©Iv

o Da

nche

v

SOCIAL CHALLENGES AND AGROECOLOGY: THE DATA

2

AuthorsCristiana Peano – Department of Agricultural, Forestry and Food Sciences, University of Turin – cristiana.peano@unito.itFrancesco Sottile – Department of Architecture, University of Palermo – francesco.sottile@unipa.it

Published in December 2017

Financed by the European Union

The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and the EASME

is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

3

Abstract

This document offers an overview of the studies and data published to date on agroecology, with a specific focus on the following questions:1. Can the agroecological approach be applied on a global scale?2.Can agroecology respond to the challenge of food security in the world?3. Does the agroecological system have an impact on welfare issues?4. Can agroecology be a response to climate change?5. What is the role of consumers and markets in this transition?

The key messages that emerge from the studies examined in this document are the following:• If talking about agroecology means only talking about good agricultural practices then it becomes reduced to an ecolo-gical principle, and its social and political content are ignored. • Only by increasing the income of small-scale farmers, reducing their dependence and increasing distributive justice (for example, access to land and seeds, identical access to resources for women and men) and reducing waste and post-harvest losses will it be possible address the issue of food security in the world. • Talking about agroecology means talking about a resilient agriculture, and therefore about a system that meets both food needs and development needs, over the short and the long term, without destabilizing the earth system. It seeks in a specific way not only persistence but also the adaptive changes or even transformations needed to accommodate evolving environmental conditions and human needs. In order to do this, agroecology challenges the relatively fixed configuration of our production and consumption systems, proposing an alternative that takes into full account the specific characteristics of places. • The adaptation of the agricultural system to climate change is crucial to farmers, rural communities and economic su-stainability. • Researchers and policymakers must adopt a more interdisciplinary approach and work with farmers and rural communi-ties to evaluate the main limiting factors and practices for adaptation to climate change. • Food systems can be described as socio-technical networks that connect people and the natural and manufactured elements that interact with food issues. The processes of characterizing and adding value to products are of real interest to the re-examination of the roles of consumers and quality standards in the evolution of farming practices and in integrating a broader approach to ecological issues in agroecosystems. • The agroecological literature concludes that the productivity per hectare for total production (not just one crop) in the medium term is higher in different agroecological agricultural systems than on large industrial farms, showing an inverse relationship between size and productivity. The indicator where big farms manage to surpass small farms is productivity per unit of labor rather than productivity per unit of surface area. • If agroecological production systems become more widespread, employment will be created that will be more rural, probably more stable and less seasonal compared to the employment offered by industrial agriculture. • In order for the agroecological approach to be put into practice at increasingly wider social and geographical levels, it will be necessary to strengthen the institutions of participatory democracy with the aim of constantly improving public policies, allowing active citizens to take on a guiding role in the governance of agrifood systems. • Scientific publications have moved on from an analysis of the conditions of individual plots to those of farms and, in the last 20 years, of the wider area (agroecosystem). Current definitions of agroecology go beyond this vision, leaving the concrete spatial scale and prioritizing an overview of the food system as a whole. • In general, there is a clear lack of funds dedicated to research on agroecology.

ACRONYMSIAASTD: International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsLVC: La Via CampesinaUNEP: United Nations Environmental Programmme

4

1. Introduction

This report will examine the responses of agroecology to some critical issues that widely emerge from an analysis of global food systems. The debate around sustainable agriculture and the mitigation of the negative impacts that different production systems are having on the environment, climate and society is becoming increasingly urgent and heated. While on the one hand sustainable intensification is often pointed to as a possible solution, many farmers’ movements, NGOs and also some of the private sector look at this solution with skepticism because it is too concentrated on production and intensification, without taking into account social and local contexts.

Agroecology, organic agriculture and sustainable intensification

There are many kinds of alternative agriculture (biodynamic, organic, permaculture, natural, etc.), all aimed at reducing dependence on synthetic chemical pesticides, fertilizers and antibiotics as well as production costs and the environmental impact of agriculture. One of these systems is organic agriculture, which is now practiced in almost every country of the world over a surface area of around 30 million certified hectares (Altieri et al., 2017). Even if organic agriculture is based on the application of a series of good practices (rotation, cover crops, biological defen-se, etc.), today many organic farmers, pushed by market forces, use a set of “technological packages” with a low energy impact. These represent merely a replacement of synthetic inputs with organic inputs (Rosset et al., 1997). Additionally many of the practices currently promoted as sustainable are aimed at achieving greater efficiency in the use of inputs through integrated pest management or the integrated management of soil fertility, but leave intact the monoculture system and do not encourage a productive redesign of agricultural systems. Lastly, many of the inputs used in organic agriculture are purchased, leaving unaltered the dependence of farmers on external suppliers (Guthman, 2014). Recently, the FAO (2011), along with other international organizations (the Royal Society and the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research – CGIAR), has gone down the path of seeing sustainable intensification as an option by which the principles of agroecology can be integrated with other approaches, such as transgenic crops, conservation agriculture, the microdosing of fertilizers, weedkillers and integrated pest management. This vision renders the term “agroecology” a meaningless concept, stripping it of its political and social content. Agroeco-logy must not be combined with other approaches (Altieri et al., 2017).

In this context, agroecology is often presented as an alternative.

Therefore a number of key issues have been identified and an attempt has been made to give a response to the most urgent questions, tackled in the following chapters:1. Can the agroecological approach be applied on a global scale?2. Can agroecology respond to the challenge of food security in the world?3. Does the agroecological system have an impact on welfare issues?4. Is agroecology a real response to climate change?5. What is the role of consumers and markets in this transition?

In order to answer these questions, the scientific articles published over the last 20 years on the subject were consulted, as well as the reports produced by the most important civil-society organizations, farmers’ movement and international organizations and the outcomes of numerous meetings that have taken place at the government agency level. The analysis aims to offer an overview of the main themes discussed for an agroecological transition of the world’s food system, identifying some of the most pressing challenges and imagining who the actors of this change could be. Given the complexity of the issue, some specific topics were not taken into consideration (e.g. agricultural practices, the nutritional value of foods, health impacts). Instead, more time has been spent on those cross-cutting themes that today represent the core of the debate in institutional and non-institutional settings. In addition, given such a complex theme and the growing number of publications and actors who are becoming involved in the issue, this report does not claim to be in any way an exhaustive analysis of the relevant literature, and instead limits itself to offering an overview of some of the issues currently under discussion.

5

2. Agroecology: Definitions

In this report, the definition of agroecology used is that of Gliessman (2007): “the application of ecological concepts and principles to the design and management of sustainable food systems.” Agroecology has been defined by various authors as a discipline that proposes integrated studies between ecology, sociology and economics (Table 1).

Table 1 – Evolution of the definition of agroecology

Altieri - 1987“A discipline that defines, classifies and studies agricultural systems from an ecological and socio-economic perspective.”

Altieri - 1995“The application of ecological concepts and principles to the design and management of sustainable agroecosystems.”

Francis et al. - 2003“The integrative study of the ecology of the entire food systems, encompassing ecological, economic and social dimensions.”

Dalgaard et al. - 2003

“An integrative discipline that includes elements from agronomy, ecology, sociology and economics,” “the study of the interactions between plants, animals, humans and the environment within agricultural systems.”

Wojtkowski et al. - 2004“The interactions among natural processes in artificial systems designed to meet human goals.”

Gliessman - 2007 “The science of applying ecological concepts and principles to the design and management of sustainable food systems.”

From: Levidow et al. 2014

This definition aims to represent the ecological co-existence of agriculture and biodiversity in the same territory, with the objective of improving agricultural systems by imitating and encouraging the ecosystem’s natural processes (Altieri et al., 2012). Indeed, within the agroecosystem that emerges there are beneficial biological interactions and synergies between the various components that create and maintain a state of equilibrium, the capacity for self-regulation and the influence of biodiversity (De Schutter, 2010). The primary objective of the agroecological system is therefore the interaction and the productivity of the agricultural system as a whole, and not that of individual crops (Silici, 2014). The reduction of the nega-tive externalities that come as a result is always closely linked to and dependent on the context in which one is working, making it necessary to take into account the system’s biophysical, social, cultural and economic aspects.The concept of agroecology is not recent, but its wider circulation dates back to the last 20 years, during which it has taken on a series of different meanings. Agroecology is described as a science, a set of practices and a social movement particu-larly where it has acquired greater strength, in other words in the context of small farms in developing countries (Wezel et al., 2009). Consulting the databases (Scopus, Web of Science) that reflect scientific output at a global level, it is interesting to note that the topic of agroecology has become increasingly represented, in particular from 2010 on (Figure 1 – Table 2).

