Food Systems Summit Brief Prepared by Research Partners of the Scientific Group for the Food Systems Summit
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
United Nations Food Systems Summit 2021
Scientific Group
https://sc-fss2021.org/
Food Systems Summit Brief
Prepared by Research Partners of the Scientific Group for the
Food Systems Summit
June 2021
by Urs Niggli, Martijn Sonnevelt, Susanne Kummer
Agroecology is a powerful strategy that It is not necessarily a predefined farming sys-
reduces the trade-offs between productivity tem and the shift from simplified by industrial
and sustainability. It promotes the diversity of standards to agroecological farms is gradual.
crops and livestock, fields, farms and land- The transformation and upscaling of agroeco-
scapes that together are key to improve sus- logical practices requires changes that affect
tainability of food and farming systems in not only the management of farms, or produc-
terms of long-term productivity, food actors' tion and consumption patterns at the food
empowerment and inclusion and environ- system level, but also the institutional frame-
mental health. Agroecology is a bundle of work conditions and the way we measure the
measures taken by farmers, which individually performance of agricultural and food systems.
or combined, mobilize biodiversity and eco- In our paper, we describe four domains of
system services for productivity. Ideally, it transformation - knowledge systems, mar-
leads to economically and ecologically resili- kets, collaborations and policy coherence -
ent production systems that are high-yielding. each with enabling and constraining factors.
1
population remains inadequately nour-
ished, with more than 820 million people
Transforming agriculture and food sys- suffering from hunger. Many more con-
tems in line with Sustainable Development sume low-quality diets, contributing to a
Goals (SDGs) is an imperative that can no substantial rise in the incidence of diet-re-
longer be ignored or deferred (CNS-FAO, lated illness and obesity (Willet et al., 2019;
2019; Eyhorn et al., 2019). In facing up to IPCC, 2019). A second challenge with global
this challenge, agroecological approaches impact is the unsustainable way in which
stand to play an indispensable role by con- food production and consumption patterns
necting environmental sustainability and substantially exploit the natural resources
social justice of production and consump-
of soil, water and air (IPBES, 2019). This has
tion. It combines the global challenge of
caused an immense biodiversity loss
ending hunger with locally adapted solu-
tions and strengthens participation and the (Leclere et al., 2020; IPBES, 2019). Third,
mobilization of local actors and their greenhouse gas emissions rise dramatically
knowledge (HLPE, 2019). Agroecology opti- all around the world, with global agricul-
mizes the system approach and integrates ture causing 23% of anthropogenic green-
scientific progress responsibly. To allow for house gas emissions and therefore contrib-
agroecology to exploit its potential, there is uting substantially to global warming (IPCC,
a need for transformation which supports 2019).
the shift from a capital to a more labor
dominated approach which strengthens Not least due to the current Covid-19
the social relations of production and pandemic, the fragility and vulnerability of
moves farming beyond the logic of scale- food systems are clearer than ever. Food
enlargement, technology-driven intensifi- insecurity and acute hunger have in-
cation and specialization (Van der Ploeg, creased, along with more people living in
2021). extreme poverty (HLPE, 2020). Providing
This paper is based on a well-docu- food for an estimated 10 billion people in
mented multi-stakeholder process of the 2050 is challenging. It will take a 56 per
Swiss National FAO Committee (CNS-FAO) cent increase in crop calories compared to
during several years to provide scientific the base year 2010 (FAO, 2017), in case
support to the Swiss government and the other issues such as unsustainable con-
public on agroecology (CNS-FAO, 2016; sumption patterns, food loss and waste
CNS-FAO, 2019; CNS-FAO, 2021). The aim and the use of food crops for animal
of the paper is to highlight the potentials of feedstuff and biofuels are not addressed.
agroecology for the strengthened effort of The resulting substantial expansion of agri-
the UNFSS 2021 to achieve the SDGs, and cultural land, amounting to 593 million
to highlight the necessary actions for main- hectares (crop and grassland), must be con-
streaming agroecological management tained wherever possible if we are not to
practices. release large amounts of CO2 equivalents
and put biodiversity reserves at risk. Cur-
rent agriculture should mitigate 11 giga-
tons of greenhouse gases in order to meet
the Paris climate target of less than 2 de-
We identify three major key challenges
grees Celsius warming (World Resources
of global agriculture and food systems: The Institute, 2018). Future solutions must also
first challenge is that much of the world’s
2take into account that by 2050, it is fore- Hundreds of thousands of farmers
casted that 68 per cent of the world's pop- manage their farms with agroecological
ulation will live in cities (United Nations, practices in one way or another, either to
2019), increasing the importance of urban improve their own productivity and liveli-
food production. hoods or to gain privileged access to mar-
kets with certificates. These practices in-
clude regenerative conservation agricul-
ture, organic agriculture, agroforestry, per-
maculture, agro-silvo-pastoral systems,
A radical transformation of global food and sustainable pastoralism in rangelands,
systems that addresses both the way we
among others. An even higher number of
produce, process, trade and consume food
farmers adopt only one or more selected
and with the same priority the improve-
ment of livelihoods of farmers, farm work- techniques of agroecology such as inte-
ers and their families is necessary and does grated nutrient and pest management, in-
not tolerate any delay. To provide enough troducing semi-natural habitats on the
food for the global population, several farm, applying no-till arable cropping, or
overriding strategies are being pursued, sustainable river basin and groundwater
namely a substantial increase in productiv- management. Some farmers use bio-ferti-
ity, a sustainable intensification (Godfray lizers and bio-protectants instead of agro-
and Garnett, 2012) and an ecological inten- chemicals, apply intercropping and cover
sification (Tittonell, 2014). Agroecology im- crops in order to increase the Land Equiva-
plements the ecological intensification lent Ratio (LER), and involve in precision ag-
strategy in agricultural practice.
riculture and climate-smart agriculture.
Agroecology offers a powerful means
Yet, fully agroecological farms have re-
of accelerating the needed transfor-
mained a niche. The classic role of niches is
mations. Agroecology as we understand it,
that of a "protective space” or a shelter
has a common framework grounded in the
where future solutions and novel ideas can
FAO's 10 elements (FAO, 2018b). The 10 El-
be tried out (Smith and Raven, 2012).
ements of Agroecology are interlinked and
These novel ideas could change or even re-
interdependent. They encompass ecologi-
place the current regime (Geels, 2011) or
cal characteristics of agroecological sys-
paradigm (Beus and Dunlap, 1991).
tems (diversity, synergies, efficiency, resili-
ence and recycling), social characteristics Although agroecological practices
(co-creation and sharing of knowledge, hu- have been successfully implemented on
man and social values, culture and food tra- many farms globally and practices such as
ditions), and enabling political and eco- resource-conserving agriculture continue
nomic environments (responsible govern- to spread to more farms and more hectares
ance, circular and solidarity economy) (Pretty et al., 2006), they have not become
(FAO, 2018b). These elements come to- mainstream until now. The most salient ob-
gether in a model that relies centrally on stacles to mainstreaming agroecology in-
the non-exhaustive and non-destructive clude that it is currently unknown to the
use of biodiversity and ecosystem services, public; the time lag between implementing
with off-farm inputs playing a diminished agroecological practices and observing
role in production (CNS-FAO, 2019).
