JUNE 2016
FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY
A paradigm shift from industrial agriculture to diversified agroecological systems FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY
A paradigm shift from industrial agriculture to diversified agroecological systems
Lead Coordinating author: Emile A. Frison
Citation: IPES-Food. 2016. From uniformity to diversity: a paradigm shift from industrial agriculture to diversified agroecological systems. International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food systems. www.ipes-food.org
2 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY Key messages
Today’s food and farming systems have succeeded in supplying large volumes of foods to global markets, but are generating negative outcomes on multiple fronts: wide- spread degradation of land, water and ecosystems; high GHG emissions; biodiversity losses; persistent hunger and micro-nutrient deficiencies alongside the rapid rise of obesity and diet-related diseases; and livelihood stresses for farmers around the world.
Many of these problems are linked specifically to ‘industrial agriculture’: the input-in- tensive crop monocultures and industrial-scale feedlots that now dominate farming landscapes. The uniformity at the heart of these systems, and their reliance on chemi- cal fertilizers, pesticides and preventive use of antibiotics, leads systematically to nega- tive outcomes and vulnerabilities.
Industrial agriculture and the ‘industrial food systems’ that have developed around it are locked in place by a series of vicious cycles. For example, the way food systems are currently structured allows value to accrue to a limited number of actors, reinforcing their economic and political power, and thus their ability to influence the governance of food systems.
Tweaking practices can improve some of the specific outcomes of industrial agricul- ture, but will not provide long-term solutions to the multiple problems it generates.
What is required is a fundamentally different model of agriculture based on diversify- ing farms and farming landscapes, replacing chemical inputs, optimizing biodiversity and stimulating interactions between different species, as part of holistic strategies to build long-term fertility, healthy agro-ecosystems and secure livelihoods, i.e. ‘diversi- fied agroecological systems’.
There is growing evidence that these systems keep carbon in the ground, support bio- diversity, rebuild soil fertility and sustain yields over time, providing a basis for secure farm livelihoods.
Data shows that these systems can compete with industrial agriculture in terms of total outputs, performing particularly strongly under environmental stress, and delivering production increases in the places where additional food is desperately needed. Diversi- fied agroecological systems can also pave the way for diverse diets and improved health.
Change is already happening. Industrial food systems are being challenged on multiple fronts, from new forms of cooperation and knowledge-creation to the development of new market relationships that bypass conventional retail circuits.
Political incentives must be shifted in order for these alternatives to emerge beyond the margins. A series of modest steps can collectively shift the centre of gravity in food systems.
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 3 Table of contents
The challenge: shifting the centre of gravity in food systems …………………………………………………………………… 6 The need for systemic change ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8 Two ends of a spectrum: industrial agriculture and diversified agroecological systems… ………………10
SECTION 1 What are the outcomes of industrial agriculture and diversified agroecological systems? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………13
1.a. Outcomes of specialized industrial farming………………………………………………………………………………………15
1.a.i. Productivity outcomes………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………15 1.a.ii. Environmental outcomes …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 17 1.a.iii. Socio-economic outcomes ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 22 1a.iv. Nutrition and health outcomes ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 27
1.b. Outcomes of diversified agroecological systems… ……………………………………………………………………… 31
1.b.i. Productivity outcomes …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 31 1.b.ii. Environmental outcomes …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 34 1.b.iii. Socio-economic outcomes ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 37 1.b.iv. Nutrition and health outcomes ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 39
1.c. Conclusions on the outcomes of specialized industrial agriculture and diversified agroecological systems… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 41
SECTION 2 What is keeping industrial agriculture in place?………………………………………………………………………45
Lock-in 1: Path dependency ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 46 Lock-in 2: Export orientation ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 47 Lock-in 3: The expectation of cheap food ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 49 Lock-in 4: Compartmentalized thinking …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 51 Lock-in 5: Short-term thinking …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 53 Lock-in 6: ‘Feed the world’ narratives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 54 Lock-in 7: Measures of success ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 56 Lock-in 8 : Concentration of Power …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 57
4 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY SECTION 3 How can the balance be shifted in favour of diversified agroecological systems? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 60
3.a. Emerging opportunities for a transition to diversified agroecological systems………………… 60
Opportunity 1: Policy incentives for diversification and agroecology… ………………………………… 60 Opportunity 2: Building joined-up ‘food policies’ ………………………………………………………………………… 61 Opportunity 3: Integrated landscape thinking ……………………………………………………………………………… 61 Opportunity 4: Agroecology on the global governance agenda ……………………………………………… 62 Opportunity 5: Integrated food systems science and education …………………………………………… 63 Opportunity 6: Peer-to-peer action research ………………………………………………………………………………… 63 Opportunity 7: Sustainable and Healthy Sourcing ……………………………………………………………………… 64 Opportunity 8: Short supply chains …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 64
3.b. Pathways of transition: recommendations for moving towards diversified agroecological systems …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 65
Recommendation 1: Develop new indicators for sustainable food systems ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 68 Recommendation 2: Shift public support towards diversified agroecological production systems ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 69 Recommendation 3: Support short supply chains & alternative retail infrastructures ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 70 Recommendation 4: Use public procurement to support local agroecological produce …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 70 Recommendation 5: Strengthen movements that unify diverse constituencies around agroecology ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 71 Recommendation 6: Mainstream agroecology and holistic food systems approaches into education and research agendas ………………………………………………………………………… 72 Recommendation 7: Develop food planning processes and ‘joined-up food policies’ at multiple levels ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 73
Bibliography …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………76 Panel members …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………92 Aknowlegements ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………94
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 5 THE CHALLENGE: SHIFTING THE CENTRE plications for global production volumes of OF GRAVITY IN FOOD SYSTEMS staple crops, and for ‘food security’ in the narrow terms in which it is often understood1 The evidence in favour of a major transfor- (Cloke, 2013). After all, it is not simply a change mation of our food systems is now over- in agricultural practices that is envisaged here, whelming. Many influential studies have but fundamentally different farming land- helped shape our understanding of the per- scapes and livelihoods, and radically reimag- ilous situation our food systems are in, from ined food systems. This in itself is a key insight: the degradation of ecosystems to the fragili- the discrepancy between the potential of diver- ty of farmer livelihoods in many parts of the sified agroecological systems to deliver what world; from the persistence of hunger and really matters, and our capacity to measure under-nutrition to the rampant growth of and value those things. It is no coincidence that obesity and diet-related diseases. one of the key recommendations arising from this report is to develop new ways of measur- However, few studies have yet to provide a ing success in food systems. comprehensive view of how alternative food systems, based around fundamentally dif- Making the case for changing course is crucial, ferent agricultural models, perform against but so too is mapping out a pathway of tran- the same criteria. Even fewer have mapped sition. Encouragingly, the foundations of this out the pathways of transition towards the transition are already being laid by farmers, sustainable food systems of the future. consumers, civil society groups and the many others taking bold and innovative steps to trans- This report explores the potential for a shift form food systems around the world. However, to occur from current food systems, charac- the odds are still stacked against those seeking terized by industrial modes of agriculture, to alternatives. As this report describes, industrial systems based around diversified agroecolog- agriculture is locked in place by a series of pow- ical farming. It asks what the impacts on food erful feedback loops extending well beyond the systems would be if diversity, rather than world of farming. Industrial agriculture and in- uniformity, were the key imperative. The dustrial food systems have shaped and been ecological benefits of such a shift have been shaped by each other. Farmers cannot simply widely documented. The key question, and be expected to rethink their production model, the one asked in this report, is where the nor consumers to radically reorient their pur- trade-offs lie. In other words, could food sys- chasing patterns, without a major shift in the tems based around diversified agroecologi- incentives running through food systems. The cal farming succeed where current systems specific steps will differ from setting to setting, are failing, namely in reconciling concerns and from country to country. However, this such as food security, environmental protec- report seeks to identify the common leverage tion, nutritional adequacy and social equity. points for unleashing this transition.
As this report shows, there is much promise It is a transition that is applicable to all farming in the emerging evidence. The comparison is contexts and scales, whether the starting point complex, and the evidence is far from com- is highly specialized industrial agriculture, or plete. Diversified systems produce diverse forms of subsistence farming in poor develop- outputs, making it difficult to gage their im- ing countries. Specialized industrial agriculture
1. A full understanding of food security was established at the 1996 World Food Summit: “Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (FAO, 1996).
6 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY and diversified agroecological farming stand by a wholesale shift in mainstream practices, at two ends of a wide spectrum. Agroecology led by those with the power to reform them. is not a niche for small-scale artisanal farmers Some firms are already engaged on this path. in given sectors, nor is it a label to be attained These steps are welcome, insofar as they find on the basis of specific practices. It is a univer- ways to complement, and not to derail, a tran- sal logic for redesigning agricultural systems sition that may ultimately redistribute power in ways that maximize biodiversity and stimu- away from currently dominant actors. late interactions between different plants and species, as part of holistic strategies to build The key is to establish political priorities, name- long-term fertility, healthy agro-ecosystems ly, to support the emergence of alternative sys- and secure livelihoods. Put simply, it is the op- tems which are based around fundamentally posite of monocultures and their reliance on different logics, and which, over time, generate chemical inputs. It is therefore a broad land- different and more equitable power relations. ing space that can be reached via a variety of Incremental change must not be allowed to pathways and entry points, progressively or in divert political attention and political capital more rapid shifts, as farmers free themselves away from the more fundamental shift that is from the structures of industrial agriculture urgently needed, and can now be delivered, and refocus their farming systems around a through a paradigm shift from industrial agri- new set of principles. culture to diversified agroecological systems.
The majority of farmers currently find them- selves somewhere in between the two poles. Structure of the report : Many farmers are diversifying their outputs »» Section 1 What are the outcomes of and activities, experimenting with natural pest industrial agriculture and diversified management, aiming for nutritious, high-quali- agroecological systems? ty production and seeking alternative retail cir- »» Section 2 What is keeping industrial cuits, even as they continue to farm primarily agriculture in place? on the basis of specialized commodity crops. Rather than encouraging farmers to go a step »» Section 3 How can the balance be further, the current incentives in food systems shifted in favour of diversified keep farmers locked into the structures and agroecological systems? logics of industrial agriculture. The transition envisaged in this report would shift these in- centives, thereby empowering farmers to step firmly off the treadmill of industrial agriculture. Only then will the true benefits of diversified agroecological systems be realized.
The type of change considered here would lead to the emergence of what are essentially new food systems with new infrastructures and new sets of power relations, implying the coex- istence of two more or less distinct systems for some time to come. That does not mean that we should remain indifferent to the reforms emerging from those at the centre of industri- al food systems. The emergence of alternative food systems can and must be complemented
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 7 THE NEED FOR SYSTEMIC CHANGE ferent faces of malnutrition within the same region or even the same household (Graziano The food systems we inherit in the 21st century da Silva, 2014). Non-communicable diseases represent some of the greatest achievements (NCDs) associated with imbalanced diets have of human civilization. Paradoxically, they also increased so rapidly as to have overtaken in- represent some of the greatest threats to our fectious diseases as the number one cause continued health and prosperity. Contrasted of global mortality (WHO, 2012; Murray et al., with millennia of subsistence diets for most 2015). In addition, while food-borne illnesses of the population, today’s food systems are a persist in all types of markets, new scares af- radical success in abundance in many parts of fecting large numbers of people are emerg- the world. Over the 19th and 20th centuries, ing in increasingly globalized food markets, major breakthroughs in crop productivity, food threatening to unravel the historical progress processing and distributive capacities drove on food safety. huge increases in net calorie availability for consumers, bringing more varied diets into The environmental outlook is equally trou- reach for those able to access and afford them. bling. Today, food systems contribute between Modern food systems also boast impressive 19% and 29% of global anthropogenic green- achievements in food safety. At the beginning house gas (GHG) emissions (Vermeulen et al., of the 20th century, food poisoning and water 2012). Upstream of agriculture, major contri- contamination were major causes of mortali- butions are made by the fossil fuel-intensive ty, even in relatively wealthy regions like West- production of chemical fertilizer and pesticides ern Europe (Satin, 2007). Improved hygiene, (Gilbert, 2012). Downstream, emissions arise technologies and medicine have all but erad- from food processing and retail sectors that icated these pathologies in the most affluent rely increasingly on abundant synthetic pack- countries, with middle-income and low-income aging (Murphy-Bokern, 2010) and soaring ‘food countries now making major advances. miles’ in order to deliver the highly processed and unseasonal products to which consum- However, the outcomes of these food systems ers have become accustomed (Schnell, 2013). are poor on many counts, and in many coun- Meanwhile, 70% of all water withdrawn from tries and regions of the world. Indeed, the very aquifers, streams and lakes is used for agricul- foundations on which these systems were built ture - often at unsustainable rates (FAO, 2013). are becoming increasingly fragile. The agricultural sector is responsible for ni- trate, phosphorus, pesticide, soil sediment and Despite decreases in the percentage of the pathogen pollution in soil and water (Parris, global population going hungry over recent 2011). Furthermore, agricultural systems have decades, 795 million people still suffered from contributed significantly to land degradation hunger in 2015 (FAO et al., 2015). Expanding as well as to the destruction of natural habi- the lens to take in those who are malnour- tats and losses of wild biodiversity around the ished, the failures are far starker. In addition world (Scherr & McNeely, 2012). to acute hunger, two billion are afflicted by the ‘hidden hunger’ of micronutrient deficien- Food systems are also failing food producers cies (Bioversity International, 2014), and over themselves. Many small farmers, especially 1.9 billion are obese or overweight (WHO, women, struggle to emerge above subsistence 2015a)2. Indeed, one of the greatest paradox- level, often lacking access to credit, technical es of our time is the coexistence of the dif- support and markets – or facing the uncer-
2. There are some overlaps between those suffering from hunger, micronutrient deficiencies and overweight and obesity.
8 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY tainties of volatile prices on global commod- The problems in food systems are deeply ity markets (FAO, 2004). Globalization has interconnected and mutually reinforcing. brought new challenges in terms of downward Some 35% of global cultivated crops depend price pressures and costly regulatory burdens on pollination (WHO & Secretariat of the Con- for farmers. As a result, the world faces the iro- vention on Biological Diversity, 2015). The ny of small-scale farming communities making global decline in insect pollinators – driven up about 50% of the hungry (WFP, 2015). Even in large part by the use of pesticides in ag- in wealthier countries, farmers continue to riculture (van Lexmond et al., 2015) – now face high risks and uncertainties, with farm- threatens the very basis of agriculture and its ing incomes showing little prospect of rising future crop yields. Meanwhile, the livelihoods durably (European Commission, 2014). This of many food producers are being pushed to leaves many farmers reliant on government breaking point by climate change and envi- subsidies. Meanwhile, labour conditions re- ronmental degradation. Nearly one billion main problematic across food systems, from people who derive their livelihoods primar- the precarious circumstances facing migrant ily from agriculture are presently living in fruit-pickers to the routine exploitation and vulnerable environments, and these are the under-remuneration of workers in abattoirs, populations that will bear the brunt of large- food processing plants and retail outlets (ILO, scale environmental change in the near fu- 2008; ILO, 2015). While food and agriculture ture (Fischer et al., 2002). In other words, generate increasing value for grain traders modern agriculture is failing to sustain and global retail giants, decent livelihoods re- the people and resources on which it re- main out of reach for many of those employed lies, and has come to represent an exis- in food systems. tential threat to itself.
THE KEY PROBLEMS IN GLOBAL FOOD SYSTEMS FIGURE 1 - THE KEY PROBLEMS IN GLOBAL FOOD SYSTEMS
MICRONUTRIENT O ESITY AND UN ER DEFICIENCIES OVER EI T 1 - 2 7 of all ater of anthropogenic ithdra n from 7 5 2 1. greenhouse gas a uifers steams million people illion people illion people emissions come and la es is used from food s stems for agriculture
NCDS ARE T E NUM ER ONE CAUSE OF LO AL MORTALITY 5 of the hungr N D I are small scale farmers cancer CVA dia etes
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 9 TWO ENDS OF A SPECTRUM: INDUSTRIAL • SECTION 1 What are the outcomes of indus- AGRICULTURE AND DIVERSIFIED trial agriculture and diversified agroecologi- AGROECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS cal systems? • SECTION 2 What is keeping industrial agri- The various parts of food systems are clearly culture in place? interconnected, requiring a holistic analysis • SECTION 3 How can the balance be shifted in of how these systems operate, and an aware- favour of diversified agroecological systems? ness of the power relations running through them (see IPES-Food, 2015). It is nonetheless Industrial agriculture and diversified agroeco- essential to zoom in on agriculture as a key logical farming stand at two ends of a wide entry point. In particular, it is crucial to identi- spectrum, and offer diametrically opposing vi- fy the modes of farming that have generated sions of how to organize farming, particularly the most negative outcomes, and to explore in its relationship to ecosystems. While most the potential for a fundamental shift in agri- farmers are currently somewhere in between culture to set food systems on a sustainable the two extremes, it is nonetheless import- footing. ant to understand both models in their fullest forms. These models are understood in terms It is possible to identify industrial agricul- of broad organizing principles as well as the ture as the dominant logic underpinning specific practices they entail; many farmers agriculture in industrialized countries, and may therefore be operating according to a pre- increasingly in transitional economies. It is dominantly industrial logic, even as they adapt also the dominant trend in today’s agricultur- some of their practices. al research and development efforts world- wide. In practice, what is referred to as ‘con- The key characteristics of the two models are ventional’ agriculture often corresponds to described below. It should be noted that this the industrial model. The negative outcomes list is not exhaustive, and is limited to the key proliferating in modern food systems are agricultural/agronomic logics and organizing therefore closely associated with industrial principles of each system. What these farm- agriculture; the extent of this association, ing systems imply in terms of the broader so- and the potential for improving these out- cio-economic conditions around farming, and comes under different agricultural systems, what they deliver in terms of outcomes, will be is explored in Section 1. analysed in detail in Section 1.
Alternative visions and organizing principles The potential for incremental shifts within pre- for agriculture have evolved alongside the in- dominantly industrial systems is not addressed dustrial model. The terms diversification and in detail here. Steps to introduce individual agroecology capture modes of agriculture measures such as conservation agriculture, that respond to fundamentally different objec- crop rotation3 or integrated pest management tives and logics, offering a genuine and holistic (IPM) are undoubtedly positive. However, if the alternative to industrial agriculture. This report vast challenges in food systems are to be is focused on exploring the potential for a par- met, these steps must be reconceived not adigm shift whereby diversified agroecological as an end point, but as the starting point of systems become the dominant model. The re- a process of change. This process must culmi- port is therefore structured around three key nate in the adoption of holistic strategies for questions: reintegrating agriculture with the ecosystems
3. Crop rotation is the sequential planting of one crop after another, and is often done to ensure soil health, replacement of nutrients, and reduction of disease.
10 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY TABLE 1 Key characteristics of Specialized Industrial Agriculture and Diversified Agroecological Farming
SPECIALIZED INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURE DIVERSIFIED AGROECOLOGICAL FARMING
DEFINITIONS
Specialization refers to a socio-economic para- Diversification refers to maintaining multiple digm whereby producers specialize in the produc- sources of production, and varying what is pro- tion of a single item (or few items) that they are duced across farming landscapes and over time. most efficient at producing, or of a single stage Agroecology is understood here as “the science of that item’s production. Industrial agriculture of applying ecological concepts and principles to refers to modes of farming that are analogous to the design and management of sustainable food industrial processes in their scale and task segre- systems” (Gliessman, 2007). It encompasses va- gation, and seek to derive productivity gains from rious approaches to maximise biodiversity and sti- specialization (see above) and intensification of mulate interactions between different plants and production. At various points in the report, ‘indus- species, as part of holistic strategies to build long- trial agriculture’ will be used as short-hand to re- term fertility, healthy agro-ecosystems and secure fer to a model which entails and is based around livelihoods. It also represents a social movement; highly-specialized production. this usage will be specified where relevant.
KEY CHARACTERISTICS
Crop monocultures (or production of a handful of Temporal diversification (e.g. crop rotation) and select crops) at the level of farms or landscapes; spatial diversification (e.g. intercropping; mixed Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CA- farming); diversification employed at various- le FOs). vels, including plot, farm and landscape.
Use of genetically uniform varieties or breeds se- Use of wide range of species and less uniform, lected mainly for high productivity, wide adaptability locally-adapted varieties/breeds, based on mul- to favourable environments, and ability to respond to tiple uses (including traditional uses), cultural pre- chemical inputs. ferences, taste, productivity and other criteria.
Vertical and horizontal segregation of product Natural synergies emphasized and production chains, e.g. animal feed production and animal rea- types integrated (e.g. mixed crop-livestock-tree ring in separate farms, value chains and regions. farming systems and landscapes).
Highly mechanized, labour-saving production More labour-intensive systems. systems.
Maximization of yield/economic returns from a Maximization of multiple outputs. single product or limited number of products.
Intensive use of external inputs, e.g. fossil fuel, Low external inputs; recycling of waste within chemical fertiliser, pesticides and antibiotics. full nutrient cycling and circular economy ap- proaches.
Production of large volumes of homogenous pro- Production of a wide range of less homogeneous ducts for national and international markets, typi- products often destined for short value chains; cally within long value chains. multiple sources of production, income and live- lihood.
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 11 on which it relies. The priority here is to es- major scope for increasing the productivity of tablish why this paradigm shift is needed, and these systems, and an urgent need to do so. what is currently preventing it from occurring. The challenge, therefore, is to ensure that a re- investment in agriculture occurs in the coun- The spectrum between industrial agriculture tries and regions where under-performing and diversified agroecological farming is not subsistence farming is currently the norm, and the only relevant one, in terms of the changes that this investment be oriented towards diver- that are required if agriculture is to respond to sified agroecological systems. In other words, the challenges now faced. Models of subsis- diversified agroecological systems are con- tence farming are still practiced by hundreds sidered here to be the alternative toward of millions of poor farmers in developing coun- which both industrial agriculture and sub- tries. As has been widely recognized, there is sistence farming can and should evolve.
TRANSITIONING FROM DIFFERENT STARTING POINTS FIGURE 2 - TRANSITIONING FROM DIFFERENT STARTING POINTS
DI ERSI IED A ROECOLO ICAL ARMIN
Connect to Markets Relocalize Diversif Diversif Mechanize Reduce chemical inputs
Build knowledge Build knowledge
SUBSISTENCE A RICULTURE INDUSTRIAL A RICULTURE
12 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 01 What are the outcomes of industrial agriculture and diversified agroecological systems?
In this section, the impacts of industrial agricul- Flexibility in the terms of analysis is also required ture (Section 1.a) and diversified agroecological in order to account for the different pathways systems (Section 1.b) will be identified on mul- and channels that can be taken in order to ar- tiple fronts, broadly corresponding to the main rive at the same goals. For example, internation- areas of concern in modern food systems, and al trade-based product diversity on one hand, to the criteria that the sustainable food sys- and agricultural diversification on the other, tems of the future will have to meet4. These im- represent fundamentally different channels for pacts are grouped under the following areas: reaching the goal of increased dietary diversity. Productivity, Environment, Socio-Economic, Both must be described in order to paint a full and Health and Nutrition. picture of what the opposing systems have to offer and how viably they can achieve this goal. Three key challenges emerge in conducting this comparison. Firstly, there are limits to a direct In other cases, direct comparison is even more comparison between systems responding to difficult to achieve. Diversified systems pro- very different logics. For example, outcomes duce diverse outputs, making it difficult to relating to resilience5 are a particularly recurrent project the impacts of the envisaged shift on feature in the literature on diversified agroeco- total production volumes of staple crops. This logical systems. The quest for resilience (e.g. in barrier can only be overcome by describing the the face of climate stresses) frequently emerges vision of productivity and food security offered as the starting point for diversified agroecological by diversified agroecological systems as fully farming to be deployed. Therefore, while similar as possible, and with recourse to a wide range criteria are sought for assessing the two types of examples. This question will be revisited in of systems, and while resilience features in both Section 1.c, where conclusions are drawn on cases, there is some limited variation between the basis of the data comparison. sections 1.a and 1.b in terms of the sub-headings used for grouping data, and how much data is A second challenge arises in that much of the included under each. This variation is essential available information on agriculture and its in order to allow for fundamentally different sys- impacts is not disaggregated by type of pro- tems to be understood in their own terms. The duction. Nonetheless, the analysis in Section question of how we measure success, and the 1.a is able to draw on considerable documen- extent to which this skews typical comparisons, tation of the specific impacts incurred by sta- is explored in Section 2 of this report. ple crop monocultures, export-oriented plan-
4. According to the High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS), sustainable food systems must deliver “food security and nutrition for all in such a way that the economic, social and environmental bases to generate food security and nutrition for future generations are not compromised” (HLPE, 2014); another key benchmark is sustainable diets, characterized by “low environmental impacts which contribute to food and nutrition security and to healthy life for pres- ent and future generations”, and must be “protective and respectful of biodiversity and ecosystems, culturally acceptable, accessible, economically fair and affordable; nutritionally adequate, safe and healthy; while optimizing natural and human resources” (FAO, 2010)
5. Environmental resilience refers to the capacity of an ecosystem to resist and recover from stresses, shocks and disturbances, be they natural events or impacts caused by human activity; Livelihood resilience refers to the ability of people to secure the capabilities, assets and activities required to ensure a decent living, particularly in the face of shocks (e.g. economic crises, environmental disasters).
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 13 tations and other manifestations of industrial to specific types of diversified production (e.g. agriculture. Similarly, Section 1.b includes ex- polycultures7) which can be used more readi- tensive data that can be specifically attributed ly as proxies of the diversified agroecological to diversifying food production and employing model described above. holistic agroecological approaches. Thirdly, it must be acknowledged that some In other cases, data does not concern the two of the evidence cited below does not concern systems in their fullest forms, focusing for outcomes in the strictest sense. Evidence on example on comparisons of conventional the pathways and mechanisms through which versus organic6 systems. In practice, organic a given system has been observed to function farming may often be synonymous with diver- (e.g. the channels through which diversified sified agroecological farming; many ‘organic’ systems resist environmental shocks) is includ- farmers are likely to have adopted extensive ed in addition to hard data on the impacts of diversification and holistic farm-wide -strat different production systems. egies for managing agro-ecosystems, in line with their ambition to depart from the indus- Furthermore, many of the outcomes observed trial model. However, the organic certifica- here are influenced by and contingent on a tion does not carry this guarantee, and also range of other factors (political, institutional encompasses those using a set of minimum etc.). The importance of these intermediary practices for certification and going no further; factors, and how difficult it is to extricate them in some cases it is practiced alongside indus- from the modes of agriculture they accom- trial-style production on the same farm. Or- pany, is addressed in Section 1.c. As the con- ganic/conventional data comparisons will clusions in that section will underline, the full not, therefore, be taken as a direct proxy capacities of diversified systems will never be for the two systems under discussion here, fully realized or even be fully identifiable inso- but will be considered highly relevant to far as industrial agriculture – and the edifice the comparison. In other cases, data refers surrounding it – dominates the landscape.
6. Organic agriculture is a type of certified farming that must adhere to a set of environmental requirements regarding inputs and practices. A key requirement is non-usage of synthetic inputs (fertilizers/pesticides), although mineral inputs from outside the farm that are mined naturally can be applied. In Europe, organic certification includes requirements for crop rotation.
7. Farms growing crops in polycultures cultivate different plant species in reasonably close proximity in the same field, and vary those species over time. This term is opposed to monoculture where single/similar plant species are grown across large areas with minimum or no rotation.
14 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 1.A. OUTCOMES OF SPECIALIZED the world (e.g. maize in Kansas, rice in Hok- INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURE kaido, Japan, etc.) (Grassini et al., 2013). A me- ta-analysis of yield developments around the world from 1961-2008 found that in 24-39% 1.a.i. Productivity outcomes of areas growing maize, rice, wheat and soy- bean, yields either failed to improve, stagnat- Yields ed after initial gains, or collapsed (Ray et al., 2012). Meanwhile, doubts are emerging over Undoubtedly, the greatest positive outcome whether high productivity in the livestock sec- of industrial agriculture has been the tremen- tor can be sustained in the future (Wellesley et dous production increases in several major al., 2015; Thornton, 2010). These phenomena crops, particularly in the wake of the ‘Green can be attributed to multiple factors, includ- Revolution’ in the post-war period. By 1970, ing land degradation, loss of biodiversity and 20% of the wheat area and 30% of the rice the associated loss of ecosystem functions, as area in low-income countries were planted will be further developed in this report (see with High Yielding Varieties (HYVs), and by sub-section below on Resilience and Vulner- 1990, the share had increased to about 70% ability, and Section 1.a.ii on Environmental for both crops. HYVs were developed to have outcomes). a high harvest index (grain weight as percent- age of total biomass weight) (Guzman et al., »» Yields failed to improve, stagnated 2016; Sánchez-García et al., 2013); to be highly or collapsed in 24-39% of the world’s responsive to chemical inputs; to maximize nu- maize, rice, wheat and soybean pro- trient and water absorption; and to be widely duction zones (1961-2008) adaptable to favourable production zones.
Spread of high-yielding crop varieties in Resilience and Vulnerability low-income countries: »» 20% wheat area and 30% rice area by Threats to the productivity of industrial agri- 1970 culture arise from one of its central character- »» 70% wheat and rice area by 1990 istics: uniformity. There are numerous his- torical examples of vulnerability linked to genetic uniformity in monocultures or in- dustrial scale livestock rearing, resulting in The positive effects on yields have been widely significant economic losses and large-scale recorded. Between 1961 and 2001, region- suffering. As these cases show, genetic unifor- al per capita food production doubled in mity has systematically generated vulnerability Southeast Asia and the Pacific, South Asia, to epidemics and, more generally, to biotic and and Latin America and the Caribbean (McAr- abiotic stresses (Scarascia-Mugnozza & Perrino, thur & McCord, 2014). HYVs are considered to 2002). Some examples are shown below in Fig- have lifted many farmers out of poverty and ure 3, including the Great Irish Potato Famine, increased net calorie availability (IFPRI, 2002). which started in 1845 (O’Neil, 2010); the Ameri- Similar increases in the productivity of live- can stripe rust epidemic in the 1960s; Southern stock have also taken place (Thornton, 2010). corn leaf blight in the US (Ullstrup, 1972) and the Tungo rice virus outbreak during the 1970s However, in recent decades, yield increases in Indonesia and the Philippines (Thrupp, 2000, for key crops in industrial cropping systems p. 272). In the case of livestock, outbreaks of have started to plateau in various regions of diseases such as avian influenza (Alexander,
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 15 A TIMELINE OF DISEASE OUTBREAKS IN HIGHLY-SPECIALIZED SYSTEMS FIGURE 3 - A TIMELINE OF DISEASE OUTBREAKS IN HIGHLY-SPECIALIZED SYSTEMS
T I
F S I F US
1 1 60 1 0 1 0 s 1 2001 200 200 200 201
Avian influenza Avian influenza U Avian influenza US
2000) and foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) (Gib- al chemicals to tackle these resistance prob- bens et al., 2001) have spread rapidly among lems risks setting in place vicious cycles of animals in high-density intensive production further adaptation and resistance (Pollinis, systems, with more catastrophic epidemics oc- 2015). curring among genetically homogenous popu- lations (Springbett et al., 2003). This trend has been increasingly document- ed with regard to genetically modified (GM) While some lessons have been learned from crops, and particularly the monocultures as- these historical production losses, today’s sociated with the ‘Roundup Ready’ model of highly specialized agricultural systems re- herbicide-tolerant crops and accompanying main vulnerable. For example, a new strain glyphosate treatments. There are current- of soil fungus affecting plantations of the ly some 210 species of herbicide-resistant Cavendish cultivar, accounting for the vast weeds, many of which can be linked to GM majority of commercial banana plantations, crops (Heap, 2014). The ‘treadmill’ of increas- could devastate the banana industry in Latin ing pesticide use and increasing resistance America, which currently accounts for 80% of the world’s multi-billion dollar banana trade not only fails to address the underlying prob- (Butler, 2013). lem of pest resistance and its threat to yields, but also brings mounting costs for farmers The mass pesticide usage associated with the (see Section 1.a.iii). development of specialized large-scale mono- cropping has engendered risks of its own, with major implications for long-term productivity. »» First case of pesticide resistance found The first case of resistance to pesticides was dis- in 1960s covered in the 1960s (Gould, 1991). Since then, »» 210 species of herbicide-resistant pests, viruses, fungi, bacteria and weeds have weeds now observed been adapting to chemical pest management faster than ever. Having recourse to addition-
16 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 1.a.ii. Environmental outcomes tion – potentially in degraded condition. Land ‘spared’ from production cannot therefore be assumed to be a haven for biodiversity or se- Land Use questering carbon. Where land use is concerned, the environmen- tal impacts of industrial agriculture continue to »» Asian cereal production doubled with be a subject of controversy. Positive environ- only 4% increase in land from 1970- mental impacts have been identified on the 1975 basis of land being spared from becoming »» Without improved yields, 1.76 million cropland, due to the ability of industrial sys- hectares of additional cropland would tems to increase productivity on existing farm- have been required to reach 2005 pro- land. In Asia, cereal production doubled from duction levels. 1970 to 1975, with the total cultivated land »» The EU’s ‘virtual land area’ is 35 million area increasing by only 4% (IFPRI, 2002). Data hectares suggest that if crop yields had remained con- »» Most developed countries are net bio- stant from 1961 to 2005, an additional 1.761 mass importers million hectares of cropland would have been required globally in order to achieve the pro- duction levels that were reached at the end of Land sparing arguments also lose relevance that period; such an increase in land require- when the need for additional crop productiv- ments would have triggered deforestation on a ity (either on existing or additional farmland) much greater scale (Burney et al., 2010). is called into question. Global food production (and the global cropland it requires) is already However, where land has been brought out theoretically sufficient to feed the planet twice of production, the link to high-yielding in- (Lundqvist et al., 2008; Smil, 2001), as Figure 4 dustrial agriculture is weak (Kremen, 2015). explains. The importance of how the question Few cases could be observed nationally or of food security is framed, and the implications globally over the 1990-2005 period in which for what is prioritized in food systems, will be yields increased and cropland declined in tan- addressed in Section 2. dem; agricultural intensification has not gener- ally led to a country stabilizing or reducing its A reality of global land use patterns for agricul- cropland area (Rudel et al., 2009; Ewers et al., 2009). The predominant experience has been ture, and one potentially obscured by focusing that as productivity has increased, so too has on net land usage, is the growing outsourc- the area under production Rudel et al., 2009). ing of food production in some areas of the world. Facilitated by the specialization of agri- Furthermore, it should be noted that land spar- culture on regional scales, wealthy countries ing is important only insofar as the challenge is have been able to shift the land requirements framed in terms of limiting the encroachment for sustaining their diets – particularly animal of cropland into additional areas. For some, feed supply - into other parts of the world this is a distraction from the question of how on a huge scale. For example, the virtual land current cropland is used. It should be noted area required by the European Union (EU) is that the 1.761 million hectares supposedly estimated at 35 million hectares (Witzke & No- ‘spared’ between 1961 and 2005 (Burney et leppa, 2010). Most developed countries are al., 2010) is an aggregate figure, meaning that in fact net importers of biomass for human new land is likely to have come into production consumption, animal feed and industrial while other zones were taken out of produc- raw materials (Krausmann et al., 2009).
