Agroecological socio-economics

Impacts and principles

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

Gaëtan  Vanloqueren,  PhD,  Agro-­‐economist  

Guest  Lecturer  (Sciences  Po  –  Paris  ;  ICHEC  –  Brussels  Management  School)  ;  University  of  Louvain/Liège  
Former  Adviser  for  the  UN  Special  rapporteur  on  the  right  to  food  (2008-­‐2014)  
Co-­‐founder  of  the  Belgian  Interdisciplinary  Research  Group  on  Agroecology  (GIRAF)  
Few  scien;fic  publica;ons  on  agroecology  &  economics  
Scopus  database,  1985-­‐2010  (non-­‐cumulaTve)  

700 Agroecology
Agroecology & labour
600
Agroecology & employment
500 Agroecology & income

HighlighTng  examples  that  

400 illustrate  posiTve  impacts  :    
•  QualitaTve  
300 •  QuanTtaTve  when  
available  
200 •  Not  comprehensive  review,  
though  a  strictly  scienTfic  
presentaTon  
100 •  Just  a  few  results,  not  in-­‐depth  
case  studies  
0
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

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

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

2.  Agroecology’s  socio-­‐economic  principles    

   (Economics  are  not  enough)  
1.  Agroecology  increases  incomes  
 Posi;ve  impact  on  incomes      
1.  Agroforestry  in  Zambia  (Nitrogen-­‐fixing  trees)  

•  d        Return  to  labour  per  person  day  of        

         agroforestry  exceeds  local  daily  ag.  wage  
•  “For  the  three  agroforestry  pracTces,  the  
return  to  labour  per  person  day  was  $2.63  for  
Gliricidia,  $2.41  for  Sesbania  and  $1.90  for  
Tephrosia  fallow”.  (Daily  ag  wage  =  approx.  
$0.60)  
•  “In  rural  areas  where  road  infrastructure  is  
poor  and  transport  costs  of  ferTliser  are  high,  
agroforestry  prac;ces  are  most  likely  to  
outperform  fer;lised  maize  in  both  absolute  
and  rela;ve  profitability  terms.”  
•  ExternaliTes  (nutriTon,  resilience,  …)  to  be  
added  
•  “The  IRR  of  all  the  producTon  pracTces  is  
higher  than  the  discount  rate.  It  is  over  100%  
for  the  convenTonal  land  soil  ferTlity  pracTces  
(with  or  without  ferTliser)  and  ranges  from  83%  
to  99%  for  agroforestry  pracTces.”    
Reference(s)  :  (1)  Ajayi  CO,  Akinnifesi  FK,  Sileshi  G,  Kanjipite  W  (2009)  Labour  inputs  and  financial  profitability  of  convenTonal  and  agroforestry-­‐
based  soil  ferTlity  management  pracTces  in  Zambia.  Agrekon  48:246–292.  
Posi;ve  impact  on  incomes    (II)  
2.  Push-­‐pull  (Eastern  Africa)  

•  Push-­‐pull  (Companion  cropping)    

–  Adopted  by  30,000  smallholder  farmers  over  the  last  
decade  in  Kenya,  Uganda  and  Tanzania  on  15,000  
hectares.  Another  100,000  households  could  benefit  
over  the  next  five  years.(1)  

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

–  Benefit-­‐cost  ra;o  of  2.5  to  1.  
–  Income  returns  for  labour  were  $3.7  per  person  a  day  
with  push-­‐pull  as  opposed  to  US$1  per  person  a  day  
with  their  previous  maize  mono-­‐cropping  pracTce.    
–  Gross  revenues  ranged  between  $424-­‐US$880  per  
hectare  under  push-­‐pull  and  $81.9  to  $132  per  hectare  
in  maize  mono-­‐cropping.  