3positive results; weak knowledge and advi- the use of fertilisers, pesticides or fuel.
sory systems; transaction costs; policy inco- Level 2 involves replacing agrochemical in-
herence; crucial deficits of landscape-level puts with more natural ones such as bio-
coordination, incentive systems in re- fertilizers and bio-protectants. The way we
search, and compensation for yield reduc- understand agroecology, it also includes
tions; and the need to strengthen the as- technologies that are safe for the environ-
pect of sufficiency in a sustainability con- ment and human health and strengthen
text (IIED, 2016; CNS-FAO, 2021). the systemic processes. Level 3 is about re-
designing farming systems with diversified
The HLPE report (2019) found that to
crop rotations, mixed crops, intercropping,
effectively and sustainably address food
leading to better closed cycles of nutrients
and nutrition security, it is not sufficient to
and organic material. Successful food sys-
focus on technological solutions and inno-
tem transformation also includes increased
vations or incremental interventions only.
farmer-consumer collaborations (level 4),
Food system transformation requires (i) in-
either with short distribution channels or
clusive and participatory forms of innova-
internet-based remote applications, and fi-
tion governance; (ii) information and
nally a comprehensive transformation of
knowledge co-production and sharing
policies, rules, institutions, markets and
amongst communities and networks; and
culture (level 5). The various stages pro-
(iii) responsible innovation that steers in-
ceed dynamically and in parallel, so that
novation towards social issues (HLPE,
when framework conditions are conducive,
2019).
a variety of production systems coexist and
Given its holistic approach, transfor- rural regions continuously change toward a
mation to agroecological practices and sys- higher degree of sustainability.
tems happens at various scales and dimen-
In our paper, we address all five levels
sions from management decisions on farms
and propose actions that enable transfor-
to complex and erratic transformations re- mation and remove lock-ins. There is no
sulting from the sum of decisions of various contradiction between mainstreaming
actors within a wider landscape (Anderson agroecology and strongly improving sus-
et al., 2021). Therefore, a multi-level per- tainability. Therefore, agroecology plays a
spective has to be taken in order to under- crucial role for achieving the SDGs and
stand enabling and disabling factors and works remarkably well in theory and prac-
processes relevant for mainstreaming tice (COAG, 2018; HLPE, 2019).
(Geels, 2011). Anderson et al. (2021) intro-
duced the term "domains of transfor-
mation" within which they described fac-
tors, dynamics, structures and processes
that constrain or enable transformation in Agroecology has the potential to con-
sustainability transitions. tribute to economic growth and decent
work (Van der Ploeg et al., 2019), particu-
Agroecological transformation can be
larly for the rural poor. It contributes to lo-
understood as having five levels
cal economic and resource circulation, con-
(Gliessman, 2015): At level 1, farming sys-
siderably increases and stabilizes yields of
tems become more efficient by reducing
subsistence farmers (Pretty et al., 2006),
4and reduces costs and external dependen- Organic agriculture for instance increases
cies. Strategies such as diversification, ex- the access to food by increasing the quan-
ternal input reduction and alternative mar- tity of foods produced per household and
keting channels have, in some cases, shown by producing food surpluses that can be
to improve farmers’ income by 30% (FAO, sold at local markets (UNCTAD/UNEP
2018a). Integrated Pest Management for 2011). The yields of organic agriculture out-
example can generate remarkable im- perform traditional subsistence systems. In
provements: In a study in low-income their study, Pretty et al. (2006) analyzed
countries, pesticide use declined by 71% the impacts of 286 resource-conserving
and yields grew by 42% (Pretty et al., 2006). practices in 57 low-income countries and
A study on 946 farms in France concluded found that these projects led to an average
that total pesticide use could be reduced by yield increase of 79%. Differences in terms
42% without negative effects on both of yield productivity are highly site specific
productivity and profitability in 59% of the as Tittonell (2013) showed for organic agri-
investigated farms (Lechenet et al., 2017). culture: On marginal sites, organic farming
Conservation tillage can improve soil car- gives equal or slightly higher yields than
bon while raising yields, and integrated conventional farming. However, on high-
plant nutrient systems can achieve the yield sites, organic farming is significantly
same benefits with reduced fertilizer appli- lower yielding.
cation (Bruinsma, 2003; Pretty et al., 2003;
Furthermore, agro-biodiversity (a key
Pretty et al., 2006; Uphoff, 2007).
element of agroecology) is an important
Furthermore, there are indications driver for making a diverse range of food
that the economic performance of alterna- products available. Although the pathway
tive and agroecological farming systems is complex and not always positively corre-
can be comparable to, and is sometimes lated, agricultural diversity plays an im-
better than, conventional farming systems portant role in improving dietary diversity,
(d’Annolfo et al., 2017), and provide which has a strong association with im-
greater predictability for farmers (Chappell proved nutrition status, particularly micro-
& LaValle, 2011). With a smaller farm size nutrient density of the diets (Fanzo et al.
organic farms can achieve the same profit- 2013). A recent publication by Bezner Kerr
ability as larger conventional farms (Smolik et al. (2021) found evidence for positive
et al., 1995; Rosset, 1999) and that com- outcomes linked to the use of agroecologi-
pared to monocultures, agroforestry sys- cal practices on food security and nutrition
tems can have a higher return on labor (Ar- (FSN) in households in low- and middle-in-
mengot et al., 2016). Extensive evidence in- come countries. While 78% of the studies
dicates that agroecology can, on a global reported positive outcomes, some studies
scale, provide a level of food security com- found mixed outcomes and a few studies
parable to that of conventional agriculture reported negative impact on food security
(Chappell & LaValle, 2011). Under condi- and nutrition using indicators such as die-
tions of subsistence agriculture in Sub-Sa- tary diversity. The most common agroeco-
haran Africa, agroecological methods sig- logical practices included crop diversifica-
nificantly improved food security and nutri- tion, agroforestry, mixed crop and livestock
tional diversity (Bezner Kerr et al, 2019).