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 17 FIGURE 4 - GLOBAL FOOD PRODUCTION AND LOSSES
This diagram, from Lundqvist et al., 2008, shows the total food calories that would potentially be avail- able for human consumption if losses, waste and the inefficiencies of animal production were removed. This data should be updated to account for current production levels and to include the significant diver- sion of food crops and cropland to biofuel production since the data was compiled.
Land degradation and soil erosion of this degradation, with monocultures and highly mechanized practices linked to cases As mentioned above, the theoretical land of historical land degradation. The Dust Bowl sparing referred to in the above argument is in the US in the 1930s is one such example: likely to have been offset by rapid land degra- aggressive tillage across the American Mid- dation. According to the Food and Agricultural west, combined with a period of prolonged Organization of the United Nations (FAO), by drought, led to severe soil erosion and dust the 1990s, some nine million km2 of land - an storms (Shannon et al., 2015). area roughly the size of China - was consid- ered to be moderately degraded, with a fur- Overall, unsustainable practices associated ther 3m km2 in a severely degraded state (Fra- with industrial agriculture remain the largest ser & Rimas, 2011). Although estimates vary, contributor to land degradation, which contin- over 20% of land found on Earth is current- ues at an alarming rate of 12 million hectares/ ly considered as degraded (UNCCD, 2012). year, equivalent to the total agricultural land of Structural changes in landscapes associated the Philippines (ELD Initiative, 2015). Further- with industrial agriculture are a major source more, it has been estimated that more than
18 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 50% of irrigated arable land will be salinized8 by largely through methane emissions from the year 2050 if current trends continue (Jam- cattle. While it is difficult to isolate the- con il et al., 2011). Therefore, sparing land may be tribution of CAFOs and other industrial-style less important than restoring and regenerating production systems, it is clear that ineffi- degraded land, a question to which industrial ciencies accrue as animal rearing becomes systems have yet to provide a convincing an- more disconnected from landscapes and swer (Section 1.b.ii covers the regenerative ca- from local feed sources (Infante & González pacities of diversified agroecological systems). de Molina, 2013). Typical feed conversion ra- tios range from 2kg feed per kg of meat in the most efficient animal production systems »» By 1990s an area of land the size of to as much as 20kg in some beef cattle sys- China was degraded, and an additional tems, varying considerably between differ- 30% was severely degraded ent animals, farming systems and calculation »» Over 20% land is now degraded globally methods (Garnett et al., 2015). Broadly, net »» 12 million hectares of land is degraded life-cycle emissions from industrial feedlot annually systems are likely to be considerably higher »» 50% of irrigated cropland will be sali- than those from integrated grassland sys- nized by 2050 on current trends tems, once carbon sequestration is taken into account (National Trust, 2015).
Greenhouse gas emissions Water contamination, soil erosion and runoff
As a whole, global food systems generate Large-scale monocultures and other highly one-third of all human-caused GHG emissions specialized farming systems entail particularly (Thornton, 2012), with agriculture, forestry, high risks of runoff and soil erosion, leading to and other land use changes contributing as widespread contamination of soil and water much as 25% (Smith et al., 2014). Some of the (Boardman et al., 2003). The excessive appli- factors contributing most significantly to these cation of nutrients (particularly nitrate and emissions are closely associated with industrial phosphate) has increased with the intensifica- modes of farming. Large-scale deforestation tion of agriculture and the increase in livestock has been declining in recent years; however, stocking rates, resulting in severe water pollu- it continues to contribute significantly to GHG tion. Estuarine and coastal agricultural nutrient emissions and ecosystem degradation in many pollution has damaged marine life, including parts of the world, such as Southeast Asia, pri- commercial fisheries in coastal waters (Par- marily to pave the way for large-scale palm oil ris, 2011; Bouraoui & Grizzetti, 2014). Similar plantations (NCD Alliance, 2012). Elsewhere, impacts from phosphorous runoff have been livestock grazing and the production of feed observed on Lake Erie, shutting down public crops have been the main agricultural drivers water supplies (Chung, 2014). Furthermore, of deforestation (Garnett, 2014). ‘dead zones’ are increasingly being observed at the mouths of river systems, as a result of Livestock also makes a significant direct fertilizer and pesticide runoff. One example is contribution to agricultural GHG emissions, runoff from the Mississippi River Delta – down-
8. Salinization refers to the phenomenon of increasing salt content in soils, resulting in disturbance of water cycles (e.g. through irrigation practices) and other factors. Salinization prevents plant roots from absorbing water, with the effect of lowering yields and further degrading the soil.
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 19 FIGURE 5 - VICIOUS CYCLES OFVICIOUS SOIL CYCLES AND OF WATER SOIL AND DEGRADATIONWATER DEGRADATION ININ INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS SYSTEMS
SOI ND TER • Over application of nutrients ONT MIN TION SOIL EROSION & I REDU ED T RE T TO TER RETENTION RODU TIVITY I DEST I IS TION OF TER Y ES S INIS TION
Requires further intensification
stream from the US ‘corn belt’ – into the Gulf of more ground- and surface-water than grass- Mexico (Pimentel et al., 2005). fed systems (Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2012).
Large-scale industrial feedlots generate huge It should be recalled that livestock manure can amounts of waste in specific geographical ar- be a positive contributor to soil fertility and eas. In France, the development and spread of land management in more extensive mixed algal blooms on the north-western coastline farming systems9 (see Section 1.b); it is the con- has been linked to the increase of nitrogen centration of huge quantities of livestock waste from manure applications. This is associated in given areas that converts it into a negative with the rise of intensive livestock farming in environmental impact in industrial systems. this region (Ministère Français de Agriculture et al., 2012). Similarly, CAFOs in the US gener- ate approximately 500 million tons of manure Water usage per year, or three times the amount of annual human sanitary waste (Schwarzer et al., 2012). Because of the poorer soil structure in indus- When insufficient land is available for safe trial agricultural systems and long periods of manure disposal, runoff and leaching of bare soil, water runoff is greater and wa- waste into surface and groundwater occurs, ter retention lower, thereby requiring more especially in the pig, poultry and dairy sectors water for irrigation (Gomez et al., 2009; Zuazo (Parris, 2011). This can have multiple negative et al., 2009). Animal products from industri- consequences, including the development and al-style CAFOs have a larger blue and grey wa- spread of bacteria, representing a potential ter footprint10 than produce originating from source of faecal cross contamination. Overall, grazing systems (Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2012). industrial animal production systems pollute Large scale irrigation in highly-specialized
9. Mixed farming combines plant production with animal or aquacultural production.
10. Water footprint refers to the water that is taken out of its cycle or that has been polluted at different stages. Blue water refers to fresh, surface and groundwater, in other words, the water in freshwater lakes, rivers and aquifers. Green water refers to precipitation on land that does not run off or recharge the groundwater but is stored in the soil or temporarily stays on top of the soil or vegetation, before evaporating or transpiring through plants.
20 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY cropping zones, such as the US Midwest (Scan- digenous leafy vegetables, small-grained African lon et al., 2012) or Rajasthan in India (Rodell et cereals, legumes, wild fruits and tree crops are al., 2009), is also over-exploiting aquifers, with disappearing in the face of competition with in- water tables being depleted at alarming rates. dustrially produced varieties of rice, maize and Estimates suggest that 30-50% of pre-develop- wheat (Jacobsen et al., 2013). ment groundwater reserves from the Ogallala For livestock, a few highly productive breeds aquifer, which provides around 30% of US irri- adapted to industrial production systems have gation needs, have already been mined (Kro- now replaced most local breeds across the world mm, 2000; Chadhuri et al., 2014). (Groeneveld et al., 2010). FAO’s Global Databank for Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agri- »» Manure from US CAFOs is three times culture contains 7616 livestock breeds. 6536 of the volume of annual human sanitary these are purely local breeds, meaning that they waste are found in only one country. Of this total, 20% are classified as at risk. Between 2001 and 2007, 62 breeds became extinct – amounting to the loss of almost one breed per month (FAO, 2007). Erosion of genetic pool While these approaches respond to short-term productivity objectives, they entail a general re- By definition, industrial agriculture significant- duction in practical applications of genetic diver- ly reduces agrobiodiversity by employing a sity, potentially limiting the genetic pool available reduced range of animal breeds and plant va- to future generations of farmers, and limiting the rieties. Furthermore, the erosion of entire pro- options in terms of adapting to changing envi- duction systems has occurred alongside the ronments (Vigouroux et al., 2011). The implica- mass production of a handful of staple crops: tions of this genetic erosion could be huge, ‘underutilized’ or minor crop species such as in- given the unpredictability of future stresses.
FIGURE 6 - GENETIC EROSIONGENETIC OF LIVESTOCK EROSION BREEDS OF LIVESTOCK BREEDS
14 are international reeds
7616 li estoc reeds orld ide A out 86 2 are local reeds are at ris of present in e tinction 1 countr
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 21 Wild biodiversity and ecosystem 1.a.iii. Socio-economic outcomes functioning
Income Industrial agriculture has also had significant impacts on wild biodiversity, jeopardizing the Industrial farming with highly input-responsive ability of farming systems to deliver crucial varieties has been shown to increase yields ecosystem services (Wood et al., 2000; Luck et (see section 1.a.i); broadly, this has translated al., 2003; Duffy, 2009). Biodiversity loss is the into positive income effects for farmers. How- domain in which the world has moved furthest ever, the high costs of chemical inputs on beyond what could be considered a safe oper- which these systems rely reduces profit mar- ating space (Steffen et al., 2015), according to gins and often requires access to credit and the Planetary Boundaries concept developed risk-based insurance. It also contributes to the by the Stockholm Resilience Centre (Rockström need for public support; in the EU and the US, et al., 2009). the various subsidies received by farmers rep- resent a significant share of their income (Mer- A worldwide loss of pollinators is now oc- ckx & Pereira, 2015; European Commission curring, and is closely linked to agricultural – EU FADN, 2011). Overall, the economic sit- intensification, habitat fragmentation and the uation of farmers in industrial farming sys- use of agrochemicals (Potts et al., 2010), par- tems, even highly-subsidized ones, remains ticularly neonicotinoids (Bonmatin et al., 2014; precarious. In the US, farm sector profitabil- van Lexmond et al., 2015). Populations of bees, ity is forecast to decline for the third straight flies, moths, bats and birds provide significant year, falling by as much as 3%; if this occurs, pollination and pest control services to crops. net farm income in 2016 would reach its lowest According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assess- levels since 2002 (USDA, 2016c). ment (2005), the presence of pollinators tends to be significantly lower in monocultures than Furthermore, there may be issues of selection in fields containing diverse forage and nesting bias in comparisons reporting positive income sites. The economic value of pollination is ap- effects from the adoption of industrial agricul- proximately 9.5% (€153 billion) of the value of ture. Given the up-front costs (e.g. inputs, land), global agricultural production for human food those producing in the industrial model are (Gallai et al., 2009). likely to be among the biggest, best-resourced and most-capitalized farms to start with. »» Biodiversity is domain in which world is operating furthest beyond ‘safe oper- This is particularly pertinent when it comes to ating space’ GM crops, often grown in highly-specialized »» Economic value of pollination is nearly large-scale monocultures of maize or soybean. 10% value of global food production A recent meta-study suggested positive yield and income effects for farmers growing GM crops (Klümper & Qaim, 2014). However, crit- ics have argued that only the largest and most profitable farms are able to bear the costs in the first place (Heinemann, 2014; Quist et al., 2013). The conditions required in order for positive yield and income effects to be recorded – and costs to be recovered – are thus likely to be unviable for many small-scale farmers around the world. Indeed, this has also been
22 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY observed in terms of the unequal spread of Reduced labour requirements are gener- benefits from the crop breeding advances of ally considered to be a major advantage the Green Revolution. To date, HYVs have not of industrial agriculture, particularly when benefited the poorest small-scale farmers, or success is framed in terms of delivering over- those without access to irrigation (IFPRI, 2002). all economic efficiencies, i.e. by freeing up labour for higher-value sectors of the econ- omy (Timmer, 2015). Indeed, the specializa- US farm income forecasts 2016: tion paradigm fundamentally relies on struc- »» Third straight year of decline tural transformation, whereby labour and »» Lowest level since 2002 capital are able to transit from one sector of the economy to another. However, there are major question marks regarding the extent Employment rates to which this shift can continue to occur, and whether it genuinely brings economic effi- The two systems under consideration here ciencies. have clearly divergent impacts in terms of employment. As will be described in Section While workers can transit easily in particular- 2, one of the key drivers of industrial agricul- ly strong labour markets, in many countries ture has been an increase in the relative those pushed out of agriculture do not find cost of labour. This has incentivized the use decent alternative employment in other of labour-saving technologies and the search sectors (Oya & Pontara, 2015). In the mod- for increasing economies of scale. Indeed, on- ern highly globalized economy, services jobs constantly shift to lower-cost locations, often farm employment has steadily decreased leaving rural out-migrants in precarious situa- over recent decades, particularly in North tions in city slums (Murray Li, 2009). Further- America, Europe and Australia, on the back of more, those exiting agriculture are not only the shift towards larger and increasingly spe- landless workers. The changing patterns of cialized farms (Bowman and Zilberman, 2013; land use associated with industrial export-led Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2012; Statistics agriculture – including as a result of land ac- Canada, 2014; US EPA, 2013; Eurostat, 2015). quisition or ‘land grabs’ – have been identified For example, agricultural labour in the EU de- as driving an exodus of previously self-suffi- creased by 24.9% between 2000 and 2009 (Eu- cient peasants to the cities (Gendron & Audet, rostat, 2010). 2012).
Fast-moving innovations in ‘precision agri- Furthermore, reductions in farm labour may 11 culture’ – particularly data-driven develop- not be efficient in the longer-term if they en- ments based on geospatial positioning and tail a loss of knowledge, which may become satellite imagery technologies – may mean increasingly important in a context of rising further decreases in the labour force as high- environmental and pest stresses. For exam- ly-specialized farms seek to upgrade. An Aus- ple, herbicide-tolerant GM cropping systems tralian study has shown that precision farm- that promise labour-saving, simplified forms ing requires less hired labour on grain farms of crop management are now facing major is- (Robertson et al., 2007). sues of weed resistance (Bonny, 2011; Quist et
11. Precision agriculture/farming refers to a type of farm management practice that involves the use of technology (GPS, com- munication technology, etc.) to optimize field-level management, enhance agricultural performance through better use of inputs, and improve the ability to predict and mitigate environmental risks. It is also referred to as satellite farming or site-specific crop management.
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 23 al., 2013). This can require farmers to invest in In some cases, the promised quantity and qual- additional GM traits and additional pesticides ity of jobs on plantations has failed to materi- (Quist et al., 2013). Where these approaches alize: in Latin America, large-scale land acqui- fail, a return to labour-intensive practices such sition for soy, palm oil, maize etc. has failed to as hand weeding may be needed. create as many jobs as promised, with ‘liveli- hoods replaced by informal jobs’ (Guereña & Burgos, 2014). Indeed, large-scale plantations Employment conditions often rely on the labour of poorly-paid season- al workers who are left without income and Employment conditions are highly dependent employment between peak seasons. on the protections in place in a given country, and how well they are applied. The spread of in- Furthermore, seasonal farm labourers – often dustrial agriculture has occurred alongside gen- migrants – are routinely denied the rights and eral advances in labour rights and protections protections of other workers. In the US, mi- in many parts of the world. In some cases, the grant workers, mostly from Latin America, en- process of agricultural industrialization has dure “endemic poverty, poor health outcomes, brought specific benefits for workers. For ex- and squalor living conditions” on tobacco and ample, in a recent US study, improvements in other monoculture farms, and in farm labour labour conditions were observed on larger and camps (Benson, 2008; Holmes, 2013). Many more industrialized farms with the capital to in- migrant labourers are engaged in what have vest in modernizing their facilities and automat- been referred to as ‘three D’ jobs: the work is ing some tasks. Milk parlour modernization was considered “dirty, dangerous, and difficult” shown to improve the ergonomic conditions of (Schenker, 2011). These types of employment work for labourers, particularly on large-scale are often highly precarious, menial and pres- farms; however, here and elsewhere, improved ent a high risk of repetitive strain injury. conditions did not accrue evenly to all workers (Harrison & Getz, 2014). »» 60% of global child labour occurs on Improvements in labour conditions have been farms less impressive in the highly-specialized plan- »» ‘Three-D’ jobs on plantations: dirty, tations that dominate the farming landscape in dangerous and difficult many tropical countries. Globally, 60% of child labour continues to occur in the agricultural sector (ILO, 2010). Forms of forced, bonded Trade and export orientation and slave labour, as well as dangerous and in- humane working conditions, have been found Highly-specialized industrial agriculture and on plantations (Potts et al., 2014; Monsalve export orientation have reinforced each oth- Suárez & Emanuelli, 2009). Serious human er over time; the global division of labour into rights violations, including forced child la- specialized production zones has yielded large bour and the prohibition of labour unions, volumes of tradable commodities, facilitating have occurred on palm oil and sugarcane plan- the global agricultural trade which, in turn, has tations in the Philippines and India (Monsalve created further incentives for specialized, ex- Suárez & Emanuelli, 2009). Where women port-oriented farming (see Section 2, Lock-in 2: are employed on plantations, they are often Export orientation). For countries and regions engaged in physically demanding tasks to re- following this path, agricultural export com- spond to labour shortages, such as harvesting modities have developed into an essential cane or participating in planting, weeding and source of income, employment, and gov- fertilizing (García, 2006). ernment revenues. In particular, export rev-
24 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY enues provide an essential source of foreign ecy; the countries and regions that specialize exchange for many countries, allowing them in higher-value industrial products are able to import a range of products, from consumer to benefit from a range of spin-off effects and items to essential healthcare machinery and innovation in high-value sectors, unlike those infrastructural materials that cannot be or are confining themselves to raw commodity pro- not produced domestically. duction (Cypher & Dietz, 1998; Sachs, 1992). The experiences of many Latin American and Export orientation has, nonetheless, gener- African countries suggest that those integrat- ated risks, not only for the specialized ex- ing into the world economy as ‘commodity porters, but for all farmers affected by the supply regions’ are likely to remain stuck in policies put in place to accompany and fa- this role, with their prosperity contingent on cilitate agricultural commodity exports. Al- access to rich country markets and terms of though only about 23% of global food produc- trade for their commodities (Wade, 2003). tion is traded internationally (D’Odorico et al., 2014), the opportunities presented by export Hunger and Food Security cropping have often led to policies being put in place to support further expansion of the The production increases delivered by an in- export sector – sometimes at the expense of creasingly industrialized agricultural sector other concerns (see Section 2, Lock-in 2: Export over the last half century, and particularly the Orientation). For some groups of farmers, the crop breeding advances of the Green Revolu- benefits of export agriculture have remained tion, have led to significant reductions in the theoretical: small producers in developing number, and especially in the percentage, countries have often struggled to compete in of hungry people in the world (IFPRI, 2015). the face of restrictive regulations, high food However, progress has been highly uneven be- safety and quality standards, and the other re- tween the different regions of the world. While quirements of international trade (Steinfeld et industrial agriculture has undoubtedly raised al., 2006; van der Meer, 2006; Lee et al., 2012). net calorie availability on global markets, al- most 800 million people still suffer chronic Highly specialized export zones have also tend- hunger. ed to bring macroeconomic risks. The coun- tries depending most heavily on agricultural Hunger is often concentrated in poor countries commodity exports are commonly low-income where agriculture has not yet been industrial- countries (FAO, 2004). Reliance on a handful ized on a significant scale. As indicated at the of commodities as the main means of partic- outset of this report, reinvesting in agriculture ipating in global trade can lead to major vul- in order to move communities out of subsis- nerabilities by exposing an economy to price tence farming is just as important as the tran- shocks (UNCTAD, 2013). In some cases, price sition from industrial to agroecological modes volatility has been found to increase in propor- of production. However, the global advance of tion to the specialization of production (Bellora export-oriented industrial agriculture, and the & Bourgeon, 2014). Commodity-induced ‘inter- rapid shifts in competitiveness this has en- national poverty traps’ have thus been iden- tailed, has also played its part in overhauling tified where the poor have few resources to fall and destabilizing food supply patterns – even back on and no durable route out of poverty, in countries where small-scale, traditional and whilst deep underlying developmental issues subsistence agriculture still dominate. Having are ignored (UNCTAD, 2002; UNCTAD, 2013). been a net food exporter in 1970, the African continent had become a net food importer with Critics of the theory of comparative advantage a $22bn agricultural trade deficit by the end of have in fact attacked it as a self-fulfilling proph- the decade (FAO, 2011). Those transitioning fast
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 25 towards the industrial model have also experi- Lambin & Meyfroids, 2011), or on behalf of for- enced new tensions in regard to food security, eign governments (via sovereign wealth funds) with export opportunities sometimes prior- in order to secure import supply chains for a itized above domestic needs; this is seen to given food commodity. have occurred in regard to Mexico’s integration into North American markets (González, 2014). This has been the case for much of the new wave of large-scale land acquisitions that have Meanwhile, the general switch towards spe- proliferated in the wake of the 2007-2008 glob- cialized, export-oriented systems has eroded al food price spikes (Cotula et al., 2009; Mc- the enterprise diversification that previously Michael, 2012). Generally, there is a huge dis- underpinned the farming economy, causing a tance between where the products obtained gradual loss of local food distribution systems are consumed (urban zones and wealthy na- tions) and the zones where the land is obtained (Gliessman, 2007). In many places, these lo- (rural zones in tropical regions), with negative calized systems have been replaced by global impacts afflicting the poorest in those zones supply and distribution chains, and the struc- (Lambin & Meyfroidt, 2011). All such impacts tures of mass retail. However, this has not oc- depend on the protections granted to local curred everywhere, and not evenly, leaving communities and existing land uses; however, some populations with limited access to large-scale farmland acquisition generally food, even as net food production has risen occurs in areas with an abundance of land in the same regions and countries (the specific and weak governance structures, as well nutritional impacts of changing modes of food as neglect of social and environmental issues production are covered in Section 1.a.iv). (World Bank, 2011).
While benefits can accrue to local popula- »» African continent went from being net tions, and while attempts have been made food exporter in 1970 to net food im- to regulate these transactions, the economic porter with $22bn trade deficit by end mismatch tends to be overpowering, yielding of the decade. favourable arrangements for international investors, insufficient compensation of local communities, and widespread social conflicts. Competition for land The expansion of industrial monocultures has thus resulted in a large number of land con- Given that industrial agriculture is typically flicts, sometimes involving entire communities geared towards producing for global mar- and often resulting in forced evictions (Mon- kets, it tends to increase the competition for salve Suárez & Emanuelli, 2009). In many cas- resources between populations with vastly es, farmland acquisition for high-value export different purchasing power. In poor rural crops provides insufficient compensation for regions, land may be the only resource on local people (Deininger & Byerlee, 2011). which poor communities can rely. Howev- er, the net economic value yielded by this land Furthermore, large-scale land transactions is always likely to be greater when it is linked often disrupt social networks, exclude local to wealthier consumers in the global North people from the decision-making process through specialized export commodity produc- and result in protests or clashes, particularly tion. Indeed, large-scale land purchases have when job creation and other benefits are lower generally been undertaken for the purposes than promised (Richards, 2013). These pres- of setting up export-oriented plantations, e.g. sures have been particularly acute in Africa to produce feedstock for biofuels (Grain, 2011; (Cotula, 2012) and Southeast Asia (Hall, 2011).
26 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY In Guatemala, Paraguay and Colombia, ex- 1a.iv. Nutrition and health outcomes panding oil palm, soy and maize monocultures are displacing local communities and negative- Dietary Diversity ly affecting traditional livelihoods. In these cas- es, corporate social responsibility and codes of The benefits of a more diverse diet are now wide- self-regulation have failed to soften the blow ly recognized. A diverse and balanced diet can (Guereña & Burgos, 2014). In other cases, ‘land ensure exposure to a broader set of nutrients grabs’ have led to the abuse of sacred sites and non-nutrients which have antioxidant, an- (Richards, 2013). ti-cancer and other beneficial properties (Fanzo et al. (eds), 2013). Furthermore, the association Cultural erosion between the diversity of a child’s diet and his/ her nutritional status operates independent- The shift towards industrial agriculture, along- ly of other socio-economic factors (Arimond & side the advance of globalized food systems Ruel, 2004). There is a strong link between a low more broadly, has altered the fundamental monthly Diet Diversity Score and underweight relationship between humans and nature among children under two (Fanzo et al., 2011). by increasing the physical and cognitive dis- tances between producers, consumers and The question, therefore, is how this dietary di- their environments (Bacon et al., 2012). In versity can be achieved. The pathway offered some contexts, cultural erosion is seen to have by industrial agriculture is through highly spe- occurred through the loss of native seed vari- cialized and productive agriculture around the eties adapted to local growing conditions and world, combined with well-functioning trad- tastes, and the loss of traditional knowledge ing systems that allow a variety of different associated with them (Amekawa, 2011). foodstuffs to be accessible to consumers in a given place. The viability of this channel is of In addition, some of the cultural impacts of in- course contingent on people’s ability to access dustrial agriculture have accrued disproportion- this array of foods. To date, the diversity of ately to women. The general shift from tra- produce delivered by international trade ditional food crops to high-value cash crops has mainly benefited wealthy consumers in has been associated with men taking control high-income countries, while poor people in of land, water and productive resources at low-income countries continue to be unable to the expense of women (Monsalve Suárez & afford the diversity available on these markets Emanuelli, 2009). In many cultures, women (Sibhatu et al., 2015). have traditionally been the keepers of deep knowledge of the plants, animals and ecological »» 7000 plants used as food by humans processes around them. The erosion of biodi- »» Rice, maize and wheat make up more versity driven forward by industrial agriculture than 50% of plant-based food intake has therefore had specific impacts for women as food producers and caregivers, including a loss of knowledge related to seeds, food pro- cessing and cooking (Parmentier, 2014). Furthermore, the focus of research and poli- cy programmes on improving the productiv- ity of industrial agriculture, i.e. focusing on a limited number of input-responsive staple crop varieties and livestock breeds, has been to the detriment of a wider variety of tradi- tional foods. As a result, poorer populations have struggled either to access interna-
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 27 FIGURE 7 - HOW MALNUTRITIONHOW PERSISTS MALNUTRITION IN INDUSTRIAL PERSISTS IN INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS SYSTEMS
OVER EI T O ESITY
INDUSTRI RI U TURE S MI RO NUTRIENT DEFI IEN IES F E S V UN ER
M
tionally traded products, or to obtain a di- with potentially highly negative consequences verse diet on the basis of local traditional for household dietary diversity (Isaacs, 2014; foods. In many places, traditional diets have Snapp & Fischer, 2014). effectively been eroded. On a global level, of the 7,000 plants that have been used as food Nutrient content of crops by humans, just three of them - rice, maize and wheat - provide more than 50% of the The rise of industrial agriculture has also had world’s plant-derived food energy intake impacts on the nutrient content of foods. In- (FAO, 1995). Wheat, rice, maize and other deed, agricultural policies that promote spe- ubiquitous crop commodities were among cialization in energy-rich staple cereals have those with the greatest gains in both rela- resulted in a decline in consumption of pulses tive and absolute abundance in national per and other minor crops with high nutritional capita food supplies over the past 50 years value (Hawkes, 2007; DeFries, 2015). For many (Khoury et al., 2014). years, Indian agricultural policies favoured spe- cialization in major cereal production through In some cases, the general trend has been crop-specific subsidies, with the effect- ofex compounded by government policies with acerbating micronutrient deficiencies (World an explicit focus on monocropping of staple Bank, 2006). In general, cash crop production crops. For example, since 2009, the Rwandan – sometimes for non-food purposes – helps to government has promoted the monocropping push out more diverse food cropping at the of modern, selected varieties together with expense of nutritionally-important foodstuffs. input intensification. This initiative has been For example, tobacco farming is considered to so pervasive that intercropping and crop di- have displaced vegetables and pulses in Ban- versity have declined substantially in recent gladesh, as well as cassava, millet and sweet years, falling from 9-11 crops per farm to 3-4, potatoes in Kenya (Lecours et al., 2012).