Figure 1 – Number of articles on the subject of agroecology in the last 20 years

Source: Scopus database, accessed June 20, 2017

Table 2 – Number of articles in the last 20 years divided by subject areaAgricultural and Biological Sciences 1312

Environmental Science 770

Social Sciences 653

Earth and Planetary 346

Energy 156

Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 97

Economics, Econometrics and Finance 91

Medicine 63

Arts and Humanities 62

Engineering 51

Business, Management and Accounting 41

Immunology and Microbiology 41

Computer Science 28

Veterinary 26

Decision Sciences 24

Multidisciplinary 24

Chemical Engineering 8

Chemistry 8Source: Scopus database, accessed June 20, 2017

As can be seen, as of 2010 there was a significant increase in the number of scientific articles examining the “world” of agroecology, and considering that the database was consulted in June, it is likely that the number of articles in 2017 will exceed 200. In regards to the subject areas, it is interesting to note that that top three (Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Envi-ronmental Science and Social Sciences) effectively concern the application of ecology to agriculture, the environment and the social sciences, underlining the importance of the role of agroecology as a movement. Studies relating to the social sciences include considerations of political ecology, the equity of food systems, participatory processes, women’s empo-werment, food sovereignty and rural development. The scientific literature analyzed has been written by specialists from universities and research centers in the United States, and the research has primarily been carried out on case studies from Latin America, Asia and Africa. This confirms that family and subsistence farming is the first type of agriculture to have participated in and benefitted from agroecological processes.

7

It is also interesting to analyze a diagram presented by Wezel and Soldat in 2009 in an article entitled “A quantitative and qualitative historical analysis of the scientific discipline of agroecology” which appeared in the International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability. An interesting aspect that emerges from Figure 2 is the switching of attention to different scales and dimensions in the last 80 years. Scientific publications have shifted from an analysis of the conditions of individual plots to farms and lastly, in the last 20 years, to the wider area (agroecosystem). Now the definitions of agroecology given by Francis et al. (2003) and Gliessman (2007) leave the concrete spatial scale and prioritize instead the dimension of the food system as a whole. This new “dimension” includes local, regional, national and global geographical scales as well as food production systems, society, the economy and politics, which cannot be attributed directly to a specific scale but which are connected and interconnected in different ways.

Figure 2: Temporal changes in scale and dimension in the definition of agroecology as well as the key subjects and basic disciplines applied to applied research (top arrows: key subjects, bottom arrows: basic disciplines)

Source: Wezel (2009)

3. Can the agroecological approach be applied on a global scale?

It is worth firstly stating the agronomical principles that underpin an agroecological transition to design and/or redesign resilient and biodiverse agricultural systems that are energy efficient and able to conserve natural resources (Altieri et al., 2017):

1Enhance the recycling of biomass, with a view to optimizing organic matter decomposition and nutrient cycling over time.

2Strengthen the “immune system” of agricultural systems through enhancement of functional biodiversity—natural enemies, antagonists, etc., by creating appropriate habitats.

3Provide the most favorable soil conditions for plant growth, particularly by managing organic matter and by enhancing soil biological activity.

4Minimize losses of energy, water, nutrients and genetic resources by enhancing conservation and regeneration of soil and water resources and agrobiodiversity.

5 Diversify species and genetic resources in the agroecosystem over time and space at the field and landscape level.

6Enhance beneficial biological interactions and synergies among the components of agrobiodiversity, thereby promoting key ecological processes and services.

in Germany, for example, with von Liebig (1843)and Thaer. In the USA, ecology started in the1900s, with more well established ecology publi-cations appearing in the 1930s (Odum & Barrett,2005). Klages (1942) cited some authors’ works inthe 1920s on agronomy and ecology in the USA,such as Ball, Bensin, Clements and Livingston.Since the 1980s, publication work on agroecology

has expanded tomanymore countries. Nevertheless,the USA still dominates the publication rate, partlydue to the many publications of Altieri, Francis andGliessman. In the last two decades new ‘agroecologycountries’ emerged such asNigeria, China, India andBrazil, in addition to traditional research countriessuch as the United Kingdom, France, Germany andthe Netherlands. This countries analysis shouldalways to be interpreted with some caution, as thecase of Nigeria shows. The higher number of agro-ecology publications from Nigeria is mostly due tointernational researchers working at IITA, the Inter-national Institute for Tropical Agriculture, basedat Ibadan, Nigeria. Nevertheless, we think thatgeneral trends, where most agroecological researchis carried out can be derived from the analysis. Amore detailed country analysis of agroecology inthe USA, Brazil, France and Germany is presentedby Wezel et al. (in press).

Today’s variation in definitions and scales

The word agroecology emerged at the beginning ofthe 20th century. Thereafter, both its definition andscope as a scientific discipline evolved significantly.

An interesting aspect in the different concepts andin the realization of research in agroecology is thechange of focus on different scales and dimensionsover the past 80 years. In looking at the different defi-nitions and descriptions in the publications, it isevident that agroecology changed from the plot orfield scale (1930s to 1960s) to the farm or agro-ecosystem scale (1970s to2000s) (Figure4), althoughthe smaller scale approaches are also still used up tothe present. In some publications, the farm is seenas equivalent to an agroecosystem, but other publi-cations see an agroecosystem at the somewhatlarger end of the scale of a local or regional landscapewhere agriculture is practised. At present, the defi-nitions of agroecology given by Francis et al.(2003) and Gliessman (2007) go beyond this byleaving the concrete spatial scale and entering thefull dimension of the food system. This dimensionincludes local, regional, national and global geo-graphical scales, as well as the food productionsystems, society, the economy and politics, that cannot be attributed directly to a certain scale, butwhich are connected and interwoven in differentways (Figure 5a). Although not directly discussingagroecology, Pretty (2008) shows clearly that it isnecessary to simultaneously consider and analysenatural, social, human, physical and financialcapital dimensions to shape concepts for agriculturalsustainability, the core topic of agroecology.The change of definitions and scale can be related

mainly to the evolution of the two basic disciplinesfrom which agroecology is derived, agronomy andecology. However, other disciplines such as zoology,

Figure 4 Temporal changes in scale and dimension in the definitions of agroecology as well as related main topics andbasic disciplines for research applied (arrows above: main topics; arrows below: basic disciplines)

