Global Environmental Change 21 (2011) 441–452

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Global Environmental Change

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gloenvcha

Towards the real green revolution? Exploring the conceptual dimensions of a new ecological modernisation of agriculture that could ‘feed the world’

L.G. Horlings a,*, T.K. Marsden b,1 a Rural Sociology Group, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands b Sustainable Places Research Institute, Cardiff University, Glamorgan Building, King Edward VII Avenue, Cardiff CF10 3WA, United Kingdom

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article history: The challenge to produce enough food is more urgent than ever. We argue that the dominant food regime Received 15 February 2010 has responded to this challenge by a ‘narrow’ ecological modernisation process within agriculture which Received in revised form 20 December 2010 may decrease environmental effects to a certain extent, but also causes new negative side-effects and Accepted 9 January 2011 exposes some important missing links. In this paper we explore what might be a ‘real’ ecological Available online 5 February 2011 modernisation process, including social, cultural, spatial and political aspects. The central question concerns: is there evidence in practice that agro-ecological approaches can contribute to the future Keywords: demand for food production, especially in developing countries? We illustrate this by describing Ecological modernisation examples from Africa, Brazil and China, showing a rich variety of such approaches in agricultural Food production Sustainability practices. Agro-ecology Our conclusion is that agro-ecological approaches could significantly contribute to ‘feeding the Eco-economy world’, and thereby contribute to a ‘real green revolution’; but that this requires a more radical move Food regime towards a new type of regionally embedded agri-food eco-economy. This is one which includes re- thinking market mechanisms and organisations, an altered institutional context, and is interwoven with active farmers and consumers’ participation. It also requires a re-direction of science investments to take account of translating often isolated cases of good practice into mainstream agri-food movements. ß 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction: the new race for resources and production for example, depending on the expected average number of spaces children per woman (IAASTD, 2009a); but the emerging consensus is that the world will have approximately 9 billion people by about This paper starts with the challenge to critically consider and 2050 (UN, 2008). Predictions of future food demand also differ, but re-position agro-ecological perspectives in food production in a even the most optimistic scenarios require increases in food period of what might now be regarded as a new era of agri-food production of at least 50% (The Royal Society, 2009). Food demands ‘productionism’. How can we ‘feed the world’ in a really will both grow and shift in the coming decades not only as a result sustainable way? Can sustainable farming systems and practices of population growth but also because uneven economic growth contribute to an efficient, productive and profitable agriculture, increases consumer purchasing power, especially for meats; the meeting the demands of a growing world population and adapting growing urbanization encourages people to adopt new diets; and to climate change? Or will this new neo-Malthusian premise be climate change variations and events threaten both land and water met by a re-invigorated reliance upon the conventional agri-food resources (Pretty et al., 2006, p. 1114). paradigm and its associated packages of technologies? The successes and limitations of the first ‘green revolution’ in The challenge to increase food production has become more the 1960s have led to many calls for renewed investment and urgent than ever. The world population will increase up to at least collaboration. There have been calls for a ‘greener revolution’, a the mid-21st century, and absolute demand for food will rise. ‘double-green revolution’ (Conway, 1997), an ‘evergreen revolu- Estimates of population increases over the coming decades vary, tion’ (Swaminathan, 2000), a ‘blue revolution’ (Annan, 2000), and an ‘African green revolution’ (Sanchez et al., 2009). A variety of influential international reports on agriculture and food have been published (see for example World Bank, 2008; IAASTD, 2009a). * Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 317 485969; fax: +31 317 485475. These reports express some optimism that the necessary increases E-mail addresses: [email protected] (L.G. Horlings), [email protected] (T.K. Marsden). in food production can be achieved. Opinions vary, however, about 1 Tel.: +44 29 20874308; fax: +44 29 20874845. the best way to address these challenges.

0959-3780/$ – see front matter ß 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.004 442 L.G. Horlings, T.K. Marsden / Global Environmental Change 21 (2011) 441–452

