2013 11 07 ScalingUpAgroecology SV

7/25/2019 2013 11 07 ScalingUpAgroecology SV

1/8

If there was a silver lining in the disas-trous 20072008 food price crisis, itwas that it prompted governments andinternational donors to re-examine theirpriorities for agricultural development.They committed to invest in agricultureand food security in a manner that priori-tizes small-scale producers (especiallywomen), enhances the environmentand contributes to the development ofrural economies. While their promises

to spend more received media atten-tion, the focus of countless other debatesat the United Nations, among donorsand even at the World Bank, refocusedattention on how those funds wouldactually be spent. Choices about produc-tion methods, farming systems, types ofaggregators and value chains, etc., willlead to very different kinds of outcomesfor communities engaged in food produc-tion, harvesting and processing.

This is borne out by past experiencesin international development aid. Allthrough the second half of the twen-tieth century, agricultural developmentaid supported export-oriented produc-tion, rather than local food security.Donor support for agricultural foodproduction and processing methodsthat simultaneously help small-scaleproducers realize their food sovereigntyand protect the environment, would

lead to a different outcome. Toward thisend, we outline a set of principles andpractices of agroecolog y.

Those debates highlighted the environ-mental concerns associated with indus-trial monocultures, but all too often,agricultural development programsand projects still choose from a verylimited array of seeds and plants, andopt for chemical-intensive agricul-

ture (involving high use of pesticides,herbicides and fertilizers). In a worldconfronting an increasingly chaotic

climate, this kind of agriculture offelittle stability either for food produceor for consumers, and results in hisocial costs.1 Instead, the investmencould support a more holistic approathat integrates improvements productivity with enhancements of tnatural environment, crop-nutrievalue, local livelihoods and local contr

That alternative approach is agroecolo

which has the potential to increase bothe resiliency and sustainability agroecosystems and not only providthe principles for rural communitito reach food sovereignty, but alenergy and technological sovereigntyIn the lead up to Rio+20, civil socieorganizations ranging from the globfarmers movement La Via Campesito development and environmenorganizations made a concerted effo

to gain political support for agroecolo

Scaling Up AgroecologyTOWARD THE RE ALIZATION OF THE RIGHT TO FOOD

I N S T I T U T E FOR A G R I C U L T U R E AND T R A D E P O L I C Y

This document was prepared by Shiney Varghese and Karen Hansen-Kuhn based on consultations with a number of partners and ind

viduals involved in advancing agroecology around the world, including Grassroots International, International Development Exchang

Focus on the Global South, More and Better, and Third World Network. It is envisaged as a work in progress and will further be refine

on the basis of workshops and consultations with partners in Mexico, Brazil and South Africa in fall 2013.

2105 First Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404 USA iatp.org


2/8

as a way to help address the multiplechallenges related to food security, theclimate crisis and environmental crises.

But what exactly is agroecology andhow does it differ from other approachesto sustainable agriculture?

First, agroecology is an interdisciplinary

science that has benefitted from theinsights of ecologists and agronomists,as well as social scientists. Accordingto the International Assessment ofAgricultural Knowledge, Science andTechnology for Development (IAASTD,a multi-year study involving hundredsof experts and several U.N. agencies),agroecology is the science of applyingecological concepts and principles to thedesign and management of sustainable

agroecosystems. It includes the studyof the ecological processes in farmingsystems and processes such as: nutrientcycling, carbon cycling/sequestration,water cycling, food chains within andbetween trophic groups (microbes totop predators), lifecycles, pollination,herbivore/predator/prey/host interac-tions, etc.3

This definition implies that the study ofecological processes takes place not only

within the farming system, but also inrelation to surrounding landscapes &relevant watersheds, as well as in rela-tion to global carbon and nitrogen cycles.The IAASTD definition also recognizesthat agroecological functions aregenerally maximized when there is [a]high species diversity/perennial forest-like habitats.

The following ecological principles have

been identified as central to agroecologyby pioneer advocates and academicssuch as Miguel Altieri.4

1. Enhance recycling of biomass andoptimizing nutrient availabilityand balancing nutrient flow.

2. Securing favorable soil conditionsfor plant growth, particularly bymanaging organic matter andenhancing soil biotic activity.

