Origins, Benefits and the Political Basis of Agroecology

In this chapter, we introduce the origins and history of agroecology, outlining its emergence as a science and its longstanding history as a traditional practice throughout the world. We provide a brief review of the evidence of the benefits of agroecology in relation to productivity, livelihoods, biodiversity, nutrition, climate change and enhancing social relations. We then outline our approach to agroecology which is rooted in the tradition of political ecology that posits power and governance have always been the decisive factors in shaping agricultural and other ‘human’ systems.

Introduction

In this introductory chapter, we introduce agroecology as an urgent alternative paradigm for food and farming in a time of growing ecological, economic and social crises. We briefly outline the role of food systems in these intersecting crises and introduce how agroecology is much more than a ‘technical fix’ that calls to tweak the existing system. It is rather a framework for transformation that can be adopted in pursuit of a more just and sustainable food system. The chapter describes the origin of the book and provides a roadmap to help the reader navigate the flow of the manuscript.

Reflexive Participatory Governance for Agroecological Transformations

In this chapter we further discuss the rationale for a participatory and reflexive governance process as the basis for agroecology transformations. We discuss governance and facilitation mechanisms that enable continuous discussions, negotiations, exchange and joint planning between actors. Further, we provide guidance on this ongoing and iterative social learning processes among actors that can enable and ensure governance interventions that both nurture and anchor agroecology. This often requires an expansion of ‘direct’ democracy in decision-making in order to complement, or replace, models of representative democracy that prevail in conventional policy-making. Finally, we articulate the territorial approach to governance which is increasingly seen as the decisive level in fostering agroecological transformations and the scale where reflexive and participatory governance can be effectively implemented.

Conceptualizing Processes of Agroecological Transformations: From Scaling to Transition to Transformation

In this chapter, we survey the recent literature that speaks directly to the issue of bringing agroecology to scale. We discuss the shift towards analytical frameworks that consider not only the farm level but rather whole food system transformations. We then introduce the multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions which we adopt for the purpose of this book. Moving beyond the technical analysis often found in research on sustainability ‘transitions’, our approach thus adopts agency-centric approach to food systems ‘transformation’. To do this, we introduce the notion of domains of transformation, which represent discrete areas where the conflict between agroecology and the dominant food regime manifests and where the potential for collective and transformation is transformation is most potent.

Domain B: Knowledge and Culture

In this chapter, we examine the role of knowledge processes in the form of local practice, research, innovation and education in agroecology transformations. Knowledge and power are intimately linked; the questions of ‘what knowledge’ and ‘whose knowledge’ is valued are vitally important. We review the informal (outside of institutions) and formal knowledge processes that have been found to support agroecology. These affirm and enable the knowledge systems of agricultural producers, especially those of women and youth. We further discuss how the combination of scientific knowledge with local and traditional knowledge is important in agroecology transformations. Unfortunately, mainstream knowledge systems often disable agroecology because they privilege outside and top-down processes of knowledge transfer that invalidate local, farmer and indigenous knowledges.

Conclusion

The final chapter concludes the book by summarizing our arguments and the urgency of agroecology transformations.As the world’s crises exacerbate inequity and fuel the erosion of the ecological basis of the world, the urgent need for transformative change is palpable. Agroecology responds to this call for change. Our formulation of agroecological transformation reflects not one grand theory of change but a recognition of a co-evolutionary and adaptive approach. It also underpins the importance of collective action, social movements and solidarity networks as a means of building and amplifying political power and community agency to advance agroecology transformations.

Domain F: Discourse

In this chapter, we examine how discourse—or the ways in which language is used to frame debates, policy and action—is a critical domain for agroecology transformations. A range of different types of actors (e.g. politicians, private companies, activists) use a process called ‘framing’ to convey their interpretation of agroecology where they ‘simplify and condense’ its complexity to align with their own views and ideologies. We present seven main frames across a spectrum from those that tend to disable a transformative agroecology (e.g. ‘feed the world’) to those that are most likely to enable political agroecology (e.g. ‘food sovereignty’). Notably all of these frames are at times being deployed in both productivist and depoliticized (regime-reinforcing) ways and also as a part of a transformative politics of political agroecology at different times by different actors.

Domain E: Equity

In this chapter, we examine how marginalization and inequity—from international policy arenas to the household level and along the intersecting dimensions of gender, age, class and caste, religion, health and race—pose a major barrier to the development of sustainable food systems. The more transformative edges of the agroecology movement are advancing feminist, decolonial and anti-racist approaches that move the analysis from the centres of power to the margins where the hitherto excluded and oppressed are claiming power. Inequity manifests in overt discrimination as well as unequal access to resources and decision-making power at the household or farm level or to markets, credit, knowledge, governance, relations and other resources at the community or territorial level. In the absence of a focus on equity, efforts to advance agroecology risk exacerbating inequity.

Power, Governance and Agroecology Transformations

In this chapter, we focus on issues of power, control and governance in agroecology transformations. Synthesizing the findings across the six domains of transformation introduced in Part II, we explore how the different ‘governance interventions’ of different actors have multiple effects on a transformative agroecology. Interventions that undermine agroecology have two effects: (i) suppressing agroecology by actively repressing and criminalizing it and (ii) co-opting agroecology by supporting it only to become equivalent to the dominant regime. Interventions that maintain the status quo enable co-existence by (iii) containing agroecology as elements of the dominant regime are strengthened and alternatives ignored and (iv) shielding agroecology from regime dynamics so it is less threatened. In contrast, agroecological transformation of agri-food systems are enabled by (v) processes that support and nurture agroecology to develop on its own terms and (vi) release agroecology from its disabling context by dismantling elements of the dominant regime and anchoring the values, norms and practices of agroecology within and between territories, and at different scales.

Domain D: Networks

In this chapter we examine how local organizations, affinity groups and the formal and informal networks they form provide the basis for the collective, coordinated actions needed for agroecological transformation at different scales. Civil society-driven networks are crucial because they facilitate a kind of cooperation that cannot be generated by the market or the state. On the other hand, the absence of appropriate networks can substantially limit agroecological transition, for example where political dynamics undermine or weaken the development of networks for collective action. Another disabling dimension of this domain is the compartmentalization of networks (e.g. by commodity group), which is a contradiction to the holism of agroecology. Perhaps most challenging is the growing individualization of society that is creating a growing barrier to cooperativism.