The conventional approach to increase food supply, and given on EM as a scholarly and policy programme, influencing the its perceived ‘success’ in the recent past, is to suggest a vibrant position, freedom and power of farmers (Section 5). rejuvenation of the agri-industrial model. The agro-industrial Second, as an alternative paradigm we can see in outline the rise model, which emerged in the 1960s is informed by a neo-liberal of a new form of ecological modernisation that is re-embedded in logic of scale and specialization that ties farms and agri-food into space and place, leading to more autonomy for food producers and an industrial/bio-science dynamic (Van der Ploeg and Marsden, processors as a countervailing power to the global forces of agri- 2008, p. 30). It results in expanding the area of agricultural food corporatisation (Section 6). We will illustrate this with production, and continuing to increase production per hectare, empirical case-studies from different continents which express a especially in exporting countries, through continued generic rich empirical variety of locally embedded and innovative farm technological advances. In national policy circles support for this practices (Section 7). In order to offer a real alternative, it is argued ‘new-productivism’ can be witnessed in pleas that countries need that sustainable agri-food networks have to be scaled-up and to regain the former post-war priority of intensive productivism as aggregated, disseminated and supported by a series of new and a way of ‘feeding the 9 billion by 2050’ (see for example Evans, quite novel institutional and market arrangements (Section 8). This 2009, Chatham House, 2009, Royal Society, 2009). With the requires the need to critically examine the main constraining renewed framing of a future food shortage/population growth factors of this alternative paradigm, and the conditions for policy scenario, this is giving added impetus and justification for such a arrangements and partnerships that can support the scaling up and renewed intensive productivist model. This is also being expressed growth of sustainable agri-food networks. in new injections of both sovereign and private capital into super- intensive systems of livestock production in both the North and the 2. The new food challenge: the increasingly distorted anatomy South. of the global food regime Others (Evans, 2009; Ambler-Edwards et al., 2009) indicate, there is a stronger need to invest in what Parrot and Marsden The food challenge can be understood in the context of the (2002), somewhat earlier, called a ‘real green revolution’. Evans global food regime. The concept of food regime was first (2009, p. 8) argues, for instance, for a knowledge-intensive introduced by Friedmann (1987) followed by a systematic approach based on ecologically integrated approaches that put formulation by Friedmann and McMichael (1989). Friedmann’s more power in the hands of farmers rather than seed companies. basic notion of the food regime is of a ‘rule-governed structure of Agro-ecologists also argue that the agro-industrial model does not production and consumption of food on a world scale’ (Friedman, consider its effects on soils and water sources, nor the agro- 1993, 30–1). The ‘food regime’ concept has historicised the global ecosystem’s capacity for future production (Fernandez et al., food system: problematising linear representations of agricultural 2002). These scholars have discussed the principles and practices modernisation, underlining the pivotal role of food in global of a wide variety of more sustainable and organic forms of political-economy, and conceptualising key historical contradic- agriculture as an alternative to the agro-industrial model. The tions in particular food regimes that produce crisis, transformation agro-ecological literature describes a wide variety of agro- and transition (McMichael, 2009a). ecological practices, labelled by different terms such as low-input Later on the concept evolved (see for an overview McMichael, farming, agro-forestry systems, multi- and intercropping farming, 2009a). Araghi (2003) addressed the food regime as a ‘political poly-cultures, natural systems agriculture, organic production and regime of global value relations’. This approach not only so on (see for example Ma¨der et al., 2002; Altieri et al., 2001; politicises the world food order, but also focuses on food as a Altieri, 2002; Jackson, 2002). commodity. We have seen commodification of crop development In many ways we can see these debates as critical battlegrounds and its relationship to corporate strategies of ‘substitutionism’, of rival paradigms, with each attempting to claim the ground of whereby tropical products (sugar, palm oil) are displaced by sustainable forms of ecological modernisation (see Lang and agro-industrial by-products (high-fructose corn syrup, marga- Heasman, 2004; Sonnino and Marsden, 2005). Under current rine), and cereals are rendered functionally equivalent, such as in conditions of food crisis in many parts of the world, and what now feedstuffs and biotechnology feedstocks (Goodman et al., 1987). seems to be continued food inflation and speculation, the challenge We are now seeing it in the current ‘agrofuels project’ remains whether the heterogeneous diversity of sustainable and (McMichael, 2009b). often small-scale agri-ecological practices can offer a viable The global food regime has created economic complexities, alternative against both the market and scientific dominance of particularly in developing countries. The creation of intellectual the current agri-industrial food paradigm. Given these debates, a property rights has become an increasingly important source of central and critical question addressed here is: what are the competitive advantage and accumulation in the production and potential dimensions and parameters of an ecologically modernising trade of agricultural goods (Tansey and Rajotte, 2008). The and sustainable agriculture that can contribute to the future demand progressive expansion of corporate industrial relations in agricul- for food production? ture has put further strain on many small-scale farmers in This is a theoretical question as well as an empirical one. developing countries. These must also contend with direct Theoretically, we frame these arguments by using and applying competition from production systems that are highly subsidized some of the theories of ecological modernisation. Empirically, the and capital intensive, and thus able to produce commodities that question is raised as to whether there is viable evidence of a new can be sold more cheaply. Newly industrialized countries like India and real ecological modernisation paradigm which can be have increasingly subsidized inputs in agriculture since the early witnessed in agricultural and agri-food practices and policies. 1980s (IFPRI, 2005). Our analysis is based on an extensive critical review of available Besides population growth, several international trends have literature on farm practices. influenced the distortion of land use and production patterns, with First, we describe some aspects of the new food challenge negative effects, particularly in developing countries. The 2008 (Section 2), critically elaborating on the concept of ecological commodity boom and price hikes dramatically increased interna- modernisation; and how this has become recently far too aligned tional interest in agricultural land as a potential investment. with the dominant agri-food paradigm (Section 3). We then According to press reports, investors expressed interest in 42 explore the social, cultural and spatial side-effects of this million ha of agricultural land globally in less than a year. Of these, modernisation project in recent decades (Section 4), and elaborate more than 75% (32 million ha) were in Sub-Saharan Africa. The L.G. Horlings, T.K. Marsden / Global Environmental Change 21 (2011) 441–452 443 transfer of land to countries like China and Korea can lead to volume and area) is expected to increase in the future. FAO violation of local rights (World Bank, 2010). projections for the period of 1999–2030, estimate an increase of Land competition has also increased as a result of the global agricultural production by 56%, with arable land expansion production of crops for biofuels (Mol, 2007). China, to give just accounting for 21% of production growth in developing countries. one example, has successfully acquired the rights to grow palm oil However, such an increase requires high inputs of resources (such on 2.8 million ha of Congolese land (The Economist, 2009). Nilsson as water), which are likely to become scarcer. The share of irrigated et al. (2009) show how decisions on how to fuel cars have effects production in developing countries, for instance, is projected to on the livelihoods of poor people in other parts of the world. increase from 40 to 47% in the period of 1999–2030 (FAO, 2006a). Switching to energy crops even on existing arable land can cause Food supply will also be pressurized as a result of the burgeoning displacement effects with similar but indirect effects on emissions. demand for agricultural feedstocks and biofuels, which has already Without proper safeguards the expansion of biofuels may pushed up world food prices (Rosegrant et al., 2007). Cereal negatively affect biodiversity and water resources (Nilsson et production is now 2.7 times the amount that was being produced al., 2009, p. 22). Clearing land for producing energy crops can 50 years ago, but a large proportion of this plant material is increase greenhouse gas emissions relative to the continuous use removed for livestock feed and a growing amount for biofuel of petroleum-derived fuels (Bo¨rjesson, 2009). Expansion of energy production. Since a peak in grain production of around 250 kg per crop production would lead to a large increase in evapotranspira- person worldwide in 1995, per capita availability of cereal and tion appropriation for human uses; potentially as large as the roots has dropped back to near 1960s levels of around 220 kg present evapotranspiration from global cropland. In some coun- person of grain available for direct food use (FAOSTAT, 2009). As tries this could lead to further enhancement of an already stressed food productivity as tended to plateau, food security – getting the water situation (Berndes, 2002). Rising competition for feedstocks, food to the right people in the right place at the right time – has or land, causes food prices to increase (RFA, 2008), which in turn been exacerbated. fosters higher levels of volatile financial speculation. The expectation is that the World Food Summit (WFS, 1996) The increasing meat production and consumption on a global target to reduce the number of undernourished between 1990/ scale also influences land use. Competition at the world level is 1992 and 2015 by half will not be met (FAO, 2006b). More than one rising for the supply of protein-rich animal feeds. Meat production billion people are now hungry and undernourished worldwide is not only one of the causes for greenhouse gases, it requires 80% of (FAO, 2009). Although the number of undernourished people will the amount of agricultural land, while it accounts of only 15% of the decline according to the FAO (from more than 850 million at total food consumption (Van Vuuren and Faber, 2009). Some present to about 300 million by 2050), higher rates of poverty and suggest that demand for livestock products will double by 2050. food insecurity are expected to continue under the present models Already more than one-third of the world’s grain is fed to domestic of food production and consumption, along with further natural livestock, rising to nearly 70% in industrialized countries (The resource degradation (Scialabba, 2007, p. 2). Royal Society, 2009). In recent decades many scholars have discussed the side-effects These macro production and consumption trends are now of the dominant food paradigm model and its myths of efficiency embedded in wider concerns about resource depletion, on the one (Morgan et al., 2006). We have, of course, known for a long time that hand, and related climate change effects on the other. Food the current agri-food system has also caused serious environmental production is now grown on 40% of the total land area; yet 90% of negative side-effects, which can have a ‘boomerang effect’ on food farms worldwide have a size of less than 2 hectares (IAASTD, 2009a). production in the future. Intensive production methods have left a Most small farms with a size of less than two hectares are in Asia huge environmental footprint (Rosegrant et al., 2007). High-energy (87%), followed by Africa (8%), Europe (4%) and America (1%) crop production has involved sharp increases in fertilizer, pesticide (Nagayets, 2005). Agriculture still includes a large variety of ways of and water use, leading to increased emissions of nitrates and production like crop-, animal-, forestry- and fishery-based systems pesticides into the environment and depletion of groundwater or mixed farming, including new emerging systems such as organic, aquifers (Moss, 2008). More than half of all the synthetic nitrogen precision and peri-urban agriculture. Although agricultural inputs fertilizer ever applied on the planet has been used since 1985; and and outputs constitute the bulk of world trade, most food is still phosphorus use (another increasingly scarce resource), tripled consumed domestically and locally, i.e., near to where it is produced. between 1960 and 1990 (Millennium Assessment, 2005). Water use Agricultural production has shown a spectacular conventional in agriculture is expected to double by 2050, mainly due to the need growth since the start of the first ‘Green Revolution’ in the 1960s. In to increase irrigated production (CA, 2007). per capita terms, it has outpaced population growth, and resulted About 30% of global emissions are attributed to agricultural in an extension of irrigated area. Compared to food consumption in activities, including land use changes such as deforestation 1961, each person today has (pro-rata) 25% more food. However, (IAASTD, 2009a). Rising temperatures, altered rainfall patterns these aggregate figures hide important differences between and more frequent extreme events will increasingly affect crop regions. The growth has differed across continents: in Africa it production, often in those places that are already most vulnerable rose by 140%, in Latin America by almost 200%, and in Asia by 280%. (Morton, 2007). The effects of climate change on world agriculture The greatest increases have been in China, where a 5-fold increase are uncertain. Working Group 2 of the Intergovernmental Panel of of production occurred, mostly during the 1980s and 1990s (FAO, Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated that global crop production 2009). will be threatened by global temperature increases of 1 8C and The total cultivated area has increased much less than output in begin to decline significantly at 3 8C(Easterling et al., 2007). But recent decades, i.e., from 1.4 to 1.5 million ha between 1950 and this global picture flattens out regional variations that might bring 2005, although fallow systems were greatly reduced (Wood et al., catastrophic impacts on, for example, the drier tropical areas 2000). Though in the past 40 years, per capita world food (Schmidhuber and Tubiello, 2007). A scenario study suggests that production has grown by 17%, with average per capita food further liberalisation of agricultural trade could lead to an increase consumption in 2003 of 2780 kcal per day; consumption, on the in gas emissions (6% compared to the reference scenario) caused by other hand, in 33 of the poorest countries is still less than 2200 kcal vegetation clearance; mainly in South America and Southeast Asia per day (Pretty et al., 2006). (Verburg et al., 2009). It has been argued that agriculture could meet the growing The capacity of ecosystems to deliver essential services to demand to some extent, because production capacity (both in society is already under stress and the additional effects of climate 444 L.G. Horlings, T.K. Marsden / Global Environmental Change 21 (2011) 441–452 change will require more profound forms of adaptation. Species will argue that in order to function as a potential countervailing behaviours are altering and disrupting ecological mutualisms. power these initiatives have to be up-scaled within a broadened Extinctions occur within vulnerable habitats and under conditions ecological modernisation agenda. We will, in the foregoing where migrations are necessary for survival but where there are sections, use empirical evidence in the sphere of agri-food to often no pathways available for successful movement (Mooney et address this agenda. First it is necessary to critically examine the al., 2009). A study of 23 climate models in Science (Battisti and roots of ecological modernisation in order to explain how a narrow Naylor, 2009) predicts that by 2090, elevated temperature will not interpretation of ecological modernisation has become aligned to only cause excess evaporation but also speed up plant growth with and adopted by the current dominant food paradigm. consequent reductions in crop yields in many regions. The authors predict future production reductions of 20–40%, while the 4. Principles of ecological modernisation: some missing population in tropical regions is expected to double to 6 billion. dimensions Further extreme events such as floods and droughts are likely to become more severe and frequent over the next century under all Ecological modernisation has become a popular theory in both scenarios and for most land areas (Battisti and Naylor, 2009). policy and politics. Its popularity derives in part from the The agro-industrial model has not only caused environmental suggestive and normative power of its combined notions of but also social effects. The achievements of the green revolution development and modernity and to ecological critique (Christoff, since the 1960s have led to increased production, but the benefits 1996, p. 476). Based on our analysis of the ‘godfathers’ of ecological of increased yields have been distorted. The complexities of African modernisation such as Ja¨nicke (1984), Huber (1982, 1985) and agricultural landscapes, with mixed crops and poor access to credit Toffler (1981), the main characteristics of ecological modernisation markets, seeds and fertilizers, did not suit green revolution crop can be described as: varieties (Paarlberg, 2006). Other social side effects included mechanization replacing manual labour and worsening poverty in (1) Qualitative, economical growth; some rural areas (Conway, 1997). The imperative of cost/prices (2) realisation of ecological goals; ‘squeezes’ through continued adoption of technological advance- (3) modern technologies which can have an enormous potential ments and continued scale-enlargement has locked large areas of for stretching the ecological boundaries and reduce negative rural space into the ‘treadmill’ of production and profit max- environmental effects, for example in energy-production, agri- imalisation (Ward, 1993). Many farmers are unable to compete in business, biological and chemical sector and ICT; this ‘race to the bottom’ (Marsden et al., 2001, p. 77; Van der Ploeg (4) a steering governmental role as Huber stated, market and and Renting, 2000, p. 529). governance need each other, compensate and limit each other (Huber, 1985); 3. Reassessing the value of an eco-economical approach (5) a further ‘scientification’ of society.