3. Minimizing losses due to flows ofsolar radiation, air and water byway of microclimate management,water harvesting and soil manage-ment through increased soil cover.

4. Enhancing species and geneticdiversification of the agroeco-system in time and space.

5. Enhance beneficial biological inter-actions and synergisms amongagrobiodiversity components thusresulting in the promotion of keyecological processes and functions.

The above principles, mostly informedby an ecosystem-based approach, areshared by almost all shades of agroecol-ogists.5 They also implicitly presume a

set of social practices grounded in localempowerment and knowledge genera-tion that are often absent from otherdefinitions of sustainable agriculture.

One such definition is sustainableintensification (SI) of agriculture, whichhas become popular especially withinternational institutions, foreign-aidprograms and other large funders ofagricultural research and development.SI focuses primarily on increasing

productivity by tapping the unrealizedpotential of small-scale producers. Ininitiatives such as the U.S. Feed theFuture Initiative and the Gates Founda-tions Alliance for a Green Revolution inAfrica (AGRA), SI is the way to increaseyield without adverse environmentalimplications. Funders such as Bill andMelinda Gates Foundation, RockefellerFoundation, and UKs Department ofInternational Development (DFID)

support knowledge-creating interna-tional agricultural research institutionsof Consultative Group on InternationalAgricultural Research (CGIAR), whichhas identified sustainable intensifica-tion as its policy objective.

However, as Friends of the Earth Inter-national (FoE International) points outin an analysis of SI efforts: Aside fromenvironmental sustainability this [thedefinition of sustainable intensification

by Feed the Future Initiative] could a definition of commercial, intensiagriculture.6 FoE International furthanalyzes the practice and experiencesustainable intensification and showseveral examples where either they not benefit small farmers, or are nreally environmentally sustainable.

Since 2010, the Food and AgricultuOrganization (FAO) has begun using yanother term, Sustainable Crop Prodtion Intensification (SCPI), which has identified as one of its key strategobjectives since 2010. It is based on thrtechnical principles: simultaneouincreasing agricultural productivand enhancing natural resource; t

use of managed and natural biodivsity to build system resilience to abio

biotic and economic stresses, andthird, improving resource use efficienin input uses including pesticides afertilizers.7 Through SCPI, FAO plato provide member countries with array of technologies, policies, knowedge, information and capacity buildito help them increase their crproductivity and profitability throughotime [emphasis added].8 It is nsurprising that conservation agricture, recognized as part of SCPI, oft

includes chemical intensive no-tagriculture especially when it comto industrial-scale operations. Agbusinesses ranging from seed suppand agrichemical multinationals (eMonsanto), to companies working along the food value chains (e.g., NestUnilever, Pepsi) too are very investedthe promotion of both SI and SCPI, asclear from an initiative of theirs at tWorld Economic Forum (WEF): T

New Vision for Agriculture.9

This tension between holistic agecological principles and sustainabintensification contributed to intereamong key stakeholders pushing fthe development of ecological-basfarming in Africa to organize a sttegic planning meeting in ThiKenya, in May 2011. Organized by tAfrican Union Commission (AUand the Participatory Ecological La


3/8

Use Management (PELUM) Kenya, themeeting led to the creation of an AfricanEcological Organic Initiative andproposed an action plan which aims tomainstream Ecological Organic Agri-culture (EOA) into national agricul-tural production systems by 2020.10

Ecological Organic Agriculture (EOA)

is perhaps the closest continental-levelaction plan based on agroecologicalprinciples. The adjective ecological isespecially important, and implicitlyacknowledges that the mainstreamcertified organic sector is often basedon large-scale industrial agriculturalsystems where input substitutionbiopesticides rather than chemicalpesticidesis the norm, rather thanan integration of all the agroecological

principles above. Thus the internationalnetwork of organic producers, IFOAM,defines organic agriculture in a mannerthat includes input substitution withbio-based inputs.

