agroecological socio-economics. impacts and principles

Agroecological socio-economics Impacts and principles Invited communication to the FAO International Symposium on Agroecology for Food Security and Nutrition, 18-19 September 2014, Rome. (Session People and Economics)

Gaëtan Vanloqueren, PhD, Agro-‐economist Guest Lecturer (Sciences Po – Paris ; ICHEC – Brussels Management School) ; University of Louvain/Liège

Former Adviser for the UN Special rapporteur on the right to food (2008-‐2014) Co-‐founder of the Belgian Interdisciplinary Research Group on Agroecology (GIRAF)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Source : Antoine-e Dumont (UCL), Sept 2014, Scopus database.

Agroecology & employment

Agroecology & labour Agroecology

Agroecology & income

Few scien;fic publica;ons on agroecology & economics Scopus database, 1985-‐2010 (non-‐cumulaTve)

HighlighTng examples that illustrate posiTve impacts :

•  QualitaTve •  QuanTtaTve when

available •  Not comprehensive review,

though a strictly scienTfic presentaTon

•  Just a few results, not in-‐depth case studies

1. Agroecology’s socio-‐economic impacts (employment, incomes, etc) (Economics ma-er)

2. Agroecology’s socio-‐economic principles (Economics are not enough)

1. Agroecology increases incomes

Posi;ve impact on incomes 1. Agroforestry in Zambia (Nitrogen-‐fixing trees)

•  d

Reference(s) : (1) Ajayi CO, Akinnifesi FK, Sileshi G, Kanjipite W (2009) Labour inputs and financial profitability of convenTonal and agroforestry-‐based soil ferTlity management pracTces in Zambia. Agrekon 48:246–292.

Return to labour per person day of agroforestry exceeds local daily ag. wage •  “For the three agroforestry pracTces, the

return to labour per person day was $2.63 for Gliricidia, $2.41 for Sesbania and $1.90 for Tephrosia fallow”. (Daily ag wage = approx. $0.60)

•  “In rural areas where road infrastructure is poor and transport costs of ferTliser are high, agroforestry prac;ces are most likely to outperform fer;lised maize in both absolute and rela;ve profitability terms.”

•  ExternaliTes (nutriTon, resilience, …) to be added

•  “The IRR of all the producTon pracTces is higher than the discount rate. It is over 100% for the convenTonal land soil ferTlity pracTces (with or without ferTliser) and ranges from 83% to 99% for agroforestry pracTces.”

Posi;ve impact on incomes (II) 2. Push-‐pull (Eastern Africa)

•  Push-‐pull (Companion cropping) –  Adopted by 30,000 smallholder farmers over the last

decade in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania on 15,000 hectares. Another 100,000 households could benefit over the next five years.(1)

Reference(s) : (1) Khan Z et al (2011) Push—pull technology: a conservaTon agriculture approach for integrated management of insect pests, weeds and soil health in Africa, InternaTonal Journal of Agricultural Sustainability (2) UNEP (2012) Towards a green economy, Pathways to sustainable development and poverty eradicaTon, Nairobi: UNEP. Collected by Alex Wijeratna, author of AcEonAid (2012). Fed Up. Now’s the Eme to invest in agroecology, June 2012, 43 pp.

•  Economic analysis with 21,300 smalls farmer (2):

–  Benefit-‐cost ra;o of 2.5 to 1.

–  Income returns for labour were $3.7 per person a day with push-‐pull as opposed to US$1 per person a day with their previous maize mono-‐cropping pracTce.

–  Gross revenues ranged between $424-‐US$880 per hectare under push-‐pull and $81.9 to $132 per hectare in maize mono-‐cropping.

Posi;ve impact on incomes 3. SRI – system of rice intensificaTon

Es;ma;on of the value of increased rice produc;on (2013): •  Assessment of SRI adop;on in 5 Asian countries that produce 2/3

of the world’s rice output (China, India, Vietnam, Indonesia and Cambodia)

–  About 9.5 million farmers using many or all SRI methods on over 3.4 million hectares.