Under these more volatile and vulnerable conditions, a key question concerns how can new ways be found for making Ecological modernisation theory emerged from attempts to sustainable agriculture work as a viable alternative to the address the perceived problems associated with early environ- prevailing food system? The challenge here, we argue, is to give mental policy-making and implementation. In the 1980s, for more attention and potential value to the evolution of a place- example end-of-pipe practices that only shifted industrial-related based economy, and to critically explore new eco-economical problems between environmental media (Mol, 2000; Mol and perspectives (Kitchen and Marsden, 2009). Drawing on various Sonnenfeld, 2000). The theory of ecological modernisation has strands of literature, including ecological economics, ecological developed since then (see Hajer, 1995; Mol and Sonnenfeld, 2000; goods and services, and ecological modernisation, we can conceive Murphy, 2000; Murphy and Gouldson, 2000). Some countries such of the eco-economy as an alternative and diverse arena for the as China developed their own interpretation of EM (Zhang et al., development of new production and consumption chains and 2007). networks. It consists of complex networks or webs of viable Distinctions can be made between weak and strong, or narrow businesses and economic activities that utilise the varied and and broad versions of EM (Christoff, 1996; Dryzek, 1997). Dryzek differentiated forms of ecological resources in more sustainable conceives of weak versions as EM, addressing environmental and ecologically efficient ways. Importantly, these do not result in problems by technocratic and corporatist modes of policy-making. a net depletion of resources, but instead provide cumulative net A strong EM should therefore be concerned with restructuring the benefits that add value to rural and regional spaces in both capitalist political economy. In this sense Dryzek’s strong EM can ecological and economic ways (Kitchen and Marsden, 2009; be seen as a radical vision on sustainability (Hermans et al., 2010). Marsden et al., 2010). We can argue that over recent decades a prevalent but weak form The search for ecological modernisation in rural areas is an of ecological modernisation has been influencing the dominant food empirical as well as theoretical endeavour. It requires a more regime. This ‘bio-economic’ model focuses on agricultural develop- ecologically modernising agenda based upon a more diverse ment in the form of integrated farm techniques, ICT-applications, theoretical base (see Buttel, 2000; Gibbs, 2000; Mol, 2000; technical crop improvement, genetic modification and the design of Murphy, 2000). A central theoretical question is then: ‘to what sustainable ‘agro-parks’ for intensive production. On the other hand, extent are we seeing the arrival of a more autonomous and we can also propose the outline of a more place-based ‘eco-economy’ countervailing ecologically modernising process operating in based on a broad variety of local practices, NGO projects and farmers advanced societies, and as part of this, through rural development initiatives, illustrating a more locally embedded agriculture, adapted and agri-food trends specifically? Second, if we believe that this is a to natural assets and based on a diversity of agro-ecological viable question, then what conceptual development and empirical approaches. realities does it suggest with respect to the rural sphere?’ Weak forms of ecological modernisation may have led to a (Marsden, 2004, p. 130). decrease in environmental problems, but negative side-effects So the challenge is not to accept the growing vulnerabilities of have also occurred. These effects illustrate the exclusion or at best the prevailing system but to search for empirical examples and underestimation of the wider and much more diverse social, agricultural practices which can function as viable alternatives. We cultural, political and spatial dimensions of agriculture within the L.G. Horlings, T.K. Marsden / Global Environmental Change 21 (2011) 441–452 445 weak ecological modernisation project. We can outline at least four their products to Europe. This has expressed itself in a global missing dimensions. proliferation of standards setting, both by the state and particularly Socially, we have seen a large decrease of agricultural by the global retailers (Busch and Bingen, 2006), and led to more employment and a loss of farmers’ freedom, with more depen- constraints in markets and the imposition of supply chain dency upon privately regulated global markets, retailers, research regulations. These are less transparent than more traditional food and policy-measures (Van der Ploeg, 1991; Horlings, 1996). markets and they tend to restrict entry to many producers. As a Primary producers at the end of the chain bear the responsibility new panacea, ‘transparency’ is now expressed, for instance for the quality of products but are excluded from the often more through the process of ‘traceability’. What indeed may be labelled lucrative, value-added retailer-led food markets. For those that do liberal market orientation can really be seen as hyper-hygienic gain entry, the degree of informal control over their operations bureaucratisation. Although NGO’s have tried to develop their own severely constrains their ‘room to manoeuvre’ (Marsden, 2004,p. certification schemes and regulation in order to favour agro- 137). Weak ecological modernisation in this sense can lead to loss ecological initiatives in developing countries, this has sometimes of autonomy at the local scale. disadvantaged these countries, because of lack of expertise or Culturally, ‘the environment’ is reduced to a series of institutional capacity (Parrot and Marsden, 2002). fragmented or ‘closed box’ concerns about resource inputs, waste Several scholars have described how the role of the state has and pollution emissions. As cultural needs and non-anthropocen- influenced agriculture in line with weak ecological modernisation tric values cannot be reduced to monetary terms, they tend to be (e.g. Van der Ploeg, 1999). A clear example is the ‘hygienic mode of marginalised or excluded from consideration (Christoff, 1996). The regulation’ in agri-food. As the industrial mode of food supply has culture of agri-‘culture’ itself, expressed in craftsmanship and a become even more crisis-ridden, the State has attempted to large variety of locally embedded farming styles, has become largely ‘correct’ this by setting up highly professionalised and marginalised as the influence of external institutes such as bureaucratic forms of environmental and food safety and quality extension services and scientific research became more dominant safeguards and instruments. Private and public forms of regula- (Horlings, 1996). tion have led to a ‘regulatory treadmill’, which has, in turn, acted Politically, in agriculture a ‘hygienic mode of regulation’ has to further constrain farmers ‘room for manoeuvre’; and to become dominant in agri-food in the form of the proliferation of discourage alternative and more spatially sensitive farming arms-length bureaucratic forms of environmental safeguards and practices (Marsden et al., 2010). Hence both in developed and instruments. Private and public forms of regulation have led to a developing economies farmers in particular have faced significant schematisation which creates new regulatory barriers to market market barriers and added regulatory costs, forcing many out of entry for many smaller producers and processors. Farms (and business, or fragmenting and marginalising alternative sustain- farmers) have taken the brunt of this scientific risk management able practices. strategy (see Marsden et al., 2010). The question remains, however, if real or stronger forms of Spatially, intensive agricultural production has been decoupled ecological modernisation can be organised in ways which build and fragmented from space and place, visible in the form of capacity and sustainable productivity, such that capacities, footloose production, international food transport and the resources, diversities and creativity in different regions can be deconstruction of food into different value-added food compo- enhanced (Frouws and Mol, 1999, p. 271), see the outlines of such a nents. This gives the industrial producer and processor the power ‘real’ modernisation process as offering ‘possibilities for a process to exchange resources worldwide, making farmers more vulnera- of ‘re-embedding economic practices-in view of their ecological ble to global markets (Van der Ploeg, 1992). dimension-within the institutions of modernity’. How can such a ‘re-embedding’ process develop in the agricultural sphere? 5. Towards ‘real’ ecological modernisation as a scholarly and policy programme? 6. Constructing the conceptual dimensions of an alternative/ real form of ecological modernisation Ecological modernisation seeks to find ways to work from within the prevailing capitalist and carbon-based economy to In order to begin to answer these questions it is important to bring about both ecological balance and economic development. It more rigourously distinguish weak and strong(er) forms of EM. In sees, to varying degrees, the role of the multi-level state as a critical Table 1 we outline potentially weak and strong frameworks for actor in intervening between the production and consumption of ecological modernisation in agriculture and agri-food networks. environmental goods and services (Kitchen and Marsden, 2009,p. This begins to show some of the contours of an alternative 277). paradigm to the prevailing agri-industrial model. The table To understand some of the consequences of a (weak or narrow) addresses and summarizes the missing dimensions of weak EM as a policy programme, insight from an historical perspective is ecological modernisation described in Section 4, such as the helpful. This shows how the role of the state has stimulated general productivity-oriented approach which relies heavily upon generic bureaucratic procedures leading to a standardisation, schematisa- technological innovations, particular forms of scientific knowl- tion and juridical regulation of society. Frissen (2007), for instance, edge, ecological engineering, use of external resources and state describes how the positive values of equality and justice, have led policy. A strong ecological modernisation should ideally lead to a to institutional arrangements in western societies that stimulate value place-based eco-economy, including agro-food networks uniformity. Since the ‘caring state’ has fallen into crisis, the state is which are more embedded in local communities, based upon a trying to deal with financial shortages, but these attempts mainly more comprehensive science and knowledge base (see also contribute to the problems; because the main measurements are a Horlings and Marsden, 2010). refining of bureaucracy, fixation on cost limitation, general interventions and a further bureaucratisation. The political 7. Towards empirical ‘evidence’: a rich variety (or archipelago) outcome and receipt is a combination of the discourse of of agro-ecological initiatives entrenched liberal market orientation and of an intensified bureaucratic control. Given this further specification, we can now analytically In the agri-food sector this leads to, among other effects, explore examples in the literature of endogenous sustainable constraining market conditions for developing countries to export agricultures, addressing to varying degrees some of the key 446 L.G. Horlings, T.K. Marsden / Global Environmental Change 21 (2011) 441–452

Table 1 Weak and strong ecological modernisation in agriculture and agri-food networks.

