeck and
McMullin, 2015). In a
survey of 368 coffee-producing households, Bacon et al. (2017) found that food
security was
enhanced for agroforestry farmers who grew more of their own food and
incorporated more diversified
production elements including fruit trees and red bean crops. However, the
authors cautioned that not
all diversification is equally beneficial to different parameters of FSN. A
meta-analysis revealed a
significant positive relationship between indicators of dietary quality of
children under five and
landscape-scale tree cover in Africa, associated with maximum fruit and
vegetable consumption at an
intermediate level of tree cover (45 percent), after which it declines
(Ickowitz et al., 2014).
Diversified production in home gardens with application of agroecological
practices provides an
avenue for FSN for poor households with limited access to food. Home gardeners
in Ghana, using
intercropping, seed-saving, organic manures and crop residues as well as
domestic waste,
contributed to greater food availability, food access and
nutrient supply (Bagson and Naamwintome,
2012). Vijayalakshmi and Thooyavathy (2012) found similar results in a study
looking at the impact of
home gardens on women's nutrition. In a small-scale study of 12 households in
Bangladesh, Ferdous
et al. (2016) highlighted a drastic increase in vegetable consumption among
households trained in the
Rangpur model (a home-garden strategy based on seven production niches, 14
vegetables selected
for year-round cultivation, fruit and locally adapted crops). After the
intervention, vegetable intake
almost doubled, with 55–79 kg/person/year produced compared to 21–30
kg/person/year before the
intervention.
Several studies revealed a positive impact of organic farming practices on FSN
(Miyashita and
Kayunze, 2016; da Silva et al., 2018; Kamau et al., 2018). Miyashita and
Kayunze (2015), for
example, found significant differences in terms of FSN when they compared
organic and conventional
farming in the United Republic of Tanzania. On the other hand, the study of 139
farming households
by Kaufman (2015) in northern Thailand showed variable impact of organic
agricultural systems on
food security when compared to conventional counterparts. While organic farmers
had slightly higher
mean levels of food security and lower debt levels compared to conventional
farmers, the findings
¹⁹ For more information about DDS see http://www.fao.org/3/a-i1983e.pdf
were not statistically significant (Kaufman, 2015). The author concludes that
greater support for viable
markets for organic products is needed to translate into significant
differences in FSN for organic
producers (Kaufman, 2015).
In contrast, some studies also showed no significant relationship with the
application of agroecological
practices and measured parameters related to FSN. For instance, on-farm
diversification in Nigeria
had no impact on household DDS for the poorest surveyed households,
although greater diversity
was evident with middle- and high-income households (Ayenew et al., 2018). In
Kenya, Ng’endo et al.
(2015). also found no significant correlation between agrobiodiversity and
households’ FSN.
1.4 Contested areas and knowledge gaps in agroecology
There is no common, consensual definition of what constitutes an agroecological
approach shared by
all the actors involved (practitioners, scientists, social activists). Complete
agreement on all the
aspects embedded in the plurality if approaches or on how it should contribute
to transformation of
food systems is also lacking. While this makes it hard to pin down exactly what
is agroecology and
what is not, it also provides a flexibility that allows agroecological
approaches to develop in locally
adapted ways. It is thus necessary to examine key contested areas and knowledge
gaps, which is the
aim of this section.
1.4.1 Political and social dimensions of food production
Some scientists, food-system actors and social movements have diverging views
about whether
social and political dimensions of food production should be considered as an
integral and indivisible
part of agroecology, critical for agroecology to be transformative (Méndez et
al., 2013; Rosset and
Altieri, 2017; Sanderson Bellamy and Ioris, 2017; Giraldo and Rosset, 2018). De
Molina (2013)
argues that not recognizing the social and political implications of
agroecology could lead to negative
social, environmental and FSN consequences for marginalized groups who may be
disadvantaged
with a “business as usual” model of agricultural improvement. This argument
is in line with research
on how political, social and economic context determines how technology is
employed in addressing
FSN (Bezner Kerr, 2012; Gómez et al., 2013; Stone and Glover, 2017).
Some authors have suggested distinguishing a political or transformative
agroecology, considering
political and social factors to address FSN at a broader scale, from a
technically-focused agroecology
at the field scale (Méndez et al. 2013; Sanderson Bellamy and Ioris, 2017).
Attention has in particular been drawn to the importance of addressing
context-specific gender and
social inequalities and related labour and economic dimensions through
agroecological approaches
(Batello et al., 2019; Bezner Kerr et al., 2019). Other authors have noted that
agroecology, when
embedded within a larger food systems policy intervention or food sovereignty
initiative, can have a
positive impact on FSN (Kanter et al., 2015; Wittman and Blesh, 2017).