5systems, and practices improving soil qual- fundamentally important for a better un-
ity, with positive outcomes on FSN indica- derstanding of all agroecological practices.
tors such as dietary diversity and house- Studies have shown that through diverse
hold food security. and heterogeneous agroecological ap-
proaches it is possible to preserve and in-
Yield increases alone will not address crease wild and domesticated biodiversity
our concomitant challenges of hunger, mi- by up to 30% (FAO 2018a). The connection
cronutrient deficiencies and obesity. This between climate action and agroecology is
requires broad ranging system changes two-way – agroecological systems have the
that tackle poverty, inequality, and barriers potential to contribute to reducing green-
to access. The systemic approach based on house gas emissions and offer manage-
ethical values, often considered a part of ment practices to adapt to climate change
(FAO, 2018a). Agroecological farming may
agroecological methods, offers an oppor-
lead to reduced greenhouse gas emissions
tunity to address these issues in an inte-
by reducing emissions from the production
grated manner. For example, in Madhya
of synthetic fertilizer and by carbon cap-
Pradesh, India, a development institute ture in the soil (Müller et al., 2017; Smith et
provided integrated training in agroecolog- al., 2008; Wood and Cowie, 2004). How-
ical techniques, health and nutrition to ever, these benefits have to be weighed
more than 8500 women from 850 villages against the lower land use efficiency or the
over 30 years. This improved livelihoods for increased requirements on labor of agroe-
the majority of the women and broke the cological - especially of organic - systems
cycle of poverty (FAO, 2018a). (Meemken and Qaim, 2018; Clark und Till-
mann, 2017). Regarding climate change ad-
Agroecological systems use natural re- aptation, agroecology may improve the re-
sources more sustainably and efficiently, silience of smallholders through the diver-
and reduce the release of agrochemicals to sification of production and increasing re-
air, water and soil (Pretty et al., 2017; Lech- source use efficiency by integrating social
enet et al., 2017)). Through the enhanced aspects (Altieri et al., 2015; Liebman and
proximity between producers and consum- Schulte-Moore, 2015). Furthermore, soil
ers, agroecology helps raise awareness and fertility, which is higher in agroecological
reduce food waste, e.g. by redistribution to systems, is a key prerequisite for protec-
food bank charities or by repurposing ur- tion against erosion and flood (Seufert and
ban organic waste as animal feed or ferti- Ramankutty, 2017).
lizer (Beausang et al., 2017). Agroecology
puts an emphasis on maintaining soil fertil-
ity and ecosystem services, which can im-
prove the long-term productivity of the
land. As species richness is on average 34%
higher in organic farming (Tuck et al., One central characteristic of agroecol-
2014), and organic farming systems have ogy is diversity (FAO, 2018b). In contrast,
higher floral and faunal diversity than con- most public policies and incentives de-
ventional farming systems (Mäder et al., signed to increase agricultural production
2002), biodiversity can be conserved and carry the risk of reducing the diversity of di-
potentially restored within agroecosys- ets, food systems and landscape. A defining
tems. As organic farming is one of the best- feature of the agroecological approach is
documented agroecological farming sys-
diversity of landscape and habitats, of farm
tems in scientific terms, these results are
6activities, of crops grown, of livestock kept including 23 studies, Jones (2017) demon-
and of above and below ground flora and strated that agricultural biodiversity has a
fauna. Agrobiodiversity represents the cre- small but clear and consistent association
ativity of life; its irreversible erosion means with more diverse household- and individ-
less capacity to innovate and adapt in the ual-level diets. These various relations be-
future, especially to climate change (Dury tween diversity and food and nutrition se-
et al., 2019). Substantial improvements in curity calls for a production strategy com-
the environmental sustainability of agricul- bining local productivity and yield stability
ture are achievable now, without sacrific- to make best use of between- and within-
ing food production or farmer livelihoods crop diversification to increase long-term
(Davis et al., 2012). While short-term food and nutritional security.
productivity is increasing, there is a clear
Agroecological approaches elevate the
loss of diversity when traditional varieties
role of farmers and other food producers in
or races are replaced by improved varieties associated knowledge and value chains.
(Khoury et al., 2014). This homogenization This is especially the case for the
and high dependency on a few crops at knowledge and experience of women, as
global scale increases the vulnerability to women play a key role in all stages of food
pests, as historically illustrated by many ex- production in almost all regions around the
amples in maize, banana and wheat (Dury world, encompassing their practical
et al., 2019). Additionally, risks of re- knowledge on biodiversity, including seeds,
sistance increase through the wide use of on food preservation and recipes.
pesticides and antibiotics (Dury et al., Women’s control of farm level decision
2019). The development of ecosystem ser- making is an important determinant in un-
vices over time in more diverse cropping derstanding household-level diet diversity,
expressed by a positive relation between
systems and rotations increasingly dis-
agricultural biodiversity and household
places the need for external synthetic in-
diet diversity for households headed by
puts while still maintaining crop productiv- women (Jones et al., 2014). Agroecology
ity or even increasing yields (Ferrero et al., can create better opportunities for women
2017; Davis et al. 2012). by integrating diverse work tasks and spe-
cific forms of knowledge, providing a more
While socioeconomic factors such as
significant role for women in the household
farm commercialization, off-farm income,
and farm economy. As agroecology,
education or seasonality significantly affect
through low initial investment costs and
diets of rural households, the linkages be- knowledge intensive technologies, is better
tween a household’s own agricultural pro- accessible to women, it also fosters their
duction and dietary diversity are not al- economic opportunities and autonomy. In
ways clear (Muthini et al., 2020; Sibathu its political dimension, agroecology seeks
and Qaim, 2018, Bellon et al., 2016). A pos- to achieve and implement a just system
itive relation between agricultural diversifi- (Seibert et al., 2019).
cation and diversified diets is shown in dif-
ferent contexts for both subsistence and in-
come-generating household strategies
(Jones, 2017; Muthini et al., 2020; Sibathu
and Qaim, 2018). In a comparative analysis
7The domains of transformation that programmes, while only a handful of pro-
we want to address are: i) strengthening jects take a participatory approach to re-
knowledge on agroecology; ii) working with search (Biovision & IPES-Food, 2020). The
markets; iii) enhancing cooperation; and iv) public investment in agroecological ap-
ensuring policy coherence to create a con- proaches is estimated to range between 1
ducive policy context for agroecology. and 1.5 % of total agricultural and aid budg-
These four domains address both agroeco-
ets (HLPE, 2019). In order to transform the
logical practices (level 1,2 and 3 of
current food system, it is crucial for re-
Gliessman, 2015) and the wider food sys-
tem changes (level 4 and 5). search projects to address and include key
aspects of socioeconomic and political
6.1 Strengthening knowledge (re- change, such as decent working conditions,
search, education and innovation) on gender equality (Biovision & IPES-Food,
agroecology 2020) and the important role of young and
highly qualified people.