28 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY While recent efforts to ‘biofortify’ staple crops Agrochemical exposure have led to improved content of specific nutri- ents, this has not compensated for the gener- Heavy use of agrochemicals, strongly associat- al decrease in nutritional density of modern ed with industrial cropping systems, also has varieties of staple crops. Indeed, the specializa- impacts on human health. Pesticide exposure tion of agricultural systems has also had nega- has been linked to increased incidence of Alz- tive impacts on this front (AFSSA, 2003; Barańs- heimer’s disease, asthma, birth defects, can- cer, learning and developmental disorders, ki et al., 2014). Breeding programs for the Parkinson’s disease and sterility (Owens et major crops have focused mainly on productiv- al., 2010; Ye et al., 2013). Studies in developed ity increases by altering plant height or disease countries show that annual acute pesticide poi- resistance (Tadele & Assefa, 2012), resulting soning affects nearly one in every 5000 agricul- in varieties that are rich in energy but have a tural workers (Thundiyil et al., 2008). Those living lower content of various macro- and micronu- close to plantations have also been placed at trients (Jones et al., 2014). This has been exac- risk. In Costa Rica, children living close to banana erbated by soils lacking nutrients and minerals plantations were found to be exposed to high for plants to take up or animals to consume, levels of insecticides which may impact their due to the land and soil degradation often as- health (van Wendel de Joode et al., 2012). sociated with industrial specialized systems (see Section 1.a.ii). In Southern Spain, the organochlorine pesti- cide exposure linked to intensive greenhouse As a result, the theoretical diversification of agriculture is associated with breast cancer, diets facilitated by industrial agriculture and cryptorchidism and a greater prevalence of global trade has not managed to remedy the type 2 diabetes, among other pathologies (Ar- problem of micronutrient deficiencies, which rebola et al., 2013). Similar problems have been continues to undermine the health status and observed in other Mediterranean countries such as Tunisia (Arrebola et al., 2015). The re- development of over two billion people (Hunt, cent meta-study from the International Agen- 2005; Sibhatu et al., 2015). Meanwhile, the cy for Research on Cancer on glyphosate, a prevalence of energy-rich crops and food- herbicide long considered safe, confirmed it as stuffs continues to be a major factor in the ‘probably carcinogenic’ (WHO, 2016). Pesticide explosion of overweight, obesity, and the residues in food constitute a further health associated health impacts (Wallinga, 2010). risk, particularly in countries where there is no Overweight and obesity, primarily through reliable control of these residues. their contribution to NCDs, have not only in- curred huge financial costs to society (Alwan, Zoonotic diseases and antibiotic 2011) but are also responsible for the biggest resistance increases in mortality rates over recent years (WHO, 2009), predominantly in low and middle The intensification of livestock farming and income countries (WHO, 2015b). the genetic homogenization of some animal populations are linked to the emergence of »» Declining consumption of pulses and zoonotic diseases such as avian influenza minor crops and the Nipah virus (Jones et al., 2013), with »» Staples/cash crops pushing out tradi- implications for human health. Furthermore, tional foods the widespread preventive use of antibiot- »» General decrease in nutrition density ics in industrial animal production systems of foods has exacerbated the problem of bacterial resistance to antibiotics; this represents a
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 29 significant health risk for humans confronted the frequent transportation of animals over long with pathogens that have accumulated resis- distances has generated increased risks in terms tance to virtually all existing antibiotics (Roy of disease (Liverani et al., 2013). Meanwhile, the Chowdhury et al., 2014; Carlet et al., 2012). use of meat and bone meals in intensive live- stock production has led to repeated problems Disease risks have been exacerbated by other of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and practices associated with highly-specialized and the human health related risk of Creutzfeldt-Ja- intensive livestock supply chains. For example, kob disease (Roels et al., 2001).
30 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 1.B. OUTCOMES OF DIVERSIFIED compared, rather than specific crop yields. AGROECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS Studies on grassland have shown that total out- put productivity increases with the number of species grown in association and over time (Til- 1.b.i. Productivity outcomes man et al., 2001). Other grassland studies have shown that multispecies assemblages12 pro- Yields duced 15% higher outputs than monocultures on average (Prieto et al., 2015). Mixtures have There have been relatively few comprehensive, also been shown to produce 1.7 times more long-term studies comparing the productivity harvested biomass on average than single spe- of industrial systems with that of highly diversi- cies monocultures and to be 79% more produc- fied agroecological systems. Most studies that tive than the average monoculture (Cardinale have been undertaken use small samples and et al., 2008). It has also been shown that less short time periods, while comparing only some land is required to produce in polycultures than aspects of diversified agroecological systems to produce the same amount in monocultures, with industrial agriculture. Studies have typical- making yield per area higher in polycultures ly compared organic agriculture with conven- (Prieto et al., 2015; Picasso et al. 2008; Cardina- tion agriculture in developed countries, finding le et al. 2008; Francis, 1986). For some, the signs that crop yields per hectare of a target crop are are promising enough to suggest that in Africa, slightly lower in organic systems. For example, applying farming methods focused on diversity, a 2007 study with a global dataset of 293 exam- mixed farming and participatory plant breeding ples found that on average, in developed coun- could in fact double food production in periods tries, organic systems produced 8% lower yields of 3-10 years (Pretty et al., 2011). than conventional agriculture. However, the same study found that in developing countries, 2007 meta-study of organic yields relative organic systems outperformed conventional to conventional: farms by as much as 80% (Badgley et al., 2007). »» -8% in developed countries Similarly, a review of 286 projects in 57 develop- ing countries, found that farmers had increased »» +80% in developing countries agricultural productivity by an average of 79% by adopting “resource-conserving” agriculture (Pretty et al., 2006). Ecosystem Resilience
Furthermore, evidence has recently become While long-term yield comparisons of like-for- available on a thirty-year comparison of organic like cropping systems may be lacking, there corn and soybean with conventional production is ample evidence to suggest that diversi- in tilled systems in the US, finding equivalent fied agroecological farming systems (includ- yields on average, and higher yields for organic ing silvopastoral and agroforestry systems) in drought years (Rodale Institute, 2015). Sim- can deliver stable outputs over time. Indeed, ilar results were obtained in a 10-year experi- these systems are often geared towards ment with wheat (Rodale Institute, 2015). securing and stabilizing agro-ecosystems to enable them to remain productive over Comparisons are increasingly favourable to time, rather than maximizing short-term diversified systems when total outputs are yields of a specific crop. As outlined in the In-
12. Mixtures or multispecies assemblages are forms of intensive polyculture production: different species can be combined on the same plot, as well as different varieties of the same plant species, in ways that allow the direct interaction between the members of the mixtures.
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 31 THE PRODUCTIVITY OF DIVERSIFIED GRASSLAND SYSTEMS FIGURE 8 - THE PRODUCTIVITY OF DIVERSIFIED GRASSLAND SYSTEMS
MONO U TURES
MU TIS E IES SSEM ES
0 0 100 1 0 OUTPUTS
1. Data from Prieto et al. 201 2. Data from Cardinale et al. 200
troduction, many of the world’s farmers live in tional agricultural methods (Mijatović et al., regions where climate stresses are already 2013). Livestock fodder production in man- present, making resilience a daily necessi- aged grasslands has been shown to stand up ty. Traditional farmers often live on margin- to environmental stress in diversified systems, al land where climate change is predicted to with taxonomic (inter-species) and genetic have a significant impact; 60% of the food con- (intra-species) diversity playing different and sumed around the world comes from small- complementary roles (Prieto et al. 2015). holder agriculture in developing countries where crop diversity is key for the resilience The 30-year comparisons mentioned above of farming systems (ICRISAT, 2015). More and showed particularly favourable performance more studies are demonstrating that diversi- for organic systems in the face of environ- fication-based models are enabling farmers mental stress: organic corn yields were 31% to build resilience and to remain productive higher than conventional yields in years in the face of these threats (Folke et al., 2002; of drought; by way of comparison, GM crops Holt-Giménez, 2002; IAASTD, 2009; Lin, 2011; adapted for drought tolerance only outper- Tirado & Cotter, 2010; Rosset et al., 2011; Pret- formed conventional plantings by 6.7% to ty et al., 2011; Mijatović et al., 2013; Altieri et 13.3% (Rodale institute, 2015). Meanwhile, a al., 2015; Rodale Institute, 2015). comparative analysis of agro-ecosystem dy- namics in Sweden and Tanzania found that »» 60% food consumed around the world diversified agroecological practices facilitated comes from smallholder agriculture in adaptation to changing conditions (Tengö & developing countries Belfrage, 2004).
Diversified agroecological systems have also Biodiversity often plays a key role in deliv- shown the capacity to respond to extreme en- ering resilience, acting as a buffer against vironmental shocks in ways that limit losses environmental and economic risks, and and enable recovery (Mijatović et al., 2013; Al- enabling adaptation to changing climate and tieri et al., 2015; Holt-Giménez 2002; Lin, 2011; land use conditions (Mijatović et al., 2013). In Rosset et al., 2011). For example, a study of some cases, traditional practices centred on 181 communities of smallholders across Nica- agrobiodiversity have been revived because, ragua after Hurricane Mitch found that farm- under changing agro-ecological conditions, ing plots cropped with simple agroecological they exhibit higher productivity than conven- methods, including rock bunds or dikes, green
32 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY PRODUCTIVITY AND RESILIENCE IN ORGANIC FARMING SYSTEMS
FIGURE 9 - PRODUCTIVITY AND RESILIENCE IN ORGANIC FARMING SYSTEMS
ONVENTION
SOYBEAN OR NI E UIV ENT 30 YEAR A ERA E YIELDS O MAI E
ONVENTION
M YEARS IN DROU T MAI E YIELDS OR NI
0 0 100 OUTPUT RATES
Data from Rodale Institute 201
manure, crop rotation, and the incorporation Pest management through of stubble, ditches, terraces, barriers, mulch, agrobiodiversity legumes and trees, retained on average 40% more topsoil, higher field moisture, and - suf Some specific applications of agrobiodiversity fered less erosion compared to conventional have shown the capacity to sustain and improve outputs through improved pest management farms. As a result, the agroecological plots (Nicholls & Altieri, 2004). For example, push- lost 18% less arable land to landslides than pull systems of pest and weed management13 conventional plots and had 69% less gully used in Kenya have succeeded in doubling erosion (Holt- Giménez, 2002). Similarly, prac- maize yields and milk production by ‘pushing’ tices such as terrace bunds, cover crops and away pests from corn by interplanting Des- agro-forestry were found to deliver greater modium (used as a fodder for livestock) and resilience to the effects of Hurricane Mitch in simultaneously ‘pulling’ them towards plots of other parts of Central America (Tirado & Cot- Napier grass (which secretes a sticky gum that ter, 2010). traps insects) (Khan et al., 2011).
13 Push-pull systems are integrated pest, weed and soil management systems. For example, In mixed cereal–livestock farming systems, stem-borers are attracted to Napier grass (pull), and are repelled from the main cereal crop (push) using a repel- lent legume, Desmodium, that is intercropped with the cereal crop. Desmodium root exudates also control the parasitic striga weed by causing abortive germination. In addition, desmodium improves soil fertility through nitrogen fixation, natural mulching, improved biomass and control of erosion. Both companion plants provide high value animal fodder, facilitating milk production and diversifying farmers’ income sources.
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 33 In mixed farming systems, pest manage- 1.b.ii. Environmental outcomes ment improvements have been achieved on the basis of rich synergies between dif- GHG emissions & resource efficiency ferent species. One such example is the rice- duck systems found throughout Asia, where- Diversified and less intensive systems can by ducks eat weeds, weed seeds, insects and deliver major GHG savings and increases in pests, reducing the need for manual weeding, resource efficiency, particularly when a- life while duck droppings provide plant nutrients. cycle analysis approach is taken. Agroeco- This system delivered a 20% increase in rice logical systems that seek to improve soils outputs in Bangladesh in less than five years and maintain vegetative cover have huge (Van Mele et al., 2005). Meanwhile, experi- potential for carbon sequestration (Agu- ments in perennial polycultures have shown ilera et al., 2013). Indeed, these systems are that weed biomass decreases exponentially as designed in order for natural synergies to take the number of cultivated species increases (Pi- the place of GHG-intensive external inputs. casso et al., 2008). Farming without synthetic fertilizers and pesticides is an important factor in reducing »» Doubling of maize and milk yields in emissions, while the use of organic matter en- push-pull systems (Kenya) ables carbon sequestration in the soil. GHG »» 20% increase in rice outputs in rice- emissions from organic fruit tree orchards in duck systems (Bangladesh) Spain have been estimated to be on average 56% lower than conventional orchards on an area basis, and 39 % lower on a product basis (Aguilera et al., 2014).
Resource efficiency (in terms of water, light, nutrients and land) is also maximized and waste reduced in farming systems that in- tegrate a variety of species and production types (Gliessmann, 2007; Altieri et al., 2012), as well as in organic farming (Alonso & Guz- mán, 2010). In polycultures, potential energy and resources are distributed efficiently - be tween plants that have different root struc- tures and distribution in the soil (Prieto et al., 2015). Small farms using agroecological techniques may be two to four times more energy-efficient than large conventional farms, in terms of total energy input/output ratios (Chappell & Lavalle, 2001).
Water efficiency and usage
Less input-intensive and more diversified farm- ing systems have also shown clear benefits in water management. Diversified agroecolog- ical systems can increase water use efficiency through a combination of local water catch-
34 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY ment systems, improved soil capacity for wa- multispecies assemblages have shown positive ter absorption and retention, lower run-off, net biodiversity effects, with a 15% average in- and soil cover that reduces evaporation (Go- crease relative to monocultures (Prieto et al., mez et al., 2009; Zuazo et al., 2009). In a recent 2015). A meta-analysis in 2005 found that or- study in the US, water volumes percolating ganic farms have approximately 30% higher through soil were 15-20% higher in organic sys- species richness and 50% higher abundance tems featuring long rotation and leguminous of organisms than conventional farms, though cover crops, relative to conventional systems, wide variation exists between different studies with more groundwater recharge and less run- (Bengtsson et al., 2005). A more recent study off (Rodale institute, 2015). Water efficiency can found that species richness was on average differ greatly between different livestock- pro 10.5% higher in organic than non-organic pro- duction models; grazing-based systems have a duction fields, with organic delivering the high- smaller blue- and grey-water footprint than in- est relative gains (around +45%) in intensive dustrial systems (Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2012). arable fields (Schneider et al., 2014).
Wild Biodiversity Ecosystem services
Diverse agricultural landscapes sustain wild The rich biodiversity in diversified agroecologi- biodiversity in the surrounding ecosystems cal systems (see above) has a series of positive (Scherr & McNeely, 2008; Altieri & Nicholls, knock-on effects, contributing to the delivery of 2004); heterogeneous agricultural landscapes crucial ecosystem services – and outperforming retain tree cover and provide complementary conventional systems in this regard (Milder et habitats (Harvey et al., 2008). Experiments with al., 2014). This is largely thanks to the number
BOOSTING BIODIVERSITY IN ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS FIGURE 10 - BOOSTING BIODIVERSITY IN ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS 1
MONO U TURE
NET WILD MU TIS E IES SSEM ES ON RASSLANDS BIODI ERSITY E ETCS 2
ONVENTION
OR NI S E IES RI NESS
OR NI UND N E OF OR NISMS META-ANALYSIS O OR ANIC A RICULTURE BIODI ERSITY IMPACTS O
0 0 100 BIODIVERSITY RATES 1. Data from Prieto et al. 201 2. Data from engtsson et al. 200
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 35 FIGURE 11 - VIRTUOUSVIRTUOUS CIRCLES OF OF ECOSYSTEM ECOSYSTEM HEALTH HEALTH IN DIVERSIFIED IN DIVERSIFIED AGROECOLOGICAL AGROECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS SYSTEMS
R I MINIMUM USE OF EMI IN UTS MINIMUM E SOI DISTUR N E USE OF OR NI M TTER OM IN TION OF IVESTO ND RO S R INTER ND INTR S E IES I DIVERSITY R
S
of species and the diversity of functions they viously degraded land. In 2015, the Inter- carry out, particularly in grassland systems national Year of Soils, FAO highlighted the (Kremen & Miles, 2012; Prieto et al., 2015). Di- great potential of diversified agroecological versified cropping systems create a variety of systems to reverse soil degradation, restore microclimates which are occupied by a range degraded land and rebuild soil fertility (FAO, of beneficial organisms (predators, parasites, 2015a). The various microclimates and bene- pollinators and soil fauna), providing valuable ficial organisms that thrive in diversified sys- environmental services and supporting entire tems help to rebuild soil fertility (Gliessman, agroecosystems (Altieri & Nicholls, 2004). 2007) and contribute to the rehabilitation of degraded land (Snapp & Pound, 2011). Suc- Meanwhile, crop rotation has beneficial -ef cessful agroecological restoration of savan- fects on the soil, reducing the threat of pests nah ecosystems, with a focus is on restoring and diseases (Pelligrini & Tasciotti, 2014). Re- ecological balances, has been observed in duced use of chemical inputs also contributes Ghana (Badejo, 1998). to positive impacts in terms of water quality and carbon content in soils, as well as micro- The benefits of ecosystem services do not only nutrient storage and availability for plants accrue to farmers. Agroecological systems can (Rodale Institute, 2015). Mixed crop–livestock provide ecosystem services to communities systems are particularly promising in terms downstream, such as improved water quality, or of ecosystem services, given that animal ma- prevention of flooding. These benefits are partic- nure can be utilized to enhance soil health, ularly strong when agroecological farming is com- fertility and carbon sequestration (Russelle et bined with integrated landscape management al., 2007). approaches that bring farmers together with oth- er actors, and ensure the necessary connectivity Diversified agroecological systems do not for species movement and water flows over a giv- only have the capacity to improve land man- en territory (Estrada-Carmona et al., 2014; Thax- agement; they can also help to restore pre- ton et al., 2015; Scherr & McNeely, 2008).
36 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 1.b.iii. Socio-economic outcomes cy on inputs does not tackle the root causes of gender inequality in the rural world.
Income and Livelihoods Studies are increasingly yielding data on the Diversified agroecological farming strategies positive impacts of diversified systems on- in are not only based around building resilient come and livelihoods. An eight-country study environments, but often more resilient liveli- found that the number of crops that a giv- hoods. Diversification is crucial for livelihood en farm produces is positively correlated to resilience (IIED, 2011); risk is a daily reali- household income, as well as dietary diversi- ty for many farmers around the world, ty (Pelligrini and Tasciotti, 2014) (see 1.b.iv for and crop and livestock diversification is more on dietary outcomes). A Dutch study also seen as a form of self-insurance, allowing concluded that mixed farming systems can income to be stabilized in the face of crop lead to a 25% higher labour income/ha without failure or loss of livestock or other risks increased environmental pollution (Bos & Van (Gliessman, 2007; Johnston et al., 1995). Crop De Ven, 1999). diversification strategies are pursued around the world for that very purpose (Papademe- More comprehensive data is available con- triou & Dent, 2001). cerning the income and livelihood benefits of organic farming; a study covering 55 crops Furthermore, diversified systems can help grown on five continents over 40 years found reduce the risks that come with variable that despite lower yields, organic agri- yields and seasonal shortages. For exam- culture was significantly more profitable ple, crop diversification provides more oppor- (22–35%) than conventional agriculture. In- tunities for continued production year-round deed, many farmers have converted to certi- (Powell et al., 2015). fied organic farming systems in order to cap- ture high-value markets and premiums, Meanwhile, diversified agroecological -sys through 20-24% higher benefit/cost ratios tems can reduce the economic risks associat- than conventional agriculture (Crowder & Re- ed with natural disasters: as outlined in Sec- ganold, 2015; Reganold & Wachter, 2016). tion 1.b.i, crop diversification has emerged as an effective strategy in areas that are vulner- Small farmer revenues have been increased able to natural disasters such as hurricanes by 15-60% in Costa Rican organic production and floods (FAO, 2013b). systems supported by regional cooperatives and situated within an integrated landscape Additionally, the production of organic fertiliz- management project focused on biodiversity ers on-farm in agroecological systems reduc- conservation (Scherr & McNeely, 2008). es farmers’ reliance on costly external inputs. This, in turn, makes smallholders less depen- dent on local retailers and moneylenders (De Schutter, 2011). In particular, the reduced cap- ital requirements and reduced reliance on ex- 40-year, 5-continent study of organic v ternal inputs has the potential to benefit wom- conventional : en farmers, who often have lower incomes and poor access to credit, and encounter greater »» +22-35% profitability difficulties in accessing subsidies (Curtis, 2012; »» +20-24% benefit/cost ratios Parmentier, 2014; De Schutter, 2010). Howev- er, it must be recalled that reduced dependen-
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 37 Knowledge, autonomy and capacity to rect marketing playing a key part in driving the adapt demand for additional labour (Soil Association, 2006). Diversified farms also spread the need for Environmental and livelihood resilience de- labour more evenly throughout the year, allow- pends on the ability of farmers to adapt to ing for full-time employment of farm labour- changing circumstances. Agroecology is seen ers. While data is still sparse in this area, farms to build social capital and the capacity to adapt departing from the industrial model may be through the process of acting independently conducive to more pleasant working conditions; and retaining control over how resources are a study from the UK found that migrant workers used (Pretty & Smith, 2004; Chambers, 1983). on organic farms were happier than their coun- Moreover, organizations and social move- terparts working on conventional farms (Cross ments for rural peoples are increasingly us- et al., 2008). ing agroecology as a platform for defending rural spaces in the face of threats from agri- business and other private actors (Rosset & Martínez-Torres, 2012).
The capacity to retain traditions and tradi- tional knowledge also appears to go hand in hand with the practice of agricultural diversi- ty. On the whole, communities, cultures and countries able to maintain their own tradi- tional food systems are better at conserving the crop varieties and animal breeds under- pinning local specialties (Johns et al., 2013). These local foods come with locally-adapt- ed knowledge that is otherwise lost; in re- cent years, the reintroduction of traditional crop varieties has helped revive tradition- al agroecological knowledge and practices (IIED, 2011).
Employment
As described in Section 1.a.iii, industrial agri- culture and diversified agroecological systems have clearly divergent impacts on employment. Agroecological systems are more labour-in- tensive, especially during their launch peri- od, due to the complexity of managing different plants and animals on the farm, and recycling the waste produced (Ajayi et al., 2009; Herren et al., 2012; Bowman & Zilberman, 2013). When short supply chains are envisaged, this further increases employment opportunities; it has been estimated that organic agriculture can pro- vide 30% more jobs per hectare than conven- tional farming, with on-farm processing and di-
38 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 1.b.iv. Nutrition and health outcomes etables was found to be strongly associated with greater farm diversity in Malawi (Jones et al., 2014). Adopting diversified cropping Dietary diversity systems and micronutrient-rich varieties As described in Section 1.a.iv, dietary diver- has been shown to help improve the intake sity brings major health benefits. There is of both macro- and micronutrients (Welch & growing evidence to suggest that diversified Graham, 2005). farming can facilitate diverse diets among producer households without relying on the Polycultures and mixed crop-livestock farm- intermediary of international trade. Howev- ing systems help to ensure that key nutrients er, intermediary factors (e.g. education, in- are available throughout the year, allowing come, general health status) are particularly food to be saved for dry periods, and there- important when it comes to dietary patterns fore providing protein during hunger gaps and associated nutritional outcomes (see (Jones et al., 2014; Remans et al., 2011). In- Section 1.c). tegration of livestock into farming systems, such as dairy cattle, pigs and poultry, also Some of the emerging evidence suggests provides a source of protein for the family, that agricultural diversity does translate as well as a means of fertilizing soils (Smith into dietary diversity at the farm house- et al., 2013); so does the incorporation of hold level and beyond. A special issue fish, shrimp and other aquatic resources into of the Journal of Development Studies on farm systems, e.g. in irrigated rice fields and “Farm-Level Pathways to Improved Nutrition- fish ponds. al Status” has brought evidence to light show- ing that diversity in household agricultural In some cases, improved health outcomes have production has direct and important linkages been observed in relation to diversified food with dietary diversity and nutrition (Carletto production and its dietary benefits. A recent et al., 2015; Kumar et al., 2015; Shively et al., cluster-randomized controlled trial of a home- 2015). A number of studies have now found stead food production program in Burkina Faso links between agricultural diversity and di- documented statistically significant positive ef- versity of nutrient intake in various regions fects of diversified farming on child nutrition (Herforth, 2010; Oyarzun et al., 2013; Torhe- outcomes in terms of wasting, diarrhoea and im et al., 2004; Remans et al., 2011; Jones et anaemia (Olney et al., 2015). Meanwhile, NGOs al., 2014). In general, mixed farming systems in Bangladesh have promoted home garden- provide a range of foods with different -nu ing and small livestock production on the basis tritional elements to the farming household that children from homes with gardens were and those accessing the produce on local less likely to suffer night blindness, linked to vi- markets (Johns et al., 2013). In addition, oth- tamin A deficiency (Talukder et al., 2000). er studies have shown agrobiodiversity to contribute to human nutrition by increasing Channels of improved nutrition via dietary diversity and quality (Powell et al., diversification: 2015; Pelligrini & Tasciotti, 2014). »» Increased availability of legumes, fruits and vegetables Agricultural diversity has been linked specif- ically to increased consumption of a range »» Year-round availability of key nutrients of key nutritional elements often missing »» Protein availability in mixed crop-live- in diets based around staple cereal crops. stock systems The consumption of legumes, fruits and veg-
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 39 Toxicity, nutrients and beneficial com- of chronic diseases (Barański et al., 2014). Poly- pounds phenol intakes have also been associated with decreased mortality (Zamora-Ros et al., 2013). A significant health benefit of diversified- agro A recent systematic literature review concluded ecological systems is the reduced exposure to that both organic milk and meat contain around pesticides and other harmful chemicals used in 50% more beneficial omega-3 fatty acids than agriculture (Reganold & Wachter, 2016). Mean- their conventional equivalents (Średnicka-Tober while, health-giving qualities have been iden- et al., 2016a; Średnicka-Tober et al., 2016b). tified in foods not treated with chemical pes- ticides. For example, concentrations of a range Health benefits observed in organic foods: of antioxidants such as polyphenols have been found to be substantially higher in organ- »» Reduced pesticide risks ic crops/organic crop-based foods which have »» More antioxidants not been sprayed with pesticides. Many of these »» +50% omega3 in organic meat and milk. compounds have been linked to a reduced risk
40 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 1.C. CONCLUSIONS ON THE OUTCOMES ture and industrial food systems in place, is OF SPECIALIZED INDUSTRIAL the subject of Section 2. AGRICULTURE AND DIVERSIFIED AGROECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS In this light, the outcomes described in Section 1.a are the systematic outcomes of industrial What emerges clearly from the comparison agriculture, not accidental side-effects. These is that diversified agroecological systems outcomes are facilitated and shaped by institu- have huge potential to improve on the out- tional, political and market arrangements that comes of industrial agriculture. It is also clear are themselves a manifestation of industrial that these outcomes are mediated by a range of agriculture. Specific regulations and policies do factors extending well beyond the realm of ag- of course shift between different settings, with riculture. For example, it is political support for the capacity to somewhat mitigate the out- specialized commodity crops and insufficient so- comes. However, a set of core dynamics always cial safety nets that expose certain populations exists alongside industrial systems. to the vulnerabilities of export-oriented agricul- ture; it is lacking environmental and health regula- As the evidence in this section has shown, the tions that allow CAFOs to pollute water sources negative impacts of these systems are multiple and generate antibiotic resistance; it is absent and mutually reinforcing. Industrial agricul- lacking labour protections that allow abuses to ture’s weaknesses are its core characteristics: continue on tropical plantations. the principles of specialization and uniformi- ty around which it is organized, and the reli- However, these cannot be viewed as exoge- ance on chemical inputs as a means of man- nous factors. Industrial agriculture requires aging agro-ecosystems. certain institutional, political and market ar- rangements in order to flourish, and those ar- For every increase in productivity achieved on rangements systematically lead to an industrial this basis, there is a price to be paid sooner mode of agriculture. For example, the political or later, locally or further afield, directly or in- imperative of export-led agriculture could not directly, by those practicing industrial agricul- exist without the development of highly-spe- ture or by others facing its fallout. This price cialized commodity cropping, and vice versa. may come in the shape of disease vulnerability, yield stagnation, environmental degradation or Similarly, the environmental impacts of chem- the ratcheting up to breaking point of economic ical inputs can be mitigated by improved prac- pressures on farmers – with the outcomes of- tices, but cannot be taken out of the picture: ten reinforcing one another. the intensive use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides is part and parcel of industrial agri- culture, and is integral to its design. It is clear, therefore, that industrial agriculture does not and cannot reconcile the multiple con- Moreover, the opportunities generated by cerns of sustainable food systems. Food and industrial agriculture accrue to specific farming systems can be reformed, but only sets of actors, who are able to translate by moving away from an industrial orienta- that economic power into political pow- tion and organization. Tweaking industrial sys- er, thus ensuring that institutional arrange- tems will only improve single outcomes, while ments continue to favour this form of agri- leaving untouched the dynamics and power re- culture. In other words, industrial agriculture lations that reproduce the same problems over shapes and is shaped by industrial food sys- time. A fundamental reorientation of agriculture, tems. Understanding these feedback loops, particularly in its relationship with ecosystems, is and how they work to keep industrial agricul- required in order to break these cycles.
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 41 Based on the evidence described in Section livelihoods. These pathways are not hypothet- 1.b, diversified agroecological systems can pro- ical. A growing body of evidence is demonstrat- vide that fundamental reorientation in a way ing the capacity of these systems to intensify that improves multiple outcomes. production (e.g. in densely inter-cropped farm- ing systems) in ways that nurture, rather than The evidence in regard to the environmental degrade, ecosystems. There is also extensive benefits of these systems is overwhelming, evidence regarding the capacity of diversified from increases in wild biodiversity to the im- systems to deliver resilience in the face of envi- provement of soil health and fertility and water ronmental stresses. retention. In particular, the capacity of diversi- fied agroecological systems torestore degrad- The picture is far from complete. The exist- ed land and to keep carbon in the ground is ing evidence does not provide comprehen- unparalleled by any other options on the table. sive insights into all farming systems, sectors and contexts. More evidence is required on GHG emissions can be somewhat mitigated by whether and to what extent diversified efforts to apply chemical inputs more sparingly, agroecological systems can improve farm or to reduce tillage, within industrial systems. working conditions, even in less regulated However, the promise of such approaches environments where labour abuses have pales in comparison with the potential of fun- blighted agriculture so systematically. damentally redesigning agriculture around di- versification and agroecology in ways that re-in- It will also be crucial to see whether these sys- vest soils with the capacity to sequester carbon. tems can match the improvements of working conditions now being observed in some ul- Land may theoretically be ‘spared’ (i.e. taken/ tra-modernized industrial farms. Where these kept out of production) in industrial agricul- improvements are specific to industrial-style tural systems (see Section 1.a.ii). However, the holdings, it will be important to consider the environmental benefits of such a trend are alternative forms of workplace improvement highly speculative. Whether or not ecosystem offered by diversified agroecological systems – services can actually be delivered depends on or to acknowledge potential trade-offs on this the condition of the land coming out of pro- front. To date, the situation has been insuffi- duction; meanwhile, there are major question ciently documented. marks about whether these pockets of biodiver- sity could compensate for the ecological degra- The picture is also incomplete in terms of other dation (particularly the decline in pollinators) on socio-economic impacts. Much of the evidence remaining land as it continues to be farmed in on income and livelihoods in diversified systems industrial – and increasingly intensive – ways. concerns small-scale farming in developing countries, where the quest for livelihood diver- These risks and trade-offs are rendered unnec- sification and livelihood resilience has always essary by diversified agroecological systems, been a necessity, and where traditional practices which nurture the environment in holistic ways, that overlap with agroecology have often been rebuilding biodiversity and rehabilitating de- drawn upon. graded land. Meanwhile, the evidence from developed coun- Furthermore, it is the reintegration of agricul- tries is currently reliant on comparisons between ture with healthy ecosystems and sustain- organic systems and the predominant industrial able land management that holds the key systems. These provide valid – and highly prom- to a range of other positive outcomes, from ising - insights into the productivity and resilience strong and stable outputs to secure farm of diversified, low external input systems. How-
42 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY ever, there are limits in using organic agriculture outcomes, on the basis of so little support and as a proxy for fully diversified agroecological sys- funding (Pretty, 2006). And it is doubly difficult tems (see introduction to Section 1). to get a full picture of what diversified agroecolog- ical food systems would look like in their entirety. The picture is particularly complex in terms of Indeed, the experimental, decentralized, knowl- food security at the macro-level, given the differ- edge-intensive nature of agroecological develop- ent ways of measuring it, and the highly divergent ments suggests that the positive impacts already pathways to achieving it. What we do know is that observed are only just the beginning. where diversified systems raise productivity, they do so durably, and in the places where Additional research is also required on the pro- additional food is desperately needed. The cess of transition itself. In particular, more limits of this comparison (and indeed any such must be known about the challenges that might comparison) are clearest on this point; diversified be encountered for the most industrialized ce- systems produce diverse and changing outputs, real monocultures in shifting towards diversi- making it difficult to make meaningful projections fied agroecological systems, the timeframes for in terms of net availability of specific crops. equivalent productivity to be recovered, and the economic implications for farmers in this transi- However, in the absence of such comparisons, tional period. The many emerging research proj- it should not be assumed that no longer prior- ects in this field are therefore to be welcomed. itizing the production of staple cereal crops for Case studies are currently being gathered by IP- global markets will jeopardize ‘food security’. ES-Food in order to identify the specific pathways As will be explored in Section 2, the tendency of transition to agroecology being undertaken to frame food security in terms of ‘feeding the by individual farms and farming communities in world’ (i.e. net volumes of commodities on global a range of contexts (IPES-Food, forthcoming). markets) is itself a reflection of the systemic and self-reinforcing logic running through industrial These unknowns should not hold back the case food systems – and does not necessarily reflect for change. If incomplete evidence on the poten- what matters in terms of improving the lives of tial of alternatives were enough to justify a ‘wait the food insecure. and see’ approach, food systems would never change: only one system can be predominant The capacity of diversified agroecological -sys and show its full potential at any one time. In- tems to deliver food security is only unproven in dustrial agriculture has occupied this privileged that the pathway these systems offer to food se- position for decades, and has failed to provide a curity has not yet had the chance to prove itself recipe for sustainable food systems. On the basis on a larger scale. These systems have not yet of the evidence gathered here, there may be no been adopted widely enough to show their greater risk than sticking with industrial agri- full impacts, nor have they been able to ben- culture and the systematic problems it gener- efit from significant investments and an en- ates. This strategy is riskier the longer it goes on, abling environment in which to fulfil their full as the pressures on ecosystems are ratcheted potential. It should not be forgotten that where up to breaking point, threatening even the high diversified agroecological farming systems are yields these systems were designed to deliver. emerging, they are swimming against the tide. As the following sections will show, the context A shift to diversified agroecological systems is and the incentives in which agriculture operates not without its challenges. However, we know are very much aligned to and symbiotic with the enough to suggest that a fundamental shift in industrial agricultural model. It is therefore dou- this direction is likely to be the only way to set bly impressive to see these alternative systems food systems on sustainable footing. We also emerge, and to be able to observe such positive know enough about the inter-connections in
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 43 food systems to be confident that steps in this It is the task of Section 3.a to identify where and direction are likely to be mutually-reinforcing, in what forms these alternative food systems and to generate food systems which, in turn, are already taking shape, and in Section 3.b to deepen the incentives for diversified agroeco- trace out what can be done to support their logical farming to continue to thrive, and are emergence and to shift the balance in their fa- highly responsive to ensuring that productivity, vour. However, before doing so, it is crucial to health, environmental sustainability and other understand the precise ways in which industrial concerns are continually reconciled. agriculture is currently held in place.