A just food system (Pimbert and Lemke, 2018) addresses wages and working
conditions within it
(principle 10) creating a direct link to FSN. Improved livelihoods for farm
labourers, producers, market
intermediaries, entrepreneurs and processors may enable them to achieve higher
incomes and,
therefore, purchase food. Increased proximity of producers and consumers and
re-embedded local
food systems (principle 11) may contribute to improving local economies. For
example, producers can
profit by receiving a higher share of revenue if less is taken by
intermediaries or actors over a long
supply chain for marketing and distribution of produce. Also, local food
enterprises and retailers can
increase their price margins and become better linked and known to local
consumers. An important
point here is also that producers can respond more effectively to the real food
needs and demands of
local consumers. This latter point is strongly supported by social
organizations, which foster greater
participation and decision-making of food producers and consumers (principle
13).
1.4.2 Difficulty in providing labels: illustration through the convergence
with organic agriculture
As agreeing on a generic definition proves to be difficult, so it is to provide
universal label and
labelling mechanisms. Yet, some initiatives by stakeholder groups and companies
are under way.
One form of certification that is suggested is the participatory guarantee
system (PGS), in which
certification is done using a democratic process involving producers,
scientists and consumers
(see Box 32 in Appendix 1).
This may also generate difficulties when addressing distinction with other
innovative approaches.
There is, for example, a growing debate about similarities, difference and
convergence of organic
agriculture and agroecology (Migliorini and Wezel, 2018). There is also related
debate about whether
synthetic pesticides and chemical fertilizers should be excluded from
agroecological production, as
under organic agriculture (with a few exceptions), or be acceptable to a
certain degree or in defined
situations.
1.4.3 Can agroecology feed the world?
Some people think that farmers cannot feed the world with agroecology, others
contend that it is
impossible to feed the world in the future without agroecology. These echo
divergent views on
whether organic farming could feed the global population (De Ponti et al.,
2012, Muller et al., 2017).
It is commonly estimated that an increase in agricultural production will be
required to feed a growing
global population, expected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050, unless major changes
are made in global
food systems (HLPE, 2016; Berners-Lee et al., 2018; Le Mouël et al., eds,
2018), especially in Africa
(van Ittersum et al., 2016). Estimates vary depending on whether food losses
and waste, urbanization
and changing diets, non-food uses (animal feed, biofuels and others) are
considered in the modelling
(HLPE, 2013b, 2014; Kahane et al., 2013; Keating et al., 2014; Berners-Lee et
al., 2018; Le Mouël et
al., 2018; Keating and Carberry, 2010; Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012; Valin,
2014). FAO (2017b)
estimated that global agricultural production would have to increase by almost
50 percent
between 2012 and 2050.
However, the need for such an increase in agricultural production is contested,
as the earlier
assumptions are challenged: some estimates indicate that enough food is
produced today to
potentially feed 9 billion people (IPES-Food, 2016; HLPE, 2014, 2017b;
Chappell, 2018) or even
9.75 billion (Berners-Lee et al., 2018). The debate as to whether or not
agroecology can feed the
world may be based on a false premise since, despite high levels of production,
food insecurity and
malnutrition still persist today (Chappell, 2018; HLPE, 2016, 2017b), even in
food-exporting countries
such as Brazil and South Africa (FAO et al., 2017). Today, almost
one-third of food produced for
human consumption is either lost or wasted, yet different forms of malnutrition
coexist in most
countries (HLPE, 2014, 2017b). Globally, around 820 million people are still
hungry (FAO et al.,
2018), about 2 billion are overweight or obese (Ng et al., 2014) and an
estimated 2 billion people
suffer from malnutrition caused by micronutrient deficiencies (iron, iodine,
vitamin A, folate and zinc)
(HLPE, 2017b). FAO (2018e) found that a “business as usual” scenario is likely
to lead to significant
undernourishment by 2050 even if gross agricultural output increases by 50
percent. On the contrary,
alternative “towards sustainability” scenarios, through more balanced diets,
more sustainable
production and consumption patterns, as well as through fairer food and
income distribution, in line
with agroecological approaches, could lead to a drastic reduction in
undernourishment and
improvement of nutritional security even if agricultural production increases
only by around
40 percent.
Increasing production alone might thus not be sufficient to achieve FSN in its
four dimensions
(availability, access, utilization and stability) (FAO, 2018b). There is a
growing awareness that hunger
and malnutrition may not be only a matter of food production, but mainly of
different entitlements,
leading to unequal access to food, to natural resources (land, water, genetic
resources), inputs,
markets and services (Sen, 1981; Smith and Haddad, 2015; HLPE, 2017b). Previous
HLPE reports
have extensively discussed the issues raised by inequalities in access to food
and resources (see in
particular: HLPE, 2011a,b, 2012, 2013a, 2015, 2016, 2017c). Therefore,
agroecological approaches
are presented as promising avenues to achieve FSN, since they do not consider
productivity alone
and suggest addressing social inequalities and power asymmetries (Massett et
al., 2011 ; Kanter et
al., 2015; HLPE, 2018), including gender and ethnic minority inequalities
(Massicotte, 2014; Bezner
Kerr et al., 2019).