Dimensions Weak ecological modernisation Strong ecological modernisation

Economical Corporatisation Agri-food networks Productivity (yield) oriented Integral approach of food production Cost-prize squeeze on agriculture Value-adding at farm level Technological Technology development economically driven Technological generation as a demand-driven Technological environmental solutions process and spatially sensitive Closed loops of energy, waste and minerals Ecological Ecological and genetic engineering (industrial ecology) Based on agro-ecological principles, flexible and adaptive to ecologies and places Social-cultural Dependency, scientification, rational man-nature relation, Autonomy loss of farmers freedom/agricultural employment Synergy between man-nature Demand-driven research Labour-intensive Spatial Globalised Locally embedded in the community Export-oriented Use of local resources Use of external resources Political Top-down steering One-direction communication by extension services Enabling policy Power concentrated at multinationals and large retailers Participatory approaches Privatized Research & Development Influence of communities in agri-food networks Local and regional institutional actors dimensions outlined in Table 1. We will particularly focus here on continued cost-price squeezes in agriculture (as well as other the ecological dimension of sustainability. land-based activities, like forestry) has stimulated alternative and The sustainability of any agricultural system is dependent upon more embedded rural eco-economical development (Van der Ploeg the specific context of space and place. Within agro-ecological and Marsden, 2008). Macro-economically, rural economies seem systems it is important to recognise that they utilise space and place to be caught in the process of a continuous squeeze between the in ways which augment sustainability (see Morgan et al., 2006). prices and costs associated with land-based production and the Indeed, they explicitly rely upon their local conditions as a means as growing market and consumer expectation of high-quality or well as a condition of production; and, not least to maintain and natural rural resource-based goods and services. Faced with these enhance diversity. The emphasis upon diversity means that it is far-reaching concerns and issues farmers are being encouraged rarely possible to generalise or to genericise sustainable production towards more ‘value-adding’ and multifunctionality (Marsden and technologies; however much the scientific urge. Nevertheless, we Sonnino, 2008). can identify some elements which are shared among agro-ecological Under these conditions, agricultural activities are deepened, systems. Furthermore it is important to question the role of current transformed and expanded by the linkages and associations with and historic institutional frameworks in nurturing, or otherwise, new actors and agencies, as farm enterprises seek to deliver new place-based agricultural initiatives. products that entail more value-added, and serve the new Research shows that there is a multitude of such ‘real’ demands of urban-based society. This is referred to as the sustainable agricultural systems worldwide. They range from deepening process, which is exemplified by organic farming, small subsistence farms to small-scale and large commercial high-quality food production and the creation of new short food operations across a variety of ecosystems and encompassing very sully chains. Second, the interactions, with the rural environment diverse production patterns. In Africa alone, there are at least 20 are broadened through the inclusion of new non-agricultural major farming systems combining a variety of agro-ecological activities that are located on the interface among society, approaches, small- or large-scale, irrigated or non-irrigated, crop- community, landscape and biodiversity. This constitutes the or tuber-based, hoe- or plough-based, in highland or lowland process of broadening, which occur through activities, such as situations (Spencer et al., 2003). agri-tourism, nature and landscape management, new on-farm Sundkvist et al. (2005) speculate that local-scale food systems activities and diversification. Finally, through the process of re- are more sustainable because they have ‘tight feedback loops’ grounding, farm enterprises are grounded in new or different sets of linking consumers, producers and ecological effects. In such resources and become involved in new patterns of resources use systems, positive adaptive responses are more possible because (Van der Ploeg et al., 2002, p. 12). of earlier and stronger signalling of negative effects requiring a From a critical review of literature relating to the rural South, change in behaviour in the system. In his view intensification, more specifically, we can broadly distinguish the following specialization, distancing, concentration and homogenization are sustainable farming systems which, to varying degrees, espouse trends that can be identified as major constraints for tightened the ‘strong EM’ and agri-ecological principles outlined above. feedback loops (Sundkvist et al., 2005). This suggests locally These are: (1) organic agriculture, (2) urban and peri-urban embedded food systems are more resilient. But they tend not to be agriculture, (3) conservation agriculture or zero-tillage, (4) low- measured in this way. input agriculture; we use this as an overarching term for all kinds (Sonnino et al., 2008, p. 35–37) have previously given an of farming techniques which use less external inputs and reduce overview of the principles of sustainable agriculture, including: the negative environmental effects, (5) agro-forestry and multifunc- co-evolution of society and natural factors, the use of indigenous tional agriculture and (6) aqua-culture. knowledge, endogenous potentialities, and systematic strategies In the next sections we will give some examples of the which reflect an integral farming approach, including bio-physical productivity of these sustainable farming systems (for more factors and social actions, collective forms of actions, ecological examples see also FAO, 2002). and cultural diversity and agricultural multi-functionality and encompassing the social ecology component. 7.1. Organic agriculture A key further principle in this regard is multifunctionality in agricultural and rural practices. This has been a principle more During an international conference on organic agriculture and elaborated in the advanced economic context whereby the food security in 2007 in Italy it was stated that organic agriculture L.G. Horlings, T.K. Marsden / Global Environmental Change 21 (2011) 441–452 447 could produce enough food on a global per capita basis (Halberg et system has a good resilience against droughts, thanks to the Ensete al., 2007; Scialabba, 2007), based on models of Badgley et al. (2007) plant which captures water with its fan-shapes leaves and fibrous and Halberg et al. (2007). Badgley et al. compared yields of organic root-system which also prevents erosion. Since only a small versus conventional or low-intensive food production for a global proportion of the farm area is harvested and replanted, damage to dataset of 293 examples and estimated the average yield ratio the site by rainwater erosion or by sunburn is also minimised. organic: non-organic of different food categories for the developed There is a biological differentiation in cropping between the three and the developing world. For most food categories, the average zones in the highlands. yield ratio was slightly <1.0 for studies in the developed world and Key components like Ensete function as a pacemaker (i.e. >1.0 for studies in the developing world. regulation of agro-ecosystem rhythm); spacemaker (i.e. provision High yield ratios in the developing world are obtained when of biotope space for other crops) and/or placemaker (i.e. provision farmers incorporate intensive agro-ecological techniques such as of living space, or niche for other organisms). Weedy flora is used to crop rotation, cover cropping, agro-forestry, addition of organic protect future yields, by providing physical cover and by fertilizers or more efficient water management (Badgley et al., conserving soil nutrients in its biomass. The soil management is 2007, p. 92). An FAO analysis based on more than 50 cases in the organic, using crop by-products, leaves from multipurpose trees USA and Europe, and just over a dozen studies in developing and ‘weeds’, household wastes, rotation of dwelling sites, and countries, showed that organic farms are more economically farmyard manure. High productivity of Ensete and judicious use of profitable, despite frequent yield decrease (Nemes, 2009). Higher accompanying crops result in a very high carrying capacity. Six outcomes are due to premium prices and predominantly lower mature Ensete plants can feed an adult during a year, so a farm production costs. These conclusions can also be drawn from household of seven persons needs an area of no more that 0.2 ha for studies in developing countries, but there, higher yields combined a sustainable yearly supply. Ensete proves to be the highest- with high premiums are the underlying cause for higher relative yielding Ethiopian food crop, the crop yields over 5.6 tons ha/year profitability. in agro-forests.

