The HLPE report shall address the following questions:
The scientific evidences of the effectiveness of agroecology are rapidly increasing and the available knowledges are probably sufficient to impact dramatically the economic, social and environmental sustainability of farming systems. Most agroecological practices contribute to contain the ecological footprint and they lead to a higher rate of carbon sequestration (especially in soils). Furthermore, most practices have a positive impact on biodiversity.
The results of the conversion to agroecology in terms of productivity and revenues for farmers are often excellent. The adoption of agroecology does not require big initial investments.
Yet the contribution of agroecology to food sovereignty is far below its true potential. This is due to the presence of some bottlenecks that hinder a more widespread adoption of the agroecological approach.
Arguably the biggest challenge toward a wider adoption of agroecology is the “transition phase” a period lasting 3 or more years during which farmers have to learn new skills. During this period the new practices are tailored to the local context and to the needs of the farmers. Furthermore, most agroecological practices have a “lag phase”. i.e. a period of time between the adoption of a certain practice and the moment in which that practice shows an appreciable impact. Soils might need rather long periods of time to recover and reconstitute the O.M. content after years (or decades) of repeated tillage, overuse of chemical fertilizers and lack of crop rotation and fallow. To provide another example of this “lag phase”, some agroforestry practices give appreciable results only when the tree crop is fully developed.
Another key feature of the agroecological approach is that it is markedly context-specific. This, makes the agroecological approach probably the most “knowledge intensive” approach to agriculture. However, most farmers, especially smallholders in the tropics, own a valuable heritage in term of knowledges and skills of referred to as “Traditional Ecological Knowledge” (TEK). TEK is very often coherent with the basic principles of agroecology.
Removing the main bottlenecks to a wider adoption of agroecology would bring about an appreciable impact in a relatively short term. As mentioned above, the transition phase to agroecology represents the most insecure period for a farmer. Shifting from a certain, well tested, set of practices to a new one imply risks. Only few “innovators” are ready to faces those risks. Two effective actions that can be undertaken to create a conducive environment for a transition to agroecology are:
1) create long-term demonstrative agroecological plots where farmers can appreciate the potentialities of agroecological practices. In this way farmers will have an idea of how their farms will look like few years after the adoption of agroecology.
2) support farmers during the transition phase. Both technical and financial supports need to be guaranteed to farmers during the transition. It is rather common that the first period of the transition will result in a decrease in productivity or in a higher demand in terms of labour. Many smallholders are not able to face such cost, thus adoption of agroecology becomes not feasible for them.
Monitoring the impact of agroecology on FSN is a key aspect. A common misunderstanding is that farmers aim at maximizing production and this argument is often used to advocate for high external input agriculture. However, this is, in most cases, a misconception. After having fulfilled the needs of their household, farmers, like any other producer, aims at maximizing their net incomes. Agroecology is extremely suited to achieve this goal, especially because it allows farmers to reduce to a minimum the expenses for external inputs. Convential agriculture can, in some instances, result in higher productivity, but this is reflected very seldom by higher incomes for farmers, owed to the high costs of external inputs (fertilizers, pesticides, etc.). Furthermore, a comparison of the profitability of the conventional and agroecological approaches need to be carried out in the medium term and not for a single agricultural season. This is because agroecological practices generate a more resilient agroecosystem and lead to a mitigation of oscillations in productivity (due to climatic uncertainties, pest outbreaks, etc.) to which conventional agricultural systems are very prone.
Massimiliano Sanfilippo