Unlike mainstream organic agriculture,the idea of agroecology is to developagroecosystems with minimal depen-dence on energy-intensive inputs,emphasizing complex agriculturalsystems in which ecological interac-

tions and synergisms between biologicalcomponents provide the mechanismsfor the systems to sponsor and sustaintheir own soil fertility, productivity andcrop protection.11

This vision of agroecology as both ascience and a set of practices, is whatButtel describes as emerging fromecological and political economicalcritique of modern agricultural

systems.12

In this vision, agroecologyis highly knowledge intensive, and isbased on techniques that are not deliv-ered top-down but developed on thebasis of small-scale producers knowl-edge and experimentation.13This under-standing of agroecology was developedin the context of indigenous and peasantfarming systems (and notably, againstthe backdrop of large scale industrialmonocultures in the Latin Americas)over the last three decades.14 Here

agroecology is not only central to main-taining ecosystem integrity, but also torealizing food sovereignty.

What is foodsovereignty?

Food sovereignty is defined as theright of peoples to healthy and cultur-

ally appropriate food produced throughecologically sound and sustainablemethods, and their right to define theirown food and agriculture systems.15

Made prominent in 1996 at the FoodSummit, by La Via Campesina, one ofthe largest global networks of owner-cultivators, food sovereignty is aboutputting those who produce, distributeand consume food at the center of deci-sions on food systems and policies,

rather than t he corporations and marketinstitutions that have come to dominateglobal agriculture and food systems.

Advocacy for food sovereignty hasbeen in the making, not only in LatinAmericas but around the world, for afew decades now. Farmers in India prac-ticing what they call natural farming,or those in East Asian countries prac-ticing sustainable agriculture, whilecampaigning to get agriculture out of

free-trade negotiations, or indigenousgroups around the world seeking toenhance their traditional agriculturaland pastoral practices through innova-tive approaches, have all been advo-cating for their right to define their ownfood and agriculture systems.

Their practices too have been agro-ecological both in terms of ecologyprotecting the ecosystem base that

supports their food security whileseeking to maximize agriculturalproduction within ecosystem limitsand in terms of political economy, aspart of seeking to control their foodsystems and thus about realizing foodsovereignty.

In short, this vision of agroecologycombines the sciences of ecology andagronomy with the political economyof food production and consumption

(expressed as food sovereignty). Thapproach goes beyond improving tavailability of food to also ensuriaccess and the achievement of the rigto food; indeed, it should be the standaby which national agricultural stragies, food security plans and foreiassistance programs are evaluated their respective publics.

Assessing global foodsecurity programs

It is against this background that IATPworking with partners to develop a setpolicy indicators to assess whether pubor private programs to address globfood and agriculture challenges are acally heading in this new direction. To that, we have started with certain co

agroecological principles and practicdeveloped a set of indicators to asseecological benefits as well as socioenomic outcomes of these practices (sappendix).16 These indicators, howevshould be considered in an integratsense, to ensure that the focus is nsimply either on the science of agecology, or on the political economy of tfood production. While these indicatoare listed against a principle and prtices that directly correspond to them,

principles are mutually supportive athus outcomes, too, mutually reinforeach other. From that starting poiwe have defined certain key elemenof policy support that would be needto make those principles, practices aoutcomes possible.

Agroecology is by definition an innovtive, creative process of interactioamong small-scale producers and th

natural environments. Indigenoknowledge systems are invaluabresources for agroecological farmisystems that emulate and coexist winatural ecosystem processes. At tsame time, advocates of agroecolorecognize that in many parts of tworld farmlands have become degradand it would require additional invements as well as policy support to hesmall-scale producers improve s


4/8

and water conditions to increase farmoutputs, achieve local food security andlong-term ecosystem sustainability.