12 A. WEZEL AND V. SOLDAT

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 7(1) 2009, PAGES 3–18

8

The important characteristic that emerges from all the experiences in different regions of the world is agroecology’s bottom-up approach, as well as the integration of bodies of knowledge (local, traditional and scientific) in different en-vironmental and social sectors. This knowledge is promoted by a horizontal dissemination and based on the sharing of experiences (Gliessman, 2015). The agroecological literature concentrates primarily on small, highly diversified farms. In this respect, it is worth remembering that small-scale producers contribute significantly to the world production of food, accounting for 50% of global agricultural production for domestic use, rising to 80% in Asian and sub-Saharan countries (FAO, 2012 and 2015; Altieri et al., 2012). There are no clear-cut definitions for small, medium and large farms, as these are flexible concepts that can vary depending on different cultural traditions and national criteria. For this reason, referen-ce models tend to be used more than a set definition. In particular, reference can be made to the definition provided by the FAO (2014): “Family farming includes all family-based agricultural activities, and it is linked to several areas of rural development. Family farming is a means of organizing agricultural, forestry, fisheries, pastoral and aquaculture production which is managed and operated by a family and predominantly reliant on family labour, including both women’s and men’s.” Talking about agroecology in these contexts means intervening in a positive way on families’ livelihoods thanks to reduced costs (minimization of production costs), increased yields, improved nutrition and women’s empowerment (De Schutter, 2014). Agroecology is therefore seen as a response to the need for greater food security and sovereignty as well as a possible path towards fairer and more sustainable rural development (Nyeleni Declaration, 2015). In 2015, in the Final Report for the International Symposium on Agroecology for Food Security and Nutrition (FAO, 2014), Gliessman sums up the role that agroecology currently plays in the world, “as a participatory action and research process that leads to sustainability and resilience, as a movement of change and justice.”It is interesting to note how the role of agroecology in the evolution towards sustainable agriculture, underlined by IAASTD (2009), is now widely discussed not only by the scientific community but also by intergovernmental bodies (for example, the Committee on World Food Security and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development), United Nations agencies like the FAO and UNEP and NGOs such as Oxfam and La Via Campesina. One of the central nodes in the discussion of these themes is whether or not the agroecological approach can be applied on a global scale and to large farms (De Schutter et al., 2011; Parmentier, 2014; Silici 2014, Wibbelman et al., 2013; Altieri, 2017).De Schutter et al. (2011) emphasize that for a wider implementation of agroecology, it will be necessary to focus on technical assistance services and on training in individual areas, as well as on public goods like rural infrastructure (for example, roads and electricity) and credit and insurance against climate-related risks. Clearly reference is being made to a medium- and long-term process which would involve significant effort being made for a “political” recognition of agroe-cology, a greater support for the network from local, regional, national and supranational public institutions and a general improvement of governance, not only of agriculture but of food overall. Various authors, among the most cited of which are Pretty et al. (2006), have so far demonstrated that within the small-scale context the application of agroecological principles significantly improves sustainability performance, including eco-nomic, in particular due to the increase in yields and productivity per surface area unit. In regards to the applicability of agroecology to large industrialized farms, Parmentier (2014) claims that despites its profound rooting in small-scale traditional agriculture (Altieri et al., 2011), a step forward could also be made in different contexts. For medium-scale farms that currently use semi-industrial systems (mechanization, hybrid seeds, synthetic chemical pro-ducts), the challenge is to avoid an excessive decline in yields and productivity due in particular to the reduction or aban-donment of synthetic inputs. In these cases, Trócaire (2012) suggests a transition period dedicated to restoring the health of local ecosystems before proceeding with a technical evolution in the farm. This proposal includes transformative appro-aches that concentrate less on the imperative of supply and more on tackling different forms of inefficiency, the improper use of resources and waste within the current food system. In particular, reference is made to all those biological processes on the farm that make sustainable agricultural ecosystems productive, which require time in order to become established. They include reconstructing impoverished natural reserves, as well as re-establishing populations of predators and wild host plants, increasing nutrient levels, tree planting and water conservation measures. Tittonell (2014) also highlights the need for an ecological intensification involving landscape-related approaches that allow for the intelligent use of the natural functions that ecosystems offer with the aim of designing multifunctional agroecosystems that are sustainable by nature. While sustainable intensification proposes solutions that are planned only on the basis of a single crop or field, the ecological intensification proposed by Tittonell (2014) embraces the complexity of the landscape and as a result the actions aimed at supporting it require a collective decision-making process that also involves institutional innovation. In regards to the agroecological transition of large farms, on the whole the scientific literature presents little evidence.

9

Altieri et al. (2012) point out that in countries like Chile, Argentina and Brazil, some large plantations are now managed according to a paradigm based on circular systems with a reduced consumption of inputs and energy. Even though the majority of attempts with large farms remain concentrated on practices guided by a program of intensification and not by a real agroecological approach, in a recent article (2017) published in Sustainability, Altieri et al. propose more simple di-versification schemes based on two or three plant species and using modern equipment. The application of intercropping, for example, involves the production of multiple crops in strips of land sufficiently close to each other to ensure interaction between the plants and at the same time wide enough to allow independent cultivation. In this context, an increased yield has been shown for corn (5-25% higher) grown in association with soy and positive results also emerged from the experiments carried out between 1986 and 1990 on intercropping corn and alfalfa on highly productive prairie land near Lafayette, Indiana in the United States (West et al. 1992). The practices adopted by large farms to reduce the use of inputs are a step in the right direction, but they do not necessarily lead to the redesign of a more self-sufficient and autonomous agricultural system. Indeed, the crops might not complement each other ecologically and farmers could need even more external inputs (even if they are organic). Some studies (IPES-Food, 2016; Lithourgidis et al., 2011; Wilson et al., 2016) show that biodiverse cultivation systems (intercropping, agroforestory, systems integrated with livestock farming) also support a series of ecosystem services such as parasite regulation, resilience to extreme weather, soil health, water conservation, etc. A more complex plant community presents more stable production and fewer fluctuations in the number of undesirable organisms. It follows that by impro-ving the functional biodiversity, a fundamental objective is reached, allowing farmers working on any scale to gradually eliminate inputs and rely instead on ecosystem functions (Altieri et al., 2015). New agroecosystem projects, like those that are differentiated (Kremen et al., 2015), require systemic changes guided by the application of already well-defined agroecological principles applied through different practices and strategies (Table 3), each with specific effects on productivity, stability and resilience within the farm system.

Table 3 – Differentiated agricultural system practices and their agroecological effects

Crop Rotations: Temporal diversity in the form of cereal-legume sequences. Nutrients are conserved and provided from one season to the next, and the life cycles of insect pests, diseases, and weeds are interrupted.

Polycultures: Cropping systems in which two or more crop species are planted within certain spatial proximity result in biological complementarities that improve nutrient use efficiency and pest regulation thus enhancing crop yield stability.

Agroforestry Systems: Trees grown together with annual crops in addition to modifying the microclimate, maintain and improve soil fertility as some trees contribute to nitrogen fixation and nutrient uptake from deep soil horizons while their litter helps replenish soil nutrients, maintain organic matter, and support complex soil food webs.

Cover Crops and Mulching: The use of pure or mixed stands of grass legumes, e.g., under fruit trees can reduce erosion and provide nutrients to the soil and enhance biological control of pests. Flattening cover crop mixtures on the soil surface in conservation farming is a strategy to reduce soil erosion and lower fluctuations in soil moisture and temperature, improve soil quality, and enhance weed suppression resulting in better crop performance.

Crop-livestock mixtures: High biomass output and optimal nutrient recycling can be achieved through crop-animal integration. Animal production that integrates fodder shrubs planted at high densities, intercropped with improved, highly-productive pastures and timber trees all combined in a system that can be directly grazed by livestock enhances total productivity without need of external inputs.

Source: Altieri, 2017

Parmentier (2014) underlines that the agroecological integration of large industrial farms can be increased, but within a necessarily limited space for maneuver. Current interest is focused on sustainability and a debate is underway about the nature of the relationships between the size of the farm and the productivity of outputs, such as crop yield and biodiversity conservation (Wibbelmann et al., 2013). The agroecological integration of large industrial farms to the greatest extent pos-sible could be the optimal option for improving agricultural sustainability, through appropriate incentives or disincentives for encouraging good practices and discouraging bad ones. In particular, the adoption of agricultural practices with low external impacts in large-scale agriculture will be crucial for the future of the planet (Wegner et al., 2011). In this sense, one can talk about complementarity between agroecological agriculture and the use of chemical inputs during the transition period. In this context, the “minimum” or “reasonable” level of use of chemical inputs during the

10

agroecological transition could be understood as the optimal quantity (to be reduced over time) in order to avoid signi-ficant losses to yields in the first years. This vision, however, is not shared by many supporters of agroecology and food sovereignty movements and is often known as “cooptation.” In this case, agroecology is seen only as a further technologi-cal package to be proposed for a new Green Revolution (Holt-Gimenez et al., 2012; Horlings et al., 2011). In fact, studies (LVC, 2014; Altieri et al. 2012) caution that talking about agroecology does not mean only talking about good agricultural practices, which would mean agroecology being reduced to an ecological principle, ignoring its social and political content. Altieri (2012) warns against this process, claiming that these superficial technical adjustments are ideologically supported by projects to redefine agroecology, stripping it of its political and social content and promoting the erroneous notion that agroecological methods can coexist alongside the aggressive expansion of transgenic crops and biofuels.

4. Can agroecology respond to the challenge of food security in the world?

Agriculture has seen a dramatic increase in productivity in the 20th century. After the Second World War, North America and Europe considerably increased their yields per hectare, and in some parts of Asia and Latin America, the Green Re-volution in the 1960s led to unprecedented agricultural growth (Pretty, 2008; IFPRI, 2002). These results were primarily reached through the development and use of high-yield varieties cultivated in large-scale monoculture systems and a greater use of synthetic chemical pesticides, fertilizers and irrigation. The result of these choices was greater productivity and a reduction of work loads and food prices (Gliessman, 2015). But despite this enormous increase in productivity, food security has not been achieved at either a global (Pretty et al., 2006; IAASTD, 2009) or a local level.

Those who support agroecological approaches (Altieri et al., 2017) are generally in agreement about the need to increase agricultural productivity in the regions in which yields are behind their potential, and they consider more effective and sustainable agricultural management to be essential. These same supporters are however critical of the fact that a “sim-ple” increase in yields per hectare can lead to a solution for the problem of hunger and food security more generally, as significant results can be attained simply increasing the incomes of small-scale farmers and achieving distributive justice (for example access to land and seeds, and identical access to resources for women and men) as well as reducing waste and post-harvest losses (IAASTD, 2009; Altieri and Nicholls, 2012; De Schutter, 2010).

