Agroecology as Innovation

Recently, the High Level Panel of Experts of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) released its much-anticipated report on agroecology. The report signals the continuing shift in emphasis in the UN agency’s approach to agricultural development. As outgoing FAO Director General Jose Graziano da Silva has indicated, “We need to promote a transformative change in the way that we produce and consume food. We need to put forward sustainable food systems that offer healthy and nutritious food, and also preserve the environment. Agroecology can offer several contributions to this process.”

It stresses the importance of ecological agriculture, which supports "diversified and resilient production systems, including mixed livestock, fish, cropping, and agroforestry, that preserve and enhance biodiversity, as well as the natural resource base."

The commissioned report, “Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition.” Two years in the making, the report makes clear the urgent need for change. “Food systems are at a crossroads. Profound transformation is needed,” the summary begins. It stresses the importance of ecological agriculture, which supports “diversified and resilient production systems, including mixed livestock, fish, cropping, and agroforestry, that preserve and enhance biodiversity, as well as the natural resource base.”

It is not surprising, of course, that those with financial interests in the current input-intensive systems are responding to growing calls for agroecology with attacks on its efficacy as a systematic approach that can sustainably feed a growing population. What is surprising is that such responses are so ill-informed about the scientific innovations agroecology offers to small-scale farmers who are being so poorly served by “green revolution” approaches.

One recent article from a researcher associated with a pro-biotechnology institute in Uganda was downright dismissive, equating agroecology with “traditional agriculture,” a step backwards toward the low-productivity practices that prevail today. “The practices that agroecology promotes are not qualitatively different from those currently in widespread use among smallholder farmers in Uganda and sub-Saharan Africa more broadly,” writes Nassib Mugwanya of the Uganda Biosciences Research Center. “I have come to conclude that agroecology is a dead end for Africa, for the rather obvious reason that most African agriculture already follows its principles.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. As the new expert report shows, and as countless ecological scientists around the world can attest, agroecology brings much-needed innovations to prevailing smallholder practices. With a long track record of achievements in widely varying environments, the approach has been shown to improve soil fertility, increase crop and diet diversity, raise total food productivity, improve resilience to climate change, and increase farmers’ food and income security while decreasing their dependence on costly inputs.

The failing policies of the present

The predominant input-intensive approach to agricultural development can hardly claim such successes, which is precisely why international institutions are actively seeking alternatives. The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) is the poster child for the promotion of input-intensive agriculture in Africa. At its outset 13 years ago, AGRA and its main sponsor, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, set the goals of doubling the productivity and incomes of 30 million smallholder households on the continent.

There is no evidence that approach will come anywhere near meeting those worthy objectives, even with many African governments spending large portions of their agricultural budgets to subsidize the purchase of green revolution inputs of commercial seeds and synthetic fertilizers. National-level data, summarized in the conclusion to my book Eating Tomorrow, attests to this failure:

A recent article in the journal Food Policy surveyed the evidence from seven countries with input subsidy programs and found little evidence of sustained—or sustainable—success. “The empirical record is increasingly clear that improved seed and fertilizer are not sufficient to achieve profitable, productive, and sustainable farming systems in most parts of Africa,” wrote the authors in the conclusion.

 Branding agroecology as a backward-looking, do-nothing approach to traditional agriculture is a defensive response to the failures of Green Revolution practices. In fact, agroecological sciences offer just the kinds of innovations small-scale farmers need to increase soil fertility, raise productivity, improve food and nutrition security, and build climate resilience

Do these innovations sound backward looking to you?

These innovations and many others are explored in depth in the new U.N. report, the full version of which will be available in English in mid-July, other FAO languages in September. Those advocates of industrial agriculture would do well to read it closely so they can update their understanding of the sustainable innovations agroecological sciences offer to small-scale farmers, most of whom have seen no improvements in their farms, incomes, or food security using Green Revolution approaches. Many farmers have concluded that the Green Revolution, not agroecology, is a dead end for Africa.

Source: Commondreams.org

Powered by NewsAPI.org

Keywords:

Agroecology • Innovation • Food and Agriculture Organization • Food and Agriculture Organization • Agroecology • United Nations • Agriculture • Food and Agriculture Organization • José Graziano da Silva • Sustainability • Health • Nutrition • Natural environment • Agroecology • Systems engineering • Sustainable agriculture • Ecological resilience • Temperate broadleaf and mixed forest • Livestock • Fish • Agroforestry • Nature reserve • Biodiversity • Natural resource • Agroecology • Innovation • Sustainable agriculture • Food systems • Food security • Nutrition • Sustainable agriculture • Ecological resilience • Temperate broadleaf and mixed forest • Livestock • Fish • Agroforestry • Nature reserve • Biodiversity • Natural resource • Intensive farming • System • Agroecology • Sustainability • Population growth • Disease • Science • Innovation • Agroecology • Economies of scale • Farm • Green Revolution • Uganda • Agroecology • Productivity • Agroecology • Smallholding • Uganda • Sub-Saharan Africa • Uganda • Biology • Agroecology • Africa • Reason • Agriculture • Value (ethics) • Truth • Ecology • Science • Agroecology • Natural environment • Soil fertility • Crop • Diet (nutrition) • Biodiversity • Food • Productivity • Ecological resilience • Climate change • Agriculture • Food • Income • Security • Factors of production • Policy • Factors of production • Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa • Agra • Agra • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation • Productivity • Income • Smallholding • Goal • Sub-Saharan Africa • Government • Agriculture • Budget • Green Revolution • Commerce • Fertilizer • Information • Social status • Empirical evidence • Seed • Fertilizer • Profit (economics) • Productivity • Sustainable agriculture • System • Africa • Agroecology • Agriculture • Green Revolution • Agroecology • Science • Innovation • Economies of scale • Agriculture • Soil fertility • Productivity • Nutrition • Security • Climate resilience • Innovation • Innovation • United Nations • English language • Food and Agriculture Organization • Intensive farming • Sustainability • Innovation • Agroecology • Science • Small business • Economies of scale • Farm • Farm • Income • Food security • Green Revolution • Farm • Green Revolution • Agroecology • Africa •