The knowledge and advisory systems To tackle these challenges, the re-
required to support agroecology and build search focus should be shifted to agroeco-
the capacity of actors are insufficient logical principles, research activities should
(Wezel et al., 2018). A systems-oriented, be better contextualized and funding
transdisciplinary, and long-term field re- mechanisms should be adequately altered,
search approach is lacking. Instead, current providing more funding for systemic, inter-
global knowledge and research systems disciplinary and transdisciplinary research.
promote fragmented short-term output This also usually requires longer funding
(Aboukhalil, 2014; Edwards & Roy, 2017). periods.
In 2011, total global public and private Besides providing adequate funding
investment in AgR4D exceeded 70 billion for agroecological research, it is also crucial
US dollars (in purchasing power parity dol- to break down institutional silos and en-
lars) (Pardey et al., 2016). Current global hance systems thinking in research and
R&D investments focus mainly on major training. Interdisciplinary courses at the
staple crops. More nutrient-dense crops graduate and undergraduate level should
such as pulses, fruits and vegetables, as include non-academic actors. Educational
well as orphan crops, are often neglected structures and programmes are already
(GloPan, 2016; HLPE, 2019). The Consor- showing signs of evolving towards systems
tium of International Agricultural Research analysis with several universities recently
Centres (CGIAR) Research Programmes still opening food system centres or units that
focus largely on breeding and efficiency in break down the traditional structures of re-
production systems, rather than expanding search. Knowledge for agroecological inno-
its scope to a food system perspective (Bio- vations requires front-end research, but
vision & IPES-Food, 2020). A study analys- needs also to be combined with “know-
ing 728 AgR4D projects with a total budget how” and “do-how” (Saliou et al., 2019).
of 2.56 billion US dollars showed that local Therefore, tools and platforms allowing for
and regional value chains, traditional the transdisciplinary exchange and devel-
knowledge and cultural aspects of food sys- opment of knowledge are key, particularly
tems are underrepresented in research with young people and women.
8It is hence key to provide training that extension services are crucial. Tackling
includes practitioner-led learning and them requires re-configuring knowledge
building a culture of accountability where and extension systems in ways that place a
research is undertaken with and for farm- much greater emphasis on participation
ers as the ultimate beneficiaries. Currently, and social learning, e.g., farmer-to-farmer
these agents of change for agroecology are learning and on-farm demonstrations. Ex-
panding the use of low-cost information
rarely among the recipients of research
and communication technology (ICT) such
funding. Farmers’ intuition and tacit
as interactive radio, use of apps, videos,
knowledge, practical know-how and scien- and social media is an effective means to
tific R&D can be harnessed together to reach large numbers of people, including
yield solutions that are better suited to youth. ICT has the added advantage of be-
their particular context and are more ing highly customisable to suit specific con-
quickly implemented. texts, while digital tools are also highly ver-
satile. Widening access will also require in-
Public support should be provided to
novative approaches in the delivery of in-
further develop agroecological curricula at formation, so that the private sector,
colleges and universities and facilitate ex- farmer groups, volunteers, social workers
change between experienced and inter- and youth entrepreneurs can become part-
ested stakeholders (from research, civil so- ners in extension and advisory systems (Fa-
ciety, donor organizations and private sec- bregas, Kremer & Schilbach, 2019).
tor). Establishing a network of decentral-
ized centers of excellence in agroecology 6.2 Working with markets
would further reinforce system thinking
and enhance exchanges between different Agroecological systems are more di-
knowledge holders (Biovision & IPES-Food, versified in terms of farm activities and
2020; HLPE, 2019). New methodologies de- tend to yield a greater number of crop or
veloped at universities and research cen- livestock products, but with a smaller vol-
ters such as co-creation of knowledge and ume of each product. This can limit market
citizen science using digital tools enhance and processing opportunities and requires
participation and transdisciplinarity. higher levels of knowledge and risk-taking.
Implementing agroecological practices Furthermore, local marketing structures
successfully is knowledge-intensive and re- have in many regions been replaced by
quires more experimentation and site-spe- food retail chains, with food producers
cific adaptation than standardized, indus- finding themselves in the weakest position
trial farming practices (HLPE, 2019). This along the value chain.
potentially makes agroecological practices
attractive to young people, and requires Only 10-12% of all agricultural prod-
the skills and expertise of a diversity of ucts are traded on international markets,
practitioners and specialists - farmers, re- and most food in the world is produced,
searchers and extensionists. In many parts processed, distributed and consumed
of the world, private extension services fi- within local, national and/or regional food
nanced by the sales of goods and services systems (CSM, 2016). The Covid-19 pan-
are predominant. When it comes to devel- demic has shown that sustainable local
oping extension systems that align with food systems are crucial for maintaining
agroecological approaches, publicly funded
9stable access to food when the global sys- accelerate and facilitate the access to
tem fails. Supporting short supply chains transformational capital (e.g., mobile mi-
and alternative retail infrastructures with crofinance, peer-to-peer lending platform
stronger participation and control of more and crowdfunding) must be given due pri-
and various food system actors such as ority.
farmers’ markets, fairs, food policy coun-
Food prices and the price for food
cils, and local exchange and trading sys-
waste should be “right”, internalizing ex-
tems, may enhance farmers’ livelihoods ternal costs and enhancing positive exter-
and increase access to local, sustainably- nalities. This means that both the nutri-
produced and diverse food (Hebinck et al., tional value of a food item as well as its pro-
2015). More support should be given to de- duction- and consumption-associated costs
velop local and regional markets, pro- along the entire food value chain should be
cessing hubs and transportation infrastruc- taken into account (FAO, 2018c). However,
tures that provide greater processing and an increase in food prices has a negative
handling capacities for fresh products from impact on the ability of those on low in-
small and medium-sized farmers who comes to buy food of appropriate quality.
