By Peter Cronkleton
Inspired by natural ecosystems, agroecology offers a holistic approach for the sustainable and equitable production of healthy food, and a promising response to land degradation, water pollution, biodiversity loss, and climate change.
Agroecology has emerged as a critique of industrial agriculture because of the latter’s environmental consequences, far-reaching social effects marginalizing smallholders, and concern over its impact on nutrition (Place et al. 2022 p.3). While there is no overarching definition of agroecology, a recent review identified 13 consolidated principles that include recycling, input reduction, soil health, animal health, biodiversity, synergy, economic diversification, co-creation of knowledge, social values and diets, fairness, connectivity, land and natural resource governance as well as participation.1
Over the past decade, a number of promising innovations for scaling agroecology have emerged globally, although significant challenges continue to limit widespread uptake of this approach. Encouraging developments in the promotion of agroecology as well as key challenges to its adoption were examined during a session on ‘Transforming Food Systems Through Agroecology’ at the Vlll Wallace Conference on 1 June 2023. The conference – held at CATIE headquarters in Turrialba, Costa Rica – was organized by Agroecology TPP and CIFOR-ICRAF in partnership with Agroecology Coalition.
Paulo Niederle (Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul) examined policy advances that support agroecology in Latin America by drawing on a recent publication of the Agroecology TPP.
Niederle noted that, “Until now, only a few countries have made the move to a bold, broad and orchestrated set of policy reforms resulting in specific and significant commitments to enable agroecological transition.” Example of countries with specifically designed policies or strategies for promoting agroecology include Brazil’s 2012 National Policy on Agroecology and Organic Production – known as PNAPO – or Nicaragua’s 2011 Law 765 on Agroecological and Organic Production. However, he continued by emphasizing that “some countries have put in place significant policy measures in support of such transitions, which address directly or indirectly one or more of agroecological principles.” These countries have enacted policies that do not explicitly refer to agroecology but align with its underlying principles. Examples include Mexico’s 2014 sugar-sweetened beverage tax and Chile’s 2016 Food Labelling and Advertising Law. Given the diversity and complexity of policy processes, there is a need to learn when and how these policies are effective.
The review identified several types of policies that can align with agroecological principles, namely:
- Consumer-oriented policies
- Producer-oriented policies
- Market and food-environment-oriented policies
- Macro and trade-oriented policies
- Cross-cutting-oriented policies
However, in many cases the research indicated that policies and strategies promoting agroecology were incipient, weakly institutionalized, and poorly funded. According to the review, effective policies could be grouped into three types of measures: those based on persuasion or raising awareness; those offering incentives; and command and control regulatory measures. Of those, command and control measures seem to have the greatest influence on behavioral changes, albeit hard to monitor and enforce. However, Niederle also stressed that it is oftentimes difficult to analyze the effectiveness of policies due to weak institutionalization and government turnover, the lack of understanding of implementation requirements, and the co-existence of policies that inhibit agroecological practices. The review suggested options for developing a coherent policy approach, which included greater horizontal and vertical coordination among policymakers, social participation and multi-stakeholder governance, and flexible policy processes at the territorial scale that can adapt to local conditions. Cecilia Elizondo (Mexican Society of Agroecology) reviewed cases of Latin American countries that are “scaling up agroecological production and transforming their food systems to make them fairer, healthier, and more sustainable.” Drawing on examples from Cuba, Haiti, Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico, she illustrated how “collaboration and dialogue among producers, social organizations and policy makers across scales… are leading to innovative change.” These efforts are instigating what she refers to as a “new agri-food and nutritional paradigm” that involves a reassessment of indigenous agriculture, promotion of healthy foods produced locally, and human rights related to food sovereignty and regulatory frameworks to support these processes. She emphasized that alliances among countries are necessary to transform food systems at local, regional, and global scales.
Valentina Robiglio (CIFOR-ICRAF) presented a case of policy development in Peru that supports agroforestry, potentially contributing to broader restoration and conservation outcomes. She examined a concession system with the potential to secure access to land and tree resources for thousands of coffee and cacao-producing families in the Peruvian Amazon. Robiglio explained how the use of agroecological principles were applied in the co-designing of trees management options and farm plans with producers and also in the establishment of local knowledge networks and communities of practices among these actors. Valentina argued that due to the challenges of implementation and scaling of agroecology, “evidence-based engagement to support mainstreaming of agroecology into the AC policy” was a necessity. Because of this approach, it was possible to link agroecology to national climate change policy, deforestation reduction and commodity food systems within broader coffee and cacao production systems. Effective design process required transdisciplinary and experienced teams collaborating with government, capable of targeting specific information needs and facilitating co-learning.
Lorena Gamboa (Forest Garden Products) presented two types of grassroots certifications schemes that support producers practicing agroecology: the Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS) and the Forest Garden Products Standards. The PGS certification represents an alternative to third-party certification in which a “locally focused quality assurance system” provides incentives for local sustainable food production, which, in turn, is moderated by networks of local stakeholders sharing knowledge. The certification facilitates linkages between stakeholders involved in food production and consumers. Gamboa noted that “PGS have the potential to become effective channels for educating consumers … promoting and supporting food production based on agroecological strategies in a transition to more resilient food systems. Food systems that consider the regeneration of the landscape that aligns with key ecological principles, all the while balancing food production needs.” This is an effort to push back on conventional agro-industrial food production that degrades ecosystems, leads to the loss of local production practices, and undercuts local economies and people’s health.
The Forest Garden Products Standards provide a type of certification for producers practicing Analog Forestry (i.e., ‘the restoration of native biodiversity through the use of organic agriculture, sustainable forestry, diversification of crops and maturation of systems, facilitating the production of products that are clean (non-toxic) and of high nutritional or nutritional quality’). According to Lorena, the standards evaluate indicators of biodiversity, structure, ecological functions, and ecosystem maturity.
The session was closed by representatives of the Agroecology Coalition from Costa Rica and Mexico. Roberto Azofeifa (Costa Rica’s Chief of Agro-enviromental Production Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock) noted: “Listening to these presentations, I can conclude that, as a global community, we need transformative change in favor of life – not only nature-based solutions but life for all of us, for all present and future generations. Now is the moment to provide evidence of how agroecology can transform food systems.”
Santiago José Arguello Campos (General Agricultural Coordinator at the Secretary of Agriculture and Rural Development of Mexico) in reflecting on the panel concluded that “the agroecological transition in our agrifood systems, with regenerative and circular agriculture, is required in all countries because we have only one planet, where food losses and waste must be mitigated at different levels – from plot and distribution to consumer level. So, we are all responsible for this important agroecological and bioeconomy transition.”