•  Value of increased paddy produc;on : $862.5 million (1) –  The calculaTon below assumes no increase in the costs of producEon.

A larger study across 13 states of India reported an average cost reducTon of $29 per ton pf paddy produced (Palanisami et al. 2013). Factoring in such cost reducTons will further increase the net value from farmers’ SRI paddy producTon

•  Average addi;onal income per ha: + 94% (2)

Reference(s) : (1) SRI-‐Rice (2014) ESTIMATION OF THE SPREAD AND IMPACT OF SRI IDEAS AND USE AS OF END OF 2013, Handouts for the next InternaEonal Rice Congress, Oct 27-‐31 in Bangkok, SRI-‐Rice, Cornell University (with list of full references).; (2) Uphof, N. (2012) SupporEng food security in the 21st century through resource-‐conserving increases in agricultural producEon, Agriculture & Food Security 2012, 1:18. Both received from Norman Uphoff

2. Agroecology creates jobs

Agroecology creates jobs/livelihoods for young men Agroecological pracTces generate employment opportuniTes

Reference(s) : Jules Preoy , Camilla Toulmin & Stella Williams (2011): Sustainable intensificaTon in African agriculture, InternaTonal Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 9:1, 5-‐24

•  New jobs for young men (Burkina Faso) –  Work groups of young men specialized in land

rehabilita;on techniques go from village to village. –  Also Benin (Songhai center, food transformaTon)

Agroecology creates jobs/livelihoods for women Examples : new sources for feed, and edible weeds

Malawi : Maize-‐legume agroforestry systems

Reference(s) (1) Rosa M González-‐Amaro, Angélica Marrnez-‐Bernal, Francisco Basurto-‐Peña and Heike Vibrans (2009) Crop and non-‐crop producTvity in a tradiTonal maize agroecosystem of the highland of Mexico, Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 2009, 5:38

Kenya : push-‐pull

Weeds > feed > cows > milk > new economic ac;vi;es for women >

addiTonal incomes

Mexico : weeds allowed to grow in maize fields Edible weeds (‘quelites’) worth 25% of the total value of maize crops in Mexico (1) Sold by women on markets

Agroecology creates jobs/livelihoods for women (II) Examples : Community seed banks (owen managed by women) in India, Nepal, …

d

Farmers producing trees as a business Malawi Agroforestry Food Security Programme distributed tree seeds, sexng up 17 nurseries that raised 2,180,000 seedlings and establishing 345 farmer groups (1)

Job creaTon to be assessed! Reference(s) : C. Pye-‐Smith, Farming Trees, Banishing Hunger: How an agroforestry programme is helping smallholders in Malawi to grow more food and improve their livelihoods, Nairobi, World Agroforestry Centre, 2008, p. 10.

Agroecology creates jobs for men and women Malawi : agroecological projects, not just subzidized ferTlizers

•  Soils, Food and Healthy Communi;es project (>8,000 farmers)

•  Malawi Farmer-‐to-‐Farmer Agroecology project (>2,000 farmers)

Socio-‐economic assessment started this year

Reference(s) : (1) Eric Holt-‐Giménez, “Measuring Farmers’ Agroecological Resistance Awer Hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua: A Case Study in ParTcipatory, Sustainable Land Management Impact Monitoring,” Agriculture, Ecosystems and the Environment, 93:1-‐2, 2002, pp. 87-‐105. (2) IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 -‐ Figure 7.3. Economic impact of Hurricane Mitch and the 1998 to 1999 drought on Honduras

Agroecology maintains exis;ng jobs Improving resilience to climaTc extremes = maintaining jobs

Agroecological methods improved resilience to Hurricane Mitch in 1998 (Nicaragua) On average, agroecological plots

–  had on average 40 per cent more topsoil, higher field moisture, less erosion and lower economic losses

–  lost 18 per cent less arable land to landslides than convenTonal plots and had 69 per cent less gully erosion

compared to convenTonal farms (results from large-‐scale study on 180 communiTes of smallholders)

IPCC : Resilience to shocks magers ! •  IPCC 4th Assessment reports highlights the impact of hurricane on economic growth in LaTn America.