TABLE 2 Glossary of terms for Sections 1.a and 1.b Crop rotation is the sequential planting of one crop after another, and is often done to ensure soil health, replacement of nutrients, and reduction of disease.
Ecosystem services are the advantages that humans can derive from ecosystems. They cover different types of benefits: provisions (food, raw material, etc.), regulation of systems (climate, waste water treatment, etc.), support (e.g. habitat for wild biodiversity), and culture (tourism, leisure).
Environmental resilience refers to the capacity of an ecosystem to resist and recover from stresses, shocks and disturbances, be they natural events or impacts caused by human activity.
Inter-cropping is the simultaneous planting of two or more crops in the same field at the same time in ways that permit interaction between the crops.
Livelihood resilience refers to the ability of people to secure the capabilities, assets and activities required to ensure a decent living, particularly in the face of shocks (e.g. economic crises, environmental disasters).
Mixed farming combines plant production with animal or aquacultural production.
Mixtures or multispecies assemblages are forms of intensive polyculture production: different species can be combined on the same plot, as well as different varieties of the same plant species, in ways that allow direct interaction between the different varieties/species.
Nutrient cycling refers to organic and inorganic matter being returned to the production of living matter, a process that occurs through a series of pathways whereby matter is decomposed into mineral nutrients.
Organic agriculture is a type of certified farming that must adhere to a set of environmental requirements regarding inputs and practices. A key requirement is non-usage of synthetic inputs (fertilisers/pesticides), al- though mineral inputs from outside the farm that are mined naturally can be applied. In Europe, organic certi- fication includes requirements for crop rotation.
Polycultures refer to the cultivation of different plant species in reasonably close proximity in the same field, with variation over time. This term is opposed to monoculture where single/similar plant species are grown across large areas with minimum or no rotation.
Precision agriculture/farming refers to a type of farm management practice that involves the use of techno- logy (GPS, communication technology, etc.) to optimize field-level management, enhance agricultural perfor- mance through better use of inputs, and improve the ability to predict and mitigate environmental risks. It is also referred to as satellite farming or site-specific crop management.
Salinization refers to the phenomenon of increasing salt content in soils, resulting in disturbance of water cy- cles (e.g. through irrigation practices) and other factors. Salinization prevents plant roots from absorbing water, with the effect of lowering yields and further degrading the soil.
Water footprint refers to the water that is taken out of its cycle or that has been polluted at different stages. Blue water: Fresh, surface and groundwater, in other words, the water in freshwater lakes, rivers and aquifers; Green water: The precipitation on land that does not run off or recharge the groundwater but is stored in the soil or temporarily stays on top of the soil or vegetation, before evaporating or transpiring through plants; Grey water: is polluted water (e.g. by agrochemicals) and wastewater generated in households or office buildings (excluding water with faecal contamination).
44 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 02 What is keeping industrial agriculture in place?
The analysis in Section 1 has shown that diver- al agriculture, or to define clear cause and effect; sified agroecological systems have major- po neither is it easy to separate out what is exog- tential to improve on the multiple negative im- enous technological development and sponta- pacts of the specialized, industrial production neous market evolution from what is politically systems that dominate modern agriculture. driven. However, this raises the question of why sys- tems with such potential to deliver benefits However, it is possible to identify the specif- to farmers and to society have not been ic focal points around which industrial food taken up more widely. To answer this, we systems now revolve, and the vicious cycles must understand the context in which farmers, keeping them in place. The eight ‘lock-ins’ de- communities, regions and countries are opting scribed below are the key mechanisms locking for industrial modes of production. industrial agriculture in place, regardless of its outcomes; it is these cycles that will need to be As indicated in Section 1.c, industrial agriculture broken if a transition towards diversified, agro- and industrial food systems are symbiotic. Fur- ecological systems is to be achieved. Some of thermore, food and farming systems have de- these ‘lock-ins’ relate to the political struc- veloped alongside and in tandem with broader tures governing food systems, some concern developments in transport, energy, finance, and the way agricultural markets are organized, the manufacturing sectors whose productivity and others represent conceptual barriers has been contingent on the outflow of labour around the way questions are framed. Each and capital from agriculture. It is therefore im- represents a vicious cycle locking in industrial possible to provide an exhaustive list of the fac- agriculture, as well as a potential entry point tors contributing to the development of industri- for change (see Section 3.b).
THE EIGHT KEY LOCK-INS OF INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURE FIGURE 12 - THE EIGHT KEY LOCK-INS OF INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURE
E ORT E E T TION ORIENT TION OF E FOOD
T FEED T E DE ENDEN Y OR D N RR TIVES CONCENTRATION OF POWER
ME SURES OF OM RTMENT I ED SU ESS T IN IN
S ORT TERM T IN IN
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 45 LOCK-IN 1: PATH DEPENDENCY agricultural inputs (e.g. fertilizer) have played a major role in making industrial agriculture eco- Industrial agriculture has become self-reinforc- nomically viable (Pimentel & Pimentel, 2007; ing through the investments it requires and the Gliessman et al., 1998, 2002). need to see a return on those investments. The specific skills, training, equipment, networks and retail relationships that industrial agriculture re- Industrial agriculture encouraged by: quires are costly to obtain, and may no longer be »» High labour costs relevant if a farmer shifts to a fundamentally dif- »» Low energy costs ferent mode of production. In particular, the de- cision to specialize has often gone hand in hand with investment in scaling up farm operations. Several incentives in food systems have sup- Specialized industrial agriculture may in fact ported large-scale farming in particular. For require large-scale farming in order to spread example, agricultural research outputs are the costs of production (e.g. specialized farm often ‘scale-positive’ in the sense that they machinery and chemical inputs) over a sufficient are geared towards and more readily available production base. Diversifying production is not to large-scale farmers who have better access impossible on large-scale farms. However, the to information, resources and credit (Tollens economics of scaling up generally entails deci- & Tavernier, 2006). Meanwhile, agricultural sions (e.g. shedding labour/hectare, investing in subsidies, e.g. in Europe, have tended to fa- machinery for mass cultivation of specific crops) vour large-scale production and specialization that make any production system other than of farming (Couturier, 2005), with payments highly-specialized industrial agriculture increas- increasing per hectare under the EU Common ingly unlikely. Agricultural Policy (CAP). In other cases, seed and intellectual property legislation has also Market signals have long suggested industrial- been geared towards the interests of large- ization, specialization and large-scale farming scale farms. Incentives emanating from the re- to be the most profitable pathways. Long-term tail sector have also cemented the preference trends in the costs of two key factors of produc- for large-scale farming: mass retailers often tion – labour and energy – have supported this require bulk supply contracts which cannot re- shift. Recent decades have seen an increase alistically be met by individual smaller farms, in the relative price of labour, including in and prefer to deal with fewer and larger pro- transitional economies (Das & N’Diaye, 2013). ducers (Hazell et al., 2007). The rising cost of employing farm workers has acted as an incentive to accelerate large- A web of interlocking market and political in- scale mechanization, drive up farm sizes and increase specialization (Bowman & Zilberman, centives tailored to large-scale farming there- 2013). Energy prices have also supported fore offer de facto support to industrial modes this trend. In the post-World War II period, of production. These incentives reinforce the the cheap price of fossil energy allowed agri- already strong path dependencies generat- culture greater access to mechanization, as ed by the need to recoup the considerable well as to chemical fertilizers and pesticides, up-front investments in industrial agriculture. thereby facilitating industrial modes of pro- Farmers are effectively locked into this - path duction (UNEP, 2012). These factors are by no way, even as the negative outcomes of indus- means static, with energy prices recently show- trial agriculture start to multiply, and even as ing considerable volatility. Nor are they pure- the quest to recoup those investments in the ly market-driven. For example, subsidies for face of narrow profit margins requires them to fossil energy and for specific energy-intensive continually intensify their production.
46 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY LOCK-IN 2: EXPORT ORIENTATION Export orientation via: International trade produces a variety of im- »» Agriculture policies pacts in food systems that vary dramatical- »» Trade policies ly over time, between different regions and »» Development policies different population groups, often setting in »» Energy policies motion fundamental shifts in the structure of a region or country’s economy. Trade agree- other mass retailers have brought economies of ments often overlap with a host of domestic scale to bear, rendering international transport policies with the capacity to mitigate (positive- costs non-prohibitive (Lawrence & Dixon, 2015). ly or negatively) the impacts of international trade. Assessing the overall impacts of trade is However, by the end of the 20th century, ex- therefore a vast undertaking, with case-by-case panding and enhancing the opportunities for assessment required in order to determine the trade had become a political imperative in impacts of specific steps to liberalize trade in itself. Increasing urbanization has led govern- given regions. ments to prioritize the provision of cheap and abundant food for urban centres. This ‘urban It is outside the remit of this report to perform bias’ has guided agriculture and trade policies such an assessment. However, the increasing for decades (Lipton, 1977; Masters et al., 2013). orientation of agriculture towards internation- al trade must be addressed as a key element Increasingly, a preference for global commodity locking industrial agriculture in place. New op- chains has been reflected in the structure of agri- portunities for trade have been a key cause cultural subsidies. Subsidization of large-scale and effect of the specialization and indus- commodity crop agriculture is now common trialization of agriculture. in middle- and high-income countries (Herren et By the end of the 19th century, improvements al., 2012). This preference is clear in the govern- in water and rail transportation, as well as re- ment support programmes in the US (Carolan, frigeration technologies, meant that surplus 2013), where policies keep soy and corn prices crops and livestock were no longer confined artificially low, acting as an incentive for grain- to local markets and could be sold interna- fed and often import-dependent livestock tionally (Mazoyer & Roudart, 2006). It also systems over grass-fed livestock (Schoonover & meant that individual farms no longer needed Muller, 2006). to produce their own fodder for raising ani- mals. In turn, this freed up land that could be Another example can be found in India, where used to specialize in commercial crops (Ma- government programmes exercise a prefer- zoyer & Roudart, 2006). ence for staple crops such as rice, maize and wheat (Kaushal & Muchomba, 2015). In many By reducing the plurality of activities carried out cases, policies have been shaped around glob- on a given farm, production could focus in on a al animal feed supply chains, whose final out- narrower spectrum of crops and livestock that puts (meat and dairy products) often do not farmers in a given region were particularly suit- reach consumers in the countries producing ed towards producing, while allowing farmers the feedstock (Sharma, 2014). to produce at competitive costs, based on the resources at hand. Distribution and retail infra- Measures arising from a host of different pol- structures have evolved alongside these devel- icy areas have further incentivized export ag- opments, making it ever easier to sell agricultural riculture. During the 1980s, a significant share products in foreign markets; supermarkets and of agricultural development aid was fo-
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 47 cused on export-oriented production of com- terns. However, it is political measures such as modities rice, wheat, sugar and maize (Lines, agricultural subsidies and water-drawing rights 2008). More recently, policies for the glob- for farmers that allow a particular comparative al expansion of biofuel production have advantage to be developed, maintained and led to the expansion of biofuel commodities enhanced over time. (Banse et al., 2011), often for export markets. Meanwhile, generous subsidies and support Food systems have thus become reliant have helped to make fossil energy cheap and on and centred around export agriculture, abundant over the second half of the 20th even though many people around the world century, facilitating the relatively inexpensive do not benefit directly from it. The share of transport of agricultural goods over long dis- food traded internationally has increased over tances (Leach, 1992). The various incentives recent decades – from 15% in 1986 to 23% in for export orientation have continued to mul- 2009 (D’Odorico et al., 2014) – but most food tiply, even in the face of commodity price vola- consumed around the world does not cross in- tility and potentially harmful impacts for farm- ternational borders. Despite this, trade plays a ers (see Section 1.a.iii). disproportionate role in specific supply chains (e.g. meat and dairy), specific distribution and While ‘comparative advantage’ (e.g. climate, retail circuits (e.g. for processed foods requir- soil conditions) underpins the ability to spe- ing undifferentiated commodity ingredients), cialize, a myriad of political incentives have and thus in the eating habits of those relying undoubtedly worked to enhance these advan- on these systems (see Lock-in 3: The expecta- tages in food systems and ensure continual ex- tion of cheap food). pansion of export crops. As a result, farmers across entire regions have received clear sig- Due to macroeconomic dependencies, the ex- nals to specialize and supply specific commod- port economy has also become increasingly im- ities to global markets. Vast homogenous sys- portant over time: countries benefitting from tems such as the ‘corn belt’ in the US Midwest agricultural commodity exports have come cannot be attributed to farmers individually to rely on this source of foreign exchange to choosing to specialize on the basis of inherent import increasing arrays of industrial and con- geographical advantages. sumer goods, or to import other foodstuffs. Export orientation is therefore locked into In some cases, regional specialization runs ful- modern food systems, acting as one of the ma- ly counter to resource endowments: Califor- jor drivers of highly-specialized and industrial nia’s acreage of water-intensive almond crops modes of agriculture. recently expanded in the midst of a drought (CDFA & USDA, 2015). Favourable market infra- structures (e.g. post-harvest storage, retail out- Share of food traded internationally: lets) – often supported through a mix of public »» 15% in 1986 and private investment - have also played a »» 23% in 2009 part in consolidating regional production pat-
48 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY LOCK-IN 3: THE EXPECTATION OF CHEAP FOOD Processed foods raise demand for: »» Large volumes of uniform commodi- Diets, modes of consumption and consumer ties expectations have evolved in parallel with the »» Undifferentiated vegetable oils emergence of industrial agriculture, influenced »» Corn-based sweeteners by a range of factors that collectively shape modern lifestyles. Like international trade, evo- creasingly relied on the cheap and flexible lutions in food consumption represent a vast supply of uniform commodities that in- area that can only be touched on here. New dustrial agriculture is uniquely positioned consumer and retail imperatives are multifac- to provide. For example, the processed eted, arising from trends that are often inde- foods now prevalent in many countries are pendent from evolutions in agriculture, and in principally based on staple crops such as some cases representing major entry points maize, soybean and wheat, for which large for change in food systems. quantities of uniform quality are demanded However, what is of interest here are the feed- by the processing industry. back loops that have formed between industri- al agriculture and specific evolutions in food Furthermore, many of these products are rich retail and consumption habits over recent in added sugar and saturated fats, most com- decades. In particular, attention must be paid monly obtained from undifferentiated vegeta- to the development of mass food retailing ble oils (Popkin et al., 2012). Palm oil, which is and its implications for agriculture. relatively inexpensive, currently accounts for more than 30% of global vegetable oil produc- In an ever-increasing number of countries, tion (Carlson et al., 2013). Another commonly developments in the technologies and in- consumed ingredient in processed foods is frastructures of food retail and distribu- high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), employed tion have played a major role in facilitating as a sweetener (Truax et al., 2011). The pro- consumer access to a new wealth of choice. duction of HFCS has been a major driver in the Refrigeration technology and sophisticated expansion of highly specialized, industrialized transport and distribution infrastructures production of genetically uniform corn (Miller have allowed a variety of foods to be available & Spoolman, 2011). year-round to consumers with access to super- markets and other well-stocked retail outlets. These trends have been compounded by the Meanwhile, fruit and vegetable varieties have way mass retailing is organized. The rise of pro- been developed to retain their freshness and cessed foods has itself been facilitated by the avoid spoilage over long journeys (Cocetta, growth of supermarkets (Reardon et al., 2003; 2014). Increasingly efficient methods of - pro Gomez & Ricketts, 2013), where these foodstuffs cessing have also brought down the costs of are often marketed at low prices relative to other producing many non-perishable, highly-pro- cessed food products and brought them to in- products. Furthermore, the quality and safety creasing numbers of consumers. standards imposed by supermarkets and other mass retailers often require costs and levels of The product ranges and retail infrastructures standardization that can be difficult for individ- that characterize modern food systems are ual small-scale producers to meet, particularly in not intrinsically linked to industrial agricul- low-income countries, and therefore, supermar- ture, but have developed alongside and in re- ket chains prefer to deal with fewer and larger lation to it. Indeed, mass retailers have in- producers (Hazell et al., 2007).
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 49 Rising demand for animal proteins is anoth- er key feature in the evolution of consumption »» Food accounts for 11.4% of US house- patterns, with major implications for how ag- hold spending riculture is organized. The increasing demand »» 19% of food wasted at household level for meat is generally being met through the in wealthy countries growth of industrial livestock production, based around a few highly specialized breeds Secondly, consumers have become increas- (Thornton, 2010). This trend has also driv- ingly disconnected and disengaged from en higher demand for grains to feed animals food systems. This disconnection has been (UNCTAD, 2013), reinforcing highly specialized observed on three levels: physical (between feed production systems. For instance, the the urban zones where most people live and spread of soybean monocultures has been driven by the demands of an expanding the rural zones where food is produced); eco- global meat industry, as well as demand for nomic (more intermediaries between con- soybean by- and co-products (e.g. oil) for food sumers and farmers, with a greater share of and non-food purposes (Ash et al., 2006). value moving up the supply chain at the ex- pense of farmers); and cognitive (decreasing Several factors are converging to lock in these knowledge of how food is produced and pro- trends where they already exist, and to embed cessed) (Bricas et al., 2013). As a result, the them in new locations where purchasing pow- fact that food choices have implications er and consumer habits are converging with for farming systems has become less obvi- Western norms. Firstly, consumers have be- ous and less important in the hierarchy of come accustomed to cheap abundant food, daily concerns. both at retail outlets and in fast-food restau- rants, and have adapted their household bud- A vicious circle is therefore firmly in place. Retail gets to this new normality. For example, in 2014 practices are unlikely to change insofar as con- the share of household spending dedicated to sumers continue to expect the same products at food fell as low as 11.4% in the US (6% at home the same prices, and insofar as industrial agri- and 5.4% outside the home) (USDA, 2016a). culture continues to provide that flow of cheap commodities. Alternative retail circuits are now The relative devaluation of food has gone resurgent in some places (see Section 3.a), but hand in hand with major food waste in indus- trialized countries, reaching around 19% at the for many farmers, the increasingly dominant and household level (Gustavsson et al., 2011). Con- consolidated mass retail circuits continue to be sumers in wealthy countries have duly become the only viable outlet for selling their produce. In accustomed to spending the vast majority of this context, farmers have had little choice other their income on other items, from essential living than to further specialize and industrialize their costs (e.g. rents) to the luxury items (e.g. consum- production, in order to supply large volumes of er technology) that have become widespread. specific commodities at low costs.
50 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY LOCK-IN 4: COMPARTMENTALIZED mentalized agronomic/crop-productivity and THINKING yield focus of modern agricultural research. Most agricultural colleges have developed si- Industrial agriculture is also locked in place by loed structures in which different disciplines do the highly compartmentalized structures that not interact closely (O’Brien et al., 2013). Clas- govern the setting of priorities in politics, re- sical agricultural research and education sys- search and business. tems have thus evolved with little attention to the complex interactions between the natural Raising the productivity of a narrow range of crop environment and human society that under- and livestock breeds became the central priority pin food systems (Francis et al., 2003). This is of many policy and research programmes over exemplified by the high proportion of doctoral the course of the 20th century. The first chemical and post-doctoral research topics in highly spe- fertilizers were developed in the mid-19th centu- cialized fields of biotechnology as compared to ry, paving the way for further scientific advances research on agroecology; in general, a large in crop productivity that would characterize the number of academics focus their research on next 100 years (Nene, 2012). Wealthy countries the industrial model of agriculture (Francis et benefitted from these developments and expe- al., 2004). These educational systems therefore rienced huge productivity gains. act as a roadblock against alternative models and systemic approaches (Bammer, 2005). In the post-war period, efforts were stepped up to spread these advances to developing Green Revolution thinking: regions of the world. The ‘Green Revolution’, that followed saw major successes in raising »» Input-responsive crops productivity, focused around breeding crops »» Wide applicability > localized with high responsiveness to external inputs approaches and wide applicability. In the mid-60s, the In- »» Staple crop breeding > minor species ternational Rice Research Institute (IRRI) was »» Technological innovation > social established to carry out research on improved innovation rice varieties; as a result, IR-8 (‘Miracle Rice’) » was adopted by numerous Asian countries. » Value chain approach > horizontal The International Maize and Wheat Improve- knowledge-building ment Center was also established around the same period; in 1971, donor countries and a number of foundations came together to form The gradual privatization of agricultural re- the Consultative Group for International Agri- search has reinforced these trends. In many cultural Research (CGIAR) in order to support countries, public sector agricultural research these and other specialized research centres. has been scaled back over recent decades, The successful new varieties were marketed alongside measures to reinforce intellectual and distributed around the world, contributing property protections that favour private sec- to the dramatic increases in the productivity of tor research and development (R&D), such key staple crops documented in Section 1.a.i. as trade secrets, plant breeders’ rights and patents (King et al., 2012). The parallel rise in However, ‘Green Revolution’ thinking con- private investment has focused on those com- tinues to dominate and to generate the modities for which there is a large enough mar- same type of solutions, even as the need ket to secure a significant return on investment to reconcile productivity growth with other (Piesse & Thirtle, 2010). In this context, minor concerns has been increasingly recognized. species and traditional crop varieties have Its legacy is particularly visible in the compart- been neglected (Rahman, 2009).
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 51 The shift towards private sector priority-set- reform are notoriously dominated by agricul- ting has been particularly acute in universities. tural constituencies, with the European Com- Over the last 30 years, government funding cuts mission’s Directorate-General for Agriculture have strained higher education and agricultur- and the European Parliament’s Agriculture al research budgets, with private funding often Committee occupying privileged positions pro- filling the void (Muscio et al., 2013). This leads cedurally. This siloed approach is increasingly researchers to follow the agendas set by out of sync with the broader set of priorities private sector funders. What remains of pub- to which these policies claim to be responding, lic sector research has largely supported this such as providing public goods or delivering agenda, continuing to focus on a small number food security. The European Commission’s of tradable crops (Jacobsen et al., 2013), and in-house research service has now echoed civil often focusing on technological innovation society groups in requesting the creation of a (particularly for input-responsive crop breeding) cross-sectoral taskforce for food and the envi- to drive productivity increases. For example, the ronment in order to break the silo effect sur- European Commission has supported projects rounding the CAP (Maggio et al., 2015). Similar- on GM crops in the order of €300m since the ly compartmentalized approaches have been beginning of the Bio-Molecular Engineering Pro- identified in the US, where scientists and civil gramme (European Union, 2010). society groups have encouraged the govern- ment to develop agricultural policies in tandem Similar trends have been observed in transi- with other policy areas, and in relation to a tional economies such as Brazil, China and In- broader set of objectives (Union of Concerned dia, which now account for 25% of global public Scientists, 2015a). agricultural R&D spending (IFPRI, 2012). Devel- oping countries have also seen an increase The compartmentalization in research, policy in private agricultural R&D over recent years, and farm industry structures is mutually re- with a similar focus on a narrow range of crop inforcing. The agricultural policies made in and livestock breeds and technologies; this has isolation depend on the knowledge ema- occurred alongside the development of large- nating from the corresponding agricultural scale, capital-intensive farm operations mirror- silo of the research world. Agricultural sector ing farming systems in industrialized countries bodies are organized to convey this knowledge (Naseem et al., 2010). to farmers, who in turn rely on agricultural subsidies and other political support measures Compartmentalized approaches focused geared towards raising crop productivity and around the various specialized agricultural net production. sectors are also visible in how knowledge and training are transmitted to farmers. Sectoral As a result, concerns related to agricultural or value chain approaches, such as the ‘in- productivity – and the associated budgets terprofessions agricoles’ in France, have taken – are isolated from other competing prior- root in many countries (Agriculture Ministry of ities. This occurs even as emerging bodies of France, 2011), with extension services geared knowledge (e.g. on agro-ecosystem resilience) towards sharing knowledge and facilitating call into question purely agronomic approach- exchange vertically, i.e. in relation to a partic- es focused on increasing yields of staple crops ular product chain. under optimal conditions. The compartmental- ized structures that worked so well to support Policy-making structures have also become the productivity increases of the Green Revo- highly compartmentalized and ill-equipped to lution are therefore proving slow or unable to respond to the cross-cutting challenges in food adapt to the interconnected challenges now systems. For example, discussions around CAP facing food systems.
52 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY LOCK-IN 5: SHORT-TERM THINKING erations and motivations for investors, thereby limiting the ability of large traded companies to Industrial agriculture has emerged due to sig- invest significantly in long-term changes. nificant political support on various fronts, and in tandem with major private investments to Short-term concerns are particularly prevalent raise agricultural productivity, particularly via in the retail sector, where mass retailers are crop breeding (see Lock-ins 1-4). These con- bound by the expectations they have nurtured stituencies are thus invested in the agricultural among consumers: for cheap, varied food sector, and have a strong interest in continuing year-round (see Lock-in 3: The expectation to support it. of cheap food). In this context, supermarkets have often dictated which crops should be However, their interests are bound by the un- grown based on short-term commercial con- forgiving timeframes of political and business siderations (Thresh, 2006), creating pressures cycles, pushing short-term solutions to the for all farmers – particularly those attempting forefront and keeping these actors firmly wed- to nurture long-term natural synergies within ded to existing systems – even as they gener- diversified agroecological systems. ate increasing problems. As outlined in Section 1.b, diversified agroeco- Short-term thinking is most visible in the elec- logical systems offer major benefits for farmers toral cycles governing the policy sphere. Poli- and society. However, the advantages will not ticians seeking re-election are unlikely to be immediately visible, given the time needed espouse policies whose rewards will not ma- to rebuild soil health and fertility, to increase terialize within the same electoral cycle. This biodiversity in production systems, and to reap places an emphasis on tweaking current frame- the full benefits of enhanced resilience. works rather than engaging in fundamental re- form. Even at the EU level, where timeframes Undertaking this shift clearly brings econom- are longer and the political accountability of ic risks for farmers, at least during the tran- certain actors (e.g. the European Commission) sitional period. Current political and business is less explicitly linked to elections, reform ef- approaches, bounded by short-term cycles, forts have been modest. Successive rounds are ill-adapted to provide the long-term sup- of CAP reform have been aimed at stemming port that would be needed to support this the decline in farm numbers and the outflow transition. The requirement of many food sys- of agricultural labour, rather than addressing tems actors for immediate results is therefore the root causes of these problems (Buckwell, a key factor in locking in current systems and 2015). These reforms have been undertaken preventing the spread of diversified agroeco- in the knowledge that many of those receiving logical farming. subsidies are unlikely to innovate or shift their practices (Haniotis, 2016). Short-term thinking in response to: Other actors in political processes, for exam- »» Electoral cycles ple the elected representatives of agricultural »» Shareholder returns in traded pressure groups, are also likely to be seeking to companies deliver immediate benefits to those who have »» Retail imperatives elected them and to whom they will shortly be looking for re-election.
Meanwhile, it is well established that short- term bottom line results are the main consid-
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 53 LOCK-IN 6: ‘FEED THE WORLD’ growing understanding that increases in pro- NARRATIVES ductivity have to occur predominantly within developing countries if they are to have an im- Delivering food security by increasing total pact on food and nutrition security, particular- food production has been one of the key moti- ly among the poorest (Piesse & Thirtle, 2010; vations for pursuing industrial agriculture. Pub- Pretty et al., 2011). lic policies have often made this objective explic- it, particularly in the post-war period, and have Narratives about feeding the world have none- advocated a pathway of extreme specialization theless continued to be propagated, especially in order to achieve it. For example, in 1963 the in the wake of the food price spikes of 2007- US Department of Agriculture wrote: “Over the 2008 and the newfound urgency associated long term the Nation will be better off and its with questions of food security (Wise, 2015). resources will be most productively used if the Eye-catching statistics relating to net produc- bulk of each product is produced in those ar- tion levels for achieving future food security eas and on those farms that have the greatest have been regularly highlighted, including FAO’s income advantage in producing it” (Johnson & projection that global agricultural production Parsons, 1963). will have to increase by 60% by 2050 to satis- fy food and feed demands (FAO, 2013a). Nar- Policies were therefore devised in order to in- ratives about feeding the world have duly crease the production of major commodities, as been built around figures such as these, not a condition for achieving food security (Duncan, least by agribusiness firms. Citing a global 2015). This type of thinking underpinned sev- population of nine billion in 2050, Monsanto eral generations of agricultural policies, often argues: “To feed everyone, we’ll need to dou- taking the shape of programmes to support in- ble the amount of food we currently produce” creased production of commodity crops, and (Monsanto, 2015); Cargill identifies the need for complementary policies to increase agricultur- a “boost in global food production to meet the al trade flows (see Lock-in 2: Trade and export world’s growing demand” (Cargill, 2015). orientation). These narratives claim that the same sys- The vision underlying these policies is of indus- tems and same actors driving the Green Rev- trial agriculture ‘feeding the world’, i.e. food olution-style productivity increases of the past security understood in terms of delivering must remain at centre stage. However, the sufficient net calories at the global. level prescriptions have been nuanced to integrate As outlined in Section 1.a.iii, productivity has new imperatives. grown impressively in industrial systems, but this has not translated into global food securi- For example, ecological concerns have been ty by any measure: 795 million people still suf- reconciled with food security imperatives fered from hunger in 2015 (FAO et al., 2015b), through now common terms such as ‘sustain- with two billion afflicted by the ‘hidden hunger’ able intensification’ or ‘climate smart agricul- of micronutrient deficiencies (Bioversity Inter- ture’. The approaches advocated under these national, 2014). banners often involve significant steps to- re duce the environmental impacts of industrial Meanwhile, there has been increasing recog- agriculture, e.g. by reducing the use of chem- nition that hunger is fundamentally a distri- ical inputs. butional question tied to poverty, social exclu- sion and other factors affecting access to and However, these visions tend to address spe- utilization of food (WHO, 2008; World Bank, cific food systems outcomes in isolation, and 2010; FAO, 2015; Sen, 1981). This has led to a thus avoid fundamentally reappraising in-
54 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY dustrial agriculture and its self-reinforcing problems. The ‘sustainable intensification’ -ap ‘Feed the world’ narratives fail to address: proach is often focused on sparing further land »» Problems of poverty and access from entering production (see for example »» Social equity and power relations James, 2014), suggesting that reducing net agri- »» Root causes of insufficient diets cultural land usage to a given global threshold » is key. As shown in Section 1, this downplays » Where and by whom additional food the huge potential of diversified agroecological must be produced systems to regenerate existing farmland and »» Interconnections between food sys- sequester carbon, and therefore risks drawing tems problems attention away from the need to fundamentally rethink production systems on current cropland. fortification and biofortification, with little In other cases, productivity-focused narratives emphasis on durably improving people’s ac- have been adjusted to emphasize concerns cess to a diverse diet (Frison et al., 2006; Bur- about social equity. Here too, there has often chi et al., 2011). been too little attention to the root causes of problems in food systems. For example, the These narratives rightly underline the need to G8’s ‘New Alliance for Food Security and Nu- think about food security. However, they do so trition’, a development scheme launched in in ways that deflect attention away from the fail- 2012 to deliver food security, declares a focus ings of industrial agriculture. These narratives on improving the livelihoods of smallholder continue to ignore the question of where and farmers. However, integrating smallholders by whom additional food must be produced. into agribusiness-led global supply chains The framing of the debate around ‘feeding the as outgrowers remains the primary mode of world’ pre-disposes us to approach the question action (McKeon, 2014); this bypasses questions in terms of net production volumes of mainly about price volatility and declining terms of energy-rich, nutrition-poor crop commodities. trade for commodity export cropping zones (see Section 1.a.iii), as well as ignoring the live- As a result, crucial questions are side-lined, e.g. lihood stresses and power imbalances that how farming livelihoods will be secured; how are often exacerbated in these types of ar- additional food will reach the poor in the parts rangements (De Schutter, 2011). of the world where food insecurity is greatest; how to provide healthy, diverse diets; or how The failure to consider other pathways, e.g. to improve equity and social well-being. These supporting agroecology, or to consult broadly narratives clearly constitute an important lock- with civil society and farming groups in defin- in. How big an impact they have depends on ing this pathway to food security, was heavi- the power and visibility their proponents are ly criticized in a recent European Parliament able to bring to bear, underlining the impor- opinion on the G8 New Alliance (European Par- tance of how power is distributed in food sys- liament, 2016). tems (see Lock-in 8: Concentration of power).
