Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A review

Agroecology involves various approaches to solve actual challenges of agricultural production. Though agroecology initially dealt primarily with crop production and protection aspects, in recent decades new dimensions such as environmental, social, economic, ethical and development issues are becoming relevant. Today, the term ‘agroecology’ means either a scientific discipline, agricultural practice, or political or social movement. Here we study the different meanings of agroecology. For that we analyse the historical development of agroecology. We present examples from USA, Brazil, Germany, and France. We study and discuss the evolution of different meanings agroecology. The use of the term agroecology can be traced back to the 1930s. Until the 1960s agroecology referred only as a purely scientific discipline. Then, different branches of agroecology developed. Following environmental movements in the 1960s that went against industrial agriculture, agroecology evolved and fostered agroecological movements in the 1990s. Agroecology as an agricultural practice emerged in the 1980s, and was often intertwined with movements. Further, the scales and dimensions of agroecological investigations changed over the past 80 years from the plot and field scales to the farm and agroecosystem scales. Actually three approaches persist: (1) investigations at plot and field scales, (2) investigations at the agroecosystem and farm scales, and (3) investigations covering the whole food system. These different approaches of agroecological science can be explained by the history of nations. In France, agroecology was mainly understood as a farming practice and to certain extent as a movement, whereas the corresponding scientific discipline was agronomy. In Germany, agroecology has a long tradition as a scientific discipline. In the USA and in Brazil all three interpretations of agroecology occur, albeit with a predominance of agroecology as a science in the USA and a stronger emphasis on movement and agricultural practice in Brazil. These varied meanings of the term agroecology cause confusion among scientists and the public, and we recommend that those who publish using this term be explicit in their interpretation

Agroecology: scientific and technological challenges for agriculture in the 21st century in Latin America

In the first section of this article, an analysis is presented of the evolution of agroecology as a scientific discipline starting with its establishment in the third decade of the twentieth century and with an emphasis on the contributions of the different disciplines as well as the local knowledge and the most significant theoretical developments since its inception. Agroecology as a science has been emerging incrementally through knowledge obtained from disciplinary contributions although it is distinguished from its parent disciplines through the integration of these disciplines and work that occurs across scales. Such research leads to a broader understanding of the associated problems and their solutions, which are characterized by an integrative approach in which disciplinary information is collected and processed to resolve problems on greater scales. The second part of the article starts by establishing five challenges of agriculture in Latin America that can be significantly improved through contributions from agroecological science. These challenges could be achieved by taking into account agroecology as a science, practice and social movement; where the agroecology as a practice will act as a functional interface to the others. To achieve these challenges, five main topics have emerged including the reductionism or holistic research approach, the scale of the planning and analysis unit, concretizing discussions on sustainability, quality management and producers organization strengthening; each of these topics is discussed

Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A review

Agroecology involves various approaches to solve actual challenges of agricultural production. Though agroecology initially dealt primarily with crop production and protection aspects, in recent decades new dimensions such as environmental, social, economic, ethical and development issues are becoming relevant. Today, the term ‘agroecology’ means either a scientific discipline, agricultural practice, or political or social movement. Here we study the different meanings of agroecology. For that we analyse the historical development of agroecology. We present examples from USA, Brazil, Germany, and France. We study and discuss the evolution of different meanings agroecology. The use of the term agroecology can be traced back to the 1930s. Until the 1960s agroecology referred only as a purely scientific discipline. Then, different branches of agroecology developed. Following environmental movements in the 1960s that went against industrial agriculture, agroecology evolved and fostered agroecological movements in the 1990s. Agroecology as an agricultural practice emerged in the 1980s, and was often intertwined with movements. Further, the scales and dimensions of agroecological investigations changed over the past 80 years from the plot and field scales to the farm and agroecosystem scales. Actually three approaches persist: (1) investigations at plot and field scales, (2) investigations at the agroecosystem and farm scales, and (3) investigations covering the whole food system. These different approaches of agroecological science can be explained by the history of nations. In France, agroecology was mainly understood as a farming practice and to certain extent as a movement, whereas the corresponding scientific discipline was agronomy. In Germany, agroecology has a long tradition as a scientific discipline. In the USA and in Brazil all three interpretations of agroecology occur, albeit with a predominance of agroecology as a science in the USA and a stronger emphasis on movement and agricultural practice in Brazil. These varied meanings of the term agroecology cause confusion among scientists and the public, and we recommend that those who publish using this term be explicit in their interpretation