It is also worth remembering that an alternative model is even more important if one thinks that small-scale land owners will not be able to access the sophisticated technology needed in highly developed production systems. In a 2014 press release (“UN-masking Climate Smart Agriculture”), La Via Campesina points out that “raising yield per hectare through production intensification only increases the income for corporations, financial market speculators, and large landholding farmers. […] Increasingly, peasant and smallholder family farmers have to produce crops for the commodity market and not for local and regional food systems.”

Likewise, agroecology aims to optimize the productivity of agricultural land, reducing external inputs and generating he-althy soil and crops (Altieri and Nicholls, 2012; IAASTD, 2009). On this issue, reference is commonly made to Pretty et al. (2006), who carried out the widest study to date, comparing the impacts of 286 primarily agroecological projects from the first half of the 1990s, covering 37 million hectares in 57 countries in the global south. The results of the research showed an increase in average yield per hectare of 79% on 12.6 million farms with a wide variety of different systems and crops. In 2008, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) took this data as the starting point for a study in Africa on the yields of organic agriculture and alternative agriculture in general. Yields increased on average by 116%, and in East Africa by 128% (UNEP, UNCTAD, 2008), with increases seen particularly in areas with degraded land. Since 1991, agriculture in Cuba has been developed based on agroecological approaches, leading to an increase in food production of 37% (an annual increase of 4.1%) between 1995 and 2004 (Rosset et al., 2011).

Despite these valuable insights, the comparison between conventional agriculture and agroecology is often not possible as the research results vary depending on the type of information considered and the methodologies applied. There are, however, emerging data that indicate comparable yields and, in agroecological systems, a high stability of yields in extreme

11

weather conditions, as well as an improved profitability due to a reduction in the costs of inputs (Rosset et al., 2011). The same authors point out that the more extensive the agroecological methods adopted, the higher the productivity.

In regards to the organic methods in the global study on organic agriculture carried out by Badgley et al. (2007), it was concluded that these could replace intensive conventional agriculture while maintaining and/or increasing the food supply. In this context, while explicit reference was not made to agroecology, polycultures and intercropping systems were asses-sed, showing a higher yield per hectare compared to monocultures.

A debate is underway about productivity and whether this is the most important indicator for evaluating agroecology. Altieri (2000) claims that global food security is more important than the productivity of individual species (the typical configuration of conventional and intensive agriculture). The study focuses on the productivity of Latin American agroeco-logical agriculture, asserting that it contributes substantially to food security in the region, despite the context of poverty and the low use of inputs. Altieri and Toledo (2011) cite important tests from Brazil that have shown that the polyculture of corn and beans has produced 28% more food compared to corn and beans grown in monocultures. The same authors cite studies carried out in Amazonia, according to which the crops managed with agroecological practices produced 200% higher yields than monocultures. They also mention studies from Mexico that show that a one-hectare plot, managed agroecologically, can produce as much food as 1.73 hectares planted with a monoculture of corn. Unfortunately the data to which reference is made often come from experiments carried out at the end of the last century, which highlights how around the world there is a clear lack of funding for research beyond what is promoted and financed by agrobusiness (Sanderson et al., 2017).

An agroecological farm must be evaluated in terms of overall productivity and not by a single crop, as agroecological prac-tices, with a diversified range of products over several seasons, cannot be compared with the production of a farm focused on a single species (Altieri et al., 2011; Rosset et al., 2011). Lastly, the economic evaluation of inputs and outputs is also often not comparable between conventional and agroecological farms as, for example, the foods produced for subsistence are not considered a commercial output (Sanderson et al., 2017). In regards to this issue, there is still a long way to go and there is clearly a need for further research with constant methodologies (and funds) to contribute to the acquisition and exchange of knowledge in order to promote innovative global proposals for production practices. In order to bring about transformation, research must become participatory and so it must combine agroecological science, farmers’ knowledge and groups of citizens. Collaborative strategies must go beyond the stereotype by which scientists “transfer” techniques and farmers “apply” the results of research. The opportunity and capacity for collective involvement in the definition of research agendas is crucial. Only in this way can they contribute in a real way to strengthening re-localization strategies and encouraging consumer support for agroecological production methods (et al., 2014).

5. Does the agroecological system have an impact on welfare issues?

A general trend towards the abandonment of land and the migration of rural populations towards rural areas, and an inverse trend of immigrant labor moving into rural areas to seek employment in agriculture, has led to a combination of land abandonment, concentration of land in the hands of big businesses and a shift from extensive to intensive agricultural practices (Labrianidis et al., 2009).As also underlined by Hendrickson et al. (2008), demographics acquire an important role in the agroecological transition. Indeed, in the United States as in Europe (Wibbelmann et al., 2013), “the trend of rural depopulation has a powerful ef-fect on the human capital needed to increase the adoption of agroecological approaches, and this is exacerbated by low agricultural wages which are not conducive to labour movements into rural areas.” Agroecological practices are associated with higher labor needs than conventional agriculture (Offermann and Nieberg, 2000; Pimentel et al., 2005), though in every case this is dependent on the choice of farm outputs. If agroecological production systems become more common, more rural employment will be created, probably more stable and less seasonal compared to what is offered by industrial agriculture (Timmermann et al., 2015).As we have already highlighted, the agroecological literature concludes that the productivity per hectare of different crops is higher in different agroecological agricultural systems compared to the big industrial farms that cultivate in monocultural

12

systems, showing an inverse relationship between size and productivity (Parmentier, 2014; IAASTD, 2009; Altieri, 2004). The indicator according to which the big farms manage to surpass the small farms is productivity per labor unit rather than productivity per surface area unit. On specialized, highly mechanized farms, one worker is able to cultivate a vaster area and produce larger harvests than one worker on a small diversified farm without sophisticated machinery. Taking into con-sideration rural unemployment and the rural exodus in many developing countries, the supporters of agroecology emphasi-ze the positive effect of a higher demand for labor on the creation of new employment (De Schutter, 2010; IAASTD, 2009).In a recent article published in Sustainability (2017), Petersen et al., analyzing the National Policy on Agroecology and Or-ganic Agriculture (PNAPO) for 2012 and the subsequent PLANAPO I (2013) and PLANAPO II (2016) developed in the semi-arid zones of Brazil, show how these strategies are guided by a model of intensification of labor. This means that instead of the intensive support for production factors provided by the market (a characteristic typical of the conventional trajectories of agricultural intensification), the agroecological approach is based on the use of specialized labor for promoting ecolo-gical processes at the landscape level, ensuring at the same time the constant regeneration of ecosystem services and the conversion of natural assets into a wide range of economic assets. If there are appropriate political-institutional conditions, the most impoverished practitioners of family farming can become the main agents of rural development dynamics, con-tributing to the combined attainment of various sustainable development goals (SDGs). This is important, as while human rights law acknowledges the right to adequate food, the global reduction of labor in agriculture has not led to a sufficient increase in access to food for all, and in particular for those who do not participate in farming (Timmermann, 2015). Nonetheless, in order for the agroecological approach to be put into practice at increasingly wide social and geographic levels, it becomes necessary to strengthen the institutions of participatory democracy in order to constantly improve public policies, allowing active citizens to exercise a guiding role in the governance of agrifood systems. The availability of work that is sufficiently flexible in terms of time and space, in particular in regions with rural-urban migration and an aging rural population, becomes a challenge also for a greater integration between rural and urban contexts, which would facilitate not only the availability of work but also the development of local markets. Lastly, by reincorporating skills and knowledge in agricultural practice, agriculture can become attractive to young people—even those who have always lived in cities—who want to commit to a revitalized practice that can continually evolve over time.

13

6. Agroecology and climate change

The suitability of land for further agricultural use is constantly diminishing, particularly in the areas of the world defined as marginal (Wibbelman et al., 2013). The massive use of pesticides, fertilizers and irrigation as well as intensive plowing and monocultural systems on a large scale have often been the cause of degradation of the soil and water system, erosion and salinization and the loss of biodiversity.

Table 4 – Impacts of agriculture

Source: Bennett et al., 2014.