Where the focus on productivity has been broadened to take in nutritional concerns – from a ‘food and nutrition security’ lens – the root causes of deficiencies have often been left unad- dressed. In many development schemes and re- search programmes, the focus has been placed on single nutrients through supplementation,
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 55 LOCK-IN 7: MEASURES OF SUCCESS agroecological systems are also generally fo- cused on shorter retail circuits with fewer As indicated in Lock-in 6, industrial agriculture intermediaries, fewer input-related trans- and the quest to ‘feed the world’ go hand in actions, and elements of own-consump- hand. The ways in which success is measured tion. This means that the economic exchange in food systems often corresponds to the same value of these forms of agriculture tends to imperatives – and constitutes another key fac- be smaller. As such, they are disadvantaged tor locking in industrial agriculture. Measuring by calculations of specific crop yields per area and benchmarking success is crucial in de- or per worker, and even by calculations of to- termining how well agricultural systems are tal factor productivity that do not adequate- functioning, and how effective specific inter- ly capture the different outputs and circuits ventions have been. Research funding, devel- they enter. opment programming and political support for agriculture is often decided on the basis of spe- Furthermore, the metrics most commonly re- cific performance indicators.Which indicators ferred to do not account for the high nutrient are used is therefore crucial. content of foods arising from diversified agro- ecological systems, nor do they capture the vast The performance of agriculture is often mea- environmental benefits of diversified agroeco- sured in terms of total yields of specific logical systems. More holistic ‘resource efficien- crops, productivity per worker, and total cy’ or ‘environmental efficiency’ perspectives factor productivity (total outputs relative to would be required in order to do so, not only total land and labour inputs). On this basis, the taking output to input ratios into consideration, efficiencies of highly-specialized and increas- but also the proportions of desired outputs rela- ingly large-scale farms have been highlighted tive to undesired outputs or impacts (Garnett et by agriculture ministries and global institutions al., 2015). As described in Section 1.b.ii, where (see for example USDA, 2016b). Furthermore, calculations have been made on the basis of re- the analysis of different agricultural systems’ source efficiency, diversified agroecological -sys viability is generally carried out based on sim- tems have performed very favourably. plistic cost-benefit analysis, which does not incorporate ecological, social and cultural vari- In light of growing environmental and disease ables, and does not take into account the com- pressures, the ability of diversified systems to plexity of systems (Flores & Sarandón, 2004). recover from extreme shocks and to sustain production under stress conditions should also Evidence is emerging, particularly in recent be reflected in what is measured and consid- long-duration studies, to suggest that diversi- ered of importance. Diversified agroecological fied agroecological systems can compete well systems also hold major potential to deliver on these fronts, delivering strong and stable yields, and securing income in the process (see Section 1.b). These outcomes are likely to fur- Benefits of agroecological systems that ther improve if commensurate support and are typically under-valued: investment is made available to develop and »» High total outputs spread agroecological knowledge (see for ex- »» High nutrient content of outputs ample Pretty et al., 2011; De Schutter, 2010). »» Resilience to shocks »» Provision of ecosystem services However, diversified agroecological systems are by definition geared towards producing »» High resource efficiency diverse outputs, some of which are reused on »» Job creation the farm (e.g. fodder for animals). Diversified
56 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY ecosystem services within and beyond agricul- LOCK-IN 8 : CONCENTRATION OF POWER ture (e.g. biodiverse habitats, carbon seques- tration, water quality, stock of natural capital/ Concentration of power in food systems is a lock- assets). These services are yet to be measured in of a different nature: it is a mechanism that and rewarded on a significant scale. reinforces all of the lock-ins discussed above. Food systems, in their current forms, allow value Adequate and nuanced ways to measure the to accrue to a limited number of actors, reinforc- labour effects of agricultural systems are also ing their economic and political dominance, and lacking. Conventional measures of productivity thus their ability to influence the policies, incen- per worker clearly reward labour-saving sys- tives and imperatives guiding those systems. tems. Relying solely or primarily on these mea- sures means ignoring complexities around the For example, the centrality of chemical fertil- question of labour markets. As described in Sec- izer, pesticide and input-responsive seeds in tion 2.b.i, the labour intensity of diversified industrial systems allows value to accrue to a agroecological systems may be a positive in handful of dominant agribusiness firms in these terms of long-term economic development highly concentrated sectors. Three companies and social cohesion, particularly if the working controlled nearly 50% of the world’s commercial conditions prove more favourable than tradi- seed market in 2007; seven companies control tional agricultural work (see Sections 1.b.iii and virtually all fertilizer supply; and five companies 1.c). The picture painted by typical measures of share 68% of the world’s agrochemical market market efficiency is incomplete. Indeed, mar- (Renwick et al., 2012). This concentration has led kets tend to fail at many tasks that society re- to a drastic reduction of small and medium seed gards as important, such as poverty reduction, companies, and an even narrower range of vari- nutritional well-being, food price stability or eties being developed. even employment generation (Timmer, 2015). Similarly, a limited number of companies now Overall, it is clear that current systems will be dominate R&D in animal genetics. In the poul- held in place insofar as these systems continue try sector, four firms account for 97% of private to be measured in terms of what industrial ag- R&D, two companies control an estimated 94% riculture is designed to deliver, at the expense of the breeding stock of commercial layers, and of the many other outcomes that really matter the same two supply virtually all of the commer- in food systems. cial turkey stocks, with efforts focusing on an in- creasingly narrow range of breeds. Meanwhile, the top four transnational companies account for two thirds of the total industry R&D for swine Market concentration in multiple sectors: and cattle (FOE & HBF, 2014). »» 3 companies control 50% of commercial seed market Meanwhile, the commodity export circuits so integral to these systems (see Lock-in 2: Export »» 7 companies control nearly 100% of orientation) generate considerable value for a fertilizer sales handful of multinational companies with the »» 5 companies share 68% of logistical capacity to manage huge commodity agrochemical market flows. Up to 90% of the global grain trade is con- »» 4 firms account for 97% of private R&D trolled by four agribusiness firms (Murphy et al., in poultry 2011). The emergence of supermarkets and other »» 4 firms control up to 90% of the global large-scale retailers has concentrated power at grain trade another node of the food chain (BASIC, 2014). Not only is power highly concentrated at these differ-
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 57 ent points, but the various interests are closely example Waltz, 2009; PR Watch 2015). aligned in terms of the prevailing dynamics they would like to see. Food systems in which uniform Another important channel for bringing this in- crop commodities can be produced and traded fluence to bear is byco-opting the alternatives. on a massive scale are in the economic interests As seen in Lock-in 6, narratives are a powerful of crop breeders, pesticide manufacturers, grain tool in reinforcing industrial agriculture. A prom- traders and supermarket retailers alike. inent variant of food security narratives now insists that we need conventional and organic Dominant actors are able to bring their pow- agriculture in order to feed the world (see for er to bear in various ways. With public sector example Huffington Post, 2014). Accordingly, or- research fading in its financial clout and its ability ganic farming has become an accepted product to set trajectories (see Lock-in 4: Compartmen- line for large-scale agribusinesses and a market talized thinking), input agribusinesses are able to niche for mainstream retailers – thereby blunting take centre-stage in framing the problems (e.g. the challenge it might otherwise pose to conven- underlining the global productivity challenge) and tional farming (Jaffee & Howard, 2010). providing the solutions (e.g. new ranges of in- put-responsive crops and breeds), thus securing Agroecology may now face similar risks; it is in- demand for their products, while ensuring that creasingly referenced in a range of settings, and power and influence continue to flow their way. is regularly conflated with general aspirations to improved sustainability, while only address- Lobbying policy-makers to ensure favourable ing single, often environmental, objectives. For policy frameworks is another channel used to example, fast food chain McDonald’s France ad- exert power. In 2015, agribusiness firms spent opted an ‘agroecological strategy’ in 2010, featur- more than $130m lobbying US Congress, a fig- ing, inter alia, promises to “replace conventional ure that exceeds the lobbying efforts of the de- phytosanitary products with alternatives where fence industry and is roughly three times the possible” (McDonald’s, 2015). total lobbying expenditure of organized labour (OpenSecrets, 2016). For example, lobbying ef- A wholesale transition to diversified agroecolog- forts by food manufacturers, food producers, ical food and farming systems does not hold ob- and special interest groups helped to ensure vious economic interest for the actors to whom that the dietary guidelines adopted by the US power and influence have previously accrued. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 2015 devi- ated substantially from the recommendations The alternative model requires fewer external the department had commissioned from health inputs, most of which are locally and/or self-pro- and nutrition experts in the Dietary Guidelines duced. Furthermore, in order to deliver the resil- Advisory Committee (Watson, 2015). ience so central to diversified systems (see Sec- tion 1.b), a wide variety of highly locally-adapted This power can also be brought to bear by le- seeds is needed, alongside the ability to repro- veraging influence to secure research focus- duce, share and access that base of genetic re- es – and findings – that are favourable. In 2009, sources over time. This suggests a much-reduced dozens of US scientists wrote anonymously role for input-responsive varieties of major cereal to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) crops, and therefore few incentives for commer- to complain about the difficulties conducting cial providers of seeds, fertilizers and pesticides. independent research on GM crops (Pollack, The global trade and processing industry is also 2009). In some extreme cases, campaigns to a major potential source of resistance to change, discredit crop science researchers whose given that alternative models tend to favour local findings have not been conducive to dominant production and short value chains that reduce interests are alleged to have occurred (see for the number of intermediaries.
58 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY POWER IMBALANCES IN FOOD SYSTEMS: FRAMING THE QUESTIONS AND PROVIDING THE SOLUTIONS
FIGURE 13 - POWER IMBALANCES IN FOOD SYSTEMS: FRAMING THE QUESTIONS AND PROVIDING THE SOLUTIONS
F n stio ue s PROCESSORS, q ub he s t cr TRADERS AND e ib m e RETAILERS a t r o f focus on
lobal calorie production PESTICIDE
s
e
i
t i p d riv D o a POLICY INPUT t e R es m AGRIBUSINESS R lic i MAKERS b id
m u s D p b addressed b
o u
c s
m
r
o
f
i
n Input responsive
u
f crops specialized
o
livestock breeds
l for
p ed
p op
u el s
v
e
d
u
b
o
t
w
o
ll
a
es subsidi
en LARGE-SCALE couraged to switch SMALL-SCALE FARMERS FARMERS
The mismatch between the potential of agro- The self-reinforcing power imbalances in indus- ecology to improve food systems outcomes, trial food systems are a major reason why transi- and its potential to generate profit for agri- tion is needed. They also underline the extent of businesses, may explain why it has been so the challenge, in terms of overcoming the resis- slow to make its way onto the global politi- tance of dominant actors who have become sym- cal agenda. Because of the opposition of certain biotic with those systems. As will be explored in member countries for many years, it took until Section 3, mainstream actors can play a major September 2014 for FAO to organize its first role in changing food systems – and in some Symposium on Agroecology for Food Security cases already are. However, ensuring that the and Nutrition (see Section 3a). While this devel- necessary wholesale transition towards diver- opment is promising, it is long overdue, and may sified agroecological food and farming systems struggle to emerge further into the mainstream is able to take root will require political priori- without strong demonstrations of support from ties to be clearly established. governments, foundations and other influential actors – including from the corporate sector.
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 59 03 How can the balance be shifted in favour of diversified agroecological systems?
3.A. EMERGING OPPORTUNITIES FOR supporting a broader shift in practices. For A TRANSITION TO DIVERSIFIED example: AGROECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS • The 2013 CAP reforms have made the EU’s direct payments to farmers conditional on The vicious cycles identified in Section 2 serve some limited crop diversification14, protec- to reinforce industrial agriculture in a number tion of permanent grassland and the main- of ways. Nonetheless, a series of opportuni- tenance of Ecological Focus Areas. They ties for change are emerging through the have also introduced automatic recognition cracks of these systems, laying the founda- for organically-certified land. tions for a shift towards diversified agro- • After the Soviet Union collapsed, the ecological food and farming systems. Cuban government began shifting away from a system of chemical input-intensive These developments cannot be described ex- commodity monocropping. The govern- haustively. In many cases they are grassroots ment has since promoted a transition to- initiatives cropping up in different countries wards more sustainable means of farming, and contexts, and thus taking a variety of using agroecology and self-sufficiency as forms. However, a series of common trends guiding principles, with agroecology now can be identified in terms of how these initia- institutionalized by both state and non- tives are challenging industrial food systems. state actors (Nelson et al., 2009). Family farms in Cuba practicing agroecological Eight key opportunities for supporting the tran- farming occupy 25% of the total arable sition to diversified agroecological systems are land, and may account for as much as 65% therefore identified below. How big an impact of the domestic food supply (Rosset et al., these developments can have, and what might 2011; Altieri & Toledo, 2011). be needed to allow them to advance further, is addressed in Section 3.b. • The Brazilian National Plan for Agroecol- ogy and Organic Production, involving nine different ministries, is focused on fos- Opportunity 1: Policy incentives for tering organic and agroecological produc- diversification and agroecology tion as a contribution to sustainable de- velopment. The scheme targets increased In some parts of the world, governments have consumption of healthy food, and looks to started to provide support and incentives for achieve this in part by using and conserv- moving away from industrial modes of agri- ing traditional plant and animal genetic re- culture. These measures range from baseline sources (Brazilian Ministry of Agrarian De- diversification requirements to approaches velopment, 2013).
14. The 2013 reform of the CAP introduced a requirement for farmers to cultivate at least two crops when arable land exceeds 10 hectares, and at least three crops when arable land exceeds 30 hectares. The main crop is allowed to cover at most 75% of arable land, and the two main crops at most 95% of the arable area.
60 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY Opportunity 2: Building joined-up tee to serve as the main agency for national ‘food policies’ food management and to promote coopera- tion. The Committee was made responsible Increasingly, efforts are being made to overhaul for assessing and proposing policies on a and integrate the policy processes affecting food range of questions including food security, systems. These efforts have seen multiple actors food safety, food quality and food education. (scientists, policy-makers, civil society) and mul- • Building on these types of examples, 2015- tiple constituencies (health, environment, devel- 2016 has seen calls for more integrated poli- opment etc.) come together in pursuit of joined- cy-making for food systems within the EU. In up food policy-making. For example: 2015, the European Commission’s in-house • Since first emerging in Toronto in 1991, food‘ research service requested the creation of a policy councils’ are increasingly being estab- cross-sectoral taskforce for food and the lished in cities and municipalities, primarily in environment, in order to develop a Common the US, Canada and the UK. These forums bring Food Systems Policy and break the silo effect together actors from multiple backgrounds surrounding the CAP (Maggio et al., 2015). and sectors (food, farming, public health, agri- In 2016, IPES-Food joined forces with the business, retail, environment, policy, civil soci- cross-party Sustainable Food Systems Group ety etc.) and allow members to build long term in the European Parliament and other scientific strategies around food-related goals (Toron- and civil society groups to launch a multi-stake- to Food Policy Council, 2016; Massachusetts holder process to develop a ‘Common Food Workforce Alliance et al., 2015, Vancouver FPC, Policy’ vision for the EU (IPES-Food, 2016). 2016; Bristol FPC, 2016; Alaska FPC, 2016). • In 2015, the Dutch government held • In Brazil, the National Council for Food and multi-stakeholder reflections on develop- Nutrition Security (CONSEA) is an advisory ing a comprehensive food policy based on council designed to bring together a wide recommendations from a report it com- range of actors to inform food policies. Rep- missioned from the Netherlands Scientific resentatives from the private sector and civil Council for Government Policy (WRR, 2015). society make up two thirds of its members, including labour unions, business associa- • The US ‘Plate of the Union’ campaign tions, church groups, professional associa- launched by scientists and civil society tions, academics, family farming and indige- groups in 2016 calls for the next president to nous groups. The federal government makes put a ‘national food policy’ in place (Union of up the remaining third. CONSEA advises the Concerned Scientists, 2015a). Presidency of Brazil on the formulation of policies to guarantee its human right to ad- Opportunity 3: Integrated landscape equate and healthy food, and succeeded in thinking having the National Law on Food and Nutri- tion Security (LOSAN) approved by congress There is growing momentum for managing in 2006. Under LOSAN, the country has devel- and improving the outcomes of food systems oped a National Policy on Food and Nutrition at the landscape or territorial level. The initia- Security, and all levels of government (federal, tives and partnerships forming around these state, and municipal) are to participate in the objectives are starting to lay the foundations construction of ‘SISAN’, a National System for for food systems that are diversified at multi- Food and Nutrition Security (CONSEA, 2009). ple levels (fields, farms, landscapes, regions), • In Thailand, the National Food Committee are capable of managing resource and waste Act (2008) created a National Food Commit- flows, and ensure healthy ecosystems across
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 61 territories. For example: • In 2005, the Millennium Ecosystem Assess- ment highlighted the alarming degradation of • involving Integrated landscape initiatives ecosystems and called for changes in agricul- environmental organizations and farmer ture to reduce its impact on the environment learning networks are fast emerging. A study (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). of 87 integrated landscape initiatives in 33 African countries showed that overall, 63% • In 2009, the International Assessment of the projects reported at least one positive of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and outcome in terms of conservation, agricul- Technology for Development (IAASTD), ture, policy, and economic development, a study involving 400 experts from all re- while 72% reported positive outcomes in at gions of the world as well as FAO, the World least three domains (Milder et al., 2014). Bank and other international organizations, called for a fundamental paradigm shift in • The ‘city-region’ is emerging as a key unit agricultural development and strongly en- for food systems planning and management, couraged the development of agroecologi- drawing on the precedent of environmental cal science and practice (IAASTD, 2009). planning between cities and the surrounding regions, e.g. to manage watersheds and down- • FAO officially and directly addressed- agro ecology at the International Symposium on stream water quality. The FAO-supported City Agroecology for Food Security and Nutrition in Region Food Systems Alliance brings together 2014 (FAO, 2015b). This meeting was followed a range of civil society, research-based and up by regional agroecology meetings in local government associations to build knowl- South America, Africa and Asia in 2015. In ad- edge and share practices on managing food dition, an International Symposium on Agro- systems at the city-region level (FAO & RUAF ecology will be held in China in August 2016; Foundation, 2015). in Europe, a regional meeting is planned to- • Urban-rural cooperation has helped to wards the end of 2016 in Hungary. According support the preservation and regeneration to the FAO’s Director General José Graziano of landscapes. In Japan, the Ownership Sys- da Silva, “agroecology continues to grow, both tem was launched 25 years ago in Yusuhara in science and in policies. It is an approach and now involves thousands of participants that will help to address the challenge of end- in different parts of Japan. It is based on co- ing hunger and malnutrition in all its forms, in operation between rural and urban commu- the context of the climate change adaptation nities, combines food production with land- needed” (FAO, 2014). scape conservation, cultural activities and • FAO has funded training courses to build environmental education, and has allowed agroecology into its Farmer Field School sys- culturally-significant rice terrace systems to tems and to train staff involved in communi- be maintained (RUAF Foundation, 2015). ty training to expand agroecology networks. Courses for 2016 include Burkina Faso in Sep- Opportunity 4: Agroecology on the tember and Mozambique in October. global governance agenda • In 2015, FAO and UNEP launched the Sus- tainable Food Systems Programme (SFSP) Over recent years, the intergovernmental as part of the UN 10 Year framework pro- sphere has become more responsive to the gramme on sustainable consumption and case for wholesale food systems transition and production. The SFSP serves as a tool for the potential for agroecology to deliver it. This accelerating the shift to sustainable food has manifested itself in a range of new inter- systems in both developing and developed governmental processes and assessments: countries (UNEP, 2015).
62 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY • The contribution of agroecology to reduc- • The EU Framework Programme 7 and ing soil degradation and increasing food se- Horizon 2020 research programmes include curity was acknowledged under the Interna- a number of calls based around agroecolo- tional Year of Soils 2015. gy, organic farming and conservation agri- culture (Lampkin et al., 2015). Opportunity 5: Integrated food systems science and education Opportunity 6: Peer-to-peer action research As described in Section 2, the food price spikes of 2007-2008 have underpinned global food Perhaps of more significance than the - mod security narratives and accompanying invest- est inroads in mainstream settings, there has ments in raising the productivity of industrial been a recent spread of agroecological research agriculture. Conversely, they have given new through participatory, practical applications. impetus to efforts to develop and spread This type of research is allowing for a greater un- knowledge on building resilience in food sys- derstanding of which techniques are most effi- tems, often emphasizing the needs of small- cient and best-adapted to local contexts: scale farmers, especially women, in the face of climate change and volatile international mar- • Long-standing peasant innovation systems, kets (Wise & Murphy, 2012). This has added to such as the campesino a campesino move- the momentum for a shift towards integrated ment, are well-placed to develop and spread food systems research: agroecological knowledge. This movement, launched some 30 years ago in Nicaragua, • Educational structures and programmes was born in reaction to top-down approach- are seeing some evolution towards systems es to agricultural technology. These peasant analysis, higher-order thinking, and new ap- networks allow farmers to be empowered as proaches to collecting, managing, and inter- agricultural innovators (Holt-Giménez et al., preting data (O’Brien et al., 2013). Many uni- 2010; Rosset et al., 2011; Sosa et al., 2010). versities have recently opened Food System Centres or Units that tend to break down the • Farmer field schools are emerging as a traditional silo structures of research. powerful tool to spread knowledge. Bringing together groups of farmers to work on top- • Collaborative research programmes are forming around agroecology and high-di- ics such as conservation agriculture, organic versity farming systems. An increase in farming, animal and soil husbandry, and IPM, agroecology and food systems curricula has farmer field schools can act as effective ex- been occurring in North America and Eu- tension services. In some 90 countries these rope (Francis et al., 2012; Jordan et al., 2014; schools have permitted farmers to improve Francis, 2004; Méndez et al., 2013). their knowledge, to reduce pesticide use and to shift towards more sustainable livelihoods • Agroecology is garnering growing support (Pretty, 2015; FAO et al., 2010). among numerous experts in the interna- tional scientific community (Wezel et al., • An increasing number of model farms with 2009). In 2015, a statement signed by over agroecological practices are now being devel- 300 US scientists and experts pushed for oped with support from a number of founda- greater public investment in research that tions, NGOs and bilateral donors, as well applies ecological principles and relies on as through collaborations between farmers, agroecological processes (Union of Con- land managers, researchers and civil society cerned Scientists, 2015b). (Méndez et al., 2013; Wolfenson, 2013).
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 63 Opportunity 7: Sustainable and • In a growing number of municipalities, cit- healthy sourcing ies and countries, public procurement programmes have been reformed in order Concerns about nutrition and diets are gaining to source local, sustainable, ethical and/or ground as a result of the rampant spread of healthy food for public canteens (Chandler et NCDs (WHO, 2013), alongside increasing con- al., 2015; De Schutter, 2014). For example, the cerns about the health impacts of pesticides, city of Copenhagen has set incremental tar- and growing awareness of the benefits of - di gets aiming for 90% organic procurement by etary diversity. In parallel, public awareness 2016 (Hultberg & Bergmann Madsen, 2012). about environmental sustainability and equity in In Brazil, the 2009 Law on School Feeding food systems has been steadily rising. This has includes the procurement of diversified prod- prompted a range of responses that call indus- ucts from local family farms (CONSEA, 2009). trial agriculture into question:
• Organic food sales have risen in response Opportunity 8: Short supply chains to the confluence of demand for healthy and sustainable products: in the US, organic food One of the most impressive grassroots develop- and beverage sales grew from $1 billion in ments of recent years has been the emergence 1990 to over $39 billion in 2014; nation-wide of a variety of schemes and initiatives aimed at sales for organic fruits and vegetables alone reducing the distance between producers and increased by 11.8% in 2009-2010, despite the consumers. These short supply chain initiatives global economic slowdown (Organic Trade are emerging fast in a wide range of settings: Association, 2015; Rodale Institute, 2015). By 2013, global organic sales had climbed to • The provision of weekly boxes of fresh local $72 billion (FiBL & IFOAM, 2015). produce (often fruit and vegetables) direct- ly from farmers to consumers is on the rise • Sustainability-compliant and Fairtrade in many countries in the global North. These schemes have come to occupy increasing mar- boxes are often procured through group pur- ket shares for various (mostly tropical) food- chasing associations, referred to as ‘AMAPs’ stuffs. Between 2012 and 2013, global sales of in France, ‘GASAPs’ in Belgium, Community Fairtrade products grew by 15%, reaching €5.5 Supported Agriculture (CSA) in the USA and billion (Fairtrade International, 2015). Teikei in Japan etc. (Lagane, 2011). In France, • Underutilized crops are now being recog- some 250,000 people (almost 1% of the work- nized for their vitamin and micronutrient ing-age population) currently receive an AMAP content, and thus for their ability to help box (INSEE, 2015; Assemblée Nationale, 2015). combat dietary imbalances (Mayes et al., • The resurgence of farmers’ markets, direct 2012; Kafkas et al., 2006). sales shops and specialized organic shops • A number of chefs are popularizing and is also an indicator of the rising demand for valuing wild, indigenous, ethnic, traditional short supply chains. In the US, the number and diverse foods (Münke et al., 2015). of farmers’ markets grew by 76% between 2008 and 2014 (USDA, 2014). • Different countries in the global South have established arrangements with smallhold- • Some of the newest forms of citizen engage- er farmers in order to source produce for ment with food production have come in the home-grown school feeding programmes. form of associations for acquiring shares These collaborations have provided oppor- in agricultural cooperatives, such as the tunities for strengthening local agricultural Compagnons de la Terre in Belgium (Les Com- development (HGSF, 2016). pagnons de la Terre, 2016).
64 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 3B: PATHWAYS OF TRANSITION: nutritious diets on the basis of – and not in spite RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MOVING of – what is farmed locally. TOWARDS DIVERSIFIED AGROECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS The emerging opportunities described in Sec- tion 3.a must expand rapidly in order not to The opportunities for change identified in Sec- go into reverse. The discussion in Section 2 tion 3.a show that alternatives are emerging showed that industrial food systems, built through the cracks of industrial food systems. around industrial modes of agriculture, are These developments are challenging industri- held in place by a set of powerful feedback al food systems on multiple fronts, from the loops. These loops tend to shut out the alter- forging of new governance mechanisms to the natives and keep food systems centred on in- creation of new market relationships that by- dustrial agriculture. The distribution of power pass conventional retail circuits and even the is particularly crucial. New knowledge plat- development of new narratives. They are also forms, new governance frameworks and emerging in a variety of geographical settings. new retail circuits only hold the potential to drive a transition insofar as they are able However, these opportunities are not devel- to avoid capture and prevent further power oping far or fast enough. Whether in terms of accruing to dominant actors (Lock-in 8). the composition of agricultural subsidies, the allocation of research budgets or the market Strong, deliberate and coherent steps are share of different retail circuits, the alterna- therefore required to strengthen the emerging tives are still marginal. opportunities, while simultaneously breaking the vicious cycles that keep industrial agricul- The need for a broader shift is urgent: the neg- ture in place. ative impacts of industrial agriculture, partic- ularly its widespread environmental degrada- IPES-Food is able to identify seven key rec- tion and GHG emissions (see Section 1.a.ii), are ommendations for supporting the shift to- pushing ecosystems ever-closer to dangerous wards diversified agroecological systems: tipping points. In many countries and regions 1. of the world, farming systems now stand at Develop new indicators for sustainable food systems. a crossroads. In the absence of compelling alternatives, the current reinvestment in 2. Shift public support towards agriculture in the global South is likely to diversified agroecological replicate the pathways of agricultural in- production systems. dustrialization that have raised farm pro- 3. Support short circuits & alternative ductivity in wealthy countries – but at huge retail infrastructures. costs. A global convergence towards these 4. Use public procurement to support norms would make it ever harder to untangle local agroecological produce. the web of industrial agriculture. 5. Strengthen movements that unify diverse constituencies around It would also represent a major missed opportu- agroecology. nity. Agroecology offers farmers a development 6. Mainstream agroecology and pathway that builds on their existing knowledge holistic food systems approaches and on the principles of resilience often central into education and research agendas. to smallholder systems - particularly those on the front lines of the fight against climate change. Di- 7. Develop food planning processes versified agroecological farming also represents and ‘food policies’ at all levels. an opportunity to increase access to diverse and
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 65 These recommendations, which are fleshed alternative food systems based around agro- out below, identify the various areas in which ecology and diversification can and must be action would need to be taken in order to shift complemented by a wholesale shift in practic- the balance in food systems. The recommen- es within the existing infrastructures of global dations are pragmatic, drawing on existing value chains and mass retail, led by those with policy tools, seeking to build on existing entry the power to govern and reform these chains. points, and working in combination to target Some firms are already engaged on this path. the various lock-ins of industrial agriculture. However, given the agenda-setting powers that The individual steps are modest and feasible, but currently accrue to dominant actors (see Lock- collectively they have the potential to shift the in 8: Concentration of power), there is a major centre of gravity in food systems, allowing harm- risk that initiatives to improve mainstream ful dependencies to be cut, the agents of change business practices be used to deflect politi- to be empowered, and alliances to be created in cal attention and political capital away from favour of change. In other words, the vicious cy- the more fundamental shift that is needed. cles of industrial agriculture must be replaced Business-led change should be encouraged with new virtuous circles; the various steps in and expected to continue in parallel, insofar as favour of diversified agroecological systems can businesses are willing to aspire towards new and must lock each other in, just as current dy- norms on multiple fronts and to share power namics act to lock them out (see Figure 16). within the food systems of the future. Howev- er, political priorities must be clearly estab- The seven key recommendations identify the lished, namely, to support the emergence of component parts of a joined-up strategy to alternative systems, which are based around support the emergence of diversified agroeco- fundamentally different logics, and generate logical systems. However, the specific mea- different and more equitable power relations sures that might be required will vary from over time. Duly, the focus of this report and its country to country and context to context. recommendations is on supporting the emer- The most viable and most urgent actions will gence of these alternative systems. differ in particular between highly-industrial- ized commodity-producing regions, and those where smallholder systems and subsistence agriculture are still predominant. The menu of options below each of the key recommen- dations indicates what shape these measures might take, how they might be achieved, and what various actors can do. This should not be considered an exhaustive list of options for transforming food systems, and nor should it prejudice what is decided within the inclusive democratic processes which are recommend- ed below (see Recommendation 7).
Most of the steps envisaged here concern pol- icy measures, as well as new orientations for farmers, consumers and civil society groups. This does not reflect indifference to what- oc curs in the agribusiness sector. As indicated at the outset of this report, the emergence of
66 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY TURNING LOCK-INS INTO ENTRY POINTS FOR CHANGE FIGURE 14 - TURNING LOCK-INS INTO ENTRY POINTS FOR CHANGE
S U S S diversified
E ORT E E T TION ORIENT TION OF E FOOD
T FEED T E DE ENDEN Y CONCENTRATION OR D N RR TIVES OF POWER
ME SURES OF OM RTMENT I ED SU ESS T IN IN
S ORT TERM T IN IN
D D M
Note: Although arrows to ‘Concentration of power’ (Lock-in 8) are not shown here, all of the recommen- dations are considered to tackle Lock-in 8, given that it underlies and reinforces all of the other lock-ins.