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

Es;ma;on  of  the  value  of  increased  rice  produc;on  (2013):  

•  Assessment  of  SRI  adop;on  in  5  Asian  countries  that  produce  2/3  
of  the  world’s  rice  output  (China,  India,  Vietnam,  Indonesia  and  
Cambodia)    
–  About  9.5  million  farmers  using  many  or  all  SRI  methods  on  
over  3.4  million  hectares.    
•  Value  of  increased  paddy  produc;on  :  $862.5  million  (1)    
–  The  calculaTon  below  assumes  no  increase  in  the  costs  of  producEon.  
A  larger  study  across  13  states  of  India  reported  an  average  cost  
reducTon  of  $29  per  ton  pf  paddy  produced  (Palanisami  et  al.  2013).  
Factoring  in  such  cost  reducTons  will  further  increase  the  net  value  
from  farmers’  SRI  paddy  producTon  
•  Average  addi;onal  income  per  ha:  +  94%    (2)    

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

•  New  jobs  for  young  men  (Burkina  Faso)  

–  Work  groups  of  young  men  specialized  in  land  
rehabilita;on  techniques  go  from  village  to  village.    
–  Also  Benin  (Songhai  center,  food  transformaTon)    

Reference(s)  :  Jules  Preoy  ,  Camilla  Toulmin  &  Stella  Williams  (2011):  Sustainable  intensificaTon  in  African  agriculture,  InternaTonal  
Journal  of  Agricultural  Sustainability,  9:1,  5-­‐24  
 Agroecology  creates  jobs/livelihoods  for  women    
Examples  :  new  sources  for  feed,  and  edible  weeds    

Kenya  :  push-­‐pull   Mexico  :  weeds  allowed  to  grow  in  maize  fields    
   
Weeds  >  feed  >  cows  >  milk  >     Edible  weeds  (‘quelites’)  worth  25%  of  the  total  
new  economic  ac;vi;es  for  women  >   value  of  maize  crops  in  Mexico  (1)    
addiTonal  incomes     Sold  by  women  on  markets    
   

Reference(s)  (1)  Rosa  M  González-­‐Amaro,  Angélica  Marrnez-­‐Bernal,  Francisco  Basurto-­‐Peña  and  Heike  Vibrans  (2009)  Crop  and  non-­‐crop  
producTvity  in  a  tradiTonal  maize  agroecosystem  of  the  highland  of  Mexico,  Journal  of  Ethnobiology  and  Ethnomedicine  2009,  5:38    
Agroecology  creates  jobs/livelihoods  for  women  (II)    
Examples  :  Community  seed  banks  (owen  managed  by  women)  in  India,  Nepal,  …  

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

Farmers  producing  trees  as  a  business   •  Soils,  Food  and  Healthy  Communi;es  
  project  (>8,000  farmers)  
Malawi  Agroforestry  Food  Security   •  Malawi  Farmer-­‐to-­‐Farmer  
Programme  distributed  tree  seeds,   Agroecology  project  (>2,000  farmers)  
sexng  up  17  nurseries  that  raised    
2,180,000  seedlings  and  establishing  345   Socio-­‐economic  assessment  started  this  
farmer  groups  (1)   year    
 

Job  creaTon  to  be  assessed!      

Reference(s)  :  C.  Pye-­‐Smith,  Farming  Trees,  Banishing  Hunger:  How  an  agroforestry  programme  is  helping  smallholders  in  Malawi  to  grow  
more  food  and  improve  their  livelihoods,  Nairobi,  World  Agroforestry  Centre,  2008,  p.  10.  
       
Agroecology  maintains  exis;ng  jobs      
Improving  resilience  to  climaTc  extremes  =  maintaining  jobs    

Agroecological  methods  improved  resilience  to  Hurricane  

Mitch  in  1998  (Nicaragua)  On  average,  agroecological  
plots    
–  had  on  average  40  per  cent  more  topsoil,  higher  
field  moisture,  less  erosion  and  lower  economic  
losses    
–  lost  18  per  cent  less  arable  land  to  landslides  
than  convenTonal  plots  and  had  69  per  cent  less  
gully  erosion  
compared  to  convenTonal  farms  (results  from  large-­‐scale  
study  on  180  communiTes  of  smallholders)  

IPCC  :  Resilience  to  shocks  magers  !    

