Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 1971 (2002) 1–24 3 4 Agroecology: the science of natural resource management 5 for poor farmers in marginal environments ∗ 6 Miguel A. Altieri 7 Department of Environmental Science Policy and Management, University of California, 8 201 Wellman Hall 3112, Berkeley, CA 94720-3112, USA 9 Received 19 July 2001; received in revised form 8 May 2002; accepted 20 May 2002 10 11 Abstract 12 Throughout the developing world, resource-poor farmers (about 1.4 billion people) located in risk-prone, marginal envi- 13 ronments, remain untouched by modern agricultural technology. A new approach to natural resource management must be 14 developed so that new management systems can be tailored and adapted in a site-specific way to highly variable and diverse 15 farm conditions typical of resource-poor farmers. Agroecology provides the scientific basis to address the production by a 16 biodiverse agroecosystem able to sponsor its own functioning. The latest advances in agroecological research are reviewed 17 in order to better define elements of a research agenda in natural resource management that is compatible with the needs and 18 aspirations of peasants. Obviously, a relevant research agenda setting should involve the full participation of farmers with 19 other institutions serving a facilitating role. The implementation of the agenda will also imply major institutional and policy 20 changes. © 2002 Published by Elsevier Science B.V. 21 Keywords: Agroecology; Resource-poor farmers; Natural resource management; Marginal environments; Sustainable agriculture 22 23 1. Introduction only were technologies inappropriate for poor farm- 38 ers, but peasants were excluded from access to credit, 39 24 Perhaps the most significant realization at the be- information, technical support and other services that 40 25 ginning of the 21st century is the fact that the ar- would have helped them use and adapt these new 41 26 eas in the developing world, characterized by tradi- inputs if they so desired (Pingali et al., 1997). Al- 42 27 tional/subsistence agriculture, remain poorly served by though subsequent studies have shown that the spread 43 28 the top-down transfer-of-technology approach, due to of high-yielding varieties among small farmers oc- 44 29 its bias in favor of modern scientific knowledge and curred in Green Revolution areas where they had ac- 45 30 its neglect of local participation and traditional knowl- cess to irrigation and subsidized agrochemicals, in- 46 31 edge. For the most part, resource-poor farmers gained equities remain (Lipton and Longhurst, 1989). 47 32 very little from the Green Revolution (Pearse, 1980). Clearly, the historical challenge of the publicly 48 33 Many analysts have pointed out that the new technolo- funded international agricultural research community 49 34 gies were not scale-neutral. The farmers with the larger is to refocus its efforts on marginalized farmers and 50 35 and better-endowed lands gained the most, whereas agroecosystems and assume responsibility for the 51 36 farmers with fewer resources often lost, and income welfare of their agriculture. In fact many analysts 52 37 disparities were often accentuated (Shiva, 1991). Not (Conway, 1997; Blavert and Bodek, 1998) agree that 53 in order to enhance food security in the develop- 54 ∗ Tel.: +1-510-642-9802/527-6972; fax: +1-510-642-7428. ing world, the additional food production will have 55 E-mail address: [email protected] (M.A. Altieri). to come from agricultural systems located in coun- 56 1 0167-8809/02/$ – see front matter © 2002 Published by Elsevier Science B.V. 2 PII: S0167-8809(02)00085-3 UNCORRECTED PROOF 2 M.A. Altieri / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 1971 (2002) 1–24 Table 1 Technological requirements of resource-poor farmers Innovation characteristics important to poor farmers Criteria for developing technology for poor farmers Input saving and cost reducing Based on indigenous knowledge or rationale Risk reducing Economically viable, accessible and based on local resources Expanding toward marginal-fragile lands Environmentally sound, socially and culturally sensitive Congruent with peasant farming systems Risk averse, adapted to farmer circumstances Nutrition, health and environment improving Enhance total farm productivity and stability 57 tries where the additional people will live in, and The urgent need to combat rural poverty and to con- 94 58 especially where the majority of the poor people are serve and regenerate the deteriorated resource base of 95 59 concentrated (Pinstrup-Andersen and Cohen, 2000). small farms requires an active search for new kinds 96 60 Even this approach may not be enough, as current of agricultural research and resource management 97 61 World