adopt agroecological and other innovative Similarly, the Eat-Lancet Commission states
approaches, and to improve their access to that “food prices should fully reflect the
true costs of food”. However, options that
local food markets (Wezel in Herren et al.,
support vulnerable population groups and
2020). Strengthening local food systems
protect them from the negative conse-
depends on enhancing local authorities’ quences of the potential increase of food
(e.g. municipalities) capacity to design fa- prices need to be considered (Willett et al.,
vourable local policies. These in turn could 2019). Besides food prices, financial and fis-
work to enhance direct connection be- cal incentives of unsustainable production
tween producers and consumers, provide systems also have a significant influence on
public facilities, support farmers´ associa- current food systems. To allow for food sys-
tions in building strong local marketing net- tem transformation, the creation of a
works, and entrench participatory guaran- shared understanding of all the positive
tee systems (PGS) to certify organic and and negative externalities of the food sys-
agroecological producers (HLPE, 2019). tem, as well as of the best approaches to
defining reduction targets is crucial
Farmers (particularly smallholders, (Perotti, 2020).
women and young people), producer or-
ganizations, input providers and businesses 6.3 Enhancing collaboration
transforming their operations based on
agroecological principles need access to Agroecological practices often depend
credit and alternative investment plat- on collective action across a landscape
scale, involving multiple farms and a range
forms with low capital costs. Not only farm-
of actors. Furthermore, agricultural innova-
ers but food systems actors in general re-
tions respond better to local challenges
quire access to secure and low-cost capital when they are co-created through partici-
to absorb risks (e.g., momentary lower patory processes and endorsed by local-
profitability) in the course of converting to- specific knowledge. Collaboration and co-
wards more sustainable business models. ordination across local, regional and na-
Investments into FinTech research which
10tional levels is key to support the active in- ditionally, increased funding to build last-
volvement and self-organization of food ing bridges for South-South collaboration is
system actors such as producers, private- needed. Supporting the emergence of
sector investors, academia, civil society long-term partnerships and coalitions with
and governments. There is growing evi- a focus on agroecology, local ownership,
dence from literature highlighting the need and the meaningful involvement of social
for collective action and coordination at
movements and farmers’ organizations is
the local level to create favorable soci-
equally important. In parallel, the Public-
otechnical conditions for agroecological
transition (Lucas et al., 2019). Agroecologi- Private Partnership model that is so central
cal innovations to be successful and imple- to current AgR4D needs to be continually
mented at larger scale, require mobilizing a scrutinized with regard to the delivery of
growing range of stakeholders with multi- benefits vis-à-vis the SDGs (Biovision &
ple perspectives (Triboulet et al., 2019). IPES-Food, 2020).
However, agroecological farmers often
Social movements associated with
value community cooperation higher and
agroecology have often arisen in response
as more important compared to colleagues
to agrarian crises and have joined forces to
working in non-agroecological farming sys-
initiate transformation of agriculture and
tems. This is in line with agroecology prin-
food systems. Agroecology has become the
ciples in which the links to members of the
overarching political framework under
community for knowledge sharing and
which many social movements and peasant
problem-solving are key to strengthen sus-
organizations around the world assert their
tainability and resilience (Leippert et al.,
collective rights and advocate for a diver-
2020). Through interactions with other
sity of locally adapted agriculture and food
stakeholders and networks, farmers and
systems mainly practiced by small-scale
other agents of change are supported to
food producers. These social movements
strengthen existing initiatives and further
highlight the need for a strong connection
develop collective awareness, identity, and
between agroecology, the right to food and
agency around agroecological manage-
food sovereignty. They position agroecol-
ment issues (Chable et al., 2020). This re-
ogy as a political struggle, requiring people
quires higher levels of coordination and in-
to challenge and transform existing power
creases transaction costs.
structures (HLPE, 2019).
Multi-stakeholder dialogues built on
evidence-based arguments can help to
6.4 Ensuring policy coherence to cre-
bring together different perspectives, as
ate a conducive policy context for agroe-
long as they are developed in an inclusive cology
manner (HLPE, 2019). Agricultural research To take agroecology to the next level,
projects and partnerships too often remain a solid governance structure combined
focused on one-way knowledge transfer with a set of coherent policy measures are
via institutes based in the Global North. It essential (Eyhorn et al., 2019). Laws, regu-
is therefore crucial not only to promote a lations, publicity awareness campaigns and
shift towards agroecological research but fiscal incentives are all part of a framework
also to rebalance North-South power rela- that should serve society. Many policy
tions through equal research partnerships measures have negative impacts on the
and direct access to research funding. Ad- goals of different national strategies and
11policy objectives such as climate, biodiver- measures were most effective in promot-
sity, soil protection, animal welfare, envi- ing sustainability in agriculture. By far the
ronmental protection, nutrition and health. most effective measures are government-
Current agricultural and trade policies, in- supported eco-schemes in all political, eco-
cluding subsidy schemes, still favor inten- nomic and social contexts, worldwide. Edu-
sive, export-oriented production of a few cation, extension or market incentives (de-
crops as well as the intensive use of fossil mand) come second. This has to do with
fuel and agrochemical inputs and must be the fact that the market only settles private
revised in order to address multi-function- goods and services, but not public goods.
ality of agriculture (Eyhorn et al., 2019; The important function of state interven-
HLPE, 2019). The holistic nature of agroe- tion (direct payments, investment subsi-
cology requires a well-coordinated coher- dies, contributions to research, education
ent policy framework and a shift from a and advisory services) is therefore to mini-
production focused perspective to one in- mize the conflict of goals between private
cluding new indicators covering nutritional and public goods and functions. If the funds
aspects, environmental impact and long- available for the various policy areas were
term stability of the system. Such a holistic channeled into agroecology, a huge trans-
accounting of the performance of food pro- formative force would develop very
duction would allow for an evaluation of all quickly.
the positive and negative externalities
One major challenge is that on aver-
(Perotti, 2020).
age, conversion to agroecological systems
International trade relations should in- typically results in a short-term reduction
clude or allow for specific tools or mecha- of yields (Tittonell, 2014) that needs to be
nisms to foster the marketing of products compensated by cost savings, higher prod-
derived from agroecological systems. Bi- uct prices or policy support measures to
and multilateral trade agreements should ensure the economic viability of the farms.
not include policies or ask for laws that Additionally, the definition of sustainability
might hinder agroecological production in agriculture and food systems must be
and even put its central elements as de- broadened beyond the efficiency narrative.
fined by FAO at risk. Sufficiency means reducing resource con-
sumption by adopting sustainable diets, re-
Agriculture benefits - at varying de-
ducing the demand for certain goods (e.g.