 
•  IPCC  4th  Assessment  reports  highlights  the  impact  of  
hurricane  on  economic  growth  in  LaTn  America.    
•  Shocks  affect  the  most  vulnerable  communi;es.  (2)    
       
Reference(s)  :  (1)  Eric  Holt-­‐Giménez,  “Measuring  Farmers’  Agroecological  Resistance  Awer  Hurricane  Mitch  in  Nicaragua:  A  Case  Study  in  
ParTcipatory,  Sustainable  Land  Management  Impact  Monitoring,”  Agriculture,  Ecosystems  and  the  Environment,  93:1-­‐2,  2002,  pp.  
87-­‐105.  (2)  IPCC  Fourth  Assessment  Report:  Climate  Change  2007  -­‐  Figure  7.3.  Economic  impact  of  Hurricane  Mitch  and  the  1998  to  1999  
drought  on  Honduras    
Agroecology  creates  jobs    
Need  to  consider  and  explore  the  range  of  impacts.    

More  new  employment  opportuni;es  

–  Manufacture  of  adequate  machinery    
–  ProducTon  of  biological  control  extracts  
–  Technical  advice  –  Farmers!    

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

and  policies    
 
•  Labour-­‐saving  policies  have  generally  been  prioriTzed  by  governments  
•  Crea;on  of  employment  in  rural  areas  in  developing  countries  is  an  advantage  
rather  than  a  liability  and  may  slow  down  rural-­‐urban  migraTon  
(underemployment  is  currently  massive,  and  demographic  growth  remains  high)    

Small  farms  vs.  Big  farms    

Small  farms  create  more  employment  per  hectare      
Beyond  the  scope  of  this  presentaTon,  yet  strongly  connected  to  the  jobs  issue    
3.  Agroecology  is  posiTve  for  the  balance  of  
payments    
The  challenge  of  paying  the  import  bill…  
Agroecology’s  uncalculated  impacts    

•  Savings  on  oil  imports    

•  Saving  on  ferTlizers  imports    
•  Savings  in  machinery  imports  (if  produced  
locally)  

-­‐>  Huge  benefits  

•  ParTcularly  for  net  oil-­‐imporTng  and  
ferTlizer-­‐imporTng  countries      
•  Agroecology  increse  country  resilience  to  
input  prices  volaTlity    

Small  streams  make  big  rivers    

Price  of  crude  oil  since  1970    
 Opportunity  costs  :  avoid  inves;ng  in  ‘second  best’  op;ons    
Relevant  measures  for  various  ministries  (Budget,  Agriculture,  etc)    

Agroforestry  and  returns  per  unit  of  investment  cost?  

Agroforestry-­‐based  soil  fer;lity  management  prac;ces  vs.  
subzidized  fer;lizers  (Zambia):  
•  «  Each  unit  of  money  invested  in  agroforestry  
prac;ces  yields  higher  returns  ranging  between  2.77  
and  3.13,  (i.e.,  an  extra  gain  of  between  1.77  and  2.13  
per  unit)  in  contrast  with  2.65  (or  a  net  gain  of  1.65  per  
unit  of  money  invested)  obtained  in  fer;lised  maize  
prac;ce  (subsidised)  (1)  

 
Opportunity  costs:  "the  loss  of  potenTal  gain  from  
other  alternaTves  when  one  alternaTve  is  
chosen".    
«  Smart  subsidies  »  recommended  by  experts  
Relevance  of  assessing  the  return  on  investment  (ROI)  of  agricultural  public  spendings    

Reference(s)  :  (1)  Ajayi  CO,  Akinnifesi  FK,  Sileshi  G,  Kanjipite  W  (2009)  Labour  inputs  and  financial  profitability  of  convenTonal  and  agroforestry-­‐
based  soil  ferTlity  management  pracTces  in  Zambia.  Agrekon  48:246–292  (at  p  279)    
Nurses  in  the  field  
Health  is  a  starTng  point  for  
agroecological  iniTaTves  
•  Malawi    
–  Permaculture  gardens  were  
iniTated  by  the  staff  of  a  
health  and  nutriTon  center    

4.  Agroecology  generate  posiTve  externaliTes    

Reference(s)  :  d  
Nurses  in  the  field.  
Health  and  nutriTon  as  
starTng  points  for  
agroecological  iniTaTves  
(Malawi)    
•  Integrate  improved  
nutriTon  and  health  in  the  
«  return  on  investment  »  
assessments  will  improve  
even  more  the  posiTon  of  
agroecolohical  pracTces    