The increase in extreme weather events, including prolonged droughts and flooding, gives a new value to the subject of the resilience of the production system (Taylor, 2017). In fact, we can talk about anthropogenic climate change (Zamagni, 2009) and therefore a change caused not only by greater bio-climatological risks, but to a large extent by deforestation and the use of fossil fuels by conventional agriculture. Global agricultural systems have brought about enormous stan-dardization and specialization in the last 50 years (Khoury et al., 2014). Where production systems intensify, the genetic base of varieties used narrows (Pingali et al., 2002), leading, along with a massive use of synthetic chemical pesticides and fertilizers, to an improvement in yields but also bringing huge costs in terms of environmental quality and resilience (Bennett et al., 2014). In the last 50 years, global agricultural production has increased by 47%, supported by 5.6- and 2.5-fold increases in nitrogen and phosphorous fertilization respectively and contributing to the creation of over 400 marine dead zones around the world (Diaz et al., 2008; Foley et al., 2011). Simplified systems with a low genetic and taxonomic diversity are more vulnerable to climate variability due to dependence on just one or two crops (Schlenker and Lobell, 2010). The solution that is often proposed (The Royal Society, 2009), involving the development of new varieties resistant to environmental stresses, does not resolve the problem if diversification and management practices are not addressed. Talking about agroecology today means talking about a resilient agriculture, in other words a system that meets both food needs and short- and long-term development needs, without destabilizing the earth system. It seeks in a specific way not only persistence but also the adaptive changes or even transformations needed to accommodate evolving environmental conditions and human needs. To do this, agroecology challenges the relatively fixed configuration of our production and consumption systems, proposing an alternative that takes into full consideration the specific characteristics of different places. Indeed resilience, including of an agricultural system, indicates the capacity to continue to develop while absorbing change (Folke et al., 2010). Among the possible mechanisms for encouraging this adaptation, in agroecology there are a series of sustainable practi-ces that maintain the natural and social capital, regulating ecosystem services and promoting social self-organization. For example, many of the 60 cases of sustainability evaluation carried out in Latin America using the MESMIS framework (the

14

Spanish acronym for Evaluation of Natural Resource Management Systems) have confirmed that agroecological practices allow farmers to prepare for climate change by minimizing crop failure and making farms more sustainable over the long term (Astier et al., 2012). The MESMIS approach is interesting as it represents a holistic and interdisciplinary framework for evaluating sustainability and improving the planning and implementation of development projects. The determination of the criteria and the sustainability indicators varies based on the approach followed by the evaluation team and is specific for every case study. Sustainability, defined by productivity, stability, reliability, resilience, adaptability, equity and self-sufficiency, is not measured in itself, but assessed through the comparison of two or more systems. In short, the literature, and in particular Altieri et al. in an article published in 2015 in Agronomy and Sustainable Deve-lopment, suggest that agroecosystems will be more resilient when they are part of a complex landscape, characterized by genetically heterogeneous and diversified cultivation systems managed with soils rich in organic matter and water conservation techniques (Figure 3).

Figure 3 – Landscape, on-farm diversity, and soil and water characteristics that enhance the ecological resilience to extre-me climatic events

Source: Altieri and Koohafkan, 2013

Agroecological approaches, and particularly the issue of diversification, ensure long-term productivity through the restora-tion of biodiversity and the entire range of ecosystem functions that support food production and human well-being (i.e. clean water, the circulation of nutrients and climate regulation). For example, greater biodiversity in space and time has advantages for the retention or recycling of nutrients and increases the amount of available organic matter (Drinkwater et al., 2007; Kremen et al., 2012) with benefits for drought resistance and fertilizer dependence (Gardner et al., 2009). The restoration of perennial plants and/or multiannual crops both in rotation and at the edge of plots also confers resilience and substantially improves many ecosystem functions (Smith et al., 2014). For example, farmers in southern Niger who were primarily growing millet are currently managing a natural regeneration program with perennial species that has led to an improvement in both the supply and regulation of ecosystem services (Sendzimir et al., 2016). In the last 20 years, thanks to the full involvement of the communities and the social fabric, over 200 million trees have been planted on 250,000 hectares (Tougiani et al., 2009). Legumes are another example of a functional plant group that increases the resilience of the agroecosystem, contributing to the improvement of soil fertility, while also bringing co-benefits for human diet and the environment (Snapp et al., 2010). In the last decade, farmers’ movements and indigenous populations have substantially integrated climate change into their proposals and actions, not just in response to the threat that it repre-sents, but also in response to the market strategies that the international community is putting into practice to mitigate its effects. Farmers’ movements did not participate directly in the meetings of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), but they used the issue of climate to promote their alternative development paradigm, based on food sovereignty, agroecology and farmers’ rights (Claeys et al., 2016). Even if the Paris Agreement does not contain indications on soil use nor any common accounting methodology for agriculture, the territory-agriculture-climate nexus is

matrix, featuring genetically heterogeneous and diversifiedcropping systems managed with organic matter rich soilsand water conservation techniques (Fig. 9) Many of the 60case studies of sustainability assessments conducted in LatinAmerica using the MESMIS framework have confirmed this(Astier et al. 2012).

8 A conceptual framework to assess the resiliencyof farming systems

Resilience is defined as the ability of a social or ecologicalsystemtoabsorbdisturbanceswhile retaining its organization-al structure and productivity, the capacity for self-organiza-tion, and the ability to adapt to stress and change following aperturbation (Cabell and Oelofse 2012). Resilience is a prod-uct of the dynamics of a social-ecological system, whose con-stituent parts are integrated and interdependent (Adger 2000).Resilience can be understood as the propensity of a system toretain its organizational structure andproductivity following aperturbation. Thus, a “resilient” agroecosystem would be ca-pable of providing food production, when challenged by se-vere drought or by excess rainfall. Conversely, vulnerabilitycan be defined as the possibility of loss of biodiversity, soil,water, or productivity by an agroecosystem when confrontedwith an external perturbation or shock. Vulnerability refers tothe degree to which a system is susceptible to, and unable tocopewith, adverse effects of climate variability and extremesand denotes a state of susceptibility to harm from exposure tostresses associated with environmental change and from theabsence of capacity to adapt (Folke 2006).

Thus, the resulting risk is the product between threat,vulnerability, and response capacity as described in thefollowing equation (Nicholls and Altieri 2013):

R isk ¼V ulnerability*ThreatResponse Capacity

Risk is understood as any natural phenomena(drought, hurricane, flood, etc.) thatsignifies achange in the environment inhabited by arural community.

Vulnerability is determined by biophysical features of thefarm and socio-economic conditions of thefarmers that enhance or reduce the exposureto the threat.

Threat is the climatic event’s intensity, frequency,duration, and level of impact (i.e., yield lossesdue to storm or drought).

Responsecapacity

is the ability (or lack of) of the farmingsystems and the farmers to resist and recoverfrom the threat depending on the level ofsocial organization and the agroecologicalfeatures (i.e., crop diversity) of the farms.

In summary, for an event to be considered a risk dependson whether in a particular region there is a community that isvulnerable to it. Inorder for theevent tobecomea threat, thereshouldbe a high probability thatwill occur in that region, andfor the threat to be devastating will depend on the magnitudeof the event and the level of vulnerability of the community.Such vulnerability can be reduced by the “response capacity”defined as the agroecological features of the farms and the

F ig. 9 L andscape, on-farmdiversity, and soil andwaterfeatures thatenhance theecologicalresilience to extreme climaticevents (Altieri and Koohafkan2013)

882 M.A . Altieri et al.

15

still clear and one of the next important questions will be the agricultural development model for governments to support. The implementation of these policies will considerably impact the terms that in the future will define communities’ access to land, understood also as the capacity to control its development (Ribot et al., 2003). Lastly it is worth remembering that the adaptation of the agricultural system to climate change is crucial not just for far-mers, rural communities and economic sustainability, but for a growing population and global food security (Schmidhuber and Tubiello, 2007). Haden (2012) suggests that farmers are influenced their past experiences, such as having had to deal with a reduction of available water for irrigation. These experiences can represent an important starting point for activa-ting programs of climate adaptation for agricultural systems. In particular, researchers, regional planners and policymakers should adopt a more interdisciplinary approach to working with farmers and rural communities to evaluate the main limiting factors and the relative adaptation practices, including through the proposition of new development models (Niels et al., 2015).