One size most definitely does not fitall. However, our initial consultationswith allies have identified certain setsof policy support that are conducive tocreating an enabling environment for

those innovations to occur and prosper.At the national level, they include:17

Agricultural policies that incen-tivize recycling of biomass withinthe agroecosystem

Agricultural investments andextension targeted specificallyto help small-scale producersimprove soil and water conditions

through agroecological practices

Agricultural policies that incen-tivise in-situwater conservation,soil (biota, organic matter andnutrient) enhancement, organictillage regimes and microclimatemanagement

Water policies that incentivizereduction of grey/blue waterfootprint of agricultural and food

systems, not only in crop selectionand farming methods but also infood processing and packaging,etc.

Trade, investment and intellec-tual property rights policies thatprotect indigenous and peasantsrights to select, domesticate,breed, exchange and use nativespecies of crops and livestock

varieties

Environmental and food safetypolicies based on the precau-tionary principle that avoid reck-less introduction of GMOs or otheremerging technologies

Coordinated environmental andagricultural policies on biodiver-sity that ensure heterogeneity

and diversity at the landscape andfarm level.

Agricultural, water and energypolicies that prioritize the use ofnatural resources such as land andwater for food production, localenergy security and local watersecurity

Agricultural research policiesand extension programs thatprioritize:

Research and developmentof new varieties that arebased on participatoryplant breeding techniques

Farmer- to- farmer knowl-

edge exchanges basedon locally determinedpriorities

Pro-democratization policiesthat recognize womens centralroles in agricultural and foodsystems, revitalize rural econo-mies, minority cultures as well asmarginalized livelihood practices.

These policies and programs, in turn,

require an enabling environment at theinternational level, including:

International trade policies thatallow national governments toexempt agricultural goods that arecentral to rural livelihoods, foodsovereignty and rural develop-ment from tariff liberalization asneeded.18

International investment policies(including those in trade agree-ments or in bilateral investmenttreaties) that reject investor-statedispute resolution provisions thatgive foreign investors the right tosue national governments overpolicies (such as restrictions onGMOs or changes in research andextension programs that restrictthe use of imported inputs)

International guidelines on landtenure that take as their startingpoint the rights of small-scaleproducers to stay on their land19

Foreign assistance programs tha

respond to locally deter-mined priorities for

knowledge generation andissemination (includingrecovery of traditionalknowledge and scientificinnovations)

support efforts to organizcooperatives and institu-tions controlled by localsmall-scale producers andtheir communities20

assist developing coun-tries to develop nationalaction plans to reviewand adjust laws that willallow farmers to save, useexchange and sell theirseeds; and allow improveaccess to genetic resourcethat go beyond the limits agreements such as UPOV1991 to enhance communi

rights over innovationsin seeds, plants andbiodiversity21


5/8

Endnotes1. Farmers suicides in India are an example of a

social cost of chemical intensive agriculture, borne by

producers. Bitter Seeds by Micha. X. Peled, http://www.

itvs.org/films/bitter-seeds Accessed June 28 2013.

2. Miguel A. Altieri Toledo (2011), The agroecological

revolution in Latin America: rescuing nature, ensuring

food sovereignty and empowering peasants, Journal of

Peasant Studies, Volume 38, Issue 3, 2011.

3. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowl-

edge, Science and Technology for Development

(IAASTD), Global report, (Washington, DC: Island Press,

2009), http://www.agassessment.org/reports/IAASTD/EN/Agriculture%20at%20a%20Crossroads_Global%20

Report%20%28English%29.pdf, Annex C, Glossary,

p.560 Accessed June 28 2013.

4. Reijntjes et al. (1992) quoted in A Viable Food

Futures, Part II, P.71 http://www.moreandbetter.

org/file_download/112/future2-bw-web-print.pdf.

Accessed on June 1, 2013.

5. Buttel describes three main types of agroecology:

ecosystem agroecology (predominant among ecolo-

gists), agronomic agroecology, and the third most

longstanding form of agroecology, referred to as agro-

ecological political economy. See Frederick H. Buttel,

Envisioning the Future Development of Farming in the

USA: Agroecology Between Extinction and Multifunc-

tionality? [New Directions in Agroecology Research and

Education, 2004?] http://www.agroecology.wisc.edu/downloads/buttel.pdf Accessed on June 1, 2013.