•  Shocks affect the most vulnerable communi;es. (2)

Agroecology creates jobs Need to consider and explore the range of impacts.

Drivers of employment genera;on 1.  DiversificaTon ! 2.  IniTal investments 3.  Microfarms 4.  Inputs replaced by Kedge & labour

More new employment opportuni;es –  Manufacture of adequate machinery –  ProducTon of biological control extracts –  Technical advice – Farmers!

Paradigm shij : from labour-‐saving to employment-‐genera;ng techniques and policies

•  Labour-‐saving policies have generally been prioriTzed by governments

•  Crea;on of employment in rural areas in developing countries is an advantage rather than a liability and may slow down rural-‐urban migraTon

(underemployment is currently massive, and demographic growth remains high)

Small farms vs. Big farms Small farms create more employment per hectare

Beyond the scope of this presentaTon, yet strongly connected to the jobs issue

3. Agroecology is posiTve for the balance of payments

The challenge of paying the import bill… Agroecology’s uncalculated impacts

•  Savings on oil imports •  Saving on ferTlizers imports •  Savings in machinery imports (if produced

locally)

-‐> Huge benefits •  ParTcularly for net oil-‐imporTng and

ferTlizer-‐imporTng countries •  Agroecology increse country resilience to

input prices volaTlity

Price of crude oil since 1970 Small streams make big rivers

Opportunity costs : avoid inves;ng in ‘second best’ op;ons Relevant measures for various ministries (Budget, Agriculture, etc)

Agroforestry and returns per unit of investment cost? Agroforestry-‐based soil fer;lity management prac;ces vs. subzidized fer;lizers (Zambia): •  « Each unit of money invested in agroforestry

prac;ces yields higher returns ranging between 2.77 and 3.13, (i.e., an extra gain of between 1.77 and 2.13 per unit) in contrast with 2.65 (or a net gain of 1.65 per unit of money invested) obtained in fer;lised maize prac;ce (subsidised) (1)

Reference(s) : (1) Ajayi CO, Akinnifesi FK, Sileshi G, Kanjipite W (2009) Labour inputs and financial profitability of convenTonal and agroforestry-‐based soil ferTlity management pracTces in Zambia. Agrekon 48:246–292 (at p 279)

« Smart subsidies » recommended by experts Relevance of assessing the return on investment (ROI) of agricultural public spendings

Opportunity costs: "the loss of potenTal gain from other alternaTves when one alternaTve is chosen".

Nurses in the field Health is a starTng point for agroecological iniTaTves

•  Malawi –  Permaculture gardens were

iniTated by the staff of a health and nutriTon center

Reference(s) : d 4. Agroecology generate posiTve externaliTes

Nurses in the field. Health and nutriTon as starTng points for agroecological iniTaTves (Malawi) •  Integrate improved

nutriTon and health in the « return on investment » assessments will improve even more the posiTon of agroecolohical pracTces

Permaculture gardens iniTated by staff of a health and nutriTon center

Posi;ve externali;es Agroecology’s uncalculated impacts (Niger, Sahel)

Reforesta;on in Niger through “farmer-‐managed natural regenera;on” (FMNR) -‐ agroforestry •  Addi;onal value of at least $56/ha/year (in

form of improved soil fer;lity, fodder, fruit, firewood and other produce).

•  Many villages now have 10–20 Tmes more trees than 20 years ago. Now about 4.8 million hectares of Faidherbia-‐dominated farmlands generated through FMNR (Maradi and Zinder Regions of Niger )

•  >500,000 addiTonal tonnes of food produced per year. Total annual producTon value of $280 million

Reference(s) : Dennis Philip Garrity, Festus K. Akinnifesi, Oluyede C. Ajayi, Sileshi G. Weldesemayat, Jeremias G. Mowo, Antoine Kalinganire, Mahamane Larwanou, Jules Bayala (2010) Evergreen Agriculture: a robust approach to sustainable food security in Africa. Food Security 2:197–214