Permaculture  
gardens  iniTated  
by  staff  of  a  health  
and  nutriTon  
center    
Posi;ve  externali;es    
Agroecology’s  uncalculated  impacts  (Niger,  Sahel)  
Reforesta;on  in  Niger  through  “farmer-­‐managed  
natural  regenera;on”  (FMNR)  -­‐  agroforestry  
•  Addi;onal  value  of  at  least  $56/ha/year  (in  
form  of  improved  soil  fer;lity,  fodder,  fruit,  
firewood  and  other  produce).    
•  Many  villages  now  have  10–20  Tmes  more  
trees  than  20  years  ago.  Now  about  4.8  million  
hectares  of  Faidherbia-­‐dominated  farmlands  
Increase  of  on-­‐farm  trees  in  Southern  Zinder,  Niger   generated  through  FMNR  (Maradi  and  Zinder  
(1975-­‐2005).  Photo  Gray  Tappan   Regions  of  Niger  )    
•  >500,000  addiTonal  tonnes  of  food  produced  
per  year.  Total  annual  producTon  value  of  $280  
million  
 

Add  :  assessing  impact  on  (diminuTon  of)  

rural  flight  ;  fight  against  irreversible  
deserTficaTon,  resilience  to  climaTc  crises…  
Reference(s)  :  Dennis  Philip  Garrity,  Festus  K.  Akinnifesi,  Oluyede  C.  Ajayi,  
Sileshi  G.  Weldesemayat,  Jeremias  G.  Mowo,  Antoine  Kalinganire,  
Mahamane  Larwanou,  Jules  Bayala  (2010)  Evergreen  Agriculture:  a  robust  
approach  to  sustainable  food  security  in  Africa.  Food  Security  2:197–214  
 Assessing  socio-­‐economic  impacts  
 

Micro  level       Macro  level     Meso  level    

Return  on  investment  
Incomes   Equity  -­‐  AllocaTon  of  
(ROI)  on  agricultural  
producTvity  gains  in  
public  spending  
Cost/benefit  analysis   value  chains    
(cost  of  producTon)    
Value  of  producTon    
Empowerment  of    
Livelihoods      
rural  communiTes    
Balance  of  payments  
Food  and  nutriTon   (Foreign  exchange)      
security  ;    Health    
ExternaliTes  (soil  
…   Employment   ferTlity,  etc)…  

Need  to  scale  up  research  on  socio-­‐economic  impacts    

Therefore,  necessity  to  define  agroecological  pracTces  &  contours  !    
1.  Agroecology’s  socio-­‐economic  impacts  (employment,  incomes,  etc)    
2.  Agroecology’s  socio-­‐economic  principles    

 
Agroecology  in  2014  :    
 

A  trend.  Also  a  buzz.    

 

opportuniTes  for  scaling  up  

Risks  of  diluTon  
Necessary  to  clarify  agroecology’s  socio-­‐economic  and  poliTcal  dimensions  
 
 «  Economics  »  :  a  relevant  framework  for  agroecology?    
From  economics  to  socio-­‐economics    
•  Economics  as  such  is  not  a  self-­‐
contained  system,  but  embedded  
in  society,  policy,  and  culture.    
 

•  ‘Socio-­‐economics’  is  a  much  more  

powerful  framework  (compared  
to  economics)  if  one  wants  to  fully  
grasp  the  potenTal  of  agroecology  
to  improve  global  food  security  
and  go  towards  sustainable  food  
systems  
•  Enables  to  grasp  the  full  extent  of  
agroecology  
 
 

IdenTfying  the  socio-­‐economic  principles  of  agroecology  

 
 

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

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

•  Social  organiza;on  (cfr.  following  presentaTons  by  Rosset  &  AlTeri)    

–  Role  of  farmers  organizaTons  /  grassroots  organizaTons  /  networks    
–  in  idenTfying,  improving  and  disseminaTng  pracTces/innovaTons  (Co-­‐
construcTon  )  

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

Principle  :  Generate  collec;ve  knowledge  and  adaptability  through  

networks  involving  producers,  consumer  ciTzens,  researchers,  and  
government  technical  advisors  in  order  to  foster  forums  for  
deliberaTon,  public  debate,  and  the  disseminaTon  of  knowledge    
 Exis;ng  networks  and  organiza;ons  
Not  a  comprehensive  mapping,  just  a  few  references    

