- Fantastic work! Thanks so much for this excellent draft, which I see as an important contribution to the field. The frameworks are generally useful, and I really appreciate Box 4 (the consolidated and ordered set of AE principles, distilled from various sources) among many other valuable contributions here.
- My main concern / request has to do with Section 3.2, which is on "Sustainable intensification (encompassing Conservation Agriculture and Ecological Intensification." First, I would request acknowledgement of the term/concept of "agroecological intensification" (AEI) as somewhat distinct from sustainable intensification and the other terms mentioned. There are nuances here worth calling out; please see below for an excerpt from a 2015 paper by Wezel et al. on this topic. Second, while AEI could be considered substantially overlapping with the concept of ecological intensification, I don't see how either is encompassed in Sustainable Intensification. SI typically (though not always) seems to have a more narrow technical focus on input use efficiency. AEI is explicit about the agroecological means of intensification, and more focused on social and equity aspects. The fact that "agroecology" and "sustainable intensification" are so strongly contrasted in Table 4 (p. 62, lines 19-23) illustrates how poorly AEI can be subsumed under SI. I’m including a couple of obscure publications that use the AEI terminology for which I’m a co-author; others can be found via Google Scholar and similar.
- Another serious issue is the low emphasis placed on nutrient cycling. I see four mentions of "manure" (livestock wastes), but how about human wastes? Section 2.4 (pp. 56-58) focuses on pre-consumption wastes. Post-consumption wastes seem neglected, despite their critical importance for nutrient cycles and thus for agroecology and plantary sustainability. Can you go farther with this issue, and call for greater nutrient circular economy (use of food wastes and human and animal wastes as agricultural inputs, reducing the reliance on mined and manufactured fertilizers)?
- Beyond the binary… Page 20, lines 20-23; p. 66, lines 44-55 and p. 67 - Table 10: the table implies a binary system, while the text acknowledges that there is a continuum in the extent to which systems are based on agroecological principles. Could the text go farther in declaring that all farms and systems can be improved in the implementation of agroecological principles?
- Incremental v. transformative approaches. Can this distinction, and pathways towards AEI, be explored more deeply? Perhaps this could be fit into section 3, as 3.1.3. (page 61, line 31) -- Pathways to agroecological transformation?
From: Wezel, A., Soboksa, G., McClelland, S. et al. Agron. Sustain. Dev. (2015) 35: 1283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0333-y
6.1.2 Agroecological intensification versus ecological and sustainable intensification
Comparing agroecological intensification with ecological and sustainable intensification requires a more nuanced analysis. Many of the authors use existing definitions or concepts of ecological and sustainable intensification, but re-label them as agroecological intensification (Côte et al. 2010; Dobermann and Nelson 2013; Haussmann 2011; Karamura et al. 2013; Ochola et al. 2013). This understanding of ecological or sustainable intensification as agroecological intensification is problematic because it blurrs the boundaries between the three terms even more.
On the other hand, the principles for agroecological intensification clearly show a certain difference in terms of practical implications. The first is the insertion of the social and cultural perspectives into the definition of the principles of agroecological intensification (CCRP 2013). These perspectives are of great importance as most of the solutions advocated in ecological and sustainable intensification do not address these issues and mostly focus on the agronomic and environmental aspects and, to some extent, the economic ones. Agroecological intensification also distinguishes itself by emphasizing the importance of intensifying knowledge, not only for scientists and decision makers but for smallholders as well (Karamura et al. 2013). While social practices such as relying on local and cultural contexts and building on farmers knowledge are a part of agroecological intensification (Côte et al. 2010; CCRP 2013), proponents of sustainable or ecological intensification do not generally include these aspects as central to their concepts.
A second point is that agroecological intensification puts a stronger emphasis on having a systems approach (CCRP 2013; Dobermann and Nelson 2013). Most of the papers discussing the term refer to agricultural systems or agroecosystems and to analysing elements of these in a holistic perspective. This perspective requires taking into account the many and varied aspects of the systems to assess their interactive effects and leverage points toward (and away from) sustainability, including value chains and more globally food systems as well as knowledge systems. Although ecological intensification comprehends some of the fundamentals of systems thinking by integrating the notions of ecosystems, it is sometimes not clearly stated as a guiding principle by just focussing on implementing certain plot-scale practices for ecological intensification.
There are different ways in which agroecological intensification is operationalized, particularly among smallholders. For example, Dobermann and Nelson (2013) present interventions aimed at the short and long term. These interventions include closing yield gaps and reducing yield variability through enhanced breeding, using smart technologies for increased resource efficiency, investment in rural agricultural infrastructure and finding new business models for smallholder farming through collaboration with farmers. Such plans provide a useful means for presenting the goals of agroecological intensification as well as the ways in which proponents of the term can further modify and refine it. Systems of agroecological intensification are being assessed by rigorous comparisons to conventional farming systems (Karamura et al. 2013; Milder et al. 2012; Ochola et al. 2013) which can be helpful in providing an evidence base for their strengths, and criteria for success. Milder et al. (2012) introduced an assessment methodology that considers not just yields, but also the generation of ecosystem services. Both of these—the delineation of specific, time-bound action plans and assessments of outcomes—are two measures that from which initiatives for ecological intensification and sustainable intensification would also profit. This would allow for an improved understanding of the various concepts, their commonalities and differences.
To summarize, most definitions of ecological and sustainable intensification include the two main common key elements ‘increased production’ and ‘minimized environmental impacts’ and two additional ones each. Definitions of agroecological intensification re-use these key elements and add others such as ‘social and cultural perspective’, ‘farmers’ knowledge’ and ‘system approach’. Overall, many authors use definitions or concepts of ecological or sustainable intensification, but re-label them as agroecological intensification.
6.2 Synthesis of definitions on the three concepts of intensification
Based on the definitions of the different authors regarding the three intensification concepts, we tried to synthesis them for each of the concepts to provide new definitions which take into account the nuances between the concepts, even if they are sometimes not easy to detect from their definitions.
• Sustainable intensification: Producing more from the same area of land while conserving resources, reducing negative environmental impacts and enhancing natural capital and the flow of environmental services.
• Ecological intensification: Increasing food production while reducing the use of external inputs and minimizing negative effects on the environment by capitalising on ecological processes and ecosystem services from plot to landscape scale.
• Agroecological intensification: Improving the performance of agriculture while minimizing environmental impacts and reducing dependency on external inputs through integration of ecological principles into farm and system management.
Rebecca Nelson