Increase of on-‐farm trees in Southern Zinder, Niger (1975-‐2005). Photo Gray Tappan

Add : assessing impact on (diminuTon of) rural flight ; fight against irreversible

deserTficaTon, resilience to climaTc crises…

Assessing socio-‐economic impacts

Micro level

Incomes

Cost/benefit analysis (cost of producTon)

Livelihoods

Food and nutriTon security ; Health

…

Macro level

Return on investment (ROI) on agricultural public spending

Value of producTon

Balance of payments (Foreign exchange)

Employment

Meso level

Equity -‐ AllocaTon of producTvity gains in

value chains

Empowerment of rural communiTes

ExternaliTes (soil ferTlity, etc)…

Need to scale up research on socio-‐economic impacts Therefore, necessity to define agroecological pracTces & contours !

1. Agroecology’s socio-‐economic impacts (employment, incomes, etc) 2.  Agroecology’s socio-‐economic principles

Agroecology in 2014 :

A trend. Also a buzz.

opportuniTes for scaling up Risks of diluTon

Necessary to clarify agroecology’s socio-‐economic and poliTcal dimensions

« Economics » : a relevant framework for agroecology? From economics to socio-‐economics

•  Economics as such is not a self-‐contained system, but embedded in society, policy, and culture.

•  ‘Socio-‐economics’ is a much more powerful framework (compared to economics) if one wants to fully grasp the potenTal of agroecology to improve global food security and go towards sustainable food systems

•  Enables to grasp the full extent of agroecology

Reference(s) : Society for the Advancement of Socio-‐Economics (SASE)

IdenTfying the socio-‐economic principles of agroecology

1. Agroecology is about social organiza;on Agroecology is not an individualisTc & technical project

•  Social organiza;on (cfr. following presentaTons by Rosset & AlTeri) –  Role of farmers organizaTons / grassroots organizaTons / networks –  in idenTfying, improving and disseminaTng pracTces/innovaTons (Co-‐

construcTon )

•  Examples –  Community seed banks –  Campesino-‐a-‐Campesino networks, LVC agroecology colleges –  ParTcipatory plant breeding –  Networks of farmers/scienTsts/extension officers/peasant –  Seeds networks (Réseau semences paysannes)

Principle : Generate collec;ve knowledge and adaptability through networks involving producers, consumer ciTzens, researchers, and government technical advisors in order to foster forums for deliberaTon, public debate, and the disseminaTon of knowledge

www.agriculturesnetwork.org

Peasant movements and networks

Experts and support organizaTons

Online pla�orms hop://ag-‐transiTon.org/

Exis;ng networks and organiza;ons Not a comprehensive mapping, just a few references

2. Knowledge plays an essen;al role in agroecology Agroecology is about knowledge generaTon and diffusion through networks

•  Agroecology and knowledge –  Agroecology is knowledge-‐intensive (subsTtutes inputs by

knowledge) –  Different types of knowledge : tradiTonal & scienTfic –  Ability of communiTes to generate and spread pracTces and

innovaTons

Principle : Recognize and make good use of the diversity of skills and knowledge to be taken into account – local pracTces and knowledge, tradiTonal pracTces and knowledge (indigenous technology knowledge, and ordinary knowledge) – in construcTng both the issues and the publics concerned by these issues as well as in searching for soluTons.

3. Agroecology is about fostering autonomy ‘PoliTcal’ dimensions are at the core of agroecology

•  Autonomy : –  in terms of 1° inputs ; 2° knowledge ; and 3° from global markets Major linkage with peasant principle (van der Ploeg) (1)

•  Examples •  Peasant-‐owned and –run coopera;ve seed entreprises ; Seed

« Houses » (Brazil) •  Comté cheese AOC (protected designaTon of origin, France) : milk

quanTty ceiling, cows fed on local resources,… •  Open source – peer-‐to-‐peer produc;on of agricultural machinery

(FLOK project in Ecuador ; open-‐source farm technology, U.S.)