6. Friends of the Earth, Wolf in Sheeps clothing? An

analysis of the sustainable intensification of agriculture,

October 2012, http://www.foei.org/en/wolf-in-sheeps-

clothing. Accessed on June 1, 2013.

7. U.N. FAO: Save and Grow, A policy makers guide to

sustainable intensification of smallholder crop produc-

tion, Chapter 2. Farming Systems, http://www.fao.org/

ag/save-and-grow/en/2/index.html. Accessed on June

1, 2013.

8. U.N. FAO: Sustainable Crop Production Intensi-

fication (SCPI) in FAO http://www.fao.org/agriculture/

crops/core-themes/theme/spi/scpi-home/framework/

sustainable-intensification-in-fao/jp/. Accessed on

June 1, 2013.

9. World Economic Forum (WEF): Agriculture and

Food Security http://www.weforum.org/issues/agricul-

ture-and-food-security. Accessed on June 1, 2013.

10. Organic Africa: African Stakeholders meet in

Kenya to develop an African ecological organic initia-

tive (Source: IFOAM: Africa Organic News May 2011)

http://www.organic-africa.net/1608.html?&L=0&tx_

ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=522&cHash=07a82dde68456

f0dcec8ca1fe482b6bc. Accessed June 28 2013.

11. Altieri and Rosset (1995), As quoted in Agroecology:

principles and strategies for designing sustainable farming

systems http://nature.berkeley.edu/~miguel-alt/prin-

ciples_and_strategies.html). Accessed on June 1, 2013.

12. Frederick H. Buttel, Envisioning the Future Devel-

opment of Farming in the USA: Agroecology Between

Extinction and Multifunctionality? [New Directions inAgroecology Research and Education, 2004?] http://

www.agroecology.wisc.edu/downloads/buttel.pdf.

Accessed on June 1, 2013.

13. Miguel A. Altieri Toledo (2011), The agroecological

revolution in Latin America: rescuing nature, ensuring

food sovereignty and empowering peasants, Journal of

Peasant Studies, Volume 38, Issue 3, 2011.

14. Ibid.

15. International Planning Committee for Food Sover-

eignty (IPC), Definition Of Food Sovereignty (From The

Declaration Of Nylni) http://www.foodsovereignty.

org/FOOTER/Highlights.aspx Accessed on June 1, 2013.

16. Please see appendix on agroecological indicators

and policy advocacy asks.

17. Please see appendix on agroecological indicators

and policy advocacy asks.

18. As agreed to in the Hong Kong Ministerial declara-

tion of the WTO in 2006, but subsequently vigorously

opposed by rich country governments.

19. The Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible

Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in

the Context of National Food Security provides a good

starting point for those discussions.

20. The Global Agriculture and Food Security Program

provides some useful lessons on decision-making

structures and practices, particularly in the structure of

its governing board, which includes an equal numberof donor and recipient country governments and repre-

sentation by farmers organizations from the Global

South.

21. See the CSO reflections on the final statement

from International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources

for Food and Agriculture Fifth Session of the Governing

Body Muscat, Oman, 24/09/201328/09/2013, http://

agrariancrisis.in/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/

GB5-CSOreflection_PatrickMulvany.pdf. Accessed on

October 2, 2013.


6/8

Appendix 1

Agroecology Policy Options

Policy goal: Ensure climate adaptation for agriculture, stability of farm outputs, community access to micro-nutrient rich foand local food security while ensuring long term ecosystem sustainability

Agroeco logi cal p rincipl esSelected agroecological

practices

Asse ssab le I ndic ator s

Necessary Policy SupporContribution toecosystems

Socio-economic benefit to localeconomies

1.) Enhance

a. recycling of

biomass and opti-

mizing nutrient

availability

b. balancing of

nutrient flow

Increased use and

recycling of farm

based energy sources

(e.g., farmyard

manure, farm based

biomass, manual

labor)

Reductions in use

of fossil-fuel based

external inputs (fuel,

fertilizer, pesticide)

Reduced carbon

footprint

Increased ecosystem

resilience to deal with

climate extremes;

