Use of the term agroecological farming has become increasingly common in recent years, especially since the publication of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) in 2009. The IAASTD, which involved nearly 400 internationally respected experts operating on behalf of the World Bank, assessed global food systems and concluded that “business as usual” was no longer an option. Instead it identified the need for a fundamental shift in our present global agricultural systems towards multi-functional systems that recognised and accounted for “the complexity of agricultural systems within diverse social and ecological contexts”.

For many in the organic movement the assessment came as an implicit endorsement of our approach. However, since then there appears to have been little progress in shifting the underlying policy approach or practice around agriculture – certainly in the UK proponents of mega-farms, GM and the ‘industrial’ approach to farming still seem to have the ear of Government ministers and civil servants.

So where do we go from here? In this piece – based on a larger briefing paper published in Autumn 2013 – Michel Pimbert, Ulrich Schmutz and Julia Wright, from Coventry University’s Centre for Agroecology & Food Security explore what agroecology means, and present an agenda for “mainstreaming” the approach into our wider farming policy and practice.

The challenge of feeding the world’s growing population without further damaging the natural resource base is becoming increasingly urgent, and must be met in ways that also allow adaptation to, and mitigation of, climate change. Agriculture provides not only food, but also fuel, fibre and a wide range of so-called ecosystem services.

Since the middle of the twentieth century, major breakthroughs in crop breeding have seen the introduction of high-yielding modern varieties of staple crops (Evenson and Gollin, 2003). Although adoption of these varieties has not been uniform, it has – together with technological improvements and the expansion of cultivated land – more than doubled physical agricultural output (Dale and Polasky, 2007).

Industrial agricultural practices quickly came to be defined as the new benchmark for agricultural performance (Evenson and Gollin, 2003). These practices include inputs of agrochemicals and fossil energy, intensification, specialisation, mono-cultural production, mechanisation, and large-scale production units (Tivy, 1990).

As well as increasing yields, however, industrial agriculture has had enormous negative consequences for environmental and human health. Industrial practices have resulted in vast tracts of degraded land, loss of plant and animal species diversity, increased susceptibility to disease, and loss of livelihoods (FAO, 1997; Conway, 2001; UNEP, 2012). Environmental degradation is also expensive: even a decade ago, agricultural losses due to land degradation were valued at about $550 million annually (Tansey and Worsley, 1995). There is no evidence that the funds invested in industrial agricultural research and development would not have had a better impact if invested in agroecological production approaches.

The practice of industrial agriculture has also led to a dramatic decline in the nutrient content of food. For example, mineral levels in fruits and vegetables in the UK fell by up to 76% between 1940 and 1991 (McCance and Widdowson, 1940–1991), and a similar trend has been seen in the USA (Davis, Epp and Riordan, 2005).

With over 38% of global land area under crop and pasture cultivation (Tilman, 2002), the magnitude of these impacts of unsustainable management is clear. As the environmental problems with industrial agriculture have become more evident, so minor adjustments have been made to the prevailing model. This has resulted in approaches to industrial agriculture that have adopted the rhetoric of sustainability, referred to as ‘sustainable production’ and ‘sustainable intensification’. Such attempts to include some sustainable practices in industrial agriculture do little to address the fundamental, structural problems of this model. Critics argue that modified industrial agricultural practices are unsustainable in the broadest sense, and are still associated with the deterioration of the natural resource base, disruption of ecosystem integrity, declining biodiversity, impaired ecosystem services and the undermining of social equity (Bundell, 2010). In addition, they point to genetic and ecological limits – such as the availability of water – which are predicted to naturally cap yield increases (Jägerskog and Jønch-Clausen, 2012). As well as these limits are those imposed by the decline in fossil fuels and petroleum-based agro-inputs, and contextualising the lack of efficiency of the continued industrial farming and food system is the fact that one in eight of the world’s population are still not being adequately fed whilst a similar number suffer from obesity.

The discipline of agroecology is being proposed as a different paradigm to address the social and environmental problems of the global industrial agriculture and food system. Based on the principles of sustainability, integrity, productivity, equity and stability (Conway, 1987; Marten, 1988), its scientific foundations are in the ecological and social processes underlying sustainable food production, rather than the chemical and neoliberal economic processes that underpin industrial agriculture. This makes it a vital tool in developing viable, sustainable alternatives to industrial agriculture and food production.

What is agroecology?

The academic discipline of agroecology emerged over a century ago. The science of agroecology is the study of living organisms and their inter-relationships in the context of agriculture and land use, and can be seen as the scientific basis of sustainable agriculture.

Subsequently, in response to the social and environmental problems caused by the global industrial agricultural and food system, it has become the foundation of both a set of land management practices and a vibrant social movement.

Agroecology has come to greater prominence since the publication of the 2009 International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) which advocated the use of agroecological approaches in sustainability initiatives. The following year, the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food also highlighted agroecology as a viable approach for working towards food security (De Schutter, 2010).