Peasant  
movements  
and  networks  

Experts  and  
support  
organizaTons  

Online  plaƒorms  
hop://ag-­‐transiTon.org/  
www.agriculturesnetwork.org  
2.  Knowledge  plays  an  essen;al  role  in  agroecology  
Agroecology  is  about  knowledge  generaTon  and  diffusion  through  networks  

•  Agroecology  and  knowledge    

–  Agroecology  is  knowledge-­‐intensive  (subsTtutes  inputs  by  
knowledge)  
–  Different  types  of  knowledge  :  tradiTonal  &  scienTfic  
–  Ability  of  communiTes  to  generate  and  spread  pracTces  and  
innovaTons    
 

Principle  :  Recognize  and  make  good  use  of  the  diversity  of  
skills  and  knowledge  to  be  taken  into  account  –  local  pracTces  
and  knowledge,  tradiTonal  pracTces  and  knowledge  
(indigenous  technology  knowledge,  and  ordinary  knowledge)  
–  in  construcTng  both  the  issues  and  the  publics  concerned  by  
these  issues  as  well  as  in  searching  for  soluTons.  
 3.  Agroecology  is  about  fostering  autonomy  
‘PoliTcal’  dimensions  are  at  the  core  of  agroecology  

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

•  Examples    
•  Peasant-­‐owned  and  –run  coopera;ve  seed  entreprises  ;  Seed  
«  Houses  »  (Brazil)  
•  Comté  cheese  AOC  (protected  designaTon  of  origin,  France)  :  milk  
quanTty  ceiling,  cows  fed  on  local  resources,…  
•  Open  source  –  peer-­‐to-­‐peer  produc;on  of  agricultural  machinery  
(FLOK  project  in  Ecuador  ;  open-­‐source  farm  technology,  U.S.)    

Principle  :  Foster  the  possibili;es  for  choosing  autonomy  from  the  global  
markets  by  creaTng  a  propiTous  environment  for  public  goods  and  the  
development  of  socioeconomic  pracTces  and  models  that  reinforce  the  
democraTc  governance  of  food  systems,  in  parTcular  through  systems  that  are  
jointly  managed  by  producers  and  consumers,  and  highly  labor-­‐intensive  
(re)territorialized  systems    
Reference(s)  :  (1)  van  der  Ploeg,  2008.  The  new  peasantries:  struggles  for  autonomy  and  sustainability  in  an  era  of  empire  and  
globalizaEon.  Earthscan,  London,  UK.    
 4.  Agroecology  seeks  to  improve  social  equity  in  food  systems  
A  poliTcal  dimension  at  the  core  of  agroecology  

•  Equity  
1.  Principle  for  access  to  ressources  (land,  water,  …)    
2.  Principle  for  business  models  (upstream  or  downstream  entreprises  :  
ConnecTons  with  social  and  solidarity  economy)  and  pricing  mechanisms  
within  food  systems    
3.  In  agricultural  revenues  (responsability  of  the  State)  
 

•  Examples    
–  Solidarity-­‐based  pricing  mechanisms  in  some  Community-­‐supported  
agriculture  (CSA)  (Grosses  Légumes,  Belgium)  
–  Pricing  systems  along  the  foodchain  :  AOC  Comté  cheese  (France)  
–  ‘Mul;na;onal  coopera;ves’  controlled  by  small-­‐scale  farmers  :  Divine  
Chocolate  Ltd  company  :  42%  owned  by  Kuapa  Kukoo  Farmers  Union,  
Ghana  (Fair  Trade  2.0)  

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

Reference(s)  :  (1)  Dumont,  A.,  Stassart;  P.,  Vanloqueren,  G.,  Baret,  P.  (2014),  Clarifier  les  dimensions  socio-­‐économiques  et  poliEques  de  
l’agroécologie  :  au-­‐delà  des  principes,  des  compromis  ?,  CommunicaEon  au  séminaire  ‘Renouveler  les  approches  insEtuEonnalistes  sur  
l'agriculture  et  l'alimentaEon:  la  "grande  transformaEon"  20  ans  après’,  Montpellier,  16-­‐17  juin  2014.  (+  journal  paper  forthcoming)  
5.  Agroecology  seeks  to  improve/strengthen  democracy  
 ‘poliTcal’  dimensions  are  at  the  core  of  agroecology,  yet  frequently  let  aside    