Add pics

Reference(s) : (1) van der Ploeg, 2008. The new peasantries: struggles for autonomy and sustainability in an era of empire and globalizaEon. Earthscan, London, UK.

Principle : Foster the possibili;es for choosing autonomy from the global markets by creaTng a propiTous environment for public goods and the development of socioeconomic pracTces and models that reinforce the democraTc governance of food systems, in parTcular through systems that are jointly managed by producers and consumers, and highly labor-‐intensive (re)territorialized systems

4. Agroecology seeks to improve social equity in food systems A poliTcal dimension at the core of agroecology

•  Equity 1.  Principle for access to ressources (land, water, …) 2.  Principle for business models (upstream or downstream entreprises :

ConnecTons with social and solidarity economy) and pricing mechanisms within food systems

3.  In agricultural revenues (responsability of the State)

•  Examples –  Solidarity-‐based pricing mechanisms in some Community-‐supported

agriculture (CSA) (Grosses Légumes, Belgium) –  Pricing systems along the foodchain : AOC Comté cheese (France) –  ‘Mul;na;onal coopera;ves’ controlled by small-‐scale farmers : Divine

Chocolate Ltd company : 42% owned by Kuapa Kukoo Farmers Union, Ghana (Fair Trade 2.0)

Principle : Social equity between all stakeholders at any levels of the food system

Reference(s) : (1) Dumont, A., Stassart; P., Vanloqueren, G., Baret, P. (2014), Clarifier les dimensions socio-‐économiques et poliEques de l’agroécologie : au-‐delà des principes, des compromis ?, CommunicaEon au séminaire ‘Renouveler les approches insEtuEonnalistes sur l'agriculture et l'alimentaEon: la "grande transformaEon" 20 ans après’, Montpellier, 16-‐17 juin 2014. (+ journal paper forthcoming)

5. Agroecology seeks to improve/strengthen democracy ‘poliTcal’ dimensions are at the core of agroecology, yet frequently let aside

•  Democracy –  Within peasant and farmers organiza;ons (internal demoracy) –  Within entreprises: Economic democracy & social and solidarity economy –  Partnerships : Partnership between consumers and producers: « the

formal or informal but clear presence of a social contract between producers and consumers » (1)

–  Food sovereignty (right to define their own food and agricultural systems)

•  Examples –  Numerous cooperaTves, farmer unions, etc –  Assemblies of farmer unions and movements

pics

Principle : Foster the possibiliTes for choosing autonomy from the global markets by creaTng a propiTous environment for public goods and the development of socioeconomic prac;ces and models that reinforce the democra;c governance of food systems, in parTcular through systems that are jointly managed by producers and consumers, and highly labor-‐intensive (re)territorialized systems

Principle : Member’s power within an organisa;on is not based on their assets. Decisions are taken through a democra;c process

Historical principles (Altieri)

Methodological principles (INRA)

Socio-economic (political) principles (GIRAF)

1. Recycling of biomass, optimize nutrient availability, and balance nutrient flows

2. Ensure soil conditions that are favorable for plant growth by managing in particular organic matter and improving the soil’s biotic activity. 3. Minimize losses of resources that are linked to the flows of solar radiation, air, and soil by means of microclimate management, water collection, and soil management,

4. Promote genetic diversification and the diversification of species in the agroecosystem in space and time. 5. Allow beneficial interactions and biological synergies between the components of agrobiodiversity so as to promote key ecological processes and services 6. Value agrobiodiversity as an entry node for redesigning systems so as to ensure farmers’ autonomy and food sovereignty (INRA)

7. Facilitate and equip the multifactoral management of agroecosystems for their long-term transition. This means arbitrating between short and long time scales and giving importance to the properties of resiliency and adaptability. 8. Make use of resources’ spatial and temporal variability (diversity and complementarity) 9. Stimulate the exploration of situations that are far from already-known local optima 10. Promote the development of participatory research schemes that will produce “finalized” research while guaranteeing the scientific validity of the approach (GIRAF)

11. Generate collective knowledge and adaptability through networks involving producers, consumer citizens, researchers, and government technical advisors in order to foster forums for deliberation, public debate, and the dissemination of knowledge

12. Foster the possibilities for choosing autonomy from the global markets by creating a propitious environment for public goods and the development of socioeconomic practices and models that reinforce the democratic governance of food systems, in particular through systems that are jointly managed by producers and consumers, and highly labor-intensive (re)territorialized systems

13. Recognize and make good use of the diversity of skills and knowledge to be taken into account – local practices and knowledge traditional practices and knowledge (indigenous technology knowledge, and ordinary knowledge – in constructing both the issues and the publics concerned by these issues as well as in searching for solutions.