Furthermore, ”feeding the world” is sometimes framed as a question of calories
or production, and
includes debates about the nutritional implications of different farming
systems (HLPE, 2017b).
Meeting kilocalorie energy requirements, however, does not translate
automatically into nutritional
security (Pingali, 2015; Traore et al., 2012; Keating et al., 2014), as some
forms of calorie
consumption (e.g. foods with high sugar, salt or fat content) can worsen
nutritional status (HLPE,
2017b). FSN indicators now go beyond calorie count, and include measures of
child growth, diet
quality and reported experience of food insecurity at the individual and
household level (Arimond et
al., 2010; Carletto et al., 2012).
In many parts of the world, the so-called “industrial” agriculture model
relying on the intensive use of
fossil fuel and chemical inputs has resulted in increased agricultural
productivity at the expense of
loss of biodiversity, land degradation, loss of soil fertility and chemical
contamination of soil and water,
with major consequences on human, animal and planetary health (Kremen and
Miles, 2012). A
number of recent studies suggest that industrial agriculture cannot ensure
sustainable food systems
for FSN in the long term because of these negative impacts (Campbell et al.,
2017; Frison et al.,
2011; IPES-Food, 2016; Mahon et al., 2017; Kremen and Merenlender, 2018). The
consequences of
such production systems in terms of diet imbalance are increasingly a polemical
issue, which calls for
increased attention from consumers (HLPE, 2017b).
Moreover, several studies challenged the common idea that agroecological
systems are less
productive than more “conventional” or “industrial” agricultural models
(intensive and specialized), and
thus cannot make a large contribution to feeding the world.
For example, Poux and Aubert (2018) have recently modelled the potential for
agroecological
approaches (including elimination of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers,
shifting to healthier diets, and
development of hedges, trees, ponds and other habitats for increased
biodiversity) to feed Europe.
They estimated that production would decline by 35 percent but that food
requirements for Europe
and for the export market in cereals, dairy and wine would be maintained,
greenhouse gas emissions
would be reduced by 45 percent and biodiversity and natural resources improved.
Pretty et al. (2003),
De Schutter (2010, 2012, Ponisio et al. (2015) and Reganold and Wachter (2016)
summarized many
examples, mainly from tropical and subtropical countries, showing significant
yield increases
associated with agroecological or organic farming. Pretty et al. (2003)
showed that the weighted
average increases were 37 percent per farm and 48 percent per hectare, while
d’Annolfo et al. (2017)
showed in their meta analysis that, following the adoption of agroecological
practices, yields
increased in 61 percent of the cases analysed and decreased in 20
percent, while farm profitability
increased in 66 percent of cases.
Given the underinvestment in agroecological research noted below, it remains
unclear how
representative the cases so far documented are and which aspects of the
agroecological approaches
adopted were responsible for yield and profit improvements.
1.4.4 Knowledge systems
There are debates around the role and contribution of indigenous and local food
producers in
knowledge generation and the significance of cultural context for shaping this
knowledge, including
the role of women, elders, ceremonies, community organizations and
opportunities for interaction with
scientists (IAASTD, 2009; Etkin, 2006; Méndez et al., 2013; Snapp and Pound,
eds, 2017; IIED,
2018). Local knowledge is used here to refer to the knowledge held by a
defined group of people
(Sinclair and Walker, 1999). It embraces traditional knowledge (passed down
from one generation to
the next), indigenous knowledge that is culturally bound and locally derived
knowledge from
contemporary learning based on local observation and experimentation (Sinclair
and Joshi, 2004).
Some argue that traditional knowledge is deep, but narrow, while scientific
knowledge is broad but
shallow, and that agroecology involves the co-production of knowledge through
the mutual shaping of
different knowledge streams (Vandermeer and Perfecto, 2013). Scholars and
indigenous groups also
debate the notion that local knowledge is ”new” scientific knowledge and
caution about the dangers of
such knowledge being separated out from other social–ecological knowledge
(Barthel et al., 2013;
Massicotte, 2014; IIED, 2018). There is mounting evidence that much local
agroecological knowledge
is dynamic, based on contemporary observation and experimentation by farmers
and comparable with
and largely complementary to global scientific knowledge (Richards, 1985;
Sinclair and Walker, 1999;
Thorne et al., 1999; IAASTD, 2009;Cerdán et al., 2012; Kuria et al., 2018).