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 67 Recommendation 1: Develop new impacts on biodiversity, provision of ecosystem indicators for sustainable food services and impacts on livelihoods and equity. systems. There is major scope to develop these ap- The benefits of diversified agroecological farm- proaches further and to use them systemati- ing are systematically undervalued by classi- cally in setting food systems priorities: cal measures of agricultural productivity (see Lock-in 7: Measures of success). It is therefore • Agricultural development programmes essential to adopt and systematically refer to a should be assessed on the basis of how well broader range of indicators in assessing the per- they perform against a package of sustain- formance and success of agriculture and food able food systems indicators. systems. These indicators should reflect what • New indicators for sustainable food systems matters for the longer term and for society at large, i.e. long-term ecosystem health; total re- could be used as a basis for awarding sup- source flows; sustainable interactions between port and subsidies to farmers (see Recom- agriculture and the wider economy; the sustain- mendation 2). ability of output; livelihood resilience; true food • ‘Full cost accounting’ approaches are cur- and nutrition security; and the economic viability rently being developed to capture the pos- of farms with respect to debt, climate shocks etc. itive and negative externalities of different In other words, what are needed are indicators production systems. These approaches for sustainable food systems. Composite index- es and integrated packages of indicators should should be further developed and linked to therefore be developed, building on current policy processes in order to internalize the efforts in this regard, and covering measures costs of industrial agriculture and the bene- such as nutritional quality, resource efficiency, fits of diversified agroecological systems.
MEASURING WHAT MATTERS FOR SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS FIGURE 15 - MEASURING WHAT MATTERS FOR SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS
NUTRIENT ONTENT E T RE
O ORIE NET ORIE NUTRIENT V I I ITY RODU TION
TOT OUT UTS E T RE YIE D E T RE
TOT IOM SS RODU ED RODU TIVITY
D RO T OR ER RESOUR E EFFI IEN Y
IN OME E OSYSTEM SERVI ES DE IVERED
IVE I OOD RESI IEN E SO I E UITY
68 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY Recommendation 2: Shift public A range of support measures for farmers could support towards diversified therefore be envisaged, including: agroecological production systems. • Agricultural subsidies could be incre- mentally shifted on the basis of new indi- Farmers are often trapped by the path depen- cators for sustainable food systems (see dencies of industrial agriculture (Lock-in 1: Recommendation 1), e.g. including premia Path dependency), and are dependent on the for managing multi-functional landscapes training, distribution and retail infrastructures with a continuum of wild and cultivated of industrial (often export-oriented – Lock-in 2) species. food systems. Equipping farmers to lead the transition therefore requires steps to cut these • Governments should respect and fully im- dependencies and replace them with new sup- plement the Voluntary Guidelines on the port structures and incentives. In some parts Responsible Governance of Tenure of of the world, e.g. the EU and the US, support to Land, Fisheries and Forests adopted at farmers comes primarily in the form of agricul- FAO’s Committee on World Food Security tural subsidies offering a form of income sup- (CFS) in 2012; stronger support could be pro- port/stabilization, often linked to production vided for customary land rights. areas or specific crop commodities. In some • Moratoria on large-scale land acquisi- cases, incentives to diversify have been intro- tions may be required given the tendency of duced (see Opportunity 1). these purchases to accentuate highly-spe- Building on this basis, governments must ul- cialized large-scale agriculture and industrial timately shift all public support away from modes of production; Governments should monocultural production systems, while re- facilitate access to land for agroecological warding the array of positive outcomes in farming by the next generation. diversified systems. In other contexts, access • Barriers to diversity/diversification arise to land and productive resources may be from a range of policies and regulations that more important than subsidies in determin- are tailored to the needs of the industrial ing which modes of agriculture are able to food system and tend to have very negative take hold. The key may thus be to prioritize effects on peasant and agroecological sys- the needs of those willing and able to practice tems, e.g. national or regional food safety diversified agroecological farming over com- rules, intellectual property protection peting land uses such as large-scale monocul- legislation, and seed legislation; these bar- tures. This could mean supporting small-scale riers may need to be reformed/dismantled farmers to stay on the land and transition to and replaced with policies and measures agroecological practices, rather than being in- that facilitate the spread of diversified farm- corporated into outgrower schemes or forced ing systems. to exit agriculture. • Specific seed legislation could be developed Whatever the local context, governments to support the exchange of and access to must find measures that allow all farms to di- seeds from traditional, often genetically versify and transition towards agroecology. In heterogeneous, varieties through infor- particular, they must support young people mal/traditional seed systems. to enter agriculture and adopt agroecological farming – before they are locked into the cy- cles of industrial agriculture (Lock-in 1: Path dependency).
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 69 Recommendation 3: Support short society. Governments should support and supply chains & alternative retail promote short circuits in order to make them infrastructures. a viable, accessible and affordable alternative to mass retail outlets. Ways to achieve this For farmers to take on the challenge of di- could include: versifying their production and shifting to • Farmers’ markets could be established agroecological practices, they need markets. in multiple neighbourhoods of cities by Emerging consumer and retail imperatives adapting existing public infrastructures have brought renewed attention to the con- (e.g. town halls) and building new ones ditions under which food is produced, giving (e.g. new covered markets), in addition to farmers an economic incentive to shift pro- support for mobile food markets, in order duction in new directions (Opportunity 7, Op- to facilitate widespread access to local pro- portunity 8). duce.
However, there is a long way to go before this • Food policy councils at the city/municipal consumer pressure translates into something level and regional food policy and planning more than market niches, becoming a genu- processes (see Recommendation 7) could ine counterweight to export-oriented, mass be used to define priorities in terms of con- retail-driven supply chains (Lock-in 2) and the necting producers and consumers in given cheap food they transmit to consumers (Lock- regions, e.g. identifying zones with poor in 3). In many parts of the world, traditional availability of fresh food as priority loca- and informal markets often provide import- tions for new farmers’ markets. ant alternative sales outlets (ROPPA, 2013). • Local exchange and trading systems be- Elsewhere, new initiatives to promote short tween farmers could be supported, where circuits and direct sales are particularly prom- exchange systems based around recogni- ising, in that they bypass mass retail circuits tion of equal value have traditionally played that have tended to require and value uni- an important role. form commodity production. Not all food • More data on the nature and extent of sold through these circuits is organically-cer- informal markets should be gathered, in tified, nor is it necessarily tied to diversified order to provide relevant support. agroecological production systems. However, new and more promising incentives do tend to emerge: direct consumer-producer rela- Recommendation 4: Use public tionships allow a commitment to ecological procurement to support local production to be built and maintained in lieu agroecological produce. of formal certification, and often in addition to formally certified standards (e.g. organic). Governments should also support markets Direct purchasing schemes are also condu- for the production of diversified agroecolog- cive to diversification; receiving a basket of ical farming systems through food purchas- diverse, seasonal foods is often a key sell- ing for school canteens, hospitals and other ing-point of community supported agricul- public institutions, building on the successful ture schemes. examples now proliferating (Opportunity 7). This would help to ensure sales outlets for The balance must now be shifted through farmers who diversify their production, while actions that bring the incentives – and even- providing fresh, nutritious food and diversi- tually the costs – of different production sys- fied diets for the users of public canteens, tems into line with the benefits they offer to particularly schoolchildren. Many national
70 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY and local governments are already using pub- There is scope to further unify these voices and lic procurement to drive improved outcomes to operationalize their demands. Diversified in food systems, often by sourcing organic agroecological systems must find their advo- foods. This existing policy tool could be used cates, and those advocates must find a strong more systematically and with increasing am- and unified voice which policy-makers will not be bition in order to drive the transition forward; able to ignore. Together, these shared messages this will be particularly important to support can powerfully counter the ‘feed the world’ nar- the demand for food produced within these ratives which currently hold sway (Lock-in 6). systems while markets develop (see Recom- mendation 3). Agroecological public procure- A range of steps could help to facilitate the ment could be phased in to various extents unification of social movements around- di versified agroecological systems: and in various ways: • Increased support could be provided to • Agroecological sourcing could be phased farmers’, women’s, indigenous and com- in through staggered targets at the local munity-based organisations and social and national level, potentially rising fastest movements which encourage the spread for fruits and vegetables, and being revised of agroecological practices and advocate upwards as supply increases. for sustainable food systems. • Where labelling/certification schemes do not exist, agroecological production could • Support for diversity fairs, community be identified on the basis oflocally-adapt - genebanks and seed banks is likely to be ed indicators for sustainable food sys- a crucial element in strengthening social tems (see Recommendation 1). movements and unifying them around di- versified, agroecological systems. • Local procurement, based on a region’s di- verse seasonal produce, could be favoured • Rural farmers’ organizations primarily and coordinated through localized food focused on human rights and livelihood is- systems planning processes, e.g. at the sues could forge alliances with civil society city-region level (see Recommendation 7). groups (including urban-based) through agroecology as a vehicle for environmental and social change. Recommendation 5: Strengthen movements that unify diverse • The participation and collaboration of di- constituencies around agroecology. verse civil society groups from the global North and South in global governance Many of the most promising developments processes and forums should be facilitat- profiled in Section 3.a are grassroots,- bot ed. The CFS could serve as a model of in- tom-up, farmer- and consumer-led initiatives. clusive civil society involvement in terms of Where they are making the biggest inroads, recognizing the autonomy and self-organi- they are doing so by reaching across divides sation of civil society groups, and including small producer organisations. and creating new constituencies of pooled interest. Community-supported agriculture • The strong coalitions and narratives al- (Opportunity 8) entails a confluence of values ready formed around ‘food sovereign- across the consumer-producer divide, while ty’ and opposition to trade liberalization some of the most promising opportunities for should be built upon; diversified agroeco- spreading agroecological knowledge come in logical systems could be further empha- the form of intensive collaboration between sized as a key manifestation of and re- farmers and researchers (Opportunity 6). quirement for ‘food sovereignty’.
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 71 Recommendation 6: Mainstream imperatives. In particular, the mission of uni- agroecology and holistic food versity research should be redefined around systems approaches into education the delivery of public goods, with clear rules and research agendas. and transparency in relation to accepting pri- vate funding, including public-private part- Improved education on healthy eating in schools nerships. from an early age is essential to changing eating habits. At the level of secondary and higher ed- Several steps could be envisaged in order to ucation, changes will be required to provide the meet these objectives: necessary skills and approaches to promote the • School curricula at all levels should include transformation of our food systems, including modules that integrate the multiple dimen- strengthening systems thinking/approaches, sions of food systems, including hands-on and understanding the true costs of cheap food experiential programs such as school gar- (Lock-in 3). dens, food preparation facilities, and mak- ing meals a time for learning as much as for Beyond the educational sphere, there are al- eating. ready highly promising opportunities for devel- oping and spreading agroecological knowledge, • Where public research programmes require in the shape of fast-developing food systems recapitalization, resources could be freed up research and participatory peer-to-peer ap- and redirected by increased targeting of ag- proaches (Opportunities 5 and 6). ricultural subsidies (see Recommendation 2).
• Philanthropic foundations and other do- However, a broader transition is unlikely to occur insofar as the structures for develop- nors in the environmental and develop- should be encouraged to priori- ing and delivering knowledge to farmers re- ment fields main aligned with industrial systems (Lock- tize investments in developing and spreading ins 1 and 4). Public research agendas must agroecological knowledge, given the huge po- be redefined around different priorities, and tential of diversified agroecological systems be shaped by and designed to serve a wid- to deliver positive environmental impacts, in- er range of actors. Over recent decades, pri- cluding climate mitigation. vate agribusiness firms have been the major • Research to plug the gaps in current investors in agricultural research, and have knowledge about agroecology should be been most vocal in making the case for in- prioritized, such as: studying the long-term vestments in raising agricultural productivity. productivity of diversified agroecological Reinvestment is urgently required, but must farming and its potential to withstand abiot- be redirected towards equipping farmers to ic and biotic stresses, as well as its resilience shift their production, rather than further re- in the face of extreme weather events; un- lying on industrial solutions. derstanding the linkages between agrobio- diversity/wild biodiversity and dietary Attention is also required to address the com- diversity/nutritional outcomes, including plexity of food systems, the need for trans- overall dietary quality and positive health disciplinary approaches, and the integration outcomes. of traditional, indigenous and peasant knowl- edge, as well as experiences from all actors of • Research programmes could link agriculture the food web. The new constituencies forming with the fields of ecosystem services and around agroecology (see Recommendation 5) landscape management (see Recommenda- must be as vocal as agribusinesses have been tion 7) in order to identify the most effective in making the case for new public research policy and governance models for securing
72 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY productive and healthy agro-ecosystems. cators (see Recommendation 1) can be agreed in these food policy fora, and used as a bench- • The development of practical, scientifical- mark for the long-term strategies set in place. ly-grounded methodologies for measuring Building on landscape management and terri- sustainable food systems should be priori- torial planning initiatives (Opportunity 3), these tized (see Recommendation 1). policies and processes must be organized at • Agricultural extension and public health/ the various levels where food systems can be sanitary extension services should be meaningfully planned, and where food security trained to deliver mutually reinforcing mes- can be meaningfully targeted and understood sages that promote sustainable food pro- in terms other than ‘feeding the world’ (Lock-in duction, improved dietary intakes, and im- 6). Crucially, these forms of food systems plan- proved sanitation and health. ning must be based on broad participation. Taking inspiration from municipal and city-lev- • FAO, IFAD, UNEP, WHO and other relevant el food policy councils, these processes should UN agencies should adopt a sustainable food reach across constituencies, bringing together systems approach in their programmes and agriculture, health, environment and other in- strengthen collaboration around it. Following terest groups with a stake in food systems re- up on its 2014 agroecology symposium, FAO form (see Recommendation 5). should progressively mainstream agro- ecology into all its programming. These processes could take various shapes and forms, emerging from various entry points: • Research conducted by the CGIAR consortium should be substantially reoriented and refo- • Territorial/landscape management plan- cused around diversified agroecological -sys ning, including at the city-region level, can be tems and farmer participatory research. used to determine diversification measures on a landscape scale, ensuring connectivity between agrarian spaces and natural vege- Recommendation 7: Develop food tation areas, protection of traditional water- planning processes and ‘joined-up ing systems, etc. food policies’ at multiple levels. • Territorial management processes can None of the changes envisaged above will also be used to plan and manage the in- move far or fast enough while policy process- tegration of animals into diversified es are constrained by compartmentalized ap- landscapes, including the question of feed proaches (Lock-in 4) and short-term thinking strategies that seek to maximize local pro- (Lock-in 5). It is therefore crucial to establish tein production. new, more inclusive and more-joined-up pro- • Inter-ministerial mechanisms could be cesses, responding to the growing proposals put in place to bring together all relevant for redesigning food policy-making (Opportu- ministries (agriculture, environment, health, nity 2). Long-term, cross-party, inter-ministe- education), coupled with mechanisms to rial planning around food systems – reaching consult with different stakeholders, poten- across political boundaries and transcending tially as a step towards developing national electoral cycles - should therefore be facilitat- food policies (see below). ed. These processes can counter the tradition- al trade bias in agricultural policymaking (see • The processes described above could be Lock-in 2: Export orientation), ensuring that brought together in the shape of ‘Nation- global market provisioning in food commodi- al Food Policies/ National Food Strat- ties is reconciled with health, environment and egies’ where these are yet to be put in development concerns. New food systems indi- place. Such policies/strategies could set
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 73 long-term goals for food systems, allow- • At the global level, the Committee on ing those goals to be informed and moni- World Food Security (CFS) has a mandate tored by cross-party, inter-ministerial and of improving policy coordination, policy co- multi-actor groupings. Scientific and civil herence and accountability to achieve food society groups should unite with willing security and nutrition and the right to food. political partners in order to create these Being the foremost inclusive, intergovern- platforms where they do not yet exist. The mental policy space on these issues, the process launched by IPES-Food in March CFS is well placed to advocate for coherent 2016, ‘Towards a Common Food Policy in policies. The CFS should build on its existing the EU’, seeks to establish such a process at policy decisions, particularly those on invest- the EU and European member state levels ing in smallholder agriculture, to strengthen (IPES-Food, 2016). diversified agroecological food systems
74 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY
S
M U Define priorities for... Define priorities for... S D CREATING VIRTUOUS CIRCLES TO SUPPORT DIVERSIFIED AGROECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS CREATING VIRTUOUS CIRCLES TO SUPPORT DIVERSIFIED FIGURE 16 - CREATING VIRTUOUS CIRCLES TO SUPPORT DIVERSIFIED AGROECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
N diversified S D
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 75 Bibliography
AFSSA, 2003. Evaluation nutritionnelle et sanitaire Altieri, M., Nicholls, C., Henao, A., Lana, M., 2015. des aliments issus de l’agriculture biologique. Agence Agroecology and the design of climate change-resil- française de sécurité sanitaire des aliments. ient farming systems. Agronomy for Sustainable De- velopment 869–890. Agriculture Ministry of France, 2011. Les organisa- tions interprofessionnelles : un outil répandu de Alwan, A., 2011. Global status report on noncommu- gestion des filières. Centre d’Études et de Prospec- nicable diseases 2010. World Health Organization, tive - Analyse 31. Geneva, Switzerland.
Aguilera, E., Guzmán, G., Alonso, A., 2014. Green- Amekawa, Y., 2011. Agroecology and sustainable house gas emissions from conventional and organ- livelihoods: towards an integrated approach to rural ic cropping systems in Spain. II. Fruit tree orchards. development. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 35, Agron. Sustain. Dev. 35, 725–737. doi:10.1007/ 118–162. doi:10.1080/10440046.2011.539124 s13593-014-0265-y Arimond, M., Ruel, M.T., 2004. Dietary diversity is as- Aguilera, E., Lassaletta, L., Gattinger, A., Gimeno, sociated with child nutritional status: evidence from B.S., 2013. Managing soil carbon for climate change 11 demographic and health surveys. J. Nutr. 134, mitigation and adaptation in Mediterranean crop- 2579–2585. ping systems: A meta-analysis. Agriculture, Eco- systems & Environment 168, 25–36. doi:10.1016/j. Arrebola, J.P., Belhassen, H., Artacho-Cordón, F., Gh- agee.2013.02.003 ali, R., Ghorbel, H., Boussen, H., Perez-Carrascosa, F.M., Expósito, J., Hedhili, A., Olea, N., 2015. Risk of Ajayi, O.C., Akinnifesi, F.K., Sileshi, G., Kanjipite, W., female breast cancer and serum concentrations of 2009. Labour inputs and financial profitability of con- organochlorine pesticides and polychlorinated bi- ventional and agroforestry-based soil fertility man- phenyls: A case–control study in Tunisia. Science of agement practices in Zambia. Agrekon 48. The Total Environment 520, 106–113. doi:10.1016/j. scitotenv.2015.03.045 Alaska FPC, 2016. Alaska Food Policy Council [WWW Document]. Alaska Food Policy Council. URL Arrebola, J.P., Pumarega, J., Gasull, M., Fernandez, https://akfoodpolicycouncil.wordpress.com/ (ac- M.F., Martin-Olmedo, P., Molina-Molina, J.M., Fernán- cessed 4.4.16). dez-Rodríguez, M., Porta, M., Olea, N., 2013. Adipose tissue concentrations of persistent organic pollut- Alexander, D.J., 2000. A review of avian influenza in ants and prevalence of type 2 diabetes in adults from different bird species. Veterinary Microbiology 74, Southern Spain. Environmental Research 122, 31–37. 3–13. doi:10.1016/S0378-1135(00)00160-7 doi:10.1016/j.envres.2012.12.001 Alonso, A.M., Guzmán, G.J., 2010. Comparison of Ash, M.S., Livezey, J., Dohlman, E.N., 2006. Soybean the efficiency and use of energy in organic and con- backgrounder. US Department of Agriculture, Eco- ventional farming in spanish agricultural systems. nomic Research Service, Washington, D.C. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 34, 312–338. doi:10.1080/10440041003613362 Assemblée nationale, 2015. N° 2942 - Rapport d’in- formation de Mme Brigitte Allain et M. Jean-Charles Altieri, M.A., Funes-Monzote, F.R., Petersen, P., 2012. Taugourdeau déposé en application de l’article Agroecologically efficient agricultural systems for 145 du règlement, par la commission des affaires smallholder farmers: contributions to food sover- économiques sur les circuits courts et la relocalisa- eignty. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 32, 1–13. doi:10.1007/ tion des filières agricoles et alimentaires [WWW Doc- s13593-011-0065-6 ument]. URL http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/ Altieri, M.A., Nicholls, C.I., 2004. An agroecological ba- rap-info/i2942.asp#P436_71915 (accessed 4.4.16). sis for designing diversified cropping systems in the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2012. Australian tropics. Journal of Crop Improvement 11, 81–103. farming and farmers [WWW Document]. URL http:// Altieri, M.A., Toledo, V.M., 2011. The agroecological www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/4102. revolution in Latin America: rescuing nature, ensur- 0Main+Features10Dec+2012 (accessed 9.21.15). ing food sovereignty and empowering peasants. The Bacon, C.M., Getz, C., Kraus, S., Montenegro, M., Hol- Journal of Peasant Studies 38, 587–612. doi:10.1080/ land, K., 2012. The social dimensions of sustainability 03066150.2011.582947 and change in diversified farming systems. Ecology and Society 17. doi:10.5751/ES-05226-170441
76 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY Badejo, M.A., 1998. Agroecological restoration of Bonny, S., 2011. Herbicide-tolerant transgenic soy- savanna ecosystems. Ecological Engineering 10, bean over 15 years of cultivation: pesticide use, weed 209–219. resistance, and some economic issues. The case of the USA. Sustainability 3, 1302–1322. doi:10.3390/ Badgley, C., Moghtader, J., Quintero, E., Zakem, su3091302 E., Chappell, M.J., Avilés-Vázquez, K., Samu- lon, A., Perfecto, I., 2007. Organic agriculture Bouraoui, F., Grizzetti, B., 2014. Modelling miti- and the global food supply. Renewable Agricul- gation options to reduce diffuse nitrogen water ture and Food Systems 22, 86–108. doi:10.1017/ pollution from agriculture. Science of The Total S1742170507001640 Environment 468–469, 1267–1277. doi:10.1016/j.sci- totenv.2013.07.066 Banse, M., van Meijl, H., Tabeau, A., Woltjer, G., Hellmann, F., Verburg, P.H., 2011. Impact of EU bio- Bowman, M.S., Zilberman, D., 2013. Economic fac- fuel policies on world agricultural production and tors affecting diversified farming systems. Ecology land use. Biomass and Bioenergy 35, 2385–2390. and Society 18. doi:10.5751/ES-05574-180133 doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.09.001 Brazilian Ministry of Agrarian Development, 2013. Barański, M., Srednicka-Tober, D., Volakakis, N., Seal, National plan for agroecology and organic produc- C., Sanderson, R., Stewart, G.B., Benbrook, C., Biavati, tion. B., Markellou, E., Giotis, C., Gromadzka-Ostrowska, Bricas, N., Lamine, C., Casabianca, F., 2013. Agricul- J., Rembiałkowska, E., Skwarło-Sońta, K., Tahvonen, tures et alimentations : des relations à repenser ? R., Janovská, D., Niggli, U., Nicot, P., Leifert, C., 2014. Natures Sciences Sociétés 21, 66–70. doi:10.1051/ Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentra- nss/2013084 tions and lower incidence of pesticide residues in organically grown crops: a systematic literature re- Bristol FPC, 2016. Bristol Food Policy Council | Help- view and meta-analyses. Br. J. Nutr. 112, 794–811. ing build a resilient food system for Bristol. doi:10.1017/S0007114514001366 Buckwell, A., 2015. Where should the CAP go post- BASIC, 2014. Who’s got the power? Tackling imbal- 2020?, in: Anania, G., Buckwell, A., Balmann, A., Bu- ances in agricultural supply chains. reau, J.-C., De Castro, P., Di Mambro, A., Erjavec, E., Erjavec, K., Fertő, I., Garrone, M., Haniotis, T., Hart, K., Bellora, C., Bourgeon, J.-M., 2014. Agricultural trade, Josling, T., Knops, L., Kovacs, A., Lovec, M., Mahé, L.- biodiversity effects and food price volatility. HAL P., Matthews, A., Moehler, R., Olper, A., Pacca, L., Po- cahier de recherche. točnik, J., Pupo D’Andrea, M.R., Roederer-Rynning, C., Bengtsson, J., Ahnström, J., Weibull, A.-C., 2005. Sahrbacher, A., Sahrbacher, C., Swinbank, A., Swin- The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity nen, J. (Eds.), The Political Economy of the 2014-2020 and abundance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Ap- Common Agricultural Policy: An Imperfect Storm. plied Ecology 42, 261–269. doi:10.1111/j.1365- Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), Brussels. 2664.2005.01005.x Burchi, F., Fanzo, J., Frison, E., 2011. The role of food and nutrition system approaches in tackling hidden Benson, P., 2008. El Campo: Faciality and structural hunger. International Journal of Environmental Re- violence in farm labor camps. Cultural Anthropology search and Public Health 8, 358–373. doi:10.3390/ 23, 589–629. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1360.2008.00020.x ijerph8020358 Bioversity International, 2014. Bioversity Interna- Burney, J.A., Davis, S.J., Lobell, D.B., 2010. Greenhouse tional’s 10-year strategy 2014-2024. Agricultural bio- gas mitigation by agricultural intensification. PNAS diversity nourishes people and sustains the planet. 107, 12052–12057. doi:10.1073/pnas.0914216107 Bioversity International. Butler, D., 2013. Fungus threatens top banana. Na- Boardman, J., Poesen, J., Evans, R., 2003. Socio-eco- ture 195–196. doi:10.1038/504195a nomic factors in soil erosion and conservation. En- vironmental Science & Policy 6, 1–6. doi:10.1016/ Cardinale, B.J., Wright, J.P., Cadotte, M.W., Carroll, I.T., S1462-9011(02)00120-X Hector, A., Srivastava, D.S., Loreau, M., Weis, J.J., 2007. Impacts of plant diversity on biomass production in- Bonmatin, J.-M., Giorio, C., Girolami, V., Goulson, crease through time because of species complemen- D., Kreutzweiser, D.P., Krupke, C., Liess, M., Long, tarity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104, 18123–18128. E., Marzaro, M., Mitchell, E. a. D., Noome, D.A., Si- doi:10.1073/pnas.0709069104 mon-Delso, N., Tapparo, A., 2014. Environmental fate and exposure; neonicotinoids and fipronil. En- Cargill, 2015. Food security [WWW Document]. URL viron Sci Pollut Res 22, 35–67. doi:10.1007/s11356- http://www.cargill.com/news/issues/food-security/ 014-3332-7 index.jsp (accessed 4.12.15).
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 77 Carlet, J., Jarlier, V., Harbarth, S., Voss, A., Goossens, Cotula, L., 2013. The great African land grab?: agricul- H., Pittet, D., Forum, the P. of the 3rd W.H.-A.I., 2012. tural investments and the global food system. Zed Ready for a world without antibiotics? The Pensières Books, London ; New York : New York. antibiotic resistance call to action. Antimicrob Resist Cotula, L., Vermeulen, S., Leonard, R., Keeley, J., 2009. Infect Control 1, 1–13. doi:10.1186/2047-2994-1-11 Land grab or development opportunity?: agricultur- Carletto, G., Ruel, M., Winters, P., Zezza, A., 2015. al investment and international land deals in Africa. Farm-level pathways to improved nutritional status: IIED/FAO/IFAD, London/Rome. Introduction to the special issue. The Journal of De- Couturier, I., 2005. Diversification et réforme de la velopment Studies 51, 945–957. doi:10.1080/002203 PAC. Agricoltura Istituzioni Mercati. 88.2015.1018908 Cross, P., Edwards, R.T., Hounsome, B., Ed- Carlson, K.M., Curran, L.M., Asner, G.P., Pittman, wards-Jones, G., 2008. Comparative assessment of A.M., Trigg, S.N., Marion Adeney, J., 2013. Carbon migrant farm worker health in conventional and or- emissions from forest conversion by Kalimantan oil ganic horticultural systems in the United Kingdom. palm plantations. Nature Clim. Change 3, 283–287. Sci. Total Environ. 391, 55–65. doi:10.1016/j.scito- doi:10.1038/nclimate1702 tenv.2007.10.048
Carolan, M., 2013. The real cost of cheap food. Rout- Crowder, D.W., Reganold, J.P., 2015. Financial com- ledge, New York. petitiveness of organic agriculture on a global scale. CDFA, C.D. of F. and A., USDA, 2015. 2015 Califor- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences nia almond nursery sales report. US Department of 112, 7611–7616. doi:10.1073/pnas.1423674112 Agriculture. Curtis, M., 2012. Asia at the crossroads: Prioritising conventional farming or sustainable agriculture? Ac- Chambers, R., 1983. Rural development: Putting the tionAid. last first, 1st ed. Routledge, New York. Cypher, J.M., Dietz, J.L., 1998. Static and dynamic Chandler, C., Franklin, A., Ochoa, A., Clement, S., comparative advantage: a multi-period analysis 2015. Sustainable public procurement of school ca- with declining terms of trade. Journal of Economic tering services. A good practice report. Issues 32, 305–314. doi:10.1080/00213624.1998.11 Chappell, M.J., Lavalle, L.A., 2011. Food security and 506035 biodiversity: can we have both? An agroecological Das, M., N’Diaye, P., 2013. The end of cheap labour. analysis. Agric Hum Values 28, 3–26. doi:10.1007/ Finance & Development 50. s10460-009-9251-4 DeFries, R., Fanzo, J., Remans, R., Palm, C., Wood, S., Chaudhuri, S., Ale, S., 2014. Long term (1960–2010) Anderman, T., 2015. Metrics for land-scarce agricul- trends in groundwater contamination and sali- ture. Science 349, 238–240. nization in the Ogallala aquifer in Texas. Journal of Hydrology 513, 376–390. doi:10.1016/j.jhy- Deininger, K.W., Byerlee, D., 2011. Rising global in- drol.2014.03.033 terest in farmland: can it yield sustainable and equi- table benefits?, Agriculture and rural development. Chung, E., 2014. Lake Erie’s algae explosion blamed World Bank, Washington, D.C. on farmers [WWW Document]. URL http://www. cbc.ca/news/technology/lake-erie-s-algae-explo- De Schutter, O., 2014. The power of procurement. sion-blamed-on-farmers-1.2729327 (accessed Public purchasing in the service of realizing the right 11.24.15). to food (Briefing Note No. 08). United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Geneva. Cloke, J., 2013. Empires of waste and the food se- curity meme. Geography Compass 7, 622–636. De Schutter, O., 2011. “Towards more equitable doi:10.1111/gec3.12068 value chains: alternative business models in sup- port of the right to food”, Report presented at the Cocetta, G., 2014. Quality or freshness? How to 66th Session of the United Nations General Assem- evaluate fruits and vegetables during posthar- bly (No. A/66/262). United Nations General Assem- vest. Advances in Crop Science and Technology 02. bly, Geneva. doi:10.4172/2329-8863.1000e115 De Schutter, O., 2010. Report submitted by the CONSEA, 2009. Building up the national policy and Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De system for food and nutrition security: the Brazilian Schutter (Human Rights Council, 16th Session, Agen- experience. Food and Agriculture Organization of da item 3 No. A/HRC/16/49). United Nations General the United Nations, Brasilia. Assembly, Geneva.