Help meet mitigation

and adaptation goals

Crops less suscep-

tible to pests and

pathogens due to

better soil nutrient

balance

Strengthened local

economies through

higher employment (with

increased use of appro-

priate technology that

use manual labor), lower

cost of production, and

reduced dependency on

external inputs resulting in

retaining of wealth in the

local communities

Increased efficiency

through sustainable useof natural resources in

vulnerable ecosystems

resulting in higher output

per unit of resource

Reduction in input costs

results in reduction

of agriculture-related

indebtedness in rural

communities

Less dependency on

suppliers of external inputs

including patented inputs

Agricultural policiesand programs that

incentivize recycling

of biomass within theagroecosystem

2.) Secure favorable

soil conditionsfor plant growth,

particularly by

a. managing organic

matter

b. enhancing soil

biotic activity

Mulching and other

practices designed to

incorporate organic

matter into the soil

Better soil quality in

terms of:

a. micro-nutrients

b. organic matter

c. microbial and

mycorrhizal

biomass

d. micro & macro-

arthropod

diversity, soil

biotic activity

Enhanced resil-

ience of crops and

landscape to weather

events such as

droughts and floods

Building long-termsustainability of soil

and plant life

Increases in agricultural

output from agroecosys-

tems and improving local

food security

Decreased vulnerability to

communities living in areas

that are prone to droughts

or excessive rains

Building long term produc-

tivity of farming systems

Agricultural invest-

ments and extensiontargeted specifically

to help small-scale

producers improve soil

and water conditionsthrough agro-ecologica

practices


7/8


practices




3.) Minimize losses due

to flows of solar

radiation, air andwater by way of

a. microclimate

management,

b. water harvesting

c. soil and water

management

through increased

soil cover

Integrated soil and

water management

practices, including:

a. Integrated Pest

Management

b. Push-Pull pest

management

c. increased use of

farmyard manure

etc.]

d. organic low/no-till

agriculture

Water harvesting

practices including:

a. bioswales/berns

b. terraces

c. bunds, etc

Increased water

availability for

ecosystem suste-

nance; increase in

ecological processes

and functions such

as water filtration

Improved waterretention capacity

of the soil; improved

moisture content

of air in the micro-

climate of the

agro-ecosystem

Reduction in grey

water footprint of

agriculture (that

causes issues such

as algae blooms and

hypoxia) and food

processing

Reduction in blue

water footprint ofcrops (or irrigation

water applied),

thereby help address

water crisis

Improved ground

water levels in the

watershed

Increased water availability

for meeting other water

needs including for socio-

economic development of the

community

Agricultural poli-

cies that incentivise

in-situwater conservation, soil (biota,

organic matter and

nutrient) enhance-

ment, organic tillag

regimes and microcmate management

Water policies that

incentivize reduc-tion of grey/blue

water footprint of

agricultural andfood systems, not

only in crop selec-

tion and farmingmethods but also in

food processing and

packaging, etc.

4.) Enhance species

and genetic

diversification of

the agro-ecosystemin time and space.

Crop diversification

programs designed to

achieve higher biodi-

versity in terms of:

a. intra- and inter-

species diversity in

farmingb. spatial and struc-

tural diversity of

crops (multicrop-

ping, intercropping,

hedgerows, tree

fences, etc.), across

landscapes

c. temporal diver-

sity (in terms of

rotations)

d. conservation

of landraces or

traditional varieties

Protection of local

biodiversity (faunaand flora outside

the agroecosystem

concerned) as a

result of agroeco-

logical practices

Improved livestock

integration into the

farm

Increased biodiver-

sity and Increased

presence of benefi-

cial insects

Diversified cropping

systems that are

capable of dealingwith biotic and abioic

stress

contribute to global

adaptation goals in

terms of increased

resilience and

robustness

improved micro-

climate that in turn

supports an increase

in biodiversity

Increase in avail-

ability of trees and

shrubs that function

as carbon sinks; Improved landscape

diversity e.g., in terms

of hedgerows, living

fences, trees etc.