Socio-‐economic principles of agroecology Agroecology : 3 sets of principles

Reference(s) : Stassart, P.M., Baret, P., Grégoire, J.-‐C., Hance, T., Mormont, M., Reheul, D., Vanloqueren, G. and Visser, M. (2012), Trajectoire et potenEel de l'agroécologie, pour une transiEon vers des systèmes alimentaires durables. In Van Dam, D., Streith, M., Nizet, J. and Stassart P.M. (dir.) Agroécologie. Entre praEques et sciences sociales. Educagri édiEons, 2012, Paris, pp. 25-‐51.

Socio-‐economic principles for a strong agroecology Agroecology & principles

Reference(s) : Dumont, A., Stassart; P., Vanloqueren, G., Baret, P. (2014), Clarifier les dimensions socio-‐économiques et poliEques de l’agroécologie : au-‐delà des principes, des compromis ?, CommunicaEon au séminaire ‘Renouveler les approches insEtuEonnalistes sur l'agriculture et l'alimentaEon: la "grande transformaEon" 20 ans après’, Montpellier, 16-‐17 juin 2014. (+ journal paper forthcoming)

Theme Brief presentation

Access and autonomy with regard to markets

Access and autonomy with regard to markets for producers as well as any collective structure of production or transformation

Environmental equity Environmental equity allowed by the taking into account of negative environmental externalities in every economic choice

Social equity Social equity between all stakeholders at any levels of the food system

Partnership between consumers and producers

The formal or informal but clear presence of a social contract between producers and consumers

Limitation of profit distribution Benefits are used to reach a social purpose and not to maximise only return on invested capital

Rural world development and preservation of the social fabric

Projects of a food system participate to rural development as well as the preservation of the social fabric

Financial independence Producers stay master of their economic and technical decisions even it implies to limit input

Durability and adaptation capacity

Durability and adaptation capacity of agricultural organisation via, mostly, belonging to a network which could imply farmers, consumers, technical advisors, scientists

Democratic governance Member’s power of an organisation is not based on their capital. Decisions are taken with a democratic process

Organisational proximity Organisational proximity between stakeholders of production and transformation steps

Geographical proximity Geographical proximity between stakeholders of production, transformation and consumption steps

Diversity of knowledge and capacity of exchanging them

Traditional, empirical and scientific knowledge are shared between producers

Main themes of socio-‐economic principles idenTfied in the literature review

Socio-economic and political principles 5 principles (other wordings coexist)

1.   Social organiza;on 2.   Knowledge 3.   Autonomy 4.   Social Equity 5.   Democracy

Can we strip agroecology from these dimensions ?

Source : Manuel Gonzalez de Molina (2013): Agroecology and PoliTcs. How To Get Sustainability? About the Necessity for a PoliTcal Agroecology, Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 37:1, 45-‐59

Socio-economic and political principles Real agroecology or simply sustainable agriculture

1.   Social organiza;on 2.   Knowledge 3.   Autonomy 4.   Social Equity 5.   Democracy

Can we strip agroecology from these dimensions ?