grees - from government support measures
feedstuff and biofuels produced on arable
all over the world. In Europe, these are
land), or increasing the demand of goods
mainly direct payments, which are paid out
with relative advantages that cause less
to farms to support their income. "Public
emissions and resource depletion under
money for public goods" is a claim that en-
certain situations and in certain locations,
vironmental politicians and NGOs have
and by reducing food waste. Although the
been making for 30 years. Fortunately,
efficient use of natural and human-made
there is a growing consensus that this
resources remains important, efficiency
would be an effective greening strategy
alone is often offset by rebound effects
and would bring great benefits to agroecol-
(Polimeni et al. 2008) such as a higher con-
ogy. Piñeiro et al. (2020) investigated which
sumption or wastage. Global mass-flow
12models show that narratives based on suf- (Biovision & IPES-Food, 2020). Multi-crite-
ficiency can successfully reduce the trade- ria sustainability assessment tools for
offs between productivity and eco-stability farms and food business are very helpful in
(Schader et al., 2015; Müller et al., 2017). assessing complexity and holistic sustaina-
bility and can accelerate transformation
Making use of existing public purchas- processes in agriculture and nutrition
ing obligations can provide economic and (Mottet et al., 2020).
political opportunities to implement policy
and build new and innovative socio-eco-
nomic relationships that create sustainable
food systems. Public procurement of sus-
tainably produced food, for example, can The sustainable development goals
support low-income and other groups (SDGs) recognize the strong interconnec-
within schools, hospitals and other public tivity among development goals and stress
institutions, setting off mutually reinforc- the need for holistic approaches and pro-
ing circuits. Interventions that focus on lo- found transformation of human activity
cal procurement of sustainably-produced across multiple dimensions and at multiple
food for school feeding programmes, or scales (Barrios et al., 2020). Due to the fun-
that target groups vulnerable to food inse- damental importance of agriculture, the
curity, to realize food sovereignty at local state of agriculture and food systems di-
and state level, can be effective in address- rectly or indirectly affects all 17 of these
ing food security and nutrition while sup- goals. Agroecology provides one tool to
porting sustainable food systems (Barrios help build sustainable food systems and
et al., 2020). These initiatives can also sup- thus contribute to the ambitious targets
port safe, decent, meaningful employment laid out under the SDGs (Farrelly, 2016). In
for marginalized groups, including young particular, agroecology can contribute to
people and low-income workers within the no poverty (SDG 1), zero hunger (SDG 2),
food system. good health and wellbeing (SDG 3), decent
International guidance to comprehen- work and economic growth (SDG 8), re-
sively measure outcomes of agroecological sponsible consumption and production
farming systems are TAPE (Tool for Agroe- (SDG 12), climate action (SDG 13) and life
cology Performance Evaluation), SAFA- on land (SDG 15).
Guidelines of FAO (2013) or UN System of
Agroecological approaches are in-
Environmental Economic Accounting
(SEAA). Research projects in general and creasingly called upon to play a greater role
technology development in particular in contributing to achieve sustainable
should be subjected to a holistic, mul- global food systems. Numerous promising
ticriteria assessment measuring against the examples demonstrating the potential of
elements of agroecology: FAO’s Tool for agroecology to stimulate and drive sustain-
Agroecology Performance Evaluation able transition of food systems around the
(TAPE) (FAO, 2019), the Agroecology Crite- world were presented in a stakeholder pa-
ria Tool (ACT), the growing body of work on per (CNS-FAO, 2021). If we implement the
‘true cost accounting’ and specific metrics concept and at the same time apply a co-
like the land equivalent ratio are at hand herent policy set, agroecology contributes
13to sustainable and resilient food produc- Promising examples of agroecological prac-
tion systems that help maintain ecosys- tices have developed and spread globally
tems and that progressively improve land (CNS-FAO, 2021), and the increasing
and soil quality. It further helps in main- awareness of society for the urgency of
taining the genetic diversity of seeds, culti- food systems transformation increase the
vated plants and domesticated animals. pressure on decision-makers to substan-
tially support the development towards
Through the promotion of reduced, alter-
sustainable food systems. Strengthening
native (non-chemical) and safe application
knowledge systems, working with markets,
of crop protection products, agroecology enhancing collaboration between food sys-
can reduce risks associated with agrochem- tem actors and creating an enabling policy
ical exposure, thus positively influencing environment will be crucial for this devel-
the health of rural workers and of consum- opment.
ers.
All these potential benefits of agroe-
cology mentioned above combined with
long term productivity, social wellbeing Aboukhalil, R. (2014): The rising trend in
and improved agency, reduction of food authorship. The Winnower
waste and loss and a sufficiency-oriented 2:e141832.26907.
agricultural production, require both a re- https://doi.org/10.15200/winn.141832.
thinking of the indicators and the way we 26907
measure performance of agricultural and Altieri, M.A., Nicholls, C.I., Henao, A. &
food systems (Mottet et al, 2020). Addi- Lana, M.A. (2015): Agroecology and the
tionally, a coherent policy framework is design of climate change-resilient farm-
necessary which is able to break policy silos ing systems. Agronomy for Sustainable
and improve governance structures in Development 35(3):869-890.
many countries, to allow for a higher self- https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-
control of resource base, decrease depend- 0285-2
ency of traditional market mechanisms Anderson, C.R., Bruil, J., Chappell, M.J.,
controlled by capital through the construc- Kiss, C. & Pimbert, M.P. (2021): Concep-
tion of new, nested, markets, a strong tualizing processes of agroecological
backing reliance of high quality of labor, transformations: from scaling to transi-
exchange of experiences and the availabil- tion to transformation. In: Agroecology
ity of skill-oriented technologies, and a high Now!. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
degree of self-regulation at the territorial https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-
level (Van der Ploeg, 2021). All these ele- 61315-0_3
ments are strengthening farming as an in- Armengot, L., Barbieri, P., Andres, C., Milz,
teresting, fulfilling profession, attractive J. & Schneider, M. (2016): Cacao agro-
for young people. To allow agroecology to forestry systems have higher return on
play a role in food system transformation, labor compared to full-sun monocul-
different governance levels and different tures. Agronomy for Sustainable Devel-
departments, teams and stakeholder opment 36(4):1-10.
groups need to closely work together to de- https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-
fine the key performance indicators for sus- 0406-6
tainable food systems and a policy frame Barrios, E., Gemmill-Herren, B., Bicksler,
aiming to reduce the amount of trade-offs. A., Siliprandi, E., Brathwaite, R., Moller
S., Batello, C. & Tittonell, P. (2020): The
1410 Elements of Agroecology: enabling nutrition? A review. Global Food Secu-
transitions towards sustainable agricul- rity 29: 100540.
ture and food systems through visual https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100
narratives. Ecosystems and People 540.
16(1): 230-247, Biovision & IPES-Food (2020): Money
https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.202 Flows: What is holding back investment
0.1808705 in agroecological research for Africa?