7.2. Agro-ecological projects 7.4. Plantio direto; zero-tillage in Brazil

Pretty and Hine (2001) undertook an extensive study of 208 In Brazil, there are some 15 million ha under ‘plantio direto’, agro-ecological projects in 52 countries, which showed how also called zero-tillage, even through there is some disturbance of farmers have improved crop productivity and at the same time the soil. In Argentina, there are more that 11 million ha under zero- increased both water use efficiency, carbon sequestration, and tillage, up from less than 100,000 ha in 1990, and Paraguay has reduced pesticide use. Their dataset contains reliable data on yield another 1 million ha of zero-tillage. Many of the Clubes Amigos da changes in 89 projects. The proportional yield increases were Terra, literally ‘friends of the land clubs’, which are essentially generally: 50–100% for rain-fed crops (though considerably greater farmer groups, have been closely involved in this transformation. in a few cases) and 5–10% for irrigated crops (through generally The principles of zero-tillage include: no mechanical soil starting from a higher absolute yield base). The relative yield disturbance; permanent soil cover; judicious choice of crop increases are greater at lower yields, indicating greater benefits for rotations (Benites and Aschburner, 2001, cited in Vaneph and poor farmers and for those missed by the recent decades of modern Benites, 2001; see also Pieri et al., 2002). After harvest the crop agricultural development. residues are left on the surface to protect against erosion. At The team found improvements are occurring through four planting, seed is slotted into a groove cut into the soil. Weeds are different mechanisms: controlled with herbicides or cover crops. This means that the soil surface is always covered, and the soil itself no longer inverted. - Intensification of a single component of a farm system. Although zero-tillage is a mono-cropping system including the use - Addition of a new productive element to a farm system. of pesticides, it can be regarded as positive for both biodiversity - Better use of nature to increase total farm production. and sustainable agriculture. - Improvements in per hectare yield of staples through the Within a few years the approach has led to higher yields in crop introduction of new regenerative elements into farm systems. production, declines in labour costs, diversification into livestock as well as agro-processing; resulting in improved food security for small farmers (UNCED, 2002). Zero tillage practices in combination While this needs far more in-depth treatment than space in this with suitable crop rotations consistently reduce weed infestations paper allows, it is clear that on different continents we can see (Derpsh, 1999). According to Pretty (2003) zero-tillage has been a examples of farming systems that are (more) locally embedded in major factor in changing the top-down nature of agricultural communities, more resilient towards external threats and global services to farmers towards a more participatory, on-farm processes, more environmentally friendly, contributing to biodi- approach. versity and, not the least important, productive in terms of yields. Some of the most path-breaking examples of sustainable 7.5. Organics and agro-ecological experiments in China agriculture come from developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Some of the most significant are described below by Despite the onset of agricultural intensification and urbaniza- focusing on the ecological dimension and productivity (see also tion as defining features of modern China, it is also recognised that FAO, 2002). many regions display a fertile basis for agro-ecological and organic agricultures. The interest of local state entrepreneurs in value- 7.3. The ‘Ensete’ agro-forestry system in South Ethiopia (Kippie, 2002) added agricultural development, in combination with a growing export market for organic food has led to the rapid expansion of The ‘Ensete’ agro-forestry system is a five thousand year-old self-identified organic agricultural products in rural China (Thiers, farm system, practiced by the Gedeo people in the highlands of 2002). This has benefited from the establishment of the Green Food Southern Ethiopia. The system is able to produce a large variety of Development Centre (Green Food). products such as Ensete, a high quality food, coffee, honey, timber, The certified green food can be divided into 2 groups: Grade A highland sheep and a variety of crops. The perennial cropping (allowing use of a certain amount of chemical materials), and 448 L.G. Horlings, T.K. Marsden / Global Environmental Change 21 (2011) 441–452

Grade AA (comparable with organic food). In 2004 there were 2836 over substantial areas by large numbers of farmers and technical certified enterprises, producing 3142 different products on 8.94 staff (Altieri, 2002, p. 17). Up-scaling can be conceptually million ha of land (Bin et al., 2006). More than 20 provinces have progressed by closer cooperation between farmers, communities, formulated ‘Measures for Green Food Management’ and ‘Measures NGO’s, agro-ecologically oriented scientists and altered institu- for Administration of Green Food Labelling’. The export value (90% tional arrangements (see Parrot and Marsden, 2002). We can begin under the AA grade) increased from 71 million USD in 1997 to 2140 from this analysis to delineate here three key dimensions of the up- million USD in 2007 (Lin et al., 2010). scaling. The national and local state plays an important part, with most organisations being developed through ‘production bases’ (sheng- (i) The challenge of diversity and context dependency chan jidi) rather than through individual peasant farmers. County and township institutions are established which coordinate One important factor limiting the spread of agro-ecological production, the cropping patterns and technical practices. In innovations is that for the most part NGOs promoting such China, ‘entrepreneurial state fragments’ consider organic produc- initiatives have not been in a position to analyze or systemize the tion as an economic development strategy for the benefits of the level of success of local initiatives; nor have they been able to local institutions and area. In many cases local government validate specific strategies for the scaling-up of such initiatives. It is provides scientific and technical infrastructure, the re-training of conceptually and methodologically difficult to ‘scale up’ diversity the local extension services, donating land, labour and capital to without giving way to generic systems approaches. A starting organic field trials, and conducting training workshops. This point, therefore, should be in developing a more sophisticated represents a distinctive ‘fragmented entrepreneurial state’ model comparative understanding and dissemination of the agro- of organic organisation, whereby the state creates the conditions ecological and socio-economic conditions under which alterna- for various types of ecological entrepreneurialism (see Smith and tives are adopted and implemented at the local level. Marsden, 2005). This involves adopting an evolutionary approach to under- In addition to organic ‘green production’ more emphasis is standing the development of such cases, and in particular how they being placed on Chinese Ecological Agriculture (CEA), following differentiate themselves, and maintain autonomy from, the agro-ecological principles (Ye et al., 2002; Pra¨ndl-Zika, 2008; dominant (and often locally cost-reducing) agri-industrial/bio- Zhen et al., 2005). As pressure upon increasingly scarce resources economic paradigm. Such an approach can shed light on the (such as water and soils) increases as a result of the intensive constraints and opportunities farmers are likely to face. Altieri model, this is attempting to create integration of the natural- (2002) suggests that scaling-up strategies must capitalize on social—economic farm system. For instance, in Northern China (Li mechanisms for the spread of knowledge and techniques such as et al., 1999; Ye et al., 2002) several food chain production models, strengthening of producers’ organisations, development of meth- notably, pig-biogas-grain-fruit; pig-bio-gas-vegetable/melon/ ods to retain promising agro-ecological technologies implemented mushroom; and beef cattle-biogas-pig-grain/grass, were exten- by experimenting farmers, training government research and sively adopted in Ankang District, Shanxi Province (Sun and extension agencies on agro-ecology, and develop working linkages Zhang, 1993). Many of these schemes are again government led, as between NGOs and farmers organisations. with the Fushan Integrated Ecological Farm in the suburbs of Others have focused on scaling up innovations in specific Hangzhou (Ye et al., 2002). The Hangzhou municipal government farming-systems such as agro-forestry (Cooper and Denning, 2000; coordinated the Fushan village experiment of 224 farm house- Franzel et al., 2004). From their worldwide survey of sustainable holds. This has steadily derived benefits for the wider rural agriculture initiatives, Pretty and Hine (2001) also raise the economy as well as the farms themselves. Analysis of the soils has question of up-scaling arguing that if sustainable agriculture is to shown improvements in the state of soil structure and nutrient spread to large numbers of farmers and communities, attention composition due to the development of applying biogas residue. needs to be focused on altering the institutional context: This has also led to large reductions in fertilizer applications and increases in crop yields. 1. Enabling a more conducive policy environment. What is shared among the above examples in Africa, Brazil and 2. Investing in infrastructure for markets, transports and commu- China? All the examples address ecological problems by develop- nications. ing agricultural practices which are embedded in the character- 3. Ensuring the support of government agencies, in particular, for istics of the local physical, economical and social context. They also local sustainable agricultural initiatives. use natural resources in a sustainable way; are based on farmer’s 4. Developing social capital within rural communities and expertise and are more resilient by broadening and interlinking between agencies. different spheres of production and re-cycling. They follow (ii) Enabling policy and building new alliances Sunkvist’s principle above of developing more embedded and tighter ‘feed-back loops’. Parrot and Marsden (2002) describe in an extensive overview on organic and agri-ecological agriculture (OAA) some of the key 8. Scaling up? Constraining factors and conditions for enabling and constraining policy issues. One issue is the (current) institutional arrangements concentration of competence in certification in industrialized countries. The lack of certification capacity in the South raises While these examples clearly exhibit some if not all of the cost and logistical barriers for producers (especially if they wish to ‘strong’ EM principles outlined above (Table 1), one key challenge export their products). This can be prohibitively expensive for is to understand why such agro-ecological initiatives have not many small producer groups. The authors suggest a list of activities disseminated more widely, and how scale-up among these governments can activate, such as: developing ‘bottom up’ initiatives could potentially take place so as to achieve a wider capacity, reorienting the priorities of state-funded research and structural and productivity impact? By scaling up we do not imply educational institutes, and giving consideration to the market a top-down programming of these initiatives on large-scale farms. potential of OAA in both local and international contexts, and in This would merely be a re-invention of the current problems of terms of primary and value-added produce. This involves weak ecological modernisation. Rather, Scaling up is defined here nurturing many bottom up developments through more nuanced as the dissemination and adoption of agro-ecological principles and decentralised forms of governance. L.G. Horlings, T.K. Marsden / Global Environmental Change 21 (2011) 441–452 449