78 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY D’Odorico, P., Carr, J.A., Laio, F., Ridolfi, L., Vandoni, S., ed, Issues in agricultural biodiversity. Earthscan from 2014. Feeding humanity through global food trade. Routledge, London ; New York. Earth’s Future 2. doi:10.1002/2014EF000250 Fanzo, J., Remans, R., Pronyk, P.M., Negin, J., Warie- Duffy, J.E., Srivastava, D.S., McLaren, J., Sankaran, M., ro, J., Mutuo, P., Masira, J., Diru, W., Lelerai, E., Kim, Solan, M., Griffin, J., Emmerson, M., Jones, K.E., 2009. D., others, 2011. A 3-year cohort study to assess the Forecasting decline in ecosystem services under re- impact of an integrated food-and livelihood-based alistic scenarios of extinction, in: Naeem, S., Bunker, model on undernutrition in rural Western Kenya, D.E., Hector, A., Loreau, M., Perrings, C. (Eds.), Biodi- in: Thompson, B., Amoroso, L. (Eds.), Combating versity, Ecosystem Functioning, and Human Wellbe- Micronutrient Deficiencies: Food-Based Approach- ing. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 60–77. es. The Earth Institute at Columbia University, New York, p. 76. Duncan, J., 2015. Global food security governance: Civil society engagement in the reformed Committee FAO, 2015a. Agroecology to reverse soil degradation on World Food Security. Routledge. and achieve food security [WWW Document]. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. ELD Initiative, 2015. Report for policy and decision URL http://www.fao.org/soils-2015/news/news-de- makers: Reaping economic and environmental ben- tail/en/c/317402/ (accessed 3.14.16). efits from sustainable land management. Economics of Land Degradation Initiative, Bonn. FAO, 2015b. International Symposium on Agroecol- ogy for Food Security and Nutrition [WWW Docu- Estrada-Carmona, N., Hart, A.K., DeClerck, F.A.J., ment]. URL http://www.fao.org/about/meetings/ Harvey, C.A., Milder, J.C., 2014. Integrated landscape afns/en/ (accessed 8.27.15). management for agriculture, rural livelihoods, and ecosystem conservation: An assessment of experi- FAO, 2013a. Climate-smart agriculture sourcebook. ence from Latin America and the Caribbean. Land- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Na- scape and Urban Planning 129, 1–11. doi:10.1016/j. tions, Rome. landurbplan.2014.05.001 FAO (Ed.), 2013b. Resilient livelihoods: disaster risk European Commission, 2014. Prospects for EU agri- reduction for food and nutrition security, Updated cultural markets and income 2014-2024. European new edition. ed. Emergency and Rehabilitation Divi- Commission, Brussels. sion, Food and Agriculture Organization of the Unit- ed Nations, Rome. European Commission - EU FADN, 2011. Farm eco- nomics brief: N°1 income developments in EU farms. FAO, 2013c. Water and food: the post 2015 water European Commission, Brussels. thematic consultation - water resources manage- ment stream framing paper. European Parliament, 2016. Opinion of the Commit- tee on Agriculture and Rural Development for the FAO, 2011. Why has Africa become a net food im- Committee on Development on the new Alliance for porter? Explaining Africa agricultural and food trade Food Security and Nutrition. deficits. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Eurostat, 2015. Farm structure statistics - Statistics Explained [WWW Document]. URL http://ec.europa. FAO, 2010. International Scientific Symposium on eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Farm_ biodiversity and sustainable diets. United against structure_statistics (accessed 5.6.16). hunger. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Eurostat, 2010. Agricultural labour input - Statistics Explained [WWW Document]. URL http://ec.euro- FAO, 2007. The state of the world’s animal genetic pa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Ar- resources for food and agriculture - in brief. Food chive:Agricultural_labour_input (accessed 9.21.15). and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Ewers, R.M., Scharlemann, J.P.W., Balmford, A., Green, R.E., 2009. Do increases in agricultural yield FAO, 2004. The state of agricultural commodity mar- spare land for nature? Global Change Biology 15, kets: 2004. Food and Agriculture Organization of the 1716–1726. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01849.x United Nations, Rome.
Fairtrade International, 2015. Fairtrade By The FAO, 1996. Rome Declaration on World Food Se- Numbers. curity.
Fanzo, J., Hunter, D., Borelli, T., Mattei, F. (Eds.), 2013. FAO, 1995. Dimensions of need: an atlas of food and Diversifying food and diets: using agricultural biodi- agriculture, 1st ed. Food and Agriculture Organiza- versity to improve nutrition and health, First edition. tion of the United Nations, Santa Barbara, California.
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 79 FAO, IFAD, WFP, 2015. State of Food Insecurity in the Frison, E.A., Smith, I.F., Johns, T., Cherfas, J., Eyzagu- World - SOFI - In Brief. irre, P.B., 2006. Agricultural biodiversity, nutrition, and health: Making a difference to hunger and nutri- FAO, RUAF Foundation, 2015. A vision for City Region tion in the developing world. Food & Nutrition Bulle- Food Systems - Building sustainable and resilient city tin 27, 167–179. regions. Gallai, N., Salles, J.-M., Settele, J., Vaissière, B.E., 2009. FAO, Sustainable Agricultural Information Initiative Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world (SUSTAINET EA), GIZ, African Conservation Tillage agriculture confronted with pollinator decline. Eco- (ACT), 2010. Technical manual Farmer Field School logical Economics 68, 810–821. doi:10.1016/j.ecole- approach. con.2008.06.014 FiBL & IFOAM, 2015. The world of organic agriculture García, Z., 2006. Agriculture, trade negotiations and 2015. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) gender. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the Unit- & IFOAM - Organics International, Frick and Bonn. ed Nations, Gender and Population Division, Rome. Fischer, G., Shah, M., Velthuizen, H., 2002. Climate Garnett, T., 2014. Three perspectives on sustainable change and agricultural vulnerability. International food security: efficiency, demand restraint, food Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Vienna. system transformation. What role for life cycle as- Flores, C.C., Sarandón, S.J., 2004. Limitations of neo- sessment? Journal of Cleaner Production, Towards classical economics for evaluating sustainability of eco-efficient agriculture and food systems: Selected agricultural systems: comparing organic and conven- papers from the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Food tional systems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 24, Conference, 2012, in Saint Malo, France 73, 10–18. 77–91. doi:10.1300/J064v24n02_08 doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.045
FOE, HBF, H.B.F., 2014. Meat Atlas - Facts and figures Garnett, T., Röös, E., Little, D., 2015. Lean, green, about the animals we eat. Heinrich Böll Foundation mean, obscene…? What is efficiency? And is it - sus and Friends of the Earth, Berlin and Brussels. tainable? Food Climate Research Network.
Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Gendron, C., Audet, R., 2012. Key drivers of the food Holling, C.S., Walker, B., 2002. Resilience and sus- chain, in: Boye, J.I., Arcand, Y. (Eds.), Green Technol- tainable development: building adaptive capacity in ogies in Food Production and Processing, Food Engi- a world of transformations. AMBIO: A journal of the neering Series. Springer US, pp. 23–39. human environment 31, 437–440. Gibbens, J., Sharpe Ce, Wilesmith Jw, Mansley Lm, Mi- Francis, C., 1986. Multiple cropping systems. McMil- chalopoulou E, Ryan Jb, Hudson M, 2001. Descriptive lan, New York. epidemiology of the 2001 foot-and-mouth disease epidemic in Great Britain: the first five months. Vet Francis, C.A., 2004. Education in agroecology and in- Rec 149, 729–743. tegrated systems. Journal of Crop Improvement 11, 21–43. doi:10.1300/J411v11n01_02 Gilbert, N., 2012. One-third of our greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture. Nature. Francis, C., Lieblein, G., Gliessman, S., Breland, T.A., doi:10.1038/nature.2012.11708 Creamer, N., Harwood, R., Salomonsson, L., Hele- nius, J., Rickerl, D., Salvador, R., Wiedenhoeft, M., Gliessman, S.R., 2007. Agroecology: the ecology of Simmons, S., Allen, P., Altieri, M., Flora, C., Poince- sustainable food systems. CRC Press. lot, R., 2003. Agroecology: the ecology of food sys- Gliessman, S.R., 2002. Agroecología: procesos tems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 22, 99–118. ecológicos en agricultura sostenible. CATIE. doi:10.1300/J064v22n03_10 Gomez, J.A., Sobrinho, T.A., Giráldez, J.V., Fereres, Francis, C., Moncure, S., Jordan, N., Breland, T.A., Li- E., 2009. Soil management effects on runoff,- ero eblein, G., Salomonsson, L., Wiedenhoeft, M., Morse, sion and soil properties in an olive grove of South- S., Porter, P., King, J., Perillo, C.A., Moulton, M., 2012. ern Spain. Soil and Tillage Research 102, 5–13. Future visions for experiential education in the agro- doi:10.1016/j.still.2008.05.005 ecology learning landscape, in: Campbell, W.B., Ortíz, S.L. (Eds.), Integrating Agriculture, Conservation and Gómez, M.I., Ricketts, K.D., 2013. Food value chain Ecotourism: Societal Influences, Issues in Agroecolo- transformations in developing countries: Selected gy – Present Status and Future Prospectus. Springer hypotheses on nutritional implications. Food Policy Netherlands, pp. 1–105. 42, 139–150. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.06.010
Fraser, E.D.G., Rimas, A., 2010. Empires of food. Free González, H., 2014. Specialization on a global scale Press, New York. and agrifood vulnerability: 30 years of export agri-
80 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY culture in Mexico. Development Studies Research 1, M., Morales, H., Nigh, R., Soto-Pinto, L., Van Breugel, 295–310. doi:10.1080/21665095.2014.929973 M., Wishnie, M., 2008. Integrating agricultural land- scapes with biodiversity conservation in the meso- Gould, F., 1991. The evolutionary potential of crop american hotspot. Conservation Biology 22, 8–15. pests. American Scientist 79, 496–507. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00863.x GRAIN, 2011. The great food robbery: How corpora- Hawkes, C., 2007. Promoting healthy diets and tack- tions control food, grab land and destroy the climate. ling obesity and diet-related chronic diseases: what GRAIN, Barcelona. are the agricultural policy levers? Food Nutr Bull 28, Grassini, P., Eskridge, K.M., Cassman, K.G., 2013. Dis- S312–322. tinguishing between yield advances and yield pla- Hazell, P., Poulton, C., Steve, S., Dorward, A., 2007. teaus in historical crop production trends. Nat Com- The future of small farms for poverty reduction and mun 4. doi:10.1038/ncomms3918 growth. International Food Policy Research Institute, Graziano da Silva, J., 2014. Better nutrition - Better Washington, D.C. lives. Addressing today’s major nutrition challenges. Heap, I., 2014. Herbicide resistant weeds, in: Pimen- Ministers Reference Book: Commonwealth 2014. tel, D., Peshin, R. (Eds.), Integrated Pest Management. Groeneveld, L.F., Lenstra, J.A., Eding, H., Toro, M.A., Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 281–301. Scherf, B., Pilling, D., Negrini, R., Finlay, E.K., Jianlin, Heinemann, J., 2014. Meta-analysis claiming to H., Groeneveld, E., Weigend, S., 2010. Genetic di- demonstrate on-farm benefits of GM crops critiqued versity in farm animals. Animal Genetics 41, 6–31. [WWW Document]. URL http://www.gmwatch.eu/ doi:10.1111/j.1365-2052.2010.02038.x news/archive/2014/15789-meta-analysis-claiming- Guereña, A., Burgos, S., 2014. Small-holders at risk: to-demonstrate-on-farm-benefits-of-gm-crops-cri- Monoculture expansion, land, food and livelihoods tiqued (accessed 12.14.15). in Latin America. Oxfam International, Oxford. Herforth, A., 2010. Promotion of traditional African Gustavsson, J., Cederbreg, C., Sonesson, U., van Ot- vegetables in Kenya and Tanzania: a case study of terdijk, R., Meybeck, A., 2011. Global food losses and an intervention representing emerging imperatives food waste: extent, causes and prevention : study in global nutrition. Cornell University. conducted for the International Congress “Save Food!” at Interpack 2011 Düsseldorf, Germany. Food Herren, H.R., Bassi, A.M., Tan, Z., Binns, W.P., 2012. and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Green jobs for a revitalized food and agriculture Rome. sector. Nature Resources Management and Environ- ment Department, Food and Agriculture Organiza- Guzman, G., Carranza, G., Aguilera, E., Soto, D., tion of the United Nations, Rome. González de Molina, M., García Ruiz, R., 2016. Cues- tionando la narrativa historiográfica dominante so- HGSF, 2016. Sourcing from local farmers [WWW Doc- bre la baja productividad de las variedades tradicio- ument]. Home Grown School Feeding. URL http:// nales. Primero resultados de un estudio de Historia hgsf-global.org/en/themes/slf (accessed 5.6.16). Agraria Experimental. Presented at the Old and New HLPE, 2014. Food losses and waste in the context of Worlds: the Global Challenges of Rural History / In- sustainable food systems, HLPE Report 8. The High ternational Conference, Lisbon. Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition. Hall, D., 2011. Land grabs, land control, and South- Holmes, S., Bourgois, P., 2013. Fresh fruit, broken east Asian crop booms. The Journal of Peasant Stud- bodies: migrant farmworkers in the united states. ies 38, 837–857. doi:10.1080/03066150.2011.607706 University of California Press, Berkeley. Haniotis, T., 2016. Revised transcript of evidence Holt-Giménez, E., 2002. Measuring farmers’ agroeco- taken before the select committee on the europe- logical resistance after Hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua: an union. Energy and Environment Sub-committee a case study in participatory, sustainable land man- inquiry on responding to price volatility: creating a agement impact monitoring. Agriculture, Ecosys- more resilient agricultural sector. tems & Environment 93, 87–105. doi:10.1016/S0167- Harrison, J.L., Getz, C., 2014. Farm size and job quali- 8809(02)00006-3 ty: mixed-methods studies of hired farm work in Cali- Holt-Giménez, E., Bunch, R., Vasquez, J.I., Wilson, J., fornia and Wisconsin. Agric Hum Values 32, 617–634. Pimbert, M.P., Boukary, B., Kneen, C., 2010. Link- doi:10.1007/s10460-014-9575-6 ing farmers’ movements for advocacy and prac- Harvey, C.A., Komar, O., Chazdon, R., Ferguson, tice. The Journal of Peasant Studies 37, 203–236. B.G., Finegan, B., Griffith, D.M., Martínez-Ramos, doi:10.1080/03066150903499943
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 81 Huffington Post, 2014. Let’s use organic and GMOs Infante, J., González de Molina, M., 2013. “Sustain- to feed the world [WWW Document]. The Huffington able de-growth” in agriculture and food: an agro-eco- Post. URL http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-robert- logical perspective on Spain’s agri-food system (year t-fraley/lets-use-organic-and-gmos_b_5669928.html 2000). Journal of Cleaner Production, Degrowth: From Theory to Practice 38, 27–35. doi:10.1016/j.jcle- (accessed 12.9.15). pro.2011.03.018 Hultberg, A., Bergmann Madsen, B., 2012. Public INSEE, 2016. Insee - Travail-Emploi - Population food in Copenhagen; organic conversion on the road active [WWW Document]. URL http://www.insee. towards sustainable food supply. fr/fr/themes/document.asp?ref_id=T14F041 (ac- cessed 4.4.16). Hunt, J.M., 2005. The potential impact of reducing global malnutrition on poverty reduction and eco- IPES-Food, 2016. Towards a Common Food Policy nomic development. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical for the EU. Nutrition 14, 10–38. IPES-Food, 2015. The new science of sustainable food systems. Overcoming barriers to food system IAASTD, I.A. of A.K., Science, and Technology for De- reform. International Panel of Experts on Sustain- velopment, 2009. Synthesis report: a synthesis of the able Food Systems, Brussels. global and sub-global IAASTD reports, Agriculture at a crossroads. Island Press, Washington, DC. Isaacs, K.B., 2014. Rediscovering the value of crop di- versity in Rwanda: Participatory variety selection and ICRISAT, 2015. Diversification [WWW Document]. genotype by cropping system interactions in bean URL http://exploreit.icrisat.org/page/diversifica- and maize systems. Michigan State University. tion/917/551 (accessed 5.21.15). Jacobsen, S.-E., Sørensen, M., Pedersen, S.M., Wein- IFPRI, 2015. Global nutrition report actions and ac- er, J., 2013. Feeding the world: genetically modified countability to advance nutrition & sustainable de- crops versus agricultural biodiversity. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 33, 651–662. doi:10.1007/ velopment. International Food Policy Research Insti- s13593-013-0138-9 tute, Washington, D.C. Jaffee, D., Howard, P.H., 2010. Corporate coopta- IFPRI, 2012. ASTI global assessment of agriculture tion of organic and fair trade standards. Agricul- R&D spending: Developing countries accelerate in- ture and Human Values 27, 387–399. doi:10.1007/ vestment. International Food Policy Research Insti- s10460-009-9231-8 tute, Washington, D.C. James, C., 2014. Global status of commercialized bio- IFPRI, 2002. Green revolution - cursing or blessing (Is- tech/GM crops: 2014 (ISAAA Brief No. 49-2014). In- sue Brief No. 11). International Food Policy Research ternational Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications. Institute, Washington, DC. Jamil, A., Riaz, S., Ashraf, M., Foolad, M.R., 2011. Gene IIED, 2011. Adapting agriculture with traditional expression profiling of plants under salt stress. Criti- knowledge. International Institute for Environment cal Reviews in Plant Sciences 30, 435–458. doi:10.108 and Development, London. 0/07352689.2011.605739
ILO, 2015. Combating forced labour: A handbook for Johnson, N.W., Parsons, M.S., 1963. Planning the employers and business. International Labour Orga- farm for profit and stability. US Department of Agri- nization, Geneva. culture, Washington, D.C.
ILO, 2008. Green jobs: towards decent work in a sus- Johnston, G., Vaupel, S., Kegel, F., Cadet, M., 1995. tainable, low-carbon world (Report). International Crop and farm diversification provide social benefits. California Agriculture 49, 10–16. Labour Organization. Johns, T., Powell, B., Maundu, P., Eyzaguirre, P.B., ILO, 2010. Accelerating action against child labour; 2013. Agricultural biodiversity as a link between Global Report under the follow-up to the ILO Decla- traditional food systems and contemporary de- ration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work velopment, social integrity and ecological health. - 2010 (Report). International Labour Organization, J. Sci. Food Agric. 93, 3433–3442. doi:10.1002/ Geneva, Switzerland. jsfa.6351
82 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY Jones, A.D., Shrinivas, A., Bezner-Kerr, R., 2014. Kremen, C., Miles, A., 2012. Ecosystem services in Farm production diversity is associated with greater biologically diversified versus conventional -farm household dietary diversity in Malawi: Findings from ing systems: benefits, externalities, and trade-offs. nationally representative data. Food Policy 46, 1–12. Ecology and Society 17. doi:10.5751/ES-05035- doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.02.001 170440
Jones, B.A., Grace, D., Kock, R., Alonso, S., Rushton, Kromm, D., 2000. Ogallala Aquifer - depth, import- J., Said, M.Y., McKeever, D., Mutua, F., Young, J., Mc- ant, system, source [WWW Document]. Water Ency- Dermott, J., Pfeiffer, D.U., 2013. Zoonosis emergence clopedia. URL http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/ linked to agricultural intensification and environ- Oc-Po/Ogallala-Aquifer.html (accessed 4.22.16). mental change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110, 8399–8404. doi:10.1073/pnas.1208059110 Kumar, N., Harris, J., Rawat, R., 2015. If they grow it, will they eat and grow? Evidence from ambia on agri- Jordan, N., Grossman, J., Lawrence, P., Harmon, A., cultural diversity and child undernutrition. The Jour- Dyer, W., Maxwell, B., Cadieux, K.V., Galt, R., Rojas, nal of Development Studies 51, 1060–1077. doi:10.1 A., Byker, C., others, 2014. New curricula for under- 080/00220388.2015.1018901 graduate food-systems education: a sustainable agriculture education perspective. NACTA Journal Lagane, J., 2011. Du teikei à l’AMAP, un modèle ac- 58, 302. culturé. Développement durable et territoires. Économie, géographie, politique, droit, sociologie 2. Kafkas, S., Kaska, N., Wassimi, A.N., Padulosi, S., doi:10.4000/developpementdurable.9013 2006. Molecular characterisation of Afghan pistachio accessions by amplified fragment length polymor- Lambin, E.F., Meyfroidt, P., 2011. Global land use phisms (AFLPs). Journal of Horticultural Science & change, economic globalization, and the looming Biotechnology 81, 864–868. land scarcity. Proceedings of the National Acad- emy of Sciences 108, 3465–3472. doi:10.1073/ Kaushal, N., Muchomba, F.M., 2015. How consumer pnas.1100480108 price subsidies affect nutrition. World Development 74, 25–42. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.04.006 Lampkin, N., Pearce, B., Leake, A., Creissen, H., Gerrard, C., Girling, R., Lloyd, S., Padel, S., Smith, J., Khan, Z., Midega, C., Pittchar, J., Pickett, J., Bruce, T., Smith, L., Vieweger, A., Wolfe, M., 2015. The role of 2011. Push–pull technology: a conservation agricul- agroecology in sustainable intensification, Report ture approach for integrated management of insect for the Land Use Policy Group. Organic Research pests, weeds and soil health in Africa. Internation- Centre, Elm Farm and Game & Wildlife Conserva- al Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 9, 162–170. tion Trust. doi:10.3763/ijas.2010.0558 Lawrence, G., Dixon, J., 2015. Chapter 11: The politi- Khoury, C.K., Bjorkman, A.D., Dempewolf, H., cal economy of agri-food: Supermarkets, in: Bonan- Ramirez-Villegas, J., Guarino, L., Jarvis, A., Rieseberg, no, A., Busch, L. (Eds.), Handbook of the International L.H., Struik, P.C., 2014. Increasing homogeneity in Political Economy of Agriculture and Food. Edward global food supplies and the implications for food Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 213–231. security. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 4001–4006. Leach, G., 1992. Energy and the Third World. The energy transition. Energy Policy 20, 116–123. King, J.L., Toole, A.A., Fuglie, K.O., 2012. The comple- doi:10.1016/0301-4215(92)90105-B mentary roles of the public and private sectors in US agricultural research and development. Lecours, N., Almeida, G.E.G., Abdallah, J.M., Novotny, T.E., 2012. Environmental health impacts of tobacco Klümper, W., Qaim, M., 2014. A meta-analysis of the farming: a review of the literature. Tob Control 21, impacts of genetically modified crops. PLoS ONE 9, 191–196. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050318 e111629. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111629 Lee, J., Gereffi, G., Beauvais, J., 2012. Global val- Krausmann, F., Gingrich, S., Eisenmenger, N., Erb, K.- ue chains and agrifood standards: Challenges H., Haberl, H., Fischer-Kowalski, M., 2009. Growth in and possibilities for smallholders in developing global materials use, GDP and population during the countries. PNAS 109, 12326–12331. doi:10.1073/ 20th century. Ecological Economics 68, 2696–2705. pnas.0913714108 doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.007 Les Compagnons de la Terre, 2016. L’argent ne se Kremen, C., 2015. Reframing the land-sparing/ mange pas, cultivons-le ! land-sharing debate for biodiversity conserva- tion. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1355, 52–76. doi:10.1111/ Lines, T., 2008. Making Poverty: A History. Zed Books, nyas.12845 London.
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 83 Lipton, M., 1977. Why poor people stay poor : a study McMichael, P., 2012. The land grab and corporate food of urban bias in world development. Australian Na- regime restructuring. The Journal of Peasant Studies tional University Press, Canberra. 39, 681–701. doi:10.1080/03066150.2012.661369
Liverani, M., Waage, J., Barnett, T., Pfeiffer, D.U., Mekonnen, M.M., Hoekstra, A.Y., 2012. A global as- Rushton, J., Rudge, J.W., Loevinsohn, M.E., Scoones, sessment of the water footprint of farm animal prod- I., Smith, R.D., Cooper, B.S., White, L.J., Goh, S., Hor- ucts. Ecosystems 15, 401–415. doi:10.1007/s10021- by, P., Wren, B., Gundogdu, O., Woods, A., Coker, 011-9517-8 R.J., 2013. Understanding and managing zoonotic risk in the new livestock industries. Environmen- Méndez, V.E., Bacon, C.M., Cohen, R., 2013. Agro- tal Health Perspectives 121, 873–877. doi:10.1289/ ecology as a transdisciplinary, participatory, and ehp.1206001 action-oriented approach. Agroecology and Sus- tainable Food Systems 37, 3–18. doi:10.1080/1044 Luck, G.W., Daily, G.C., Ehrlich, P.R., 2003. Population 0046.2012.736926 diversity and ecosystem services. Trends in Ecol- ogy & Evolution 18, 331–336. doi:10.1016/S0169- Merckx, T., Pereira, H.M., 2015. Reshaping agri-en- 5347(03)00100-9 vironmental subsidies: From marginal farming to large-scale rewilding. Basic and Applied Ecology 16, Lundqvist, J., de Fraiture, C., Molden, D., others, 95–103. doi:10.1016/j.baae.2014.12.003 2008. Saving water: from field to fork: curbing loss- es and wastage in the food chain, SIWI Policy Brief. Mijatović, D., Van Oudenhoven, F., Eyzaguirre, P., Stockholm International Water Institute, Stock- Hodgkin, T., 2013. The role of agricultural biodiver- holm. sity in strengthening resilience to climate change: towards an analytical framework. International Maggio, A., Criekinge, T.V., Malingreau, J.P., 2015. Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 11, 95–107. Global food security 2030 assessing trends in view of doi:10.1080/14735903.2012.691221 guiding future EU policies. Publications Office, Lux- embourg. Milder, J.C., Hart, A.K., Dobie, P., Minai, J., Zaleski, C., 2014. Integrated landscape initiatives for Afri- Massachusetts Workforce Alliance, Metropolitan can agriculture, development, and conservation: a Area Planning Council, Franklin Regional Council of region-wide assessment. World Development 54, Governments, Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, 2015. Massachusetts Local Food Action Plan. 68–80. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.07.006
Masters, W.A., Djurfeldt, A.A., De Haan, C., Hazell, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Ed.), 2005. Eco- P., Jayne, T., Jirström, M., Reardon, T., 2013. Urban- systems and human well-being: synthesis. Island ization and farm size in Asia and Africa: Implica- Press, Washington, D.C. tions for food security and agricultural research. Miller, G., Spoolman, S., 2011. Living in the environ- Global Food Security 2, 156–165. doi:10.1016/j. ment: principles, connections, and solutions. Cen- gfs.2013.07.002 gage Learning. Mayes, S., Massawe, F.J., Alderson, P.G., Roberts, J.A., Ministère français de l’agriculture, de l’alimenta- Azam-Ali, S.N., Hermann, M., 2012. The potential for tion, de la pêche, de la ruralité et de l’aménagement underutilized crops to improve security of food pro- du territoire, Ministère de l’écologie, du développe- duction. Journal of Experimental Botany 63, 1075– ment durable, des transports et du logment, 2012. 1079. doi:10.1093/jxb/err396 Bilan des connaissances scientifiques sur les caus- Mazoyer, M., Roudart, L., 2006. A history of world ag- es de prolifération de macroalgues vertes - Appli- riculture: from the neolithic age to the current crisis. cation à la situation de la Bretagne et propositions. Earthscan. Ministère de l’agriculture, de l’alimentation, de la pêche, de la ruralité et de l’aménagement du terri- McArthur, J., McCord, G., 2014. Fertilizing growth: toire/CGAAER, Paris. agricultural inputs and their effects in economic development (Brookings Working Paper No. 70). Monsalve Suárez, S., Emanuelli, M.S., 2009. Brookings. Monocultures and human rights: guide for docu- menting violations of the right to adequate food McDonald’s, 2015. Agroecological strategy McDon- and housing, to water, to land, and territory re- ald’s France: Making progress together. lated to monocultures for industrial agriculture McKeon, N., 2014. Food security governance: Em- production. FIAN International and Habitat Inter- powering communities, regulating corporations. national Coalation Regional Office Latin America, Routledge, London and New York. Heidelberg.
84 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY Monsanto, 2015. Growing population, growing chal- O’Brien, K., Reams, J., Caspari, A., Dugmore, A., lenges [WWW Document]. URL http://www.monsan- Faghihimani, M., Fazey, I., Hackmann, H., Man- to.com/improvingagriculture/pages/growing-popu- uel-Navarrete, D., Marks, J., Miller, R., Raivio, K., lations-growing-challenges.aspx (accessed 4.12.15). Romero-Lankao, P., Virji, H., Vogel, C., Winiwarter, V., 2013. You say you want a revolution? Transform- Münke, C., Halloran, A., Vantomme, P., Evans, J., ing education and capacity building in response to Reade, B., Flore, R., Rittman, R., Lindén, A., Geor- global change. Environmental Science & Policy, giadis, P., Irving, M., 2015. Wild ideas in food, in: Special Issue: Responding to the Challenges of our Sloan, P., Legrand, W., Hindley, C. (Eds.), The Rout- Unstable Earth (RESCUE) 28, 48–59. doi:10.1016/j. ledge Handbook of Sustainable Food and Gastrono- envsci.2012.11.011 my. Routledge, New York, pp. 206–213.
Murphy-Bokern, D., 2010. Understanding the carbon Olney, D.K., Pedehombga, A., Ruel, M.T., Dillon, A., footprint of our food. Complete Nutrition 10. 2015. A 2-year integrated agriculture and nutrition and health behavior change communication pro- Murphy, S., Burch, David, Clapp, Jennifer, 2012. Ce- gram targeted to women in Burkina Faso reduces real secrets. The world’s largest grain traders and anemia, wasting, and diarrhea in children 3–12.9 global agriculture (Oxfam Research Reports). Oxfam months of age at baseline: a cluster-randomized International. controlled trial. J. Nutr. 145, 1317–1324. doi:10.3945/ jn.114.203539 Murray Li, T., 2009. Exit from agriculture: a step forward or a step backward for the rural poor? O’Neill, J.R., 2010. Irish potato famine. ABDO. The Journal of Peasant Studies 36, 629–636. doi:10.1080/03066150903142998 OpenSecrets, 2016. Open Secrets lobbying data by sector [WWW Document]. Open Secrets - Center Murray, R., Godfrey, K.M., Lillycrop, K.A., 2015. The for Responsive Politics. URL https://www.open- early life origins of cardiovascular disease. Current secrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=c&show- Cardiovascular Risk Reports 9, 1–8. doi:10.1007/ Year=2015 s12170-015-0442-9 Organic Trade Association, 2015. State of the organic Muscio, A., Quaglione, D., Vallanti, G., 2013. Does industry 2015. government funding complement or substitute pri- vate research funding to universities? Research Poli- Owens, K., Feldman, J., Kepner, J., 2010. Wide range cy 42, 63–75. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.04.010 of diseases linked to pesticides. Pesticides and You 30, 13–21. Naseem, A., Spielman, D.J., Omamo, S.W., 2010. Pri- vate-sector investment in R&D: a review of policy Oya, C., 2015. Chapter 2 - rural labour markets and options to promote its growth in developing-country agricultural wage employment in semi-arid Africa, in: agriculture. Agribusiness 26, 143–173. doi:10.1002/ Oya, C., Pontara, N. (Eds.), Rural Wage Employment agr.20221 in Developing Countries: Theory, Evidence, and Poli- cy. Routledge, New York, pp. 37–68. National Trust, 2015. What’s your beef? National Trust. Oyarzun, P.J., Borja, R.M., Sherwood, S., Parra, V., NCD Alliance, 2012. NCD alliance briefing paper: 2013. Making sense of agrobiodiversity, diet, and tackling non-communicable diseases to enhance intensification of smallholder family farming in the sustainable development. Highland Andes of Ecuador. Ecol Food Nutr 52, 515– 541. doi:10.1080/03670244.2013.769099 Nelson, E., Scott, S., Cukier, J., Galán, Á.L., 2008. Insti- tutionalizing agroecology: successes and challenges Papademetriou, M., Dent, F. (Eds.), 2001. Crop diver- in Cuba. Agric Hum Values 26, 233–243. doi:10.1007/ sification in Asia Pacific, Regional Office for Asia and s10460-008-9156-7 the Pacific. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Bangkok, Thailand. Nene, Y.L., 2012. Significant milestones in evolution of agriculture in the world. Asian Agricultural History Parmentier, S., 2014. Scaling-up agroecological ap- 16, 219–35. proaches: what, why and how? Oxfam-Solidarity, Brussels. Nicholls, C., Altieri, M., 2004. Designing species-rich, pest-suppressive agroecosystems through habitat Parris, K., 2011. Impact of agriculture on water pol- management, in: Rickerl, D., Francis, C. (Eds.), Agro- lution in OECD countries: recent trends and future ecosystems Analysis. American Society of Agrono- prospects. International Journal of Water Resources my-Crop Science Society of America-Soil Science So- Development 27, 33–52. doi:10.1080/07900627.2010 ciety of America, Madison, WI, pp. 49–61. .531898
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 85 Pellegrini, L., Tasciotti, L., 2014. Crop diversification, Pretty, J., Smith, J., 2004. Social capital in biodiversity dietary diversity and agricultural income: empirical conservation and management. Conservation Biolo- evidence from eight developing countries. Canadian gy 18, 631–638. Journal of Development Studies / Revue canadienne d’études du développement 35, 211–227. doi:10.108 Pretty, J., Toulmin, C., Williams, S., 2011. Sustain- 0/02255189.2014.898580 able intensification in African agriculture. Interna- tional Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 9, 5–24. Picasso, V.D., Brummer, E.C., Liebman, M., Dixon, doi:10.3763/ijas.2010.0583 P.M., Wilsey, B.J., 2008. Crop species diversity affects productivity and weed suppression in perennial poly- Prieto, I., Violle, C., Barre, P., Durand, J.-L., Ghesqui- cultures under two management strategies. Crop ere, M., Litrico, I., 2015. Complementary effects of Science 48, 331. doi:10.2135/cropsci2007.04.0225 species and genetic diversity on productivity and stability of sown grasslands. Nature Plants 1, 15033. Piesse, J., Thirtle, C., 2010. Agricultural R&D, technol- doi:10.1038/nplants.2015.33 ogy and productivity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences PR Watch, 2015. The Silencing of Hector Valenzuela 365, 3035–3047. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0140 [WWW Document]. PR Watch The Center for Me- dia and Democracy. URL http://www.prwatch.org/ Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D., Se- news/2015/04/12803/silencing-hector-valenzuela idel, R., 2005. Environmental, energetic, and econom- (accessed 2.8.16). ic comparisons of organic and conventional farm- ing systems. BioScience 55, 573–582. doi:10.1007/ Quist, D., Heinemann, J., Myhr, A., Aslaksen, I., Fun- BF01965614 towicz, 2013. Hungry for innovation: pathways from GM crops to agroecology, in: Late Lessons from Early Pimentel, D.P., Pimentel, M.H. (Eds.), 2007. Food, Warnings: Science, Precaution, Innovation. Publica- energy, and society, 3 edition. ed. CRC Press, Boca tions Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Raton, FL. Rahman, S., 2009. Whether crop diversification is a Pollack, A., 2009. Crop scientists say biotechnology desired strategy for agricultural growth in Bangla- seed companies are thwarting research. The New desh? Food Policy 34, 340–349. doi:10.1016/j.food- York Times. pol.2009.02.004
Pollinis, 2015. Les résistances aux pesticides. Pollinis. Ray, D.K., Ramankutty, N., Mueller, N.D., West, P.C., Popkin, B.M., Adair, L.S., Ng, S.W., 2012. Global nu- Foley, J.A., 2012. Recent patterns of crop yield growth trition transition and the pandemic of obesity in and stagnation. Nat Commun 3, 1293. doi:10.1038/ developing countries. Nutrition Reviews 70, 3–21. ncomms2296 doi:10.1111/j.1753-4887.2011.00456.x Reardon, T., Timmer, C.P., Barrett, C.B., Berdegué, Potts, J., Lynch, M., Wilkings, A., Huppé, G.A., Cun- J., 2003. The rise of supermarkets in Africa, Asia, ningham, M., Voora, V.A., 2014. The state of sus- and Latin America. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 85, 1140–1146. tainability initiatives review 2014: standards and the doi:10.1111/j.0092-5853.2003.00520.x green economy. International Institute for Sustain- Reganold, J.P., Wachter, J.M., 2016. Organic agricul- able Development (IISD) & International Institute for ture in the twenty-first century. Nature Plants 2, Evironment and Development, Winnipeg & London. 15221. doi:10.1038/nplants.2015.221 Powell, B., Thilsted, S.H., Ickowitz, A., Termote, C., Remans, R., Flynn, D.F.B., DeClerck, F., Diru, W., Fanzo, Sunderland, T., Herforth, A., 2015. Improving diets J., Gaynor, K., Lambrecht, I., Mudiope, J., Mutuo, P.K., with wild and cultivated biodiversity from across the Nkhoma, P., Siriri, D., Sullivan, C., Palm, C.A., 2011. landscape. Food Security 7, 535–554. doi:10.1007/ Assessing nutritional diversity of cropping systems s12571-015-0466-5 in African villages. PLoS ONE 6, e21235. doi:10.1371/ Pretty, J., 2015. No 40: Integrated pest management journal.pone.0021235 (IPM) and farmer field schools. Renwick, A., Islam, M., Thomson, S., 2012. Power in Pretty, J., 2006. Agroecological approaches to agricul- agriculture: resources, economics and politics. A re- tural development. port prepared for the Oxford Farming Conference, UK. Pretty, J.N., Noble, A.D., Bossio, D., Dixon, J., Hine, R.E., Penning de Vries, F.W.T., Morison, J.I.L., 2006. Richards, M., 2013. Social and environmental im- Resource-conserving agriculture increases yields pacts of agricultural large-scale land acquisitions in developing countries. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, in Africa—with a focus on West and Central Africa. 1114–1119. doi:10.1021/es051670d Rights and Resources Initiative, Washington, D.C.