Beausang, C., Hall, C. & Toma, L. (2017): Biovision Foundation for Ecological De-
Food waste and losses in primary pro- velopment & International Panel of Ex-
duction: Qualitative insights from horti- perts on Sustainable Food Systems.
culture. Resources, Conservation and http://www.ipes-food.org/_img/up-
Recycling 126: 177-185. load/files/Money%20Flows_Full%20re-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rescon- port.pdf
rec.2017.07.042 Bruinsma, J. (ed.) (2003): World agricul-
Bellon, M. R., Ntandou-Bouzitou, G. D., & ture: towards 2015/2030; An FAO per-
Caracciolo, F. (2016): On-farm diversity spective. Earthscan Publications Ltd,
and market participation are positively Taylor & Francis Group. London & New
associated with dietary diversity of ru- York.
ral mothers in southern Benin, West Af- http://www.fao.org/3/y4252e/y4252e.
rica. PloS one 11(9): e0162535. pdf
https://doi.org/10.1371/jour- Chable, V., Nuijten, E., Costanzo, A.,
nal.pone.0162535 Goldringer, I., Bocci, R., Oehen, B., Rey,
Beus, C. & Dunlap, R. (1991): Measuring F., Fasoula, D., Feher, J., Keskitalo, M. &
adherence to alternative vs. conven- Koller B. (2020): Embedding Cultivated
tional agricultural paradigm: a pro- Diversity in Society for Agro-Ecological
posed scale. Rural Sociology 56(3): 432- Transition. Sustainability 12: 784.
460. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549- https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030784
0831.1991.tb00442.x Chappell, M.J. & LaValle, L.A. (2011): Food
Bezner Kerr, R., Kangmennaang, J., Da- security and biodiversity: can we have
kishoni, L., Nyantakyi-Frimpong, H., Lu- both? An agroecological analysis. Agri-
pafya, E., Shumba, L., Msachi, R., Odei culture and Human Values 28: 3-26.
Boateng, G., Snapp, S., Chitaya, A., https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-009-
Maona, E., Gondwe, T., Nkhonjera, P., 9251-4
& Luginaah, I. (2019): Participatory Clark, M. & Tilman, D. (2017): Comparative
agroecological research on climate analysis of environmental impacts of
change adaptation improves small- agricultural production systems, agri-
holder farmer household food security cultural input efficiency, and food
and dietary diversity in Malawi. Agricul- choice. Environmental Research Letters
ture, Ecosystems & Environment 279: 12:064016.
109-121, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.04 9326/aa6cd5
.004. CNS-FAO (2016): Working towards Sus-
Bezner Kerr, R., Madsen, S., Stüber, M., tainable Agriculture and Food Systems.
Liebert, J., Enloe, S., Borghino, N., Par- A discussion paper. Swiss National FAO
ros, P., Munyao Mutyambai, D., Pru- Committee (CNS-FAO), September
dhon, M. & Wezel, A. (2021): Can 2016.
agroecology improve food security and
15CNS-FAO (2019): Agroecology as a means perverse incentives and hypercompeti-
to achieve the Sustainable Develop- tion. Environmental Engineering Sci-
ment Goals. A discussion paper. Swiss ence 34: 51-61.
National FAO Committee (CNS-FAO), https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2016.0223
February 2019. Eyhorn, F., Muller, A., Reganold, J.P.,
CNS-FAO (2021): Pathways to advance Frison, E., Herren, H.R., Luttikholt, L.,
agroecology. Overcoming challenges Mueller, A., Sanders, J., Scialabba,
and contributing to sustainable food N.E.H., Seufert, V. & Smith, P. (2019):
systems transformation. Swiss National Sustainability in global agriculture
FAO Committee (CNS-FAO), March driven by organic farming. Nature Sus-
2021. tainability 2:253-255.
COAG (2018): Agroecology: from advocacy https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-
to action. Discussion paper for the 0266-6
Twenty-sixth Session of the FAO Com- Fabregas, R., Kremer, M. & Schilbach, F.
mittee on agriculture on 1-5 October (2019): Realizing the potential of digital
2018. Rome. development: The case of agricultural
CSM (2016): Connecting Smallholders to advice. Science 336: 6471.
markets. An analytical guide. The Civil https://doi.org/10.1126/sci-
Society Mechanism (CSM). ence.aay3038
http://www.fao.org/family-farming/de- Fanzo, J., Hunter, D., Borelli, T., & Mattei,
tail/en/c/1104374/ F. (eds) (2013): Diversifying food and di-
D’Annolfo, R., Gemmill-Herren, B., Gräub, ets – using agricultural biodiversity to
B., & Garibaldi, L.A. (2017): A review of improve nutrition and health. Taylor &
social and economic performance of Francis Group. London & New York.
agroecology. International Journal of https://www.bioversityinterna-
Agricultural Sustainability 15: 632–644. tional.org/e-library/publications/de-
https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.201 tail/diversifying-food-and-diets/.
7.1398123 FAO (2017): The future of food and agri-
Davis, A.S., Hill, J.D., Chase, C.A., Johanns, culture – Trends and challenges. Rome.
A.M. & Liebman, M. (2012): Increasing http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6583e.pdf
Cropping System Diversity Balances FAO (2018a): FAO'S work on agroecology -
Productivity, Profitability and Environ- a pathway to achieving the SDGs.
mental Health. PLoS ONE 7: e47149. http://www.fao.org/3/i9021en/I9021E
https://doi.org/10.1371/jour- N.pdf
nal.pone.0047149 FAO (2018b): The 10 elements of agroecol-
Dury, S., Bendjebbar, P., Hainzelin, E., ogy: guiding the transition to sustaina-
Giordano, T. & Bricas, N., (eds) (2019): ble food and agricultural systems.
Food Systems at risk: new trends and Rome.
challenges. Rome, Montpellier, Brus- http://www.fao.org/3/i9037en/i9037e
sels, FAO, CIRAD and European Com- n.pdf
mission. FAO (2018c): The future of food and agri-
https://doi.org/10.19182/agritrop/000 culture: Alternative pathways to 2050.