Such policy prescriptions have also been addressed by The traded foods (which currently divide between industrial and International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and affluent/fresh foods). According to Friedmann (2005), a new food Technology for Development (IAASTD, 2009a,b). One of their regime would require new alliances: ‘A new regime seems to be conclusions is that policies and institutional changes should be emerging not from attempts to restore elements of the past, but directed primarily at those who have been served least by previous from a range of cross-cutting alliances and issues linking food and AKST approaches, i.e. resource-poor farmers, women and ethnic agriculture to new issues. These include quality, safety, biological minorities. Policy options for improving livelihoods include a large and cultural diversity, intellectual property, animal welfare, variety of measures: access to micro-credit and other financial environmental pollution, energy use, and gender and racial services; legal frameworks that ensure access, and tenure to inequalities. The most important of these fall under the broad resource and land; recourse to fair conflict resolution; and category of ‘environment’ (Friedmann, 2005, p. 249). progressive evolution and proactive engagement in intellectual property rights’ regimes and related instruments (see IAASTD, (iii) Building the agri-ecological paradigm through enhanced and 2009b, p. 5). engaging research and development Recently we can witness more public and private attention for agro-ecological approaches in new structures and institutions such Much of the agro-ecology literature deals, logically, with as greening corporations, professional auditors and food-related specific cases; their agricultural outcome is, by definition, highly social movements. This development is described as a shift from a dependent on space and place. Sustainable agriculture is arguably ‘Food from Nowhere’ to a ‘Food from Somewhere regime’ equally dependent on manipulating natural and human resources (Campbell, 2009, p. 316). The ‘food from nowhere’ concept ‘in the right place, at the right time and with the right people (and originated from Bove´ and Dufour (2001), and concerns differenti- skills)’. ating craft from industrial agriculture. McMichael refers to the A complicating factor which makes it difficult to compare, for ‘food from nowhere’ concept as a corporate food regime example, organic and non-organic agriculture is the different (McMichael, 2005). An example of the new ecological politics framing of organic ‘systems’. Also, the negative off-farm implica- within global-scale supply chains is demonstrated by the Global tions of specialized conventional systems such as environmental Gap alliance, which expanded its vision from ‘residue free’ produce pollution or social effects on farmers are often not taken into to include a range of other ecological qualities in production. account when organic and non-organic forms of agriculture are Campbell (2009) suggests that the ‘Food from Somewhere’ compared. regime represents a ‘breach in the fabric of the ‘Food from Furthermore, long-term experimental field studies of the effect Nowhere’ regime’ (i.e. a niche), rather than a new set of clothes in of organic agriculture have been mostly carried out in the USA and itself. There are other indications that a new food regime is not yet in European countries. Long-term studies, especially in developing emerging. ‘The Royal Society’ in the UK (2009) states that the countries, hardly exist; with only about a dozen studies comparing challenge of global food security should be met by intensifying both yields and net income, and mostly focusing on coffee and agriculture while respecting environmental boundaries; an cotton (Nemes, 2009). approach we have described here as weak EM. The committee Clearly, the second part of this paper has empirically promotes ‘a large-scale ‘sustainable intensification’ of global demonstrated that there is enough evidence at a case study level agriculture in which yield is addressed not just per hectare, but to severely question the legitimacy of the agri-industrial/bio- also per unit of non-renewable inputs and impacts upon ecosystem economic paradigm as the only answer to the new global services’ (The Royal Society, 2009, p. 47). Malthusianism and the neo-productivism which it now vibrantly As a follow-up of the Club of Rome report of 1972, the articulates. However, if the debates remain at a global level Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency analyzed current without critically confronting or transcending both the problems environmental trends in the report ‘Growing within Limits’ (Van of scale, diversity, context dependency and the sanctity of generic Vuuren and Faber, 2009). This report states that ‘business-as-usual’ technologies, it is unlikely that such legitimacy will be seriously leads to an expected increase of global mean temperature of 4 8Cby challenged. 2100 and a further worldwide loss of biodiversity of 15% by 2050. A Real ecological modernisation (as postulated in Table 1) could maximum increase in average global temperature of 2 8C has been indeed become up-scaled and more widespread. Yet this will rely proposed as a reasonable limit to manage climate risks. In order to upon overcoming some of the three challenges identified here. achieve this, global greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced More innovative state policy and research and development – by around 50% in 2050. One of the causes of greenhouse gases is which more sensitively examined the merits ‘place-based’ solu- meat production. Meat production requires 80% of the amount of tions – could indeed begin to stimulate Frouws and Mol (1999, p. agricultural land, while it accounts of only 15% of the total food 271) process of ‘re-embedding’ economic practices and the consumption. A change of diet could halve the need of agricultural institutionalisation of ecology into the institutions of production land and could achieve as much as 20–30% of the emissions and consumption. reduction required to realise the 2 8C target. When both crises of However, currently we should not expect the State, especially at food and climate are dealt with quickly, they could be solved by an global level, to necessarily support real ecological modernisation. annual expenditure of 2% of GDP in 2050. Estimates on macro- As McMichael observes with regard to the recent World Bank’s economic impacts of such policies cover a wide range; typical (2008) World development report: ‘In sum while ‘agriculture-for- values of around 0.1% reduction of economic growth are reported development’ is a new mantra, so long as corporate markets (value for ambitious climate policy scenarios. To put this in perspective, chains) are the standard, the greater productivity (and planet- world GDP would increase in the 2005–2050 period not by 240% cooling effect) of diversified small farming will be sacrificed to the but by 225% (Van Vuuren and Faber, 2009). Bank’s need to renew its legitimacy, and to the depredations of the Although, this could be considered as ‘an offer we can’t refuse’, corporate market’ (McMichael, 2009c, p. 244). This would suggest enabling policies towards a new alternative food regime are not yet at the very least that as the debates about ‘feeding the world’ fully emerging. Our conclusion is that, from Friedmann’s (2005) intensify, the stakes are getting much higher for real ecological perspective, we have not yet seen the full-scale (hegemonic) modernisation. Nevertheless, this is indeed a challenge that critical establishment of a new food regime; with ‘implicit rules’ (framed social and natural scientists should indeed confront (see Thomp- by social forces) imprinted in the production and consumption of son and Scoones, 2009). 450 L.G. Horlings, T.K. Marsden / Global Environmental Change 21 (2011) 441–452

9. Conclusions particular scientific base as to why more and more people are likely to go hungry while at the same time resource depletion and Clearly, the challenge of food security is more urgent and more climate change threaten the Earths’ growing populace. complex than ever; because of growing population on the one hand and forces that threaten food production such as climate References change, urbanization, and the decrease of agricultural resources and erosion, on the other. Also it needs to be clearly recognised, as Altieri, M.A., Rosset, P., Thrupp, L.A., 2001. The potential of agro-ecology to combat we have painfully discovered over the experiences of earlier hunger in the developing world. In: Pinstrup-Andersen, P., Pandya-Lorch, R. rounds of ‘green revolutions’, that singular increases of agricul- (Eds.), The Unfinished Agenda: Perspectives on Overcoming Hunger, Poverty, tural productivity (agri-ecological or otherwise) do not necessar- and Environmental Degradation. IFPRI, Washington, USA, pp. 123–127. Altieri, M.A., 2002. Agro-ecology: the science of natural resource management for ily negate the effects of wider supply chain distortions which poor farmers in marginal environments. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environ- continue to increase the risk of food insecurity. Nevertheless, we ment 93 (1–3), 1–24. have argued here that the dominant food regime has responded to Ambler-Edwards, S., Bailey, K., Kiff, A., Lang, T., Lee, R., Marsden, T., Simons, D., Tibbs, H., 2009. Food Futures: Rethinking UK Strategy. Chatham House Report. The this challenge by promoting a ‘weak’ ecological modernisation Royal Institute of International Affairs, London. process of agriculture which may mitigate environmental effects Annan, K., 2000. We the peoples: the role of the United Nations in the 21st century. to a certain extent, but also cause new negative side-effects and Available online at: http://w.un.org/millennium/sg/report/index.html. Araghi, F., 2003. Food regimes and the production of value: some methodological expose some important social, cultural, political and spatial issues. The Journal of Peasant Studies 30 (2), 41–70. missing links. Badgley, C., Moghtader, J., Quintero, E., Zakem, E., Chappell, M.J., Avile´s-Va´zquez, K., Examples are the standardisation and hygienic bureaucratisa- Samulon, A., Perfecto, I., 2007. Organic agriculture and the global food supply. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 22 (2), 86–108. tion of agriculture, the distancing of food production and Battisti, D.S., Naylor, R.L., 2009. Historical warnings of future food insecurity with consumption geographically and institutionally, and the margin- unprecedented seasonal heat. Science 323 (9), 240–244 no. 5911. alisation and fragmentation of the role of agriculture in local Benites, J.R., Aschburner, J.E., 2001. FAO’s role in promoting conservation agricul- ture. Draft Paper for the First world congress on conservation agriculture: a communities. world-wide challenge. October 1st–5t, 2001, Madrid. The central question posed has been whether there is evidence Berndes, G., 2002. Bioenergy and water—the implications of large-scale bioenergy in practice that agro-ecological approaches can contribute to production for water use and supply. Global Environmental Change 12, 253– meeting future food demands, especially in developing countries. 271. Bin, Y., Ni, X., Wentao, T., Linquing, H., Peng, D., Liaoyuan, L., Jihong, Y., 2006. Chinese The agricultural practices show a rich variety of such more multi- Food Industry and Market Report. functional approaches, mostly implemented by small-scale farm- Bo¨rjesson, P., 2009. Good or bad bio-ethanol from a greenhouse gas perspective- ers. On different continents we see examples of farming systems what determines this? Applied Energy 86, 589–594. Bove´, J., Dufour, F., 2001. The World is Not for Sale. Verso, London, United Kingdom. that are locally and ecologically embedded in communities, more Buttel, F.H., 2000. Ecological modernization as social theory. Geoforum 31 (1), 57– resilient towards external threats and globalisation, environmen- 65. tally friendly, contributing to biodiversity and, not the least Busch, L., Bingen, J. (Eds.), 2006. Agricultural Standards: The Shape of the Global Food and Fibre System. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. important, enhance productivity. CA (Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture), 2007. Water This should not simply be interpreted as a plea for supporting for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in smallholder agriculture. We have also argued that agro-ecological Agriculture. Earthscan/International Water Management Institute, London/ Colombo. initiatives can contribute to food security – which is an urgent Campbell, H., 2009. Breaking new ground in food regime theory: corporate envi- challenge for the next decades –, and a value place-based eco- ronmentalism, ecological feedbacks and the ‘food from somewhere’ regime? economy. This requires, however, not only analyzing and favouring Agriculture and Human Values 26 (4), 309–319. Christoff, P., 1996. Ecological modernisation, ecological modernities. Environmental these initiatives as alternatives to weak ecological modernisation, Politics 5 (3), 476–500. but also a political reorganisation of current markets and Conway, G., 1997. The Double Green Revolution. Penguin Books, London, UK. institutions in ways which reduce the barriers to their wider Cooper, P.J.M., Denning, G.L., 2000. Scaling Up the Impact of Agro-forestry Research. dissemination and agglomeration outlined above. ICRAF, Nairobi, p. 43. Derpsh, R., 1999. Frontiers in conservation tillage and advances in conservation Real ecological modernisation can be up-scaled; but this practice. Paper presented at the 10th ISCO conference, 24–28 May 1999, West depends on three major conditions. First, we have to turn the Lafayette, IN, USA Proceedings. ‘problem’ of diversity and context dependency of agricultural Dryzek, J.S., 1997. The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. Oxford University Press, Oxford. practices into a real ecological and social virtue. The second Easterling, W., Aggarwal, P., Batima, P., Brander, K., Erda, L., Howden, M., Kirilenko, condition is an enabling policy. The IAASTD (2009a,b) report has A, Morton, J., Soussana, J.-F., Schmidhuber, S., Tubiello, F., 2007. Food, fibre and especially given useful recommendations on this point. We can forest products. In: Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J., Hanson, C.E. (Eds.), Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerabil- also witness a new set of counter-logics for the current food regime ity. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the in for example, NGO initiatives, some FAO reports and in new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cam- institutions like Global Gap and Fair Trade networks. The third bridge, UK, pp. 273–313. Evans, A., 2009. Feeding the Nine Billion. Chatham House Report. Royal Institute of challenge is the re-direction of agricultural research, development International Affairs, London. and knowledge transfer. FAO, 2002. From UNCED, Rio de Janeiro 1992 to WSSD, Challenges and perspectives Agro-ecological approaches could help to ‘feed the world’ for the World Summit on Sustainable Development Johannesburg 2002 Land and agriculture, A compendium of recent sustainable development initiatives, sustainably, and thereby contribute to a ‘real green revolution’; but Rome, FAO Corporate Document Repository. this requires a more radical move and debate among scientists FAO, 2006a. World Agriculture: Towards 2030/2050-Interim Report. Global Per- about fostering a new type of (multi-scalar) agri-food eco- spective Studies Unit, FAO, Rome. economy. This is one which includes re-thinking market mechan- FAO, 2006b. Mid-Term Review of Achieving the World Food Summit Target. CFS: 2006/3. FAO, Rome. isms and organisations and more innovative institutional flexibili- FAO, 2009. The State of Food Insecurity in the World, Economic Crises-Impacts and ty at different spatial scales, interwoven with active farmers and Lessons Learned. FAO, Rome. consumer’s participation. This should be combined with a re- FAOSTAT, 2009. Food and agricultural commodities production. Available online at: http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/dedfault.aspx. direction of science investments to take account of translating Fernandez, E., Pell, A., Uphoff, N., 2002. Rethinking agriculture for new opportu- often isolated cases of good practice into mainstream agri-food nities. In: Uphoff, N. (Ed.), Agro-ecological Innovations: Increasing Food Pro- movements. As a matter of urgency it is timely to rethink and to duction with Participatory Development. Earthscan, London. Franzel, S., Denning, G.L., Lillesø, J.P.B., Mercado Jr., A.R., 2004. Scaling up the impact critically debate these important issues. We have to critically of agroforestry: lessons from three sites in Africa and Asia. Agro-forestry question the dominance of the agri-industrial/bio-economy and its Systems 61–62 (1–3), 329–344. L.G. Horlings, T.K. Marsden / Global Environmental Change 21 (2011) 441–452 451