86 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY Robertson, M., Carberry, P., Brennan, L., 2007. Eco- Russelle, M.P., Entz, M.H., Franzluebbers, A.J., nomic benefits of variable rate technology: case 2007. Reconsidering integrated crop–livestock sys- studies from Australian grain farms. Commonwealth tems in North America. Agronomy Journal 99, 325. Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Can- doi:10.2134/agronj2006.0139 berra. Sachs, W., 1992. The development dictionary: a guide Rockstrom, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., to knowledge as power. Zed Books. Chapin, F.S., Lambin, E.F., Lenton, T.M., Scheffer, M., Sanchez-García, M., Royo, C., Aparicio, N., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C.A., Martín-Sánchez, J.A., Álvaro, F., 2013. Genetic im- Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sorlin, S., provement of bread wheat yield and associated Snyder, P.K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., traits in Spain during the 20th century. The Journal Karlberg, L., Corell, R.W., Fabry, V.J., Hansen, J., Walk- of Agricultural Science 151, 105–118. doi:10.1017/ er, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., Foley, S0021859612000330 J.A., 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Na- ture 461, 472–475. doi:10.1038/461472a Satin, M., 2007. Death in the pot: the impact of food poisoning on history, 1 edition. ed. Prometheus Rodale Institute, 2015. The farming systems trial. Books, Amherst, N.Y. Rodell, M., Velicogna, I., Famiglietti, J.S., 2009. Satel- Scanlon, B.R., Faunt, C.C., Longuevergne, L., Reedy, lite-based estimates of groundwater depletion in In- R.C., Alley, W.M., McGuire, V.L., McMahon, P.B., 2012. dia. Nature 460, 999–1002. doi:10.1038/nature08238 Groundwater depletion and sustainability of irriga- Roels, S., De Meyer, G., Vanopdenbosch, E., 2001. tion in the US High Plains and Central Valley. Pro- Encéphalopathie spongiforme bovine et variante de ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, la maladie Creutzfeldt-Jakob: quelques informations 9320–9325. doi:10.1073/pnas.1200311109 concernant l’origine, le diagnostic, l’épidémiologie, Scarascia-Mugnozza GT, Perrino P, 2002. The history l’analyse du risque et l’avenir. Ann. Méd. Vét 145, of ex situ conservation and use of plant genetic re- 333–341. sources, in: Engels, J., Ramanatha, R., Brown, A.H.D., ROPPA, 2013. Family farmers for sustainable food Jackson, M.T. (Eds.), Managing Plant Genetic Diversi- systems. A synthesis of reports by African farmers’ ty. Bioversity International. regional networks on models of food production, Schenker, M., 2011. Migration and occupation- consumption and markets. ROPPA, EAFF, PROPAC, al health: understanding the risks [WWW Doc- Rome. ument]. migrationpolicy.org. URL http://www. Rosset, P.M., Martínez-Torres, M.E., 2012. Rural so- migrationpolicy.org/article/migration-and-occupa- cial movements and agroecology: context, theory, tional-health-understanding-risks (accessed 9.17.15). and process. Ecology and Society 17. doi:10.5751/ Scherr, S.J., McNeely, J.A., 2012. Farming with nature: ES-05000-170317 the science and practice of ecoagriculture. Island Rosset, P.M., Sosa, B.M., Jaime, A.M.R., Lozano, D.R.Á., Press, Washington, D.C. 2011. The Campesino-to-Campesino agroecology Scherr, S.J., McNeely, J.A., 2008. Biodiversity con- movement of ANAP in Cuba: social process methodol- servation and agricultural sustainability: towards a ogy in the construction of sustainable peasant agricul- new paradigm of “ecoagriculture” landscapes. Philo- ture and food sovereignty. The Journal of Peasant Stud- sophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London ies 38, 161–191. doi:10.1080/03066150.2010.538584 B: Biological Sciences 363, 477–494. doi:10.1098/ Roy Chowdhury, P., McKinnon, J., Wyrsch, E., Ham- rstb.2007.2165 mond, J.M., Charles, I.G., Djordjevic, S.P., 2014. Schneider, M.K., Lüscher, G., Jeanneret, P., Arndor- Genomic interplay in bacterial communities: im- fer, M., Ammari, Y., Bailey, D., Balázs, K., Báldi, A., plications for growth promoting practices in an- Choisis, J.-P., Dennis, P., Eiter, S., Fjellstad, W., Fraser, imal husbandry. Front Microbiol 5. doi:10.3389/ M.D., Frank, T., Friedel, J.K., Garchi, S., Geijzendorffer, fmicb.2014.00394 I.R., Gomiero, T., Gonzalez-Bornay, G., Hector, A., RUAF Foundation, 2015. Urban Agriculture Magazine. Jerkovich, G., Jongman, R.H.G., Kakudidi, E., Kainz, M., Kovács-Hostyánszki, A., Moreno, G., Nkwiine, C., Rudel, T.K., Schneider, L., Uriarte, M., Turner, B.L., Opio, J., Oschatz, M.-L., Paoletti, M.G., Pointereau, P., DeFries, R., Lawrence, D., Geoghegan, J., Hecht, S., Pulido, F.J., Sarthou, J.-P., Siebrecht, N., Sommaggio, Ickowitz, A., Lambin, E.F., others, 2009. Agricultur- D., Turnbull, L.A., Wolfrum, S., Herzog, F., 2014. Gains al intensification and changes in cultivated areas, to species diversity in organically farmed fields are 1970–2005. Proceedings of the National Academy of not propagated at the farm level. Nat Commun 5, Sciences 106, 20675–20680. 4151. doi:10.1038/ncomms5151
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 87 Schnell, S.M., 2013. Food miles, local eating, and com- Snapp, S., Pound, B., 2011. Agricultural systems: munity supported agriculture: putting local food in agroecology and rural innovation for development: its place. Agric Hum Values 30, 615–628. doi:10.1007/ agroecology and rural innovation for development. s10460-013-9436-8 Academic Press.
Schoonover, H., Muller, M., 2006. Food without Snapp, S.S., Fisher, M., 2014. “Filling the maize bas- thought: how US farm policy contributes to obesity. ket” supports crop diversity and quality of house- hold diet in Malawi. Food Sec. 7, 83–96. doi:10.1007/ Schwarzer, S., Witt, R., Zommers, Z., UNEP, 2012. s12571-014-0410-0 Growing greenhouse gas emissions due to meat production. UNEP Global Environmental Alert Ser- Soil Association, 2006. Organic works: Providing vice (GEAS). more jobs through organic farming and local food supply. Social Association, Bristol. Sen, A., 1981. Poverty and famines: an essay on en- titlement and deprivation. Oxford University Press, Sosa, B.M., Jaime, A.M.R., Lozano, D.R.Á., Rosset, P., New York. 2010. Revolución agroecológica: el movimiento de campesino a campesino de la ANAP en Cuba. La Via Shannon, K.L., Kim, B.F., McKenzie, S.E., Lawrence, Campesina and ANAP, Havana. R.S., 2015. Food system policy, public health, and human rights in the United States. Annual Re- Springbett, A.J., MacKenzie, K., Woolliams, J.A., Bish- view of Public Health 36, 151–173. doi:10.1146/an- op, S.C., 2003. The contribution of genetic diversity nurev-publhealth-031914-122621 to the spread of infectious diseases in livestock pop- ulations. Genetics 165, 1465–1474. Sharma, S., 2014. The need for feed: China’s demand for industrialized meat and its impacts (Global Meet Średnicka-Tober, D., Barański, M., Seal, C.J., Sanderson, Complex: The China Series). Institute for Agriculture R., Benbrook, C., Steinshamn, H., Gromadzka-Ostrows- and Trade Policy, Washington, D.C. ka, J., Rembiałkowska, E., Skwarło-Sońta, K., Eyre, M., Cozzi, G., Larsen, M.K., Jordon, T., Niggli, U., Sakowski, Shively, G., Sununtnasik, C., 2015. Agricultural diver- T., Calder, P.C., Burdge, G.C., Sotiraki, S., Stefanakis, sity and child stunting in nepal. Journal of Devlop- A., Stergiadis, S., Yolcu, H., Chatzidimitriou, E., Butler, ment Studies 51. G., Stewart, G., Leifert, C., 2016a. Higher PUFA and n-3 Sibhatu, K.T., Krishna, V.V., Qaim, M., 2015. Pro- PUFA, conjugated linoleic acid, α-tocopherol and iron, duction diversity and dietary diversity in small- but lower iodine and selenium concentrations in or- holder farm households. PNAS 112, 10657–10662. ganic milk: a systematic literature review and meta- doi:10.1073/pnas.1510982112 and redundancy analyses. British Journal of Nutrition 115, 1043–1060. doi:10.1017/S0007114516000349 Smil, V., 2001. Feeding the world: a challenge for the twenty-first century. MIT Press, Boston, Massachu- Średnicka-Tober, D., Barański, M., Seal, C., Sand- setts. erson, R., Benbrook, C., Steinshamn, H., Gromadz- ka-Ostrowska, J., Rembiałkowska, E., Skwarło-Sońta, Smith, J.W., Sones, K., Grace, D., MacMillan, S., Tar- K., Eyre, M., Cozzi, G., Krogh Larsen, M., Jordon, T., awali, S.A., Herrero, M., 2013. Beyond milk, meat, Niggli, U., Sakowski, T., Calder, P.C., Burdge, G.C., and eggs: Role of livestock in food and nutrition Sotiraki, S., Stefanakis, A., Yolcu, H., Stergiadis, S., security. Animal Frontiers 3, 6–13. doi:http://dx.doi. Chatzidimitriou, E., Butler, G., Stewart, G., Leifert, C., org/10.2527/af.2013-0002 2016b. Composition differences between organic Smith, P., Bustamente, H., Ahammad, H., Clark, H., and conventional meat: a systematic literature re- Dong, H., Elsiddig, E., Haberl, H., Harper, R., House, view and meta-analysis. British Journal of Nutrition J., Jafari, M., Masera, O., Mbow, C., Ravindranath, 115, 994–1011. doi:10.1017/S0007114515005073 C., Rice, C., Robledo Abad, C., Romanovskaya, A., Statistics Canada, 2014. Canadian agriculture at a Sperling, F., Tubiello, F., 2014. Agriculture, Forest- glance [WWW Document]. Statistics Canada. URL ry and Other Land Use (AFOLU), in: Edenhofer, O., http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/96-325-x/2014001/ar- Pichs-Madruga, Y., Sokona, Y., Farahani, E., Kadner, ticle/11905-eng.htm (accessed 5.23.15). S., Seyboth, K., Adler, A., I Baum, Brunner, S., Eicke- meier, P., Kriemann, B., Savolainen, S., Schlömer, S., Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, von Stechow, C., Zwickel, T., Minx, J. (Eds.), Climate S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E.M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S.R., Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contri- Vries, W. de, Wit, C.A. de, Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, bution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment J., Mace, G.M., Persson, L.M., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate B., Sörlin, S., 2015. Planetary boundaries: guiding Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, human development on a changing planet. Science United Kingdom and New York, Ny, USA. 347, 1259855. doi:10.1126/science.1259855
88 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY Steinfeld, H., Wassenaar, T., Jutzi, S., 2006. Livestock Tirado, R., Cotter, J., 2010. Ecological farming: production systems in developing countries: status, Drought-resistant agriculture (No. GRL-TN 02/2010). drivers, trends. Revue Scientifique et Technique 25, Greenpeace Research Laboratories, University of Ex- 505–516. eter, UK.
Tadele, Z., Assefa, K., 2012. Increasing food produc- Tollens, E., Tavernier, J.D.T., 2006. World food se- tion in Africa by boosting the productivity of under- curity and agriculture in a globalizing world. Chal- studied crops. Agronomy 2, 240–283. doi:10.3390/ lenges and ethics. Ethical Perspectives 13, 93–117. agronomy2040240 doi:10.2143/EP.13.1.2011788
Talukder, A., Kiess, L., Huq, N., Pee, S. de, Darn- Torheim, L.E., Ouattara, F., Diarra, M.M., Thiam, F.D., ton-Hill, I., Bloem, M.W., 2000. Increasing the pro- Barikmo, I., Hatløy, A., Oshaug, A., 2004. Nutrient duction and consumption of Vitamin A —rich adequacy and dietary diversity in rural Mali: associ- fruits and vegetables: lessons learned in taking the ation and determinants. Eur J Clin Nutr 58, 594–604. Bangladesh homestead gardening programme doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1601853 to a national scale. Food Nutr Bull 21, 165–172. Toronto Food Policy Council, 2016. Toronto Food Pol- doi:10.1177/156482650002100210 icy Council. Tengö, M., Belfrage, 2004. Local management prac- Truax, A., Bliss, A., Gupta, 2011. High fructose corn tices for dealing with change and uncertainty - a syrup. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry 23, 228–229. cross-scale comparison of cases in Sweden and Tan- zania. Ecology and Society. Ullstrup, A.J., 1972. The impacts of the southern corn leaf blight epidemics of 1970-1971. Annual Review Thaxton, M., Forster, T., Hazlewood, P., Mercado, L., of Phytopathology 10, 37–50. doi:10.1146/annurev. Neely, C., Scherr, S., Wertz, L., Wood, S., Zandri, E., py.10.090172.000345 2015. EcoAgriculture Partners | Landscape Partner- ships for Sustainable Development. UNCCD, 2012. Zero net land degradation: a sus- tainable development goal for rio +20. United Thornton, P.K., 2012. Recalibrating food produc- Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, tion in the developing world: global warming will Bonn. change more than just the climate (CCAFS Pol- icy Briefs No. 06). CGIAR Research Program on UNCTAD, 2013. Commodities and development re- Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security port: perennial problems, new challenges and evolv- (CCAFS). ing perspectives (No. UNCTAD/SUC/2011/9). United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Thornton, P.K., 2010. Livestock production: recent New York and Geneva. trends, future prospects. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences UNCTAD, U.N.C. on T. and D., 2002. Escaping the 365, 2853–2867. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0134 poverty trap, The least developed countries report. United Nations, New York. Thresh, J. (Ed.), 2006. Plant virus epidemiology. Aca- demic Press, London. UNEP, 2015. Sustainable Food Systems Programme [WWW Document]. URL http://www.unep.org/10yfp/ Thrupp, L.A., 2000. Linking agricultural biodiversity Programmes/ProgrammeConsultationandCurrent- and food security: the valuable role of sustainable Status/Sustainablefoodsystems/tabid/1036781/De- agriculture. International Affairs (Royal Institute of fault.aspx (accessed 4.4.16). International Affairs 1944-) 76, 265–281. UNEP, 2012. The end to cheap oil: a threat to Thundiyil, J., Stober, J., Besbelli, N., Pronczuk, J., 2008. food security and an incentive to reduce fossil fu- Acute pesticide poisoning: a proposed classification els in agriculture [WWW Document]. UNEP Sioux tool. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 86, Falls. URL http://na.unep.net/geas/getUNEPPage- 205–209. doi:10.2471/BLT.07.041814 WithArticleIDScript.php?article_id=81 (accessed Tilman, D., Reich, P.B., Knops, J., Wedin, D., Mielke, 8.30.15). T., Lehman, C., 2001. Diversity and productivity in a Union of Concerned Scientists, 2015a. Fixing our long-term grassland experiment. Science 294, 843– broken food system: the plate of the Union Initiative 845. doi:10.1126/science.1060391 [WWW Document]. Union of Concerned Scientists. Timmer, C.P., 2015. Managing the structural trans- URL http://www.ucsusa.org/food-agriculture/fixing- formation: a political economy approach, WIDER an- our-broken-food-system-plate-of-the-union-initia- nual lecture. UNU-WIDER, Helsinki. tive (accessed 2.8.16).
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 89 Union of Concerned Scientists, 2015b. Scientist and Vermeulen, S.J., Campbell, B.M., Ingram, J.S.I., 2012. expert statement of support for public investment Climate change and food systems. Annual Re- in agroecological research [WWW Document]. URL view of Environment and Resources 37, 195–222. http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/ doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-020411-130608 assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/scien- Vigouroux, Y., Barnaud, A., Scarcelli, N., Thuillet, A.-C., tist-statement-agroecology-7-2-2014.pdf 2011. Biodiversity, evolution and adaptation of cul- USDA, 2016a. USDA Economic Research Service - tivated crops. Comptes Rendus Biologies, Biodiver- Food expenditures [WWW Document]. URL http:// sity in face of human activities / La biodiversite face www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-expendi- aux activites humaines 334, 450–457. doi:10.1016/j. tures.aspx#26654 (accessed 4.28.16). crvi.2011.03.003
USDA, 2016b. USDA Economic Research Service Wade, R.H., 2003. What strategies are viable for - US agricultural productivity 1948-2011 [WWW developing countries today? The World Trade Document]. URL http://www.ers.usda.gov/am- Organization and the shrinking of “development ber-waves/2014-januaryfebruary/agricultural-pro- space” (No. 1, 31), Crisis States Research Centre ductivity-growth-in-the-united-states-1948-2011. working papers series. Crisis States Research Cen- aspx#.V0LO51eO6T8 (accessed 4.28.16). tre, London.
USDA, 2016c. USDA Economic Research Service - Wallinga, D., 2010. Agricultural policy and child- Highlights from the farm income forecast [WWW hood obesity: a food systems and public health Document]. URL http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/ commentary. Health Aff 29, 405–410. doi:10.1377/ farm-economy/farm-sector-income-finances/high- hlthaff.2010.0102 lights-from-the-farm-income-forecast.aspx (ac- Waltz, E., 2009. GM crops: Battlefield. Nature News cessed 3.15.16). 461, 27–32. doi:10.1038/461027a
USDA, 2014. New data reflects the continued- de Watson, E., 2015. USDA, HHS: 2015 dietary guide- mand for farmers markets [WWW Document]. URL lines won’t factor in sustainability [WWW Document]. http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?- FoodNavigator-USA.com. URL http://www.foodnavi- contentid=2014/08/0167.xml (accessed 4.4.16). gator-usa.com/Regulation/USDA-HHS-2015-dietary- US EPA, 2013. Demographics [WWW Document]. guidelines-won-t-factor-in-sustainability (accessed URL http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/ag101/demo- 4.26.16). graphics.html (accessed 5.23.15). Welch, R.M., Graham, R.D., 2005. Agriculture: the real Vancouver FPC, 2016. Vancouver Food Policy Council. nexus for enhancing bioavailable micronutrients in food crops. J Trace Elem Med Biol 18, 299–307. Van der Meer, C., 2006. Exclusion of small-scale doi:10.1016/j.jtemb.2005.03.001 farmers from coordinated supply chains, in: Ruben, Wellesley, L., Happer, C., Froggatt, A., 2015. Changing R., Slingerland, M., Nijhoff, H. (Eds.), The Agro-Food climate, changing diets: pathways to lower meat con- Chains and Networks for Development. Springer, sumption. Chatham House, London. Dordrecht. Wezel, A., Bellon, S., Doré, T., Francis, C., Vallod, D., Van Lexmond, M.B., Bonmatin, J.-M., Goulson, D., David, C., 2009. Agroecology as a science, a move- Noome, D.A., 2015. Worldwide integrated assess- ment and a practice. A review. Agronomy for Sus- ment on systemic pesticides: Global collapse of the tainable Development 29, 503–515. doi:10.1051/ entomofauna: exploring the role of systemic insecti- agro/2009004 cides. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 22, 1–4. doi:10.1007/s11356-014-3220-1 Wise, T.A., 2015. Two roads diverged in the food cri- sis: Global policy takes the one more travelled. Cana- Van Mele, P., Ahmad, S., Magor, N.P., 2005. Innova- dian Food Studies / La Revue canadienne des études tions in rural extension: case studies from Bangla- sur l’alimentation 2, 9. doi:10.15353/cfs-rcea.v2i2.98 desh. CABI. Wise, T.A., Murphy, S., 2012. Resolving the food crisis: Van Wendel de Joode, B., Barraza, D., Ruepert, C., assessing global policy reforms since 2007. Global Mora, A.M., Córdoba, L., Oberg, M., Wesseling, C., Development and Environment Institute and Insti- Mergler, D., Lindh, C.H., 2012. Indigenous children tute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Boston. living nearby plantations with chlorpyrifos-treated bags have elevated 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol (TCPy) Witzke, H., Noleppa, S., 2010. EU agricultural produc- urinary concentrations. Environ. Res. 117, 17–26. tion and trade: can more efficiency prevent increas- doi:10.1016/j.envres.2012.04.006 ing “land grabbing” outside of Europe?
90 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY Wolfenson, K.D.M., 2013. Coping with the food and WRR, 2015. Towards a food policy. agriculture challenge: smallholders’ agenda. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome. Ye, M., Beach, J., Martin, J.W., Senthilselvan, A., 2013. Occupational pesticide exposures and respiratory Wood, S., Sebastian, K.L., Scherr, S.J., 2000. Pilot anal- health. International Journal of Environmental Re- ysis of global ecosystems: agroecosystems. World search and Public Health 10, 6442–6471. doi:10.3390/ Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. ijerph10126442
World Bank, 2011. Rising global interest in farmland, Zamora-Ros, R., Rabassa, M., Cherubini, A., Urpí- Agriculture and Rural Development. The World Bank, Sardà, M., Bandinelli, S., Ferrucci, L., Andres-Lacueva, Washington, D.C. C., 2013. High concentrations of a urinary biomarker World Bank, 2010. Food security and poverty—a of polyphenol intake are associated with decreased precarious balance [WWW Document]. Let’s Talk mortality in older adults. The Journal of Nutrition Development. URL http://blogs.worldbank.org/de- 143, 1445–1450. doi:10.3945/jn.113.177121 velopmenttalk/food-security-and-poverty-a-precari- Zuazo, V.H.D., Pleguezuelo, C.R.R., Panadero, L.A., ous-balance (accessed 12.14.15). Raya, A.M., Martinez, J.R.F., Rodriguez, B.C., 2009. World Bank, 2006. Repositioning nutrition as central Soil conservation measures in rainfed olive orchards to development: a strategy for large scale action. in south-eastern spain: impacts of plant strips on World Bank Publications. soil water dynamics. Pedosphere 19, 453–464. doi:10.1016/S1002-0160(09)60138-7 World Food Programme, 2015. Who are the hungry ?
World Health Organization, 2016. Q&A on glyphosate.
World Health Organization, 2015a. Obesity and overweight [WWW Document]. WHO. URL http:// www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/ (ac- cessed 11.30.15).
World Health Organization, 2015b. Noncommuni- cable diseases prematurely take 16 million lives an- nually, WHO urges more action [WWW Document]. WHO. URL http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/ releases/2015/noncommunicable-diseases/en/ (ac- cessed 5.6.16).
World Health Organization, 2013. Vienna Declaration on nutrition and noncommunicable diseases in the context of health 2020. World Health Organization Europe, Copenhagen.
World Health Organization, 2012. NCD mortality and morbidity [WWW Document]. WHO. URL http:// www.who.int/gho/ncd/mortality_morbidity/en/ (ac- cessed 8.12.15).
World Health Organization (Ed.), 2009. Global health risks: mortality and burden of disease attributable to selected major risks. World Health Organization, Ge- neva, Switzerland.
World Health Organization, 2008. Understanding and tackling social exclusion [WWW Document]. WHO. URL http://www.who.int/social_determinants/ themes/socialexclusion/en/ (accessed 12.14.15).
World Health Organization, Convention on Biological Diversity (Organization), United Nations Environment Programme, 2015. Connecting global priorities: biodi- versity and human health: a state of knowledge review. World Health Organization, Brussels and Montreal.
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 91 Panel members
Bina Agarwal is former president Molly Anderson is a spe- of the Int. Society for Ecological Eco- cialist in hunger, food systems, nomics, and an expert on land rights and multi-actor collaborations & food security who has published for sustainability who has led award-winning books on gender and inter-disciplinary academic pro- land issues and received the Padma grammes and participated in re- Shri prize from the President of India. gional food system planning.
Million Belay, founder of the Claude Fischler has headed MELCA-Ethiopia NGO and the major French research institutions Alliance for Food Sovereignty in and served on national and Euro- Africa (AFSA), is an expert and ad- pean-level food safety commit- vocate for forestry conservation, tees, and has a long track-record resilience, indigenous livelihoods of innovative inter-disciplinary re- and food and seed sovereignty. search on food and nutrition.
Emile Frison is an expert on Steve Gliessman founded conservation and agricultural bio- one of the first formal agroecol- diversity who has headed global re- ogy programs in the world, and search-for-development organisa- has more than 40 years experi- tion Bioversity International for ten ence of teaching, research, pub- years, after holding top positions at lishing and production experi- several global research institutes. ence in the field of agroecology.
Corinna Hawkes is an expert Hans Herren is a World Food on food systems nutrition and Prize (1995) and Right Livelihood health who participates in the Award (2013) Laureate, and has World Health Organization’s Com- managed international agriculture mission on Ending Childhood Obe- and bio-science research organi- sity and regularly advises govern- zations as well as playing a leading ments and international bodies. role in global scientific assessments.
Phil Howard is an expert in Martin Khor is Executive Di- food system changes and the rector of the South Centre, an visualization of these trends. He inter-governmental organisa- has authored prominent contri- tion helping to assist developing butions to the public debate on countries in trade and climate concentration, consolidation and negotiations, and a former direc- power in food systems. tor of the Third World Network.
92 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY Olivier De Schutter is co- Olivia Yambi is co-chair of IPES- chair of IPES-Food. He served as Food. She is a Senior Consultant UN Special Rapporteur on the on Nutrition and Sustainable De- right to food from May 2008 until velopment who served as UNICEF May 2014 and was elected to the Country Representative in Kenya UN Committee on Economic, So- (2007-2012) and has held other se- cial and Cultural Rights in 2014. nior roles in the UN system.
Melissa Leach is Director of Lim Li Ching is a leading NGO the Institute of Development researcher with expertise on sus- Studies (IDS) at the University of tainable agriculture, biotechnol- Sussex and founder of the ESRC ogy and biosafety who served as STEPS (Social, Technological and regional lead author in the inter- Environmental Pathways to Sus- national IAASTD process and has tainability) Centre. contributed to several UN reports.
Desmond McNeill is a political Pat Mooney is the co-founder economy and global governance and executive director of the ETC expert who has led the Centre for Group, and is an expert on agri- Development and the Environ- cultural diversity, biotechnology, ment at the University of Oslo, and and global governance with de- chairs the Independent Panel on cades of experience in interna- Global Governance for Health. tional civil society.
Maryam Rahmanian is Vice Cécilia Rocha is Director of the Chair of the High Level Panel of Ex- School of Nutrition at Ryerson perts of the Committee on World University (Toronto), and a leading Food Security, and a research as- authority on food and nutrition sociate at the Centre for Sustain- policies in Brazil, including the suc- able Development and Environ- cessful experiments in the munici- ment (CENESTA), an Iranian NGO. pality of Belo Horizonte.
Johan Rockstrom is a leading Phrang Roy has served as Assis- global expert on resilience, glob- tant President of IFAD and Assistant al sustainability and sustainable Secretary General of the UN, and development who spearheaded has more than 30 years of interna- development of the ‘Planetary tional experience supporting rural Boundaries’ framework to identi- development, small-scale and in- fy key environmental thresholds. digenous communities’ agriculture.
Laura Trujillo-Ortega is an Paul Uys has 40 years of global expert in the political ecology retail experience specializing in & economy of global food net- brand creation, product develop- works. She has taught in the US, ment and sustainable sourcing, Spain and several Latin American and now advises several bodies countries, as well as co-founding on sustainability issues, including two NGOs for agroecology. the Marine Stewardship Council.
REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY 93 Aknowledgements
This report was produced by the IPES-Food panel under the supervision of lead coordinating au- thor Emile Frison, aided by the dedicated efforts of working group members and contributions from the whole panel.
The panel is particularly grateful to Nick Jacobs, IPES-Food Coordinator, for his editing skills and for his invaluable inputs at all stages of the preparation of this report. Special thanks also go to Anne Demonceaux for research support throughout the process.
The panel is also grateful to Chantal Clément, Afton Halloran, Janina Grabs and Liz Barling for research and editorial support, and to Véronique Geubelle for graphic design.
The panel is grateful to Jessica Fanzo, Tara Garnett, Manuel González de Molina, Carlos Guadarra- ma, Gloria I. Guzmán Casado, Alexander Müller, Sara Scherr and Peter Timmer for their valuable suggestions and critical reviews of the draft report. The panel also appreciates the valuable contri- bution of the many participants in the e-consultation.
94 REPORT 02 FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY
Report by the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food)
JUNE 2016
Contact: [email protected]