•  Democracy  
–  Within  peasant  and  farmers  organiza;ons  (internal  demoracy)  
–  Within  entreprises:  Economic  democracy  &  social  and  solidarity  economy    
–  Partnerships  :  Partnership  between  consumers  and  producers:  «  the  
formal  or  informal  but  clear  presence  of  a  social  contract  between  
producers  and  consumers  »  (1)  
–  Food  sovereignty  (right  to  define  their  own  food  and  agricultural  systems)  
•  Examples    
–  Numerous  cooperaTves,  farmer  unions,  etc      
–  Assemblies  of  farmer  unions  and  movements        

Principle  :  Foster  the  possibiliTes  for  choosing  autonomy  from  the  global  markets  by  
creaTng  a  propiTous  environment  for  public  goods  and  the  development  of  
socioeconomic  prac;ces  and  models  that  reinforce  the  democra;c  governance  of  
food  systems,  in  parTcular  through  systems  that  are  jointly  managed  by  producers  
and  consumers,  and  highly  labor-­‐intensive  (re)territorialized  systems    
Principle  :  Member’s  power  within  an  organisa;on  is  not  based  on  their  assets.  
Decisions  are  taken  through  a  democra;c  process      
 Socio-­‐economic  principles  of  agroecology  
Agroecology  :  3  sets  of  principles    
 
Historical principles Methodological principles
(Altieri) (INRA)  Socio-economic
(GIRAF)
(political) principles

1. Recycling of biomass, optimize 7. Facilitate and equip the  11. Generate collective knowledge and
nutrient availability, and balance
nutrient flows
multifactoral management of
agroecosystems for their long-term
 adaptability through networks
involving producers, consumer citizens,
2. Ensure soil conditions that are
transition. This means arbitrating  researchers, and government technical
between short and long time scales
favorable for plant growth by
and giving importance to the  advisors in order to foster forums for
deliberation, public debate, and the
managing in particular organic
matter and improving the soil’s
properties of resiliency and  dissemination of knowledge
adaptability.
biotic activity.
8. Make use of resources’ spatial
 12. Foster the possibilities for choosing
autonomy from the global markets by
3. Minimize losses of resources
that are linked to the flows of solar
and temporal variability (diversity  creating a propitious environment for
radiation, air, and soil by means of
and complementarity)
 public goods and the development of
socioeconomic practices and models
microclimate management, water 9. Stimulate the exploration of
collection, and soil management, situations that are far from  that reinforce the democratic
governance of food systems, in
4. Promote genetic
already-known local optima  particular through systems that are jointly
diversification and the
diversification of species in the
10. Promote the development of  managed by producers and consumers,
and highly labor-intensive
agroecosystem in space and time.
participatory research schemes
that will produce “finalized” research
 (re)territorialized systems
5. Allow beneficial interactions while guaranteeing the scientific  13. Recognize and make good use of
and biological synergies between validity of the approach (GIRAF) the diversity of skills and knowledge
the components of agrobiodiversity  to be taken into account – local practices
so as to promote key ecological
processes and services
 and knowledge traditional practices and
knowledge (indigenous technology
 knowledge, and ordinary knowledge – in
6. Value agrobiodiversity as an
entry node for redesigning  constructing both the issues and the
publics concerned by these issues as
systems so as to ensure farmers’  well as in searching for solutions.
autonomy and food sovereignty
(INRA)  
Reference(s)  :  Stassart,  P.M.,  Baret,  P.,  Grégoire,  J.-­‐C.,  Hance,  T.,  Mormont,  M.,  Reheul,  D.,  Vanloqueren,  G.  and  Visser,  M.  (2012),  
Trajectoire  et  potenEel  de  l'agroécologie,  pour  une  transiEon  vers  des  systèmes  alimentaires  durables.  In  Van  Dam,  D.,  Streith,  M.,  Nizet,  
J.  and  Stassart  P.M.  (dir.)  Agroécologie.  Entre  praEques  et  sciences  sociales.  Educagri  édiEons,  2012,  Paris,  pp.  25-­‐51.    
 Socio-­‐economic  principles  for  a  strong  agroecology  
Agroecology  &  principles    
Main  themes  of  socio-­‐economic  principles  idenTfied  in  the  literature  review    
  Theme Brief presentation