The increasingly high profile of agroecology is reflected in the growing body of evidence on high-performing agroecological management practices. For example, a recent study (Pretty, Toulmin and Williams, 2011) examined 40 initiatives employing agroecological production methods in 20 countries, involving 10.4 million farmers. These included agroecological approaches to aquaculture, livestock and agroforestry, conservation agriculture, and crop variety improvements with locally appropriate cultivars and cropping systems. Analysis of project outcomes demonstrated not only an average crop yield increase of 113%, but also numerous environmental benefits, including carbon sequestration and reductions in pesticide use and soil erosion.

Agroecological practitioners design food production systems which aim to maintain the functions that natural systems provide, both internal and external to production, and which are robust, productive and equitable. This means integrating instead of segregating, closing systems and relying on local inputs, increasing biological and genetic diversity, and regenerating instead of degrading.

Agroecosystem management according to these biophysical principles looks very different from industrial agricultural management, and goes hand in hand with social changes which emphasise equity, local marketing systems and broad-based participation in decision-making about food production. Agroecological practices seek primarily to maintain the ecosystem processes that perform central functions, rather than performing them with substituted inputs, mechanisation and labour. They achieve this through managing a series of biophysical properties and characteristics, such as:

• Soil processes and nutrient sourcing: building soil structure and improving soil health is central to agroecological management practices.

• Water use and conservation: The conservation and efficient use of water are basic principles of agroecology.

• Biodiversity and agro-biodiversity: Agroecological methods aim to sustain or improve functional diversity to in order to create more stable, resilient and productive agroecosystems.

• Climate and atmosphere: Agroecological practices, which favour the protection of soil carbon and carbon sequestration in vegetation biomass, hold huge potential for climate change mitigation.

Agroecosystems cannot be understood as separate from farmers, their communities or the social and economic contexts in which they are located. The socio-economic components of agroecosystems include population density, gender dynamics, labour availability, human health, social organisation, prices and markets, knowledge, and technology.

The principles of agroecological management imply a strong emphasis on local marketing and trade of inputs and products. Inputs should be sourced on the farm where possible. Where this is not feasible, agroecologists advocate strengthening decentralised, local trade in inputs. Agroecological farms are often relatively small, and farm size is an important part of discussions about sustainability (Rosset, 1999; Altieri, 2004). The relatively small size of agroecological farms means that they are more suited to regional food markets, so agroecological production also has implications for the food supply chain.

An agenda for adopting agroecology

Agroecosystems managed according to these principles look very different from industrial agricultural systems. Increasing the use of these approaches in order to enhance the sustainability of food production would demand social and institutional changes in agricultural communities, the commercial framework of agriculture, the wider food system, and policies for agriculture, development and trade.

The UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food identifies scaling up agroecological approaches as one of the main challenges of our time, noting both a need for increasing the areas cultivated using agroecological practices and an enabling framework for farmers using these practices (De Schutter, 2010). There are significant barriers to achieving this. They include the economic viability of agroecological approaches in competition with industrial approaches, an international economy dominated by neoliberal narratives, and the vertical, integrated structure and entrenched political interests of agri-businesses.

Although informed citizens and markets are powerful mechanisms for shaping resource use and production, and for stimulating creativity and innovation by communities, concerted government action is needed to speed up the spread of agroecological production, especially while some countries are still moving their agricultural sectors in the opposite direction. Supportive policies will be required if crop and livestock production systems are to be managed as ecosystems, with management decisions fully informed of environmental costs and benefits.

If changes are to be achieved we have identified the following priority areas for policy, knowledge management, agricultural extension and research.

Agricultural policy: Agroecology has strong roots in traditional, small-scale and subsistence agriculture. Many of the practices are therefore tailored for the available labour and resources of small-scale farms. Making these practices viable in different economies is a challenge for policy. Sustainability must be balanced with productivity and adequate accounting of whole system performance. Agroecology should be endorsed as a way of achieving food security by further establishing its capability to meet growing food demands sustainably.

• Build a progressive, knowledge-based agricultural sector which fosters the participation of all stakeholders to deliver strong support, extension and education services for agroecological technologies.

• Secure gender-equitable rights of access and use for land, water, forests, common property resources and seeds.

• Protect the knowledge and rights of farmers and pastoralists to save seed and improve crop varieties and livestock breeds, for example by banning seed patents and inappropriate intellectual property rights legislation.

• Support small farm agriculture where appropriate, and support co-operatives to assist small farmers to trade more effectively through facilitating their access to markets.

• Prioritise the use of local resources to meet the requirements of an agroecological farming sector.

• Align agricultural policy more closely with rural and urban planning processes, and prioritise infrastructure investment.

Economic policy: In order to create demands for agroecological production, economic frameworks are required that favour the establishment of appropriate market mechanisms. At least some of the expense of agroecological production can be borne by costing the external environmental impacts of industrial agricultural production in product prices. Accounting for the value of, and revenue from, environmental services and the costs of stewardship or remediation is essential, because the economy as a whole would benefit from more widespread agroecological production through, for example, increased tourism, public health, employment and stronger rural economies. These benefits may even offset any investment and payment for public goods provided by agroecological farming. The use of renewable resources which characterises agroecological farming will make it far less susceptible than industrial agriculture to future agrochemical input price increases.