80 http://www.fao.org/3/CA1553EN/ca15
Edwards, M.A. & Roy, S. (2017): Academic 53en.pdf
research in the 21st century: maintain- FAO (2019): TAPE Tool for Agroecology
ing scientific integrity in a climate of Performance Evaluation 2019 – Process
16of development and guidelines for ap- riculture and food systems that en-
plication. Test version. Rome. hance food security and nutrition. A re-
http://www.fao.org/policy-sup- port by the High Level Panel of Experts
port/tools-and-publications/resources- on Food Security and Nutrition of the
details/en/c/1257355/ Committee on World Food Security,
Farrelly, M. (2016): Agroecology contrib- Rome.
utes to the Sustainable Development http://www.fao.org/3/ca5602en/ca560
Goals. Farming Matters 32: 32-34. 2en.pdf
Ferrero, R., Lima, M., Davis, A.S. & Gonza- HLPE (2020): Issues Paper on the Impact of
lez-Andujar, J.L. (2017): Weed Diversity COVID-19 on Food Security and Nutri-
Affects Soybean and Maize Yield in a tion (FSN) by the High-Level Panel of
Long Term Experiment in Michigan, Experts on Food Security and nutrition
USA. Frontiers in Plant Science 8:236. (HLPE).
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.0023 http://www.fao.org/3/cb1000en/cb100
6 0en.pdf
Geels, F. W. (2011): The Multi-level Per- IFPRI (2016): 2016 Global Food Policy Re-
spective on Sustainability Transitions: port. International Food Policy Re-
Responses to Seven Criticisms. Environ- search Institute, Washington DC.
mental Innovation and SocietalTransi- http://dx.doi.org/10.2499/9780896295
tions, 1: 24–40. 827
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.02. IIED (2015): Summary report of the high-
002 level workshop on scaling up agroecol-
GloPan (2016): The cost of malnutrition: ogy to achieve the SDGs. https://info-
why policy action is urgent. Technical hub.practicalaction.org/bitstream/han-
Brief No. 3. http://www.glopan.org dle/11283/594772/Agroecology_Work-
/sites/default/files/pictures/CostOfMal- shop.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
nutrition.pdf IPBES (2019): The Global Assessment Re-
Gliessman, S.R. (2015): Agroecology: The port on Biodiversity and Ecosystems
Ecology of Sustainable Food Systems. Services. Intergovernmental Science-
3rd Edition. Boca Raton, FL, USA, CRC Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Eco-
Press, Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN system Services (IPBES). https://ip-
9781439895610 bes.net/fr/node/35274
Godfray, Ch. & Garnett, T. (2014): Food se- IPCC (2019): Climate Change and Land.
curity and sustainable intensification. IPCC Special Report on Climate Change,
Philosophical transactions of the Royal Desertification, Land Degradation, Sus-
Society. Series B, Biological sciences. tainable Land Management, Food Secu-
369: 20120273. rity, and Greenhouse gas fluxes in Ter-
https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.027 restrial Ecosystems. Intergovernmental
3. Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Hebinck, P., Schneider, S. & Van Der Ploeg, https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/
J.D. (eds) (2014): Rural development Jones, A.D., Shrinivas, A. & Bezner-Kerr, R.
and the construction of new markets. (2014): Farm production diversity is as-
London: Routledge. ISBN sociated with greater household dietary
9780367869298 diversity in Malawi: findings from na-
HLPE (2019): Agroecological and other in- tionally representative data. Food Pol-
novative approaches for sustainable ag- icy 46:1–12.
17https://doi.org/10.1016/j.food- Food Systems 43: 145-179.
pol.2014.02.001 https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.201
Khourya, C.K., Bjorkmanc, A.D., Dempe- 8.1509168
wolfd, H., Ramirez-Villegas, J., Guarino, Mäder P., Fliessbach A., Dubois D., Gunst
L., Jarvis, A., Rieseberg, L.H. & Struik, L., Fried P. & Niggli U. (2002): Soil fertil-
P.C. (2014): Increasing homogeneity in ity and biodiversity in organic farming.
global food supplies. Proceedings of the Science 296: 1694-1697.
National Academy of Sciences, 111: https://doi.org/10.1126/sci-
4001-4006; ence.1071148
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1313490 Meemken, E.M. & Qaim, M. (2018): Or-
111 ganic agriculture, food security, and the
Lechenet, M., Dessaint, F., Py, G., Makow- environment. Annual Review of Re-
ski, D. & Munier-Jolain, N., (2017): Re- source Economics 2018 10: 39-63.
ducing pesticide use while preserving https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-re-
crop productivity and profitability on source-100517-023252
arable farms. Nature Plants 3: 17008. Mottet, A., Bicksler, A., Lucantoni, D., De
https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2017.8 Rosa, F., Scherf, B., Scopel, E., López-
Leclère, D., Obersteiner, M., Barrett, M., Ridaura, S, Gemmil-Herren, B., Bezner
Butchart, S.H., Chaudhary, A., De Kerr, R., Sourisseau, J.-M., Petersen, P.,
Palma, A., DeClerck, F.A., Di Marco, M., Chotte, J.-L., Loconto, A. & Tittonell, P.
Doelman, J.C., Dürauer, M. & Freeman, (2020): Assessing Transitions to Sus-
R. (2020): Bending the curve of terres- tainable Agricultural and Food Systems:
trial biodiversity needs an integrated A Tool for Agroecology Performance
strategy. Nature 585: 551–556. Evaluation (TAPE). Frontiers in Sustain-
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020- able Food Systems. 4:579154.
2705-y https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.579
Leippert, F., Darmaun, M., Bernoux, M., 154
Mpheshea, M., Müller, A., Geck, M., Müller, A., Schader, C., Scialabba, N.E.H.,
Herren, M., Irungu, W., Nyasimi, M., Bruggemann, J., Isensee, A., Erb, K.H.,
Sene, J.M. & Sow, M. (2020): The po- Smith, P., Klocke, P., Leiber, F., Stolze,
tential of agroecology to build climate- M. & Niggli, U. (2017): Strategies for
resilient livelihoods and food systems. feeding the world more sustainably
Rome. FAO and Biovision. with organic agriculture. Nature Com-
https://doi.org/10.4060/cb0438en munications 8: 1290.
Liebman, M.Z. & Schulte-Moore, L.A. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-
(2015): Enhancing agroecosystem per- 01410-w
formance and resilience through in- Muthini, D., Nzuma, J., & Nyikal, R. (2020):
creased diversification of landscapes Farm production diversity and its asso-
and cropping systems. Elementa: Sci- ciation with dietary diversity in Kenya.
ence of the Anthropocene 3:000041. Food Security 12: 1107–1120.
https://doi.org/10.12952/journal.ele- https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-020-
menta.000041 01030-1
Lucas, V., Gasselin, P. & Van Der Ploeg, Pardey, P.G., Chan-Kang, C., Dehrner, S.P.,
J.D., (2019): Local inter-farm coopera- & Beddow, J.M. (2016): Agricultural
tion: A hidden potential for the agroe- R&D is on the move. Nature News,
cological transition in northern agricul- 537(7620): 301.
tures. Agroecology and Sustainable https://doi.org/10.1038/537301a
18You can also read