(Gonzales de Molina, “the necessity for a poliTcal agroecology”, 2013) (1)

•  Agroecosystems are socioecological construc;ons •  The product of the relaTonships between the populaTon and the resources

available to them. Power and conflicts are present in these social relaTonships. •  Addressing sustainabilitu requires tackling social inequaliTes (an ecosystemic

pathology) •  Agroecology is a powerful tool to achieve change in food systems (a massive

redesign of the economic structures that govern our food systems) •  A technocra;c agroecology would strip socioecological change of any collec;ve

dimension of agroecology

Not without doing SOMETHING ELSE THAN agroecology

Should States, and the FAO, endorse and support it? A horizon for achieving the progressive realization of the right to food


FAO -‐  Agroecology enables the FAO to beger fulfill its mission

-‐  Report “Mission to the FAO”, UN Special rapporteur on the right to food, 2012 States -‐  OpTng for the best way to improve food systems, not the second best.

-‐  Scaling across and scaling up agroecology -‐  No ‘islands of success’

An ‘ecological-‐only’ soluTon is insufficient given the scale of the necessary changes in food systems (inequaliTes, concentraTon in agri-‐food changes, …)

Source : (1) Stassart, P.M., Baret, P., Grégoire, J.-‐C., Hance, T., Mormont, M., Reheul, D., Vanloqueren, G. and Visser, M. (2012), Trajectoire et potenTel de l'agroécologie, pour une transiTon vers des systèmes alimentaires durables. In Van Dam, D., Streith, M., Nizet, J. and Stassart P.M. (dir.) Agroécologie. Entre praEques et sciences sociales. Educagri édiTons, 2012, Paris, pp. 25-‐51. (2) InternaTonal InsTtute for Environment and Development (IIED): "Agroecology -‐ What it is and what it has to offer" Laura Silici, Issue Paper (June 2014).

The three meanings of agroecology ‘Strong’ agroecology

“Agroecology is not defined exclusively by scien;fic fields, social movements, or prac;ces. Its role is to become a federa;ng concept of ac;on in the middle of these three dimensions (Stassart et al, 2012 building on Wezel, Bellon et al. 2009)” (1) Agroecology – ‘the applicaTon of ecological concepts and principles to the design and management of sustainable agro-‐ecosystems’ – has three facets. It is: 1.   a scien;fic discipline involving the holisTc study of agro-‐

ecosystems, including human and environmental elements 2.   a set of principles and prac;ces to enhance the resilience

and ecological, socio-‐economic and cultural sustainability of farming systems

3.   a movement seeking a new way of considering agriculture and its relaTonships with society. (IIED, 2014) (2)

Conclusions From impacts to policies

1.   Acknowledge that agroecology is more than sustainable agriculture. –  Agroecology ≠ sustainable intensifica;on

•  FederaTve concept : PracTces + science + social movement •  Horizon & pathway towards that horizon

2.   Agroecology has posi;ve socio-‐economic impacts –  on employment, incomes, livelihoods, and macroeconomic indicators as well –  Assessment of socio-‐economic impacts could be more systemaTc –  Yet

•  more research is not necessary to start bringing AE to scale •  ParTcipaTve assessments •  not narrowing everything down to economics

3.   Necessity and feasability of bringing agroecology to scale –  Engage with exisTng networks and organizaTons to scale agroecology across territories –  “Subsidies to sustainability” –  Support champions : municipaliTes, regions/districts/territories, countries.

Paper in Solu;ons Journal -‐-‐> Includes secTons on •  Roots of the Future: The New Agricultural

Paradigm •  The Obstacles to the Necessary Change •  Scaling Up Sustainable Agriculture: Policies for

Change •  Linking Sustainable Farming to Markets: The

Poli;cal Economy of Food Chains •  Stopping the Damage: The Role of Land

Personal contribu;ons Titles of papers use words that seek to aoract new audiences to agroecology…

•  13 obstacles to scaling up agroecological research •  Lock-‐in and path-‐dependence in agricultural

research systems

(hop://thesoluTonsjournal.org/node/971)

Personal publicaEons on Academia.edu. Contact : [email protected]

Interuniversity cer;ficate ‘Agroecology & Transi;on towards sustainable food systems (French)

www.agroecologie.be/

agroecological socio-economics. impacts and principles

Education

agroforestry practces

agroecology giraf

person day of agroforestry

agroforestry pracces

labour inputs

economics ma

producton practces

incomes posive impact