Friedmann, H., 1987. International regimes of food and agriculture since 1870. In: Mol, A.P.J., 2000. The environmental movement in an era of ecological moderniza- Shanin, T. (Ed.), Peasants and Peasant Societies. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. tion. Geoforum 31 (1), 45–56. 258–276. Mol, A.P.J., Sonnenfeld, D.A., 2000. Ecological Modernisation Around the World: Friedman, H., 1993. The political economy of food: a global crisis. New Left Review Perspectives and Critical Debates. Frank Cass Publishers, London. 197, 29–57. Mol, A.P.J., 2007. Boundless biofuels. Between environmental sustainability and Friedmann, H., 2005. From colonialism to green capitalism: social movements and vulnerability. Sociologia Ruralis 47 (4), 296–315. the emergence of food regimes. In: Buttel, F.H., McMichael, P. (Eds.), New Mooney, H., Larigauderie, A., Cesario, M., Elmquist, T., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Lavorel, Directions in the Sociology of Global Development. Research in Rural Sociology S., Mace, G.M., Palmer, M., Scholes, R., Yahara, T., 2009. Biodiversity, climate and Development, vol. 11. Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 229–267. change, and ecosystem services. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustain- Friedmann, H., McMichael, P., 1989. Agriculture and the state system: the rise and fall ability 1 (1), 46–54. of national agricultures, 1870 to the present. Sociologia Ruralis 29 (2), 93–117. Morgan, K., Marsden, T., Murdoch, J., 2006. Worlds of Food; Place, Power and Frissen, P.H.A., 2007. De Staat van Verschil – Een Kritiek van de Gelijkheid. Van Provenance in the Food Chain. Oxford Geographical and Environmental Studies. Gennep, Amsterdam. Oxford, UK. Frouws, J., Mol, A., 1999. Ecological modernisation theory and agricultural reform. Morton, J.F., 2007. The impact of climate change on smallholder and subsistence In: Hann, H., Long, N. (Eds.), Images and Realities of Rural Life: Wageningen agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104 (50), 19680– Perspectives on Rural Transformations. Van Gorcum, Assen, The Netherlands, 19685. pp. 269–286. Moss, B., 2008. Water pollution by agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Gibbs, D., 2000. Ecological modernisation, regional economic development and Royal Society, London 363 (1491), 659–666. regional development agencies. Geoforum 31 (1), 9–20. Murphy, J, 2000. Ecological modernization. Geoforum 31 (1), 1–8. Goodman, D., Sorj, B., Wilkinson, J., 1987. From Farming to Biotechnology. A Theory Murphy, J., Gouldson, A., 2000. Environmental policy and industrial innovation: of Agro-industrial Development. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, United Kingdom. integrating environment and economy through ecological modernisation. Geo- Halberg, N., Alroe, H.F., Knudsen, M.T., Kristensen, E.S., 2007. Global Development of forum 31 (1), 33–44. Organic Agriculture: Challenges and Prospects. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK. Nagayets, O., 2005. Small farms: current status and key trends. In: Information Brief, Hajer, M.A., 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernisa- Future of Small Farms Research Workshop. Wye, 26–29 June. IFPRI, Washington. tion and the Policy Process, Oxford. Oxford University Press, United Kingdom. Nilsson, M., Varna¨s, A., Kehler, Siebert, C., Nilsson, L.J., Nykvist, B., Ericsson, K., 2009. Hermans, F., Horlings, I., Beers, P.J., Mommaas, H., 2010. The contested redefinition A European Eco-Efficient Economy, Governing Climate Energy and Competi- of the sustainable countryside; revisiting Frouws’ rurality discourses. Sociologia tiveness; Report for the 2009 Swedish Presidency of the Council of the European Ruralis 50 (1), 46–63. Union. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm. Huber, J., 1982. Die verlorene Unschuld der o¨kologie. S. Fischer Verlag, Frankfurt am Nemes, N., 2009. Natural Resources Management and Environment Department Main, Germany. Comparative Analysis of Organic and Non-Organic Farming Systems: A Critical Huber, J., 1985. Die Regenbogengesellschaft. O¨ kologie und Socialpolitik. S. Fischer Assessment of Farm Profitability. Natural Resources Management and Environ- Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. ment, FAO, Rome. Horlings, I., 1996. Duurzaam boeren met beleid; innovatiegroepen in de Neder- Paarlberg, R., 2006. Are genetically modified (GM) crops a commercial risk for landse landbouw, Dissertation, KUN, Nijmegen. Also published in Studies van Africa? International Journal of Technology and Globalisation 2, 81–92. Landbouw en Platteland no 20, Landbouw Universiteit, Wageningen, The Parrot, N., Marsden, T., 2002. The Real Green Revolution; Organic and Agro-eco- Netherlands. logical Farming in the South. Greenpeace Environmental Trust, London. Horlings, I., Marsden, T., 2010. The new rural paradigm and redefining the rural web. Pra¨ndl-Zika, V., 2008. From subsistence farming towards a multifunctional agricul- In: Milone, P., Ventura, F. (Eds.), Networking the Rural: The Future of Green ture: sustainability in the Chinese rural reality. Journal of Environmental Regions in Europe. Van Gorcum, Assen, The Netherlands, pp. 213–244. Management 87 (2), 236–248 US. IAASTD, International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technol- Pieri, C., Evers, G., Landers, J., O’Connell, P., Terry, E., 2002. No-till Farming for ogy for Development, 2009a. Global Report. Island Press, Washington, US. Sustainable Rural Development. ARD Working Paper. World Bank, Washington. IAASTD, International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technol- Pretty, P., Hine, R., 2001. Reducing Food Poverty with Sustainable Agriculture: A ogy for Development, 2009b. Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report. Summary of New Evidence. Primal Report from SAFE-World Research Project Island Press, Washington. (The Potential of Sustainable Agriculture to Feed the World) University of Essex, IFPRI, 2005.In: South Asia. Agricultural and Rural Development. Proc. Seminars. Colchester, UK. New Delhi, Lahore, Chennai, Dhaka. IFPRI, Washington, US. Pretty, J., 2003. Agro-ecology in developing countries: the promise of a sustainable Jackson, W., 2002. Natural systems agriculture: a truly radical alternative. Agricul- harvest. Environment 45 (9), 8–20. ture, Ecosystems and Environment 88 (2), 111–117. Pretty, J.N., Noble, A.D., Bossio, D., Dixon, J., Hine, R.E., Penning de Vries, F.W.T., Ja¨nicke, M., 1984. Umweltpolitische Pra¨vention als o¨ kologische Modernisierung Morison, J.I.L., 2006. Resource-conserving agriculture increases yields in devel- industrieller Strukturpolitik, Berlin. oping countries. Environmental Science & Technology 40 (4), 1114–1119. Kippie, T.K., 2002. Five Thousand Years of Sustainability? A Case Study on Gedeo RFA (Renewable Fuels Agency), 2008. The Gallagher Review of the Indirect Effects of Land Use (Southern Ethiopia). Treemail Publishers, Heelsum. Biofuels Production. St. Leonards-On-Sea. Kitchen, L., Marsden, T., 2009. Creating sustainable rural development through Rosegrant, M.W., Msangi, S., Sulser, T., Ringler, C.L., 2007. Future Scenarios for stimulating the eco-economy: beyond the eco-economic paradox? Sociologia Agriculture: Plausible Futures to 2030 and Key Trends in Agricultural Growth. Ruralis 49 (3), 273–293. Background Paper prepared for the World Development Report 2008. Lang, T., Heasman, M., 2004. The Global Battle for Mouths, Minds and Markets. Sanchez, P.A., Ahamed, S., Carre, F., Hartemink, A.E., Hempel, J., Huising, J., Lagach- Earthscan/Sterling, London, UK/USA. erie, P., McBratney, A.B., McKenzie, N.G., de Ourdes Mendoca-Santos, M., Li, Q.S., Ye, X.J., Wang, Z.Q., 1999. Types of eco-agricultural models and their regional Minasny, B., Montanarella, L., Okoth, P., Pal, C.A., Sachs, J.D., Shephard, K.D., distribution characteristics in central and south China. Transactions of the Vagen, T., Vanlauwe, B., Walsh, M.G., Winowiecki, L.A., Zhang, G.L., 2009. Digital Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering 15 (1), 27–32. soil map of the world. Science 325 (5941), 680–681. Lin, L., Zhou, D., Ma, C., 2010. Green food industry in China: development, problems Schmidhuber, J., Tubiello, F.N., 2007. Global food security under climate change. and policies. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 25 (1), 69–80. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 104 (50), 19703–19708. Maeder, P., Fließbach, A., Dubois, D., Gunst, L., Fried, P., Niggli, U., 2002. Soil fertility Scialabba, N.E.-H., 2007. Organic agriculture and food security. In: International and biodiversity in organic farming. Science 296 (5573), 1694–1697. Conference on Organic Agriculture and Food Security. Italy, 3–5 May 2007. Food Marsden, T., Banks, J., Renting, H., Van der Ploeg, J.-D., 2001. The road towards and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. sustainable rural development: issues of theory, policy and research practice. Smith, E., Marsden, T.K., 2005. Ecological entrepreneurship: sustainable develop- Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 3, 75–83. ment in local communities through quality food production and local branding. Marsden, T.K., 2004. The quest for ecological modernisation re-spacing rural Geoforum 36, 440–451. development and agro-food studies. Sociologia Ruralis 44 (2), 129–147. Sonnino, R., Marsden, T., 2005. Beyond the divide: rethinking relationships between Marsden, T.K., et al., 2010. The New Regulation and Governance of Food: Beyond the alternative and conventional food networks in Europe. Journal of Economic Food Crisis? Routledge, London. Geography 6 (2), 181–239. Marsden, T., Sonnino, R., 2008. Rural development and the regional state: denying Sonnino, R., Kanemasu, Y., Marsden, T., 2008. Sustainability and rural development. multifunctional agriculture in the UK. Journal of Rural Studies 24 (4), 422– In: Van der Ploeg, J.D., Marsden, T. (Eds.), Unfolding Webs; The Dynamics of 431. Regional Rural Development. Royal van Gorcum, Assen, The Netherlands, pp. McMichael, P., 2005. Global development and the corporate food regime. In: Buttel, 29–52. F.H., McMichae, l.P. (Eds.), New Directions in the Sociology of Global Develop- Spencer, D.S.C., Matlon, P.J., Lo¨ffler, H., 2003. African Agricultural Production and ment. Elsevier Press, Oxford. Productivity in Perspective. InterAcademy Council, Amsterdam. McMichael, P., 2009a. A food regime genealogy. The Journal of Peasant Studies 36 Sun, H.L., Zhang, R.W., 1993. The Theory and Methodology of Ecological Agriculture (1), 139–169. (in Chinese). Shandong Science and Technology Press, Jinan, China. McMichael, P., 2009b. Contemporary contradictions of the global development Sundkvist, A., Milestad, R., Jansson, A., 2005. On the importance of tightening project: geopolitics, global ecology and the ‘development climate’. Third World feedback loops for sustainable development of food systems. Food Policy 30 Quarterly 30 (1), 247–262. (2), 224–239. McMichael, P, 2009c. Banking on agriculture: an assessment of the 2008 World Swaminathan, M.S., 2000. An evergreen revolution. Biologist 47 (2), 85–89. Bank report. Journal of Agrarian Studies 9 (2), 235–246. Tansey G., Rajotte T., The Future Control of Food: A Guide to International Negotia- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Our Human Planet: Summary for Deci- tions and Rules on Intellectual Property, Biodiversity and Food Security, sion Makers. Island Press, Washington. London: Earthscan, 2008. 452 L.G. Horlings, T.K. Marsden / Global Environmental Change 21 (2011) 441–452