While some agroecological
knowledge is widely held by people living in a particular locality (Joshi et
al., 2004), in other cases
different people within communities may have different interests and
opportunities to observe
agroecological processes leading to marked differences in knowledge according
to gender or other
forms of social differentiation (Crossland et al., 2018).
Debates about the roles of farmers and social movements in agroecological
knowledge and
agroecological research relate to the potential to ”scale-out” agroecology
effectively (Pimbert, ed,
2018a). Several scholars and social movements in the ”political agroecology”
stream have
emphasized the significance of democratic processes in agroecological knowledge
generation, with
the process of small food producer-led, decentralized, autonomous knowledge
generation being as
important as the specific technical knowledge being generated through more
formal scientific
approaches (Massicotte, 2014). Researchers have also pointed to the need for
agroecology to
explicitly address gender, ethnic minorities and other social inequalities in
order to effectively impact
FSN (Massicotte, 2014; Bezner Kerr et al., 2019).
These issues can create tensions between social movements and scientists. This
may happen when
the way science generates knowledge and judges its validity is not respected,
when ethics and social
control of scientific production are not addressed, when the contribution of
non-academic actors in
knowledge production is not considered. This is especially the case when
investment decisions are
being made and power imbalances exist. Consideration of these situations has
led to explicit attempts
to bridge across different knowledge systems (Mendez et al., 2013; Tengö et
al., 2014).
1.4.5 Knowledge gaps
The severely limited public investment in agroecological approaches, estimated
at between 1 percent
and 1.5 percent of total agricultural and aid budgets, partly explains the
remaining knowledge gaps
(DeLonge et al., 2016; Miles et al., 2017; Pimbert and Moeller, 2018). Most
private and public
investments in agricultural research over the last 50 years were primarily
based on “Green
Revolution” technologies (including agrochemicals and mechanization) and, in
particular, on genetics
(Vanloqueren and Baret, 2009; DeLonge et al., 2016; Miles et al., 2017; Pimbert
and Moeller 2018).
For example, in the United Kingdom, aid for agroecological projects
represents less than 5 percent of
agricultural aid and less than 0.5 percent of its total aid budget since 2010
(Pimbert and Moeller,
2018). In the United States of America, research and development related to
diversified systems – a
major avenue for agroecological systems – amounts to less than 2 percent of
public agricultural
research funding (Carlisle and Miles, 2013). FAO estimates that 8 percent of
their 2018–2019 work
contributes to agroecological transitions (FAO, 2018f).
In addition, the majority of teaching and research institutions, and extension
services, have been
oriented to the so-called “industrial” agriculture rather than to the promotion
of agroecological
technologies. Typical education programmes in agronomy are mostly oriented
towards single solution
problem solving in conventional agriculture. There is now a growing number of
education programmes
that bring more systemic and holistic approaches, as well as experiential
learning, into focus (Francis
et al., 2011, 2017).
Therefore, comparisons between agroecological approaches and the dominant
“industrial” agriculture
model need to consider the funding bias skewed against agroecological research,
education and
extension (Delonge et al., 2016; Pimbert and Moeller, 2018).
Two key knowledge gaps are how to effectively link agroecology to public
policies to address FSN
(Sabourin et al., 2018), and what are the economic and social impacts of
agroecology for different
groups in communities, including labour costs and FSN (Sanderson Bellamy and
Ioris, 2017; Bezner
Kerr et al., 2019).
Assessing the yield gap between “industrial” and agroecological systems is an
active area for
research. Although several studies suggest that there are comparable yields,
higher yield stability,
particularly under extreme weather conditions, and increased profitability for
those using
agroecological methods, further research is required, in a wider range of
socio-ecological conditions
(d’Annolfo et al., 2017; Sanderson Bellamy and Ioris, 2017).
How to scale out agroecological approaches in ways that foster democratic
processes and address
the needs of marginalized groups is also lacking, with some evidence for
context-specific methods
being effective at addressing FSN and SFSs, if political and economic barriers
are addressed (IPES-
Food, 2016; Mier y Terán et al., 2018; Sinclair and Coe, 2019).
The design of resilient agricultural systems is an imperative to cope with
climate change and
increased climate variability. Resilience is particularly important in areas
most likely to be affected by
extreme climate events such as prolonged droughts, floods and heavy winds
(Ching et al., eds, 2011;
Koohafkan et al., 2012; Rhodes, 2013; Scialabba and Müller-Lindenlauf, 2010;
Altieri et al., 2015).
Holt-Giménez (2002) indicated that agroecological systems are more adapted to
such context, and
might even help mitigate the effects of climate change. However, further
research is needed to better
understand the processes that support more resilient systems in different
contexts. Many gaps remain
in terms of how to support such transitions and what are the key barriers
to overcome (Gliessman,
2016; Côte et al., 2019). Several ”lock-ins” that may prevent the transition
towards agroecological