Reduced resource

footprint of

animal-based food

production

Increase in communities

resource base for meeting

their livelihood needs

Increase in total income

per acre or production unit

Increased stability in terms

of assured farm outputsas well as possible higher

productivity in terms of

total output per unit area

(measured in terms of

output from a intercrop-

ping, rotation as well as

from animal products

raised from the same farm

simultaneously)

Higher micronutrient

values in crops, grains

and vegetables (or animal

products) and thus

increased access to healthy

food

Trade, investment

and intellectual

property rights

policies that protectindigenous and peas

ants rights to select

domesticate, breed,exchange and use

of native species of

crops and livestockvarieties

Environmental and

food-safety policies

based on the precautionary principle

that avoid reckless

introduction of GMO

or other emergingtechnologies

Coordinated envi-

ronmental and

agricultural policieson biodiversity that

ensure heterogeneit

and diversity at thelandscape and farm

levels.


8/8


practices




5.) Enhance beneficial

biological

interactions andsynergisms among

agro-biodiversity

components thus

resulting in the

promotion ofkey ecological

processes andfunctions

Locally controlled

solar, wind and

renewable energy

programs and water

resource develop-

ment that respects

ecological limits

Crop diversifica-tion programs that

integrate crops,

vegetables, livestock,

trees and fish in the

ecosystem

Contribute to global

efforts in:

a. biodiversity

conservation

b. water

conservation

c. Climate miti-

gation and

adaptation

Increased ecological

functions measured

in terms of

a. water quality

improvement of

runoff

b. increased plant

biodiversity

c. increased soil

microbial diversity

Synergies among economic,

ecological and climate

adaptation benefits (especially

stability in terms of assured

farm outputs from unit of

land through practices such

as integrating trees, crops,

vegetables, livestock and fishin the agroecosystem)

Agricultural, water and

energy policies that

prioritize the use ofnatural resources such

as land and water for

food production, local

energy security and loc

water security.

6.) Scientific researchon agroecology

integrates relateddisciplines to helpunderstand the life

in and around the

soil and comple-

ments indigenousknowledge systems

on agroecological

farming systemsthat emulate

and coexist with

natural ecosystemprocesses

Research and devel-

opment of indigenous

crop and livestock

varieties, as well as

new varieties based

on participatory plant

and animal breeding

techniques

Applied research

on soil structure,

moisture, soil biota,

and other agricultural

methods defined with

local farmers

Free and open sharing

of farming (and other

food production

related) knowledge

with small-scale

producers, that does

not require them to

use external inputs

Farmer-to-farmer

knowledge exchanges

based on locally

determined priorities

is the primary mecha-

nism for knowledge

sharing and extension

Decrease in environ-

mental footprint of

agriculture and food

systems

Enhanced social standing

of, and participation

by local communities,

(both men and women

engaged different aspects

of food production and

processing) as the owners

of local information for

agroecological knowledge

Increased access to exten-

sionparticularly agro-

ecological extension

Small-scale producers

no longer dependent on

corporate input suppliers

for their farming knowl-

edge and extension

Agricultural research

policies and extension

programs that prioritize

a. research and deve

opment of new

varieties that are

based on participa

tory plant breedin

techniques

b. farmer-to-farmer

knowledge

exchanges based

on locally deter-

mined priorities

7.) Enhance abilitiesof agriculturalists,

pastoralists, fishersand others to self-

organize; retain,reproduce and

redefine cultural

practices to pursuesustainable and

gender-sensitive

livelihood strate-gies; and effectively

influence social and

policy processesas well as govern-

mental decisions

Support efforts by small-

scale producers and their

communities to estab-lish locally controlled

institutions, including

cooperatives

Livelihood strategies

at community level are

ecologically sustainable

Empowerment of local

communities, increased

economic viability of tradi-tional livelihood practices,

revitalized rural and agrarian

economies

Pro-democratizationpolicies that recognize

womens central rolesin agricultural and food

systems, revitalize ruraeconomies, minority

cultures as well as

marginalized livelihoodpractices

2013 11 07 ScalingUpAgroecology SV

Documents

Transcript of 2013 11 07 ScalingUpAgroecology SV