Alternative Food Networks : a question about farmers’ resilience

The aim of this study is to explore how different AFNs contribute to Norwegian organic farmers resilience. This is done by looking into the various food networks a handful of farmers are engaged in. The value-chains are studied to see how the farmers are situated in the value-chains and who controls the different activities. The resource use and economic return is studied and also the potential for growth. AFN stability is discussed using Actor Network Theory. The assertion that AFN value-chains are short is not always true. As this study documents, they may also be long and include intermediaries. For the four farmers in the study, it is clear that the AFNs are contributing to the resilience, giving economic gain and social embeddedness in the form of appreciation and identity. Use of translation mechanism may strengthen the farmer’s position in the networks. For one of the networks, a self-growing community, the translation failed and the community was ended. The work is based on interviews during the late summer and autumn of 2015 with six producers/farmers representing different types of AFNs; Self-growing community, Organic mill, Buyers cooperation, Farm restaurant, CSA and Direct sales in farmers Market and in-farm.M-A

Facing a new pest : the case of the invasive fruit fly Drosophila suzukii in southern Sweden

In an increasingly globalized food system, pests move easily together with food products and can cause significant damage in their new ranges. The problem is aggravated by climate change, enabling pest survival in previously uninhabitable areas. The fruit fly Drosophila suzukii Matsumura (Diptera: Drosophilidae) is a pest that has expanded its range to nearly global presence in the matter of a few years. Unlike most drosophilids, females of D. suzukii prefer to lay their eggs in fresh and ripening fruit, and this highly polyphagous fly has been very harmful to the soft fruit and berry industry globally. D. suzukii was first found in Sweden in 2014. Since then, it has been found in several soft fruit and berry crops but has not yet caused any significant economical damage. A group collaborating to deal with the fly has been started, including the Swedish Board of Agriculture (JBV), the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) and HIR, an independent agricultural advisory service company. This thesis describes the current situation from the perspectives of these actors and the growers, and the interactions between them. The possibilities to and potential benefits of increasing grower participation in the further work were analyzed. Focus lay on growers in Skåne, the southernmost region in Sweden. One method being developed for D. suzukii management is attract-and-kill using the substance SPLAT (specialized pheromone and lure application technology). D. suzukii is closely associated with the yeast species Hanseniaspora uvarum, and it was tested if the attractiveness of SPLAT could be improved using this yeast. A mixed methods approach was used, including semi-structured interviews, a growers’ survey and laboratory experiments. The analysis of data was pragmatic, and conducted within the frame provided by systems thinking. The inquiry showed that the response to the arrival of D. suzukii in Sweden has been satisfactory for all involved. For Skåne growers, D. suzukii is still a largely intangible and therefore not prioritized pest. Still, the outreach on D. suzukii has had a positive effect on grower awareness and practice. Skåne growers emerged as a highly heterogeneous group, including in their perception of D. suzukii as a threat. Small- and medium size growers were suggested by the survey results to be the most concerned about D. suzukii. Therefore, these growers are proposed to be prioritized when increasing grower participation, with Participatory action research (PAR) as a suggested working mode. A grower reference group collaborating with JBV, SLU and HIR could be a suitable point of entry for a PAR process, which could adress both socio-economical and IPM aspects of D. suzukii. As H. uvarum showed potential to improve the attractiveness of SPLAT for D. suzukii females, trying out new SPLAT formulas with this yeast under field conditions could be one activity of a future PAR group

Facing a new pest : the case of the invasive fruit fly Drosophila suzukii in southern Sweden