  Access and autonomy with Access and autonomy with regard to markets for producers as well as any collective
regard to markets structure of production or transformation
  Environmental equity Environmental equity allowed by the taking into account of negative environmental
  externalities in every economic choice

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

Partnership between consumers The formal or informal but clear presence of a social contract between producers and
  and producers consumers
  Limitation of profit distribution Benefits are used to reach a social purpose and not to maximise only return on
invested capital
 
Rural world development and Projects of a food system participate to rural development as well as the preservation
  preservation of the social fabric of the social fabric

  Financial independence Producers stay master of their economic and technical decisions even it implies to
limit input
 
Durability and adaptation Durability and adaptation capacity of agricultural organisation via, mostly, belonging
  capacity to a network which could imply farmers, consumers, technical advisors, scientists

  Democratic governance Member’s power of an organisation is not based on their capital. Decisions are taken
with a democratic process
  Organisational proximity Organisational proximity between stakeholders of production and transformation
  steps

  Geographical proximity Geographical proximity between stakeholders of production, transformation and

consumption steps
  Diversity of knowledge and Traditional, empirical and scientific knowledge are shared between producers
  capacity of exchanging them

Reference(s)  :  Dumont,  A.,  Stassart;  P.,  Vanloqueren,  G.,  Baret,  P.  (2014),  Clarifier  les  dimensions  socio-­‐économiques  et  poliEques  de  
l’agroécologie  :  au-­‐delà  des  principes,  des  compromis  ?,  CommunicaEon  au  séminaire  ‘Renouveler  les  approches  insEtuEonnalistes  sur  
l'agriculture  et  l'alimentaEon:  la  "grande  transformaEon"  20  ans  après’,  Montpellier,  16-­‐17  juin  2014.  (+  journal  paper  forthcoming)  
 Socio-economic and political principles
5 principles (other wordings coexist)
Can  we  strip  agroecology  from  these  dimensions  ?    
1.  Social  organiza;on  
2.  Knowledge    
3.  Autonomy  
4.  Social  Equity    
5.  Democracy    

Source  :      Manuel  Gonzalez  de  Molina  (2013):  Agroecology  and  PoliTcs.  How  To  Get  Sustainability?  About  the  Necessity  for  a  PoliTcal  Agroecology,  Agroecology  and  
Sustainable  Food  Systems,  37:1,  45-­‐59  
 Socio-economic and political principles
Real agroecology or simply sustainable agriculture
Can  we  strip  agroecology  from  these  dimensions  ?    
1.  Social  organiza;on  
2.  Knowledge    
3.  Autonomy  
4.  Social  Equity    
5.  Democracy    
Not  without  doing  SOMETHING  ELSE  THAN  agroecology    
 (Gonzales  de  Molina,  “the  necessity  for  a  poliTcal  agroecology”,  2013)  (1)  
 

•  Agroecosystems  are  socioecological  construc;ons  

•  The  product  of  the  relaTonships  between  the  populaTon  and  the  resources  
available  to  them.  Power  and  conflicts  are  present  in  these  social  relaTonships.  
•  Addressing  sustainabilitu  requires  tackling  social  inequaliTes  (an  ecosystemic  
pathology)  
•  Agroecology  is  a  powerful  tool  to  achieve  change  in  food  systems  (a  massive  
redesign  of  the  economic  structures  that  govern  our  food  systems)    
•  A  technocra;c  agroecology  would  strip  socioecological  change  of  any  collec;ve  
dimension  of  agroecology  

Source  :      Manuel  Gonzalez  de  Molina  (2013):  Agroecology  and  PoliTcs.  How  To  Get  Sustainability?  About  the  Necessity  for  a  PoliTcal  Agroecology,  Agroecology  and  
Sustainable  Food  Systems,  37:1,  45-­‐59  
 Should States, and the FAO, endorse and support it?
A horizon for achieving the progressive realization of the right to food