7. The role of consumers and markets in the agroecological transition

The question of a partnership between producers and consumers is fundamental to the approach of agroecological food systems. LVC (2015) insists on the importance of developing transparent relationships between these two actors in the food system and, according to Gliessman (2007), it is principally the reconnection between farmers and consumers in alternative food systems that will allow the development of social and environmental equity and as a result a renewed interest in the issue of food sovereignty. Beuchelt and Virchow in 2012 also give particular emphasis on the interaction between rural development and food sove-reignty, which, they write, aims to strengthen the farmers and their small-scale agriculture in order to improve. Their auto-nomy is to contribute to rural development, poverty eradication and food security. Many authors (Lockeretz, 1986; Hinrichs, 2000; Francis et al., 2003; Gliessman, 2012) claim that the reduction of distance between farmers and consumers can facilitate communication and the understanding of the characteristics of a food system based on agroecological principles. It is important at this point to talk again about scales of application of agroecological principles and in particular to in-troduce the theme of agroecological territories (Wezel et al., 2016). Both UNEP (2008) and other authors (Lovell et al., 2010; Méndez et al., 2017) have shown that for a sustainable system it is necessary to be able to operate in such a way as to connect strictly agricultural activities with a landscape-based approach, integrating agricultural and non-agricultural activities in a wider context. For this integration, it is of fundamental importance to also consider all the aspects of the food system (Dalgaard et al., 2003; Francis et al., 2003, Gliessman, 2007; Wezel and David, 2012; Méndez et al., 2017; Wezel et al., 2014). Starting from the concept of territory as a zone under the responsibility of local authorities such as municipalities, provinces and regions (Elden, 2010), Wezel uses a broader approach in which agriculture is no longer the only driver in a specific area (Sebillotte, 2000), but the valuing of territorial resources as a whole acquires a significant importance. The concept of an agroecological territory as a place in which a process of transition towards sustainable agriculture and food systems is underway, as proposed by Wezel, therefore offers a specific framework for conceptualizing a transition towards sustainable agricultural and food systems. In these contexts, food systems can be described as socio-technical networks that connect people and the natural and manufactured elements that interact with food issues. The processes of characterizing and valuing products, like those sold directly or labelled with geographic indications, are of real interest for re-examining the roles of consumers and quality standards in the evolution of farming practices and the integration of a wider approach to ecological issues in agroecosystems. Within the transition towards a sustainable food system incorporated into a territory, it is useful to consider the potential for using local products in mass catering, sales in supermarkets and shops in the area and the possibility of farmers to organize box schemes with consumer buying groups, forms of community-supported agriculture or other direct sales methods (Wezel et al., 2016). The relatively medium-small size of the agroecological farms that exist today allows planning the distribution of their produce in regional food markets. It should be highlighted that in this type of market that consumers will find themselves “trying out” a diet based on greater seasonal variability and fewer processed foods. The size of individual farms and the differentiation encouraged by the agroecological model in terms of production could create problems with the logistics and management of product sales. These problems, however, could be overcome throu-gh associations. Indeed, talking about “agroecological districts” implies that within a territory cooperatives, producers’ associations and farmers’ organizations can be a central hub for representing the interests of farmers in food supply chains.

16

In fact, Pretty (1995) states that the importance of local organizations and institutions has often been neglected, but that they are essential for the adoption of agroecological practices. Even though centralized supply systems and/or systems of production destined for export clash with models for alternative markets (Follet, 2009; Duram and Oberholtzer, 2010), incorporating agroecological production into existing food chains is not an option to be completely ignored. This would make it possible to benefit from opportunities of scale and efficiency and, at the same time, to meet the needs of consumers. One possible example is fair-trade certification (Fairtrade Inter-national, 2011) or other similar examples from the world of coffee: Farmers’ organizations do not only have the role of intermediaries between different certification agencies and small-scale producers, but also serve as actors who participate in decisions relating to certification, based on principles such as solidarity and social responsibility (Chloupkova and Sven-dsen, 2003).

Examples of networksEven though most initiatives started with the marketing of organic products, those experiences have expanded the opportunities to obtain better remuneration (Karner, 2010) for agroecological methods as well. Agroecological far-mers, with the aim of differentiating themselves from the supermarket chains that offer “organic” and “local” pro-duct lines, have launched collective marketing initiatives, so as to maintain the product identity and communicate its added value, and to work towards greater proximity to consumers (Levidow and Psarikidou, 2011). Evidence of these processes can be seen in documents relating to the Foodlinks project, which highlights the distinctive features of European experiences (boxes, farmers’ markets, direct sales, buying groups, community-supported agriculture) including through the analysis of the links between short distribution chains and agroecological practices. It is interesting to note the experience of Les Bons Repas de l’Agriculture Durable (BRAD) in Brittany, where a system of participatory certification evaluates whole-farm sustainability. Farm visits are carried out by an agronomist, with the purpose of collecting data, giving feedback and negotiating a progress agreement with the farmer (Galli et al., 2013). These practices generate more commitment to greater knowledge and constant improvement compared to certification criteria established in advance. Lamine et al. (2012) instead studied the criteria for coordination and decision, as well as the roles of different actors involved in examples from the Ecovida network in southern Brazil and the associations for the preservation of peasant farming (AMAP) in France. In both cases, it was shown that producers and consumers, as well as a small number of intermediaries, can fruitfully participate in the establishment and management of a sustainable food system. These subjects have also developed their own participatory certification systems in which all the in-terested parties are involved and they share the responsibility for ensuring the products’ quality, based on criteria of localness, freshness and seasonality that are not always adequately promoted by the market. The focus on the social themes shared by both groups is translated into requirements such as fair prices, economic sustainability for producers and economic solidarity processes (Lamine et al., 2012).What people eat is not just a question of production but also of accessibility to food. This involves a wide variety of interested subjects above and beyond producers and consumers, for example the actors in food supply chains (including food producers and marketers), actors in the voluntary sector (environmentalist or social organizations at a community or national level) and policymakers. In the future this complexity will require a deeper intersectorial approach to policy with a greater attention towards ecological integrity and socio-economic aspects (Levidow et al., 2014).

Conclusions

The issues of sustainable agriculture and food security can be found on the political agenda around the world and are discussed widely by a series of actors such as governments, intergovernmental organizations, the scientific community, environmental development organizations and also the private sector. The industrial agricultural model that is now most common has not solved the problem of food security and the time has come to think about a new agricultural paradigm. As highlighted by many (UNCTAD, 2013), however, the approach being discussed is still based on the expansion of industrial agriculture, even though its environmental impacts would need to be mitigated by sustainable intensification practices (The Royal Society, 2013; IFAD, 2012).

17

On the other hand, agroecology, even if known and studied for many decades, today represents an innovative field of activity with evolving definitions and ways of thinking in regards to environmental, social, political and economic issues. Its roots lie in the Latin American agroecological movement (farmers, experts, researchers, associations) which was the first to address the themes of the transformation of food production and consumption from the perspective of democratizing the food system (low inputs, self-consumption, local sales, food sovereignty). Today agroecology around the world represents a space for criticizing and challenging modern food systems, in which it is often big businesses, market ideologies and governments that dictate laws. The role of agroecology as an important element in the demand for the transformation of the global food system must necessarily pass through the recognition and integration of its three forms, in other words transdisciplinary knowledge, interdisciplinary agricultural practices and social movements (Nicholls et al., 2016). In this sense, the path towards the transformation of food systems according to sustainability, justice and sovereignty objectives will require responsible ac-tion by everyone (governments and non-governmental organizations) to improve access to food for an ever-growing world population. At the same time, attention towards agroecology must recognize the valuable role played by farmers and the need to conserve the natural capital resource base on which the system and society depend (Altieri et al., 2017). In such complex times, a commitment towards ensuring greater social justice in access to resources like land, water, seeds and a fair market for farmers around the world is of fundamental importance, allowing local communities and particularly women to access the best possible conditions for producing and consuming sustainable food. Lastly, it is worth emphasi-zing the importance of not stopping at the study and discussion of a new paradigm for agriculture, but of taking into full account the issue of distribution and consumption to promote a new paradigm for the food system as a whole.