• Create market conditions – including financial and regulatory mechanisms – that are favourable to rural and urban agroecological production.

• Restrict the concentration and market power of major agri-food corporations through new international treaties, competition laws and adoption of more flexible process and product standards.

• Manage supply to ensure that public support does not lead to over-production and dumping, lowering prices below the cost of production and harming farmers in all parts of the world.

• Develop improved markets for ecosystem services to provide incentives for their conservation and support for farming communities.

• Ensure that support for agricultural production is closely tied to stewardship of ecosystem function.

• Establish credible and accountable measurement systems to communicate the value of social and environmental services through prices and savings.

• Replace current economic growth measures with those that also account for external costs of production such as pollution, as well as external benefits such as rural development, ecosystem services, health and well-being.

Cross-sectoral policy: Governments have a responsibility to protect natural resources and ecosystem function which demands cross-sectoral approaches to policy. Policy-makers should recognise the non-monetary values of public goods. Agreement should be sought at an international level on the valuation and incorporation of externalities in international markets, especially in view of trade liberalisation.

• Develop robust frameworks for assessing and evaluating existing food production systems that focus on their ecological integrity and socio-economic benefit, and use these as a basis for evidence-based policy.

• Develop approaches to land use planning that take agroecological principles into account and support agroecological practitioners in gaining access to land.

• Promote and encourage public–private and public–voluntary sector partnerships to deliver agroecological innovations in rural and urban areas.

• Support the regional integration of non-food sectors to close resource cycles, focusing in particular on recycling, waste and sewage processing.

What next?

Like sustainable agriculture in the 1990s, agroecology is becoming a new buzzword today. The term agroecology has been recently adopted by some actors who also promote conventional agriculture (for example agrochemical companies, McDonald’s and some governments). Therefore it is important to clarify the different potential strategies for mainstreaming agroecology. It can play different roles – either conforming to the dominant regime, or else helping to transform it. The more transformative agroecological approaches argue for a fundamental shift from linear to circular systems that mimic natural ecosystems to reduce both external inputs and waste. This requires developing alternatives to monocultures and reducing farmers’ dependence on suppliers of off-farm inputs and the food retailers. Agroecology thus increasingly considers the political economy of the entire food system. Dependency on external markets is reduced by encouraging functional designs that generate their own soil fertility, crop protection, pollination, and water management to yield quality foods and other farm products. Circular systems that mimic natural ecosystems can be further developed at different scales, from individual farm plots to entire cities, by using functional biodiversity, ecological clustering of industries, recycling and re-localised production and consumption. This ecosystem-analog approach can enhance farmers’ and citizens’ direct control over the means of production and decisions on what to produce, and how. It provides the material basis for local food sovereignty (Pimbert, 2009) and resilient food systems throughout the world.

This transformative agroecology is now emerging through conversations between researchers, farmers, and social movements promoting food sovereignty as an alternative to globalised industrial food systems. The history of transdisciplinary agroecology is thus entering a new exciting phase as it engages with citizens’ alternative visions for food and farming.

In the next 10 to 20 years, mainstreaming agroecology for sustainable food systems will largely depend on the coordinated actions of citizens to re-orient harmful government policies and narrow profit seeking corporate agendas. Citizens can – and need to – change the way public money is spent by governments and investors. For example, funds are required to build the infrastructure of decentralised food systems that can make agroecological models of production viable by creating new jobs within re-localised food webs, offering fair market outlets for farmers, and regenerating neighbourhood and regional economies: local abattoirs, mills, food processing facilities, renewable energy generation, and water treatment. Working with allies in local government, citizens can also ensure that public money is redirected into procurement schemes that favour farmers using agroecological methods and short food chains to deliver healthy, local food to schools, hospitals, and office canteens. For example, in both Italy and Scotland, local authorities have promoted local producers by finding ways to bypass the “non-discrimination” EU regulatory constraints. Only local products are used to prepare school meals in several Italian towns.

Another immediate challenge is to change research priorities towards developing agroecology for sustainable food systems. There is a need to increase public funding for long-neglected agroecological research and democratise how such research is governed. Farmers and other citizens should be more involved in defining strategic research priorities and policies. Emphasis needs to be placed on forms of social organisation and education that encourage direct democracy and partnerships, including farmers movements and innovation networks.

In a globalised world, new trade rules will be needed to protect local food systems and local businesses, and new supply management policies to reduce wasteful production and consumption and connect farms to fair markets. But this must not simply tweak the system and end up perpetuating business as usual that locks us into the dead end of industrial food and farming. This is where a greater convergence between agroecology, food sovereignty, the solidarity economy, and degrowth movements can help coalitions of citizens develop agroecology for sustainable food systems – systems that promote the right to food for all and the care of Mother Earth.

This text is based on Mainstreaming Agroecology: Implications for Global and Farming Systems, a discussion paper published in October 2013 by Michel Pimbert, Ulrich Schmutz, Julia Wright

.Read the full report here: Mainstreaming Agroecology: Implications for Global Food and Farming Systems