The Economist, 2009. Buying farmland abroad: outsourcing’s third wave. Available Van der Ploeg, J.-D, Renting, H., 2000. Impact and potential: a comparative review online at: http://www.economist.com/world/international/displayStory. of European rural development practices. Sociologia Ruralis 40 (4), 529–543. cfm?story_id=13692889. Van der Ploeg, J.-D., Marsden, T. (Eds.), 2008. Unfolding webs; The dynamics of The Royal Society, 2009. Reaping the Benefits; Science and the Sustainable Intensi- regional rural development. Van Gorcum, Assen, The Netherlands. fication of Global Agriculture. The Royal Society, London, United Kingdom. Van Vuuren, D.P., Faber, A., 2009. Growing within Limits. A Report to the Global Thiers, P., 2002. From grassroots movement to state-coordinated market strategy: Assembly 2009 of the Club of Rome. Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), the transformation of organic agriculture in China. Environment and Planning Bilthoven. C: Government and Policy 20 (3), 357–373. Verburg, R., Stehfest, E., Woltjer, G., Eickhout, B., 2009. The effect of agricultural Thompson, J., Scoones, I., 2009. Addressing the dynamics of agri-food systems: an trade liberalisation on land-use related greenhouse gas emissions. Global emerging agenda for social science research. Environmental Science and Policy Environmental Change 19, 434–446. 12 (4), 386–397. Ward, N., 1993. The agricultural treadmill and the rural environment in the Post- Toffler, A., 1981. De derde golf. Veen, Utrecht. Productivist Era. Sociologia Ruralis 33, 348–364. UN, 2008. World population prospects: the 2008 revision population database. World Food Summit, 1996. World Food Summit. FAO, Rome. Available online at: http://esa.un.org/unpp/index.asp?panel=1. Wood, S., Sebastian, K., Scherr, S.J., 2000. Pilot analysis of global ecosystems: UNCED, 2002. World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg. Agroecosystems. IFPRI and World Resource Institute, Washington DC, USA. Vaneph, S., Benites, J., 2001 October. An unexpected success; from zero tillage to World Bank, 2008. World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development, conservation agriculture. LEISA Magazine 22 . Washington. . Van der Ploeg, J.-D., 1991. Landbouw als mensenwerk; arbeid en technologie in de World Bank, 2010. Rising Global Interest in Farmland. Can it Yield Sustainable and agrarische ontwikkeling. Coutinho, Muiderberg. Equitable Benefits? Washington. . Van der Ploeg, J.-D., 1992. The reconstitution of locality: technology and labour in Ye, X.J., Wang, Z.Q., Li, Q.S., 2002. The ecological agriculture movement in modern modern agriculture. In: Marsden, T., et al. (Eds.), Labour and Locality; Uneven China. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 92 (2–3), 261–281. Development and the Rural Labour Process. Critical Perspectives on Rural Zhang, L., Mol, A.P.J., Sonnenfeld, D.A., 2007. The interpretation of ecological Change. Series 4. David Fulton, London, pp. 19–43. modernisation in China. Environmental Politics 16 (4), 659–668. Van der Ploeg, J.-D., 1999. De virtuele boer. Van Gorcum Assen, The Netherlands. Zhen, L., Routray, J.K., Zoebisch, M.A., Chen, G., Xie, G., Cheng, S., 2005. Three Van der Ploeg, J.-D., Long, A., Banks, A. (Eds.), 2002. Living countrysides; Rural dimensions of sustainability of farming practices in the North China Plain: a development processes in Europe – The state of the art. Elsevier, Doetinchem, case study from Ningjin County of Shandong Province, PR China. Agriculture, the Netherlands. Ecosystems and Environment 105 (3), 507–522.