Bibliography

• Altieri M.A., Nicholls C., Montalba R., 2017. “Technological Approaches to Sustainable Agriculture at a Crossroads: An Agroecologi-cal Perspective Sustainability,” Sustainability 9(3), 349.• Altieri M.A., Nicholls C.I., Henao A., Lana M.A., 2015. “Agroecology and the design of climate change-resilient farming systems,” Agron. Sustain. Dev. 35, 869–890.• Altieri M.A., Koohafkan P., 2013. “Strengthening resilience of farming systems: a key prerequisite for sustainable agricultural pro-duction,” Wake up Before it is Too Late: Make Agriculture Truly Sustainable Now for Food Security in a Changing Climate, UNCTAD, TER13 Report, Geneva. • Altieri M.A., Nicholls C.I., 2012. “Agroecology scaling up for food sovereignty and resiliency,” Sustain. Agric. Rev. 11, 1–29. • Altieri M.A., Toledo M., 2011. “The agroecological revolution in Latin America: rescuing nature, ensuring food sovereignty and em-powering peasants,” Journal of Peasant Studies 38(3), 587-612.• Altieri M.A., 2004. “Agroecology versus ecoagriculture: balancing food production and biodiversity conservation in the midst of social inequality,” CEESP Occasional Papers, IUCN Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy, Issue 3, 8-28. • Altieri M.A., 2000. “Multifunctional dimensions of ecologically-based agriculture in Latin America,” Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 7, 62–75. • Altieri M.A., 1995. Agroecology: The Science of Sustainable Agriculture, Westview Press: Boulder, CO, USA.• Altieri M.A., 1987. Agroecology: The Scientific Basis of Alternative Agriculture, Westview Press: Boulder, CO, USA.• Astier M., García-Barrios L., Galván-Miyoshi Y., González-Esquivel C.E., Masera O.R., 2012. “Assessing the sustainability of small-far-mer natural resource management systems. A critical analysis of the MESMIS program (1995-2010)”, Ecol. Soc. 17(3), 25, doi:10.5751/ES- 04910-170325.• Bennett E., Carpenter S., Gordon L.J., Ramankutty N., Balvanera P., Campbell B., Cramer W., Foley J., Folke C., Karlberg L., 2014. “Toward a more resilient agriculture,” Solutions 5, 65-75.• Beuchelt T., Virchow D., 2012. “Food sovereignty or the human right to adequate food: Which concept serves better as international development policy for global hunger and poverty reduction?,” Agriculture and Human Values 29, 259-273.• Bernard B., Lux A., 2017. “How to feed the world sustainably: an overview of the discourse on agroecology and sustainable intensi-fication,” Reg Environ Change 17: 1279. • Badgley C., Moghtader J., Quintero E., Zakem E., Chappell M.J., Aviles-Vazquez K., Samulon A., Perfecto I., 2007. “Organic agricul-ture and the global food supply,” Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 22, 86-108. • Chloupkova J.S., Svendsen G., 2003. “Building and destroying social capital: The case of cooperative movements in Denmark and

18

Poland,” Agric. Hum. Values. 20, 241-252.• Claeys P., Delgado Pugley D., 2016. “Peasant and indigenous transnational social movements engaging with climate justice,” Cana-dian Journal of Development Studies/Revue canadienne d’études du développement, 38:3, 325-340.• Dalgaard T., Hutchings N.J., Porter, J.R., 2003. “Agroecology, scaling and interdisciplinarity,” Agriculture, Ecosystems and Envi-ronment 100, 39-51.• De Schutter O., 2014. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food. Final report: The transformative potential of the right to food, Document A/HRC/25/27, United Nations, New York.• De Schutter O., 2010. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food: Agroecology and the right to food, Document A/HRC/16/49, United Nations, New York.• De Schutter O., Vanloqueren G., 2011. “The New Green Revolution: How Twenty-First-Century Science Can Feed the World,” Solut. J2, 33-44.• Diaz R.J., Rosenberg R., 2008. “Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine ecosystems,” Science 321, 926-929.• Drinkwater L.E., Snapp S.S., 2007. “Nutrients in agroecosystems: Rethinking the management paradigm,” Advances in Agronomy 92, 163-186.• Elden S., 2010. “Land, terrain, territory,” Progress in Human Geography 34(6), 799-817.• Fairtrade International, 2011. “History of Fairtrade Retrieved,” https://www.fairtrade.net/about-fairtrade/history-of-fairtrade.html• FAO [Food and Agriculture Organization], IFAD [International Fund for Agricultural Development], WFP [World Food Programme], 2015. The State of Food Insecurity in the World, FAO: Rome.• FAO, 2015. “Sustainable Crop Production Intensification (SCPI) in FAO,” www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/thematic-sitemap/theme/spi/scpi-home/framework/sustainable-intensification-in-fao/en/. Accessed May 25, 2017.• FAO, 2015. Final report of the International Symposium on Agroecology for Food Security and Nutrition. 18–19 Sept 2014, FAO: Rome.• FAO, 2012. “Smallholders and Family Farmers,”www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/nr/sustainability_pathways/docs/Factsheet_SMALLHOLDERS.pdf. Accessed June 17, 2017.• FAO, 2011. Save and Grow - A policymaker’s guide to the sustainable intensification of smallholder crop production. United Nations: Rome.• Foley J.A., et al., 2011. “Solutions for a cultivated planet,” Nature 478, 337–342.• Folke, C. et al. 2010. “Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability,” Ecology and Society 15.• Francis C., Lieblein G., Gliessman S., Breland T.A., Creamer N., Harwood R., Salomonsson L., Helenius J., Rickerl D., Salvador R., Wiendehoeft M., Simmons S., Allen P., Altieri M.A., Porter J., Flora C., Poincelot, R., 2003. “Agroecology: the ecology of food systems,” Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 22, 99-118.• Galli F., Brunori G., 2013. Short Food Supply Chains as drivers of sustainable development. Evidence Document. FP7 project FO-ODLINKS (GA No. 265287), Laboratorio di studi rurali Sismondi.• Gliessman S.R., 2015. Agroecology: The Ecology of Sustainable Food Systems, 3rd edition, CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA.• Gliessman S.R., 2012. “Agroecology and Shifting Paradigms,” Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 36(5), 499-499.• Gliessman S.R., 2007. Agroecology: The Ecology of Sustainable Food Systems, CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA.• Guthman J., 2014. Agrarian Dreams: The Paradox of Organic Farming in California, University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA.• Haden V.R., Niles M.T., Lubell M., Perlman J., Jackson L.E., 2012. “Global and Local Concerns: What Attitudes and Beliefs Motivate Farmers to Mitigate and Adapt to Climate Change?,” PLoS ONE 7(12), e52882. • Hendrickson J.R., Liebig M.A., Sassenrath G.F., 2008. “Environment and integrated agricultural systems,” Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 23(4), 304-313.• Hinrichs C.C., 2000. “Embeddedness and local food systems: notes on two types of direct agricultural market,” Journal of Rural Studies 16, 295-303.• Holt-Giménez E., Altieri M.A., 2012. “Agroecology, food sovereignty, and the green revolution,” Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 37, 90-102.• Horlings L.G., Marsden T.K., 2011. “Towards the real green revolution? Exploring the conceptual dimensions of a new ecological modernization of agriculture that could ‘feed the world’,” Glob. Environ. Change 21, 441-452. • IAASTD [International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge,. Science and Technology for Development], 2009. “Synthesis report with executive summary: a synthesis of the global and sub-global.” Accessed June 19, 2017. • IFAD [International Fund for Agricultural Development], 2012. “Statement by Kanayo F. Nwanze, President of IFAD at the food secu-rity 2012 conference: ‘Sustainable intensification: Miracle or mirage?’,”https://www.ifad.org/web/latest/speech/asset/39035020. Accessed June 19, 2017.