FAO    
-­‐  Agroecology  enables  the  FAO  to  beger  fulfill  its  mission    
-­‐  Report  “Mission  to  the  FAO”,  UN  Special  rapporteur  on  the  right  to  food,  2012  
 
States    
-­‐  OpTng  for  the  best  way  to  improve  food  systems,  not  the  second  best.    
-­‐  Scaling  across  and  scaling  up  agroecology    
-­‐  No  ‘islands  of  success’  
 
An  ‘ecological-­‐only’  soluTon  is  insufficient  given  the  scale  of  the  necessary  changes  in  
food  systems  (inequaliTes,  concentraTon  in  agri-­‐food  changes,  …)    
 

Source  :      Manuel  Gonzalez  de  Molina  (2013):  Agroecology  and  PoliTcs.  How  To  Get  Sustainability?  About  the  Necessity  for  a  PoliTcal  Agroecology,  Agroecology  and  
Sustainable  Food  Systems,  37:1,  45-­‐59  
 The three meanings of agroecology
‘Strong’ agroecology
 “Agroecology  is  not  defined  exclusively  by  scien;fic  fields,  
social  movements,  or  prac;ces.    Its  role  is  to  become  a  
federa;ng  concept  of  ac;on  in  the  middle  of  these  three  
dimensions  (Stassart  et  al,  2012  building  on  Wezel,  Bellon  et  
al.  2009)”  (1)    
 
 Agroecology  –  ‘the  applicaTon  of  ecological  concepts  
and  principles  to  the  design  and  management  of  
sustainable  agro-­‐ecosystems’    –  has  three  facets.  It  is:  
1.  a  scien;fic  discipline  involving  the  holisTc  study  of  agro-­‐
ecosystems,  including  human  and  environmental  elements    
2.  a  set  of  principles  and  prac;ces  to  enhance  the  resilience  
and  ecological,  socio-­‐economic  and  cultural  sustainability  
of  farming  systems  
3.  a  movement  seeking  a  new  way  of  considering  agriculture  
and  its  relaTonships  with  society.  (IIED,  2014)  (2)    

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

1.  Acknowledge  that  agroecology  is  more  than  sustainable  agriculture.    

–  Agroecology  ≠  sustainable  intensifica;on  
•  FederaTve  concept  :  PracTces  +  science  +    social  movement    
•  Horizon  &  pathway  towards  that  horizon    
 

2.  Agroecology  has  posi;ve  socio-­‐economic  impacts    

–  on  employment,  incomes,  livelihoods,  and  macroeconomic  indicators  as  well    
–  Assessment  of  socio-­‐economic  impacts  could  be  more  systemaTc  
–  Yet    
•  more  research  is  not  necessary  to  start  bringing  AE  to  scale  
•  ParTcipaTve  assessments    
•  not  narrowing  everything  down  to  economics  
 
3.  Necessity  and  feasability  of  bringing  agroecology  to  scale    
–  Engage  with  exisTng  networks  and  organizaTons  to  scale  agroecology  across  territories  
–  “Subsidies  to  sustainability”  
–  Support  champions  :  municipaliTes,  regions/districts/territories,  countries.          
Personal  contribu;ons  
Titles  of  papers  use  words  that  seek  to  aoract  new  audiences  to  agroecology…  
Paper  in  Solu;ons  Journal    -­‐-­‐>  Includes  secTons  on    
•  Roots  of  the  Future:  The  New  Agricultural  
Paradigm  
•  The  Obstacles  to  the  Necessary  Change  
•  Scaling  Up  Sustainable  Agriculture:  Policies  for  
Change  
•  Linking  Sustainable  Farming  to  Markets:  The  
Poli;cal  Economy  of  Food  Chains  
•  Stopping  the  Damage:  The  Role  of  Land  

(hop://thesoluTonsjournal.org/node/971)  
•  13  obstacles  to  scaling  up  agroecological  research    
•  Lock-­‐in  and  path-­‐dependence  in  agricultural  
research  systems    
 www.agroecologie.be/   Interuniversity  cer;ficate  ‘Agroecology  &  
Transi;on  towards  sustainable  food  
systems  (French)  
Personal  publicaEons  on  Academia.edu.    
 Contact  :  gaetan.vanloqueren@gmail.com