Trade Organization (WTO) policies force de- strategies. Non-government organizations (NGOs) 98 62 veloping countries to open markets, which allows rich have long argued that a sustainable agricultural de- 99 63 countries to jettison their overproduction at prices velopment strategy that is environmentally enhancing 100 64 that are disincentives to local producers (Mander and must be based on agroecological principles and on a 101 65 Goldsmith, 1996). more participatory approach for technology develop- 102 66 An estimated 1.4 billion people live and work in ment and dissemination, as many agree that this may 103 67 the vast, diverse and risk-prone rainfed areas in the be the most sensible avenue for solving the prob- 104 68 south, where their farming operations cannot bene- lems of poverty, food insecurity and environmental 105 69 fit much from mainstream agricultural technologies. degradation (Altieri et al., 1998). 106 70 Their systems are usually located in heterogeneous To be of benefit to the rural poor, agricultural re- 107 71 environments too marginal for intensive agriculture search and development should operate on the ba- 108 72 and remote from markets and institutions (Wolf, sis of a “bottom-up” approach, using and building 109 73 1986). In order to benefit the poor more directly, upon the resources already available: local people, 110 74 a natural resource management (NRM) approach their knowledge and their autochthonous natural re- 111 75 must directly and simultaneously tackle the following sources. It must also seriously take into considera- 112 76 objectives: tion, through participatory approaches, the needs, aspi- 113 rations and circumstances of smallholders (Richards, 114 77 • Poverty alleviation; 1985). 115 78 • Food security and self-reliance; The main objective of this paper is to analyze the lat- 116 79 • Ecological management of productive resources; est advances in agroecological research and examine 117 80 • Empowerment of rural communities; whether ecological approaches to agriculture can pro- 118 81 • Establishment of supportive policies. vide clear guidelines for addressing the technical and 119 82 The NRM strategy must be applicable under the production needs of poor farmers living in marginal 120 83 highly heterogeneous and diverse conditions in which environments throughout the developing world. 121 84 smallholders live, it must be environmentally sustain- 85 able and based on the use of local resources and in- 86 digenous knowledge (Table 1). The emphasis should 2. Building on traditional knowledge 122 87 be on improving whole farming systems at the field 88 or watershed level rather than the yield of specific Many agricultural scientists have argued that the 123 89 commodities. Technological generation should be a starting point in the development of new pro-poor 124 90 demand-driven process meaning that research priori- agricultural development approaches are the very sys- 125 91 ties should be based on the socioeconomic needs and tems that traditional farmers have developed and/or in- 126 92 environmental circumstances of resource-poor farm- herited throughout centuries (Chambers, 1983). Such 127 93 ers (Blauert and Zadek, 1998). complex farming systems, adapted to the local condi- 128 UNCORRECTED PROOF M.A. Altieri / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 1971 (2002) 1–24 3 129 tions, have helped small farmers to sustainably man- drops to values ranging from 3.11 to 4.34. When 177 130 age harsh environments and to meet their subsistence fertilizers and other agrochemicals are utilized yields 178 −1 131 needs, without depending on mechanization, chemi- can increase to levels of 5–7 mg ha , but energy ra- 179 132 cal fertilizers, pesticides or other technologies of mod- tios start exhibiting inefficient values (less than 2.0) 180 133 ern agricultural science (Denevan, 1995). Although (Netting, 1993). 181 134 many of these systems have collapsed or disappeared In most multiple cropping systems developed by 182 135 in many parts of the Third World, the stubborn persis- smallholders, productivity in terms of harvestable 183 136 tence of millions of hectares under traditional agricul- products per unit area is higher than under sole crop- 184 137 ture in the form of raised fields, terraces, polycultures, ping with the same level of management (Francis, 185 138 agroforestry systems, etc. are living proof of a suc- 1986). Yield advantages can range from 20 to 60% and 186 139 cessful indigenous agricultural strategy and comprises accrue due to reduction of pest incidence and more 187 140 a tribute to the “creativity” of small farmers through- efficient use of nutrients, water and solar radiation. 188 141 out the developing world (Wilken, 1987). These mi- Undoubtedly, the ensemble of traditional