French national agricultural research institute INRA held a symposium in Paris on 17th October on agroecology, a promising concept championed by sustainable agriculture advocates and development organisations, but one which remains relatively loosely defined.  

image expired

Agroecology practitioners claim the approach is both a science – that "studies agricultural systems from an ecological and… socio-economic perspective" – and a movement, like organic farming.  In practice, agroecology has borrowed from permaculture and various previously forgotten techniques that mimic and work with, rather than seeking to dominate and overcome nature, as well as incorporating the latest scientific knowledge. The approach has been widely touted by the UN, most prominently for its potential in realising 'the right to food' by special rapporteur Olivier de Schutter in 2011.

INRA began exploring this emerging discipline 20 years ago, according to speakers at the event in Paris, and has recently made agroecology a strategic priority for the next ten years. INRA speakers shared examples of how agroecological techniques could improve the environmental and economic performance of farming. However, the institute's commitment to the social aspects of agroecology, as a complex science-practice-movement, was questioned by academics and agroecology practitioners meeting in London last month.

Dr Michael Pimbert of the Centre for Agroecology and Food Security (CAFS) warned that failing to embrace agroecology as a whole risked "window dressing damaging approaches through modernised language," as has occurred with 'sustainable intensification', which through its failure to reject certain damaging ideologies or practices has become catch-all and ineffective as a banner for reducing modern agriculture's negative aspects and impacts. CAFS professors, meeting with MPs in Parliament last month called for deep and meaningful changes to research organisations and policy, and warned against "attempts to include some sustainable practices in industrial agriculture [that will] do little to address the fundamental structural problems of the model."

INRA lists "Designing and transitioning towards new agricultural systems" as one of its key priorities, which it argues will entail application of social sciences to assess the impacts of change. However, Pimbert suggested that as INRA also supports potentially damaging and anti-social areas of agriculture (he gave the example of genetically modified crops in October) alongside its commitment to agroecology, this social concern may effectively have taken a back seat and that such 'negative' techniques could be included in the institutes definition of agroecology.

Pimbert's misgivings seem to be justified, as, heralding the successes of the INRA agroecology meeting, attended by over 300 delegates and patronised by French agriculture minister Stephane LeFoll, INRA declared that Agroecology has something to offer, "for agricultural systems from organic to conventional and even the most intensive."

The CAFS researchers have argued for fundamental change, rather than – as they see it – tinkering with industrial, intensive agriculture, the negative side-effects of which are currently externalised and carried by the environment or the public (through taxes, health effects and plummeting biodiversity). The health costs of the food system in the UK were estimated at over £200 per hectare in 1996. Even so, INRA concluded that its scientists "have proposed innovations and strategies to reconcile environmental and economic performances."

The participants at last month's event in Paris stressed the need for a wider adoption of techniques that would revolutionise agriculture; they pushed for integrated, multi-scale and multi-disciplinary approaches, relying in particular on long-term and landscape-scale monitoring programmes, to deliver lasting benefits, rather than the current preference for quick-fixes. The INRA speakers also supported improving the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge, training and sharing of new technologies (such as broadband technologies, satellite data and, they said, drones).

Though some of INRA's demands are similar to those of agroecologists influenced by the largely Latin American movement that uses the term with deliberate socio-political meaning (the latter group argues that "agricultural systems cannot be studied independently of the human communities that depend on them") and both agree that change is necessary if we as a species are to flourish given the shortcomings of the current agricultural and economic paradigm and threat of worsening climate change, the degree of change appears to be the key difference. The aspect of social justice, which is a held in at least equal regard to profitability in the latter group's understanding of agroecology, seems to receive less attention than the potential economic benefits of adopting agroecological techniques in INRA's output.

Both argue that key areas for technical change include improving soil health, promoting better use of biodiversity (such as encouraging natural pest control), establishing more multi-layered and holistic approaches to agriculture (such as introducing more components into agro-ecosystems, as in agroforestry), promoting polycultures, and protecting genetic diversity within species.

The scope of change deemed necessary by the two camps is the area where friction arises. Pimbert and the CAFS experts argue that, so far, the official line on agricultural reform has been weakened in order to avoid challenging the current economic and political hegemony. They maintain that, in order to realise food security and create durable food systems, this will have to change and that reform should be multi-sectoral, involving public health, education and environmental protection. In October, the CAFS researchers called for a mainstreaming of agroecology and a root and branch reform of the research industry in the UK, in order to realise agriculture that will benefit society, rather than propping up "an international economy dominated by neoliberal narratives... and entrenched political interests of agri-businesses."

INRA successes: Institute reveals host of benefits from green techniques

Despite the conflicts over whether agroecology can coexist with a neoliberal market-oriented agriculture, INRA has recorded some undeniable successes, demonstrating that more environmental techniques can bring other valuable co-benefits. Largely because of INRA's work, France is the world's third most prolific producer of research papers in the field of agroecology.

image expired

Examples explored in Paris last month include the use of combinations of wheat varieties, which, through harbouring a greater genetic variety in the field, has been shown to amplify resistance to rust. In INRA's investigations, improved protein content was also demonstrated in the wheat trials.

Research into growing nitrogen fixing legumes revealed that increasing the proportion of legumes in cropping systems limits greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the need for inorganic inputs, whilst providing more food and feed options from the same area of land.

Looking at livestock, researchers showed that a combination of animal species in grazing systems can increase performance. Mixed grazing goats with cattle (compared to goats only), has yielded benefits in terms of feed consumption and reduced impact of parasites. They have also recorded successes in reducing antibiotic use in livestock and through integrating crop and livestock systems to close cycles in larger-scale agriculture.

Controlling pests by maintaining healthy biodiversity in agro-ecosystems is also an area that could have huge impacts for farmers across Europe, where wildlife and plant species have suffered steep population declines. Supporting 'auxiliary fauna', through introducing or protecting diverse hedges, flower strips, trees and other rich habitats farmers can improve natural pest control, again reducing the need for damaging inorganic products.

INRA is still pursuing research into a range of 'agroecology' applications in areas including livestock, field crops, perennials and horticulture, though the question remains whether gradual positive changes can create a durable, fair and environmentally benign agriculture, or whether, as a growing number of thinkers across a range of disciplines suggest, more radical change is now necessary.

Both camps in the agroecology debate maintain that public funding through organisations such as INRA will be necessary to mainstream the approach, as it accepted that concerted action is now needed to deal with future threats, and the wider benefits of agroecology are not recognised in the current financialised agriculture system.

However, where the CAFS researchers differ from their counterparts in France is in their desire to create a more democratic agriculture.  For example, the CAFS researchers say the dilemma facing food producers is usually framed form the top-down perspective of 'how to feed a growing world population' in the face of climate change, however they prefer to ask "how to enable populations to feed themselves." In London, Pimbert suggested key policy and research decisions should be framed around the question, "what kind of society do people want?"