The impact of agroecology on farmer livelihoods and rural economies is just beginning to be studied, and this report can make a valuable contribution by helping to define a shared research agenda and metrics for the vast project of assessing the impact of agroecology. I agree with the guiding questions set out in the draft scope. Having worked in agroecology research for more than 15 years in Mexico and Latin America, I see the focus on innovation and knowledge as especially important.
One difficulty in the process will be how to define agroecology, and how to decide whose voices represent agroecology. This was a difficult question when I was working as a consultant for the FAO's agroecology knowledge hub, and I expect it is a difficult question in every consensus-based effort to gather evidence on the impact of agroecology. While we will never arrive at a perfect definition of agroecology, I urge the panel to be explicit about the working definition that they are using.
To reflect the integrative nature of agroecology as a science, practice and movement, the panel of experts should be composed of researchers, practitioners, and movement leaders with a long history of engagement with agroecology (often, individuals play more than one of these roles). The role of practitioners engaged in social movements is especially important, as that perspective has historically been underrepresented in high-level international dialogues.
I don't believe there is a role for representatives of agrochemical companies or researchers with strong financial links to industrial agriculture industries on this panel. While dialogue with the "conventional" agriculture industry could be constructive in other fora, I see the potential for industry representatives to derail the process of defining rigorous approaches to assessing the impact of agroecology. They have done so in other academic and public conversations on sustainable agriculture.
Sincerely,
Devon Sampson, Ph.D.
Sampson Research
Devon Sampson