19

• IFPRI [International Food Policy Research Institute], 2002. Green Revolution: Curse or Blessing?, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC, USA.• IPES-Food [International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems], 2016. “From Uniformity to Diversity: A Paradigm Shift from Industrial Agriculture to Diversified Agroecological Systems. International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems”, www.ipes-food.org. Accessed on June 17, 2017.• Karner S. et al, 2010. “Local Food Systems in Europe: Case Studies from Five Countries and What They Imply for Policy and Practice”, http://www.speiselokal.org/pdf/faan_booklet.pdf. Accessed April 23, 2018.• Khoury C.K., Bjorkman A.D., Dempewolf H., Ramirez-Villegas J., Guarino L., Jarvis A., Rieseberg L.H., Struik P.C., 2014. “Increasing homogeneity in global food supplies and the implications for food security,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 4001-4006.• Kremen C., Iles A., Bacon C., 2012. “Diversified farming systems: an agroecological, systems-based alternative to modern industrial agriculture,” Ecology and Society 17(4), 44. • Labrianidis L., Sykas T., 2009. “Migrants, economic mobility and socio-economic change in rural areas: The case of Greece,” Eur. Urban Reg. Stud. 16, 237-256. • Lamine C, Darolt M., Brandenburg A., 2012, “The Civic and Social Dimensions of Food Production and Distribution in Alternative Food Networks in France and Southern Brazil”, International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 9(3), 383-401.• Levidow, L., Psarikidou, K., 2011. “Food Relocalization for Environmental Sustainability in Cumbria”, Sustainability 3, 692-719.• Levidow L., Pimbert M., Vanloqueren G., 2014. “Agroecological Research: Conforming—or Transforming the Dominant Agro-Food Regime?,” Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 38,10.• Lockeretz W., 1986, “Urban consumers’ attitudes towards locally grown produce,” American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 1(2), 83-88. • Lithourgidis A.S., Dordas C.A., Damalas C.A., Vlachostergios D.N., 2011. “Annual Intercrops: An Alternative Pathway for Sustainable Agriculture,” Aust. J. Crop Sci. 5, 396-410. • Lovell S., DeSantis S., Nathan C.A., Breton Olson M., Méndez V.E., Kominami H.C., Erickson D.L., Morris K.S., Morris W., 2010. “Inte-grating agroecology and landscape multifunctionality in Vermont: An evolving framework to evaluate the design of agroecosystems,” Agricultural Systems 103, 327-341.• LVC [La Via Campesina], 2014. “UN-masking climate smart agriculture”, https://viacampesina.org/en/un-masking-climate-smart-agriculture/. Accessed June 20, 2017.• Méndez V.E., Caswell M., Gliessman S.R., Cohen R., 2017. “Integrating Agroecology and Participatory Action Research (PAR): Lessons from Central America,” Sustainability, 9, 705.• Nicholls C.I., Altieri M.A., Vazquez L., 2016. “Agroecology: Principles for the Conversion and Redesign of Farming Systems,” J. Ecosyst. Ecography, S5. • Niles M.T., Lubell M., Brown M., 2015. “How limiting factors drive agricultural adaptation to climate change,” Agriculture, Ecosy-stems and Environment 200,178–185.• Nyeleni Declaration, 2015. Declaration of the International Forum for Agroecology, www.foodsovereignty.org/wp-content/uplo-ads/2015/02/Download-declaration-Agroecology-Nyeleni-2015.pdf. Accessed June 17, 2017.• Offermann F., Nieberg H., 2000. Economic Performance of Organic Farms in Europe, Organic Farming in Europe: Economics and Policy, Volume 5. • Parmentier S., 2014. Scaling-up agroecological approaches: What, why and how? Discussion paper, Oxfam-Solidarity: Belgium.• Petersen P.F., Silveira L.M., 2017. “Agroecology, Public Policies and Labor-Driven Intensification: Alternative Development Trajectories in the Brazilian Semi-Arid Region,” Sustainability 9(4), 535.• Pinto L.F.G., Gardner T., McDermott C.L., Ayub K.O.L., 2014. “Group certification supports an increase in the diversity of sustainable agriculture network–rainforest alliance certified coffee producers in Brazil,” Ecol. Econ. 107, 59-64.• Pingali P.L., Traxler G., 2002. “Changing locus of agricultural research: Will the poor benefit from biotechnology and privatization trends?,” Food Policy 27, 223-238.• Pretty J.N., 1997. “The sustainable intensification of agriculture,” Nat. Res. Forum 21, 247-256. • Pretty J.N., 2008. “Agricultural sustainability: concepts, principles and evidence”, Philos. Trans. R Soc. B 363, 447-465. doi:10.1098/rstb. 2007.2163.• Pretty J.N., Noble A.D., Bossio D., Dixon J., Hine R.E., Penning de Vries F.W., Morison J., 2006. “Resource-conserving agriculture increases yields in developing countries,” Environ. Sci Technol. 40, 1114-1119.• Ribot, Jesse C., Lee Peluso N., 2003. “A Theory of Access,” Rural Sociology 68(2), 153-181.• Rosset P.M., Altieri M.A., 1997. “Agroecology versus input substitution: A fundamental contradiction of sustainable agriculture,” Soc. Nat. Resour, 10, 283-295.

20

• Rosset P.M., Machin Sosa B., Roque Jaime A.M., Ávila Lozano D.R., 2011. “The Campesino-to-Campesino agroecology movement of ANAP in Cuba: Social process methodology in the construction of sustainable peasant agriculture and food sovereignty,” J. Peasant Stud. 38, 161-191. • Sanderson Bellamy A., Ioris A., 2017. “Addressing the Knowledge Gaps in Agroecology and Identifying Guiding Principles for Tran-sforming Conventional Agri-Food Systems,” Sustainability 9(3), 330.• Schlenker W., Lobell D.B., 2010. “Robust negative impacts of climate change on African agriculture,” Environmental Research Letters 5, art. 014010.• Schipanski M.E., Macdonald G.K., Rosenzweig S., Chappell M.J., Bennett E.M., Bezner R.K., Blesh J., Crews T., Drinkwater L., Lundgren J., Schnarr C., 2016. “Realizing Resilient Food Systems,” BioScience Vol. 66, No. 7.• Schmidhuber J., Francesco N., Tubiello F.N., 2007. “Global food security under climate change,” PNAS 11, vol. 104, no. 50, 19703-19708.• Sebillotte, M., 2000. “Des recherches pour le développement local: partenariat et transdisciplinarité,” Revue D Economie Regionale Et Urbaine 3, 535-556.• Sendzimir J., Reij C.P., Magnuszewski P., 2016. “Rebuilding Resilience in the Sahel: Regreening in the Maradi and Zinder regions of Niger,” Ecology and Society 16, 1.• Silici L., 2014. Agroecology – What it is and what it has to offer, IIED Issue Paper: London.• Smith T.E., Kolka R.K., Zhou X., Helmers M.J., Cruse R.M., Tomer M.D., 2014. “Effects of native perennial vegetation buffer strips on dissolved organic carbon in surface runoff from an agricultural landscape,” Biogeochemistry 120, 121-132.• Snapp S.S., Blackie M.J., Gilbert R.A., Bezner-Kerr R., Kanyama-Phiri G.Y., 2010. “Biodiversity can support a greener revolution in Africa,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107, 20840-20845.• Taylor M., 2017. “Climate-smart agriculture: what is it good for?,” The Journal of Peasant Studies, 45:1, 89-107.• The Royal Society, 2009. Reaping the benefits: Science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture, The Royal Society: London.• Tittonell P., 2014. “Ecological intensification of agriculture - sustainable by nature,” Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 8, 53–61. • Trócaire, 2012. “Food security, poverty reduction, climate change: Placing Trócaire’s livelihoods work in context - Discussion paper.”• Timmermann C., Félix G.F., “Agroecology as a vehicle for contributive justice,” Agric. Hum. Values, 32, 523-538. • Tougiani A., Guero C., Rinaudo T., 2009. “Community mobilisation for improved livelihoods through tree crop management in Niger,” GeoJournal 41.• UNCTAD [United Nations Conference on Trade and Development], 2013. Trade and Environment Review 2013: Wake up before it is too late, United Nations: Geneva.• UNEP [United Nations Environment Programme], UNCTAD, 2008. Organic agriculture and food security in Africa, United Nations: New York, Geneva.• Zamagni S., 2009. “Sviluppo umano sostenibile e cambiamento climatico,” www.greenaccord.org.• Wegner L., Zwart G., 2011. Who will feed the world? The production challenge, Oxfam. • West T.D., Griffith D.R., 1992. “Effect of strip intercropping corn and soybean on yield and profit,” J. Prod. Agric. 5, 107-110. • Wezel, A., Soldat V., 2009. “A quantitative and qualitative historical analysis of the scientific discipline of agroecology,” International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 7(1), 3-18.• Wezel A., Bellon S., Doré T., Francis C., Vallod D., 2009. “Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice,” Agron. for Sustain. Dev., 29, 503-515.• Wezel A., Brives H., Casagrande M., Clément C., Dufour A., Vandenbroucke P., 2016. “Agroecology territories: places for sustainable agricultural and food systems and biodiversity conservation,” Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 40(2), 132-144. • Wibbelman M., Schmutz U., Wright J., Udall D., Rayns F., Kneafsey M., Trenchard L., Bennett J., Lennardsson M., 2013. Mainstreaming agroecology: implications for global food and farming systems. Centre for Agroecology and Food Security Discussion Paper, Centre for Agroecology and Food Security: Coventry, UK. • Wilson M.H., Lovell S.T., 2016. “Agroforestry: The Next Step,” Sustainable and Resilient Agriculture Sustainability 8(6), 574.• Wollni, M., Zeller, M., 2007. “Do farmers benefit from participating in specialty markets and cooperatives? The case of coffee marke-ting in Costa Rica,” Agric. Econ. 37(2), 243-248. • Wojtkowski P.A., 2004. Landscape Agroecology. Food Products Press: New York.