In an increasingly globalized food system, pests move easily together with food products and can cause significant damage in their new ranges. The problem is aggravated by climate change, enabling pest survival in previously uninhabitable areas. The fruit fly Drosophila suzukii Matsumura (Diptera: Drosophilidae) is a pest that has expanded its range to nearly global presence in the matter of a few years. Unlike most drosophilids, females of D. suzukii prefer to lay their eggs in fresh and ripening fruit, and this highly polyphagous fly has been very harmful to the soft fruit and berry industry globally. D. suzukii was first found in Sweden in 2014. Since then, it has been found in several soft fruit and berry crops but has not yet caused any significant economical damage. A group collaborating to deal with the fly has been started, including the Swedish Board of Agriculture (JBV), the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) and HIR, an independent agricultural advisory service company. This thesis describes the current situation from the perspectives of these actors and the growers, and the interactions between them. The possibilities to and potential benefits of increasing grower participation in the further work were analyzed. Focus lay on growers in Skåne, the southernmost region in Sweden. One method being developed for D. suzukii management is attract-and-kill using the substance SPLAT (specialized pheromone and lure application technology). D. suzukii is closely associated with the yeast species Hanseniaspora uvarum, and it was tested if the attractiveness of SPLAT could be improved using this yeast. A mixed methods approach was used, including semi-structured interviews, a growers’ survey and laboratory experiments. The analysis of data was pragmatic, and conducted within the frame provided by systems thinking. The inquiry showed that the response to the arrival of D. suzukii in Sweden has been satisfactory for all involved. For Skåne growers, D. suzukii is still a largely intangible and therefore not prioritized pest. Still, the outreach on D. suzukii has had a positive effect on grower awareness and practice. Skåne growers emerged as a highly heterogeneous group, including in their perception of D. suzukii as a threat. Small- and medium size growers were suggested by the survey results to be the most concerned about D. suzukii. Therefore, these growers are proposed to be prioritized when increasing grower participation, with Participatory action research (PAR) as a suggested working mode. A grower reference group collaborating with JBV, SLU and HIR could be a suitable point of entry for a PAR process, which could adress both socio-economical and IPM aspects of D. suzukii. As H. uvarum showed potential to improve the attractiveness of SPLAT for D. suzukii females, trying out new SPLAT formulas with this yeast under field conditions could be one activity of a future PAR group

Methodology for designing alternative ecosystem for restoring indigenous knowledge of smallholder communities in India

The Green Revolution led to the introduction of the modern high yielding varieties (HYVs) of seeds during the period 1960s-1970s. It also systematically replaced the approach of farmers collectively sharing and preserving indigenous best practices with transfer of knowledge regarding industrialised farming and increased productivity being routed through agricultural extension service agents. This “expert-driven” approach systemically created a dynamic that has led to the breakdown of social networks and community safety net structures that were earlier accessible to smallholders. This ongoing research study presents a methodology for designing an alternative ecosystem for restoring indigenous knowledge of smallholders in India, through a bottom-up model of community- based solutions that will provide them with more equitable as well as sustainable agricultural outcomes (Titzer, 2017). To demonstrate the merit of transitioning to such an alternative agricultural ecosystem for restoring indigenous knowledge we performed a multiple case study analysis on existing IEK systems. Systems thinking helped us gain a holistic understanding of the agricultural ecosystem in its current state, pinpoint the root causes of its dynamic behaviour and identify leveraging points in the system to make it more equitable for smallholders through the restoration of IEK

Agroecology

Agroecology was chosen by INRAE as one of its interdisciplinary scientific foresight studies designed to identify research fronts in response to major societal challenges. Eighty researchers drew up an assessment and proposed research avenues for agroecology. This book summarizes their main conclusions. Agroecology, as a scientific discipline that puts ecology back at the centre of agricultural system design, is now well established. Diversification of living organisms in agroecosystems is a broad objective that is intended to make these systems more robust and resilient. Research in genetics and landscape ecology must be mobilized so that agroecology can use mechanisms from the field to landscape scales. Progress is being made in modelling agroecological systems to better understand the many biotic and abiotic interactions, to predict them, and to begin to manage some of them. Diversification of living organisms in agricultural production (species, varieties, crop rotations, etc.) leads to more varied products. The consequences will be significant on the commodity chains, and more precisely on agri-food systems, from production methods to product consumption. These changes are long-term. The agroecological transition, which is adaptive, co-constructed with all actors, is in itself a research subject, and will rely on experimental devices, farms, and ‘Territories of innovation’

Agroecological transitions, between determinist and open-ended visions

Debates around agroecology most often focus on the depth and radicality of the change and relate to different visions of agroecology, which tends to eclipse the ontological relationships of actors (or researchers) to the very ‘change process’ itself. This book is an endeavor to explicate relationships to change in agroecological transitions, referring to two contrasting and ideal-typical ontological relationships to change, the determinist perspective and the open-ended perspective. These conceptions or interpretations of the change process are based respectively on whether objectives and means are predetermined, or defi ned during the change process and while accounting for the uncertainty and complexity of mechanisms of change as well as for the diversity of actors’visions. Many diverse cases of agroecological transitions are discussed in this book, in order to highlight the fact that these perspectives are not always exclusive in transition process but that they can be articulated successively or combined complementarily, in different ways – thus reinforcing the potential diversity of transition pathways