http://www.fao.org/about/meetings/afns/en/ Presentation from Gaëtan Vanloqueren (University of Louvain, Belgium) describes some of the economic benefits of Agroecology in terms of increased income, employment and savings, as well as its positive externalities in environmental terms. The presentation was prepared and delivered in occasion of the International Symposium on Agroecology for Food Security and Nutrition, held at FAO in Rome on 18-19 September 2014.

1. Agroecological socio-economics
Impacts and principles
Invited communication to the FAO International Symposium on Agroecology for Food Security
and Nutrition, 18-19 September 2014, Rome. (Session People and Economics)
Gaëtan
Vanloqueren,
PhD,
Agro-­‐economist
Guest
Lecturer
(Sciences
Po
–
Paris
;
ICHEC
–
Brussels
Management
School)
;
University
of
Louvain/Liège
Former
Adviser
for
the
UN
Special
rapporteur
on
the
right
to
food
(2008-­‐2014)
Co-­‐founder
of
the
Belgian
Interdisciplinary
Research
Group
on
Agroecology
(GIRAF)

2. 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Source
:
Antoine-e
Dumont
(UCL),
Sept
2014,
Scopus
database.
Agroecology & employment
Agroecology & labour
Agroecology
Agroecology & income
Few
scien;fic
publica;ons
on
agroecology
&
economics
Scopus
database,
1985-­‐2010
(non-­‐cumulaTve)
HighlighTng
examples
that
illustrate
posiTve
impacts
:
• QualitaTve
• QuanTtaTve
when
available
• Not
comprehensive
review,
though
a
strictly
scienTfic
presentaTon
• Just
a
few
results,
not
in-­‐depth
case
studies

3. 1. Agroecology’s
socio-­‐economic
impacts
(employment,
incomes,
etc)
(Economics
ma-er)
2. Agroecology’s
socio-­‐economic
principles
(Economics
are
not
enough)

4. 1.
Agroecology
increases
incomes

5. Posi;ve
impact
on
incomes
1.
Agroforestry
in
Zambia
(Nitrogen-­‐fixing
trees)
• d
Reference(s)
:
(1)
Ajayi
CO,
Akinnifesi
FK,
Sileshi
G,
Kanjipite
W
(2009)
Labour
inputs
and
financial
profitability
of
convenTonal
and
agroforestry-­‐
based
soil
ferTlity
management
pracTces
in
Zambia.
Agrekon
48:246–292.
Return
to
labour
per
person
day
of
agroforestry
exceeds
local
daily
ag.
wage
• “For
the
three
agroforestry
pracTces,
the
return
to
labour
per
person
day
was
$2.63
for
Gliricidia,
$2.41
for
Sesbania
and
$1.90
for
Tephrosia
fallow”.
(Daily
ag
wage
=
approx.
$0.60)
• “In
rural
areas
where
road
infrastructure
is
poor
and
transport
costs
of
ferTliser
are
high,
agroforestry
prac;ces
are
most
likely
to
outperform
fer;lised
maize
in
both
absolute
and
rela;ve
profitability
terms.”
• ExternaliTes
(nutriTon,
resilience,
…)
to
be
added
• “The
IRR
of
all
the
producTon
pracTces
is
higher
than
the
discount
rate.
It
is
over
100%
for
the
convenTonal
land
soil
ferTlity
pracTces
(with
or
without
ferTliser)
and
ranges
from
83%
to
99%
for
agroforestry
pracTces.”

6. Posi;ve
impact
on
incomes
(II)
2.
Push-­‐pull
(Eastern
Africa)
• Push-­‐pull
(Companion
cropping)
– Adopted
by
30,000
smallholder
farmers
over
the
last
decade
in
Kenya,
Uganda
and
Tanzania
on
15,000
hectares.
Another
100,000
households
could
benefit
over
the
next
five
years.(1)
Reference(s)
:
(1)
Khan
Z
et
al
(2011)
Push—pull
technology:
a
conservaTon
agriculture
approach
for
integrated
management
of
insect
pests,
weeds
and
soil
health
in
Africa,
InternaTonal
Journal
of
Agricultural
Sustainability
(2)
UNEP
(2012)
Towards
a
green
economy,
Pathways
to
sustainable
development
and
poverty
eradicaTon,
Nairobi:
UNEP.
Collected
by
Alex
Wijeratna,
author
of
AcEonAid
(2012).
Fed
Up.
Now’s
the
Eme
to
invest
in
agroecology,
June
2012,
43
pp.
• Economic
analysis
with
21,300
smalls
farmer
(2):
– Benefit-­‐cost
ra;o
of
2.5
to
1.
– Income
returns
for
labour
were
$3.7
per
person
a
day
with
push-­‐pull
as
opposed
to
US$1
per
person
a
day
with
their
previous
maize
mono-­‐cropping
pracTce.
– Gross
revenues
ranged
between
$424-­‐US$880
per
hectare
under
push-­‐pull
and
$81.9
to
$132
per
hectare
in
maize
mono-­‐cropping.

7. Posi;ve
impact
on
incomes
3.
SRI
–
system
of
rice
intensificaTon
Es;ma;on
of
the
value
of
increased
rice
produc;on
(2013):
• Assessment
of
SRI
adop;on
in
5
Asian
countries
that
produce
2/3
of
the
world’s
rice
output
(China,
India,
Vietnam,
Indonesia
and
Cambodia)
– About
9.5
million
farmers
using
many
or
all
SRI
methods
on
over
3.4
million
hectares.
• Value
of
increased
paddy
produc;on
:
$862.5
million
(1)
– The
calculaTon
below
assumes
no
increase
in
the
costs
of
producEon.
A
larger
study
across
13
states
of
India
reported
an
average
cost
reducTon
of
$29
per
ton
pf
paddy
produced
(Palanisami
et
al.
2013).
Factoring
in
such
cost
reducTons
will
further
increase
the
net
value
from
farmers’
SRI
paddy
producTon
• Average
addi;onal
income
per
ha:
+
94%
(2)
Reference(s)
:
(1)
SRI-­‐Rice
(2014)
ESTIMATION
OF
THE
SPREAD
AND
IMPACT
OF
SRI
IDEAS
AND
USE
AS
OF
END
OF
2013,
Handouts
for
the
next
InternaEonal
Rice
Congress,
Oct
27-­‐31
in
Bangkok,
SRI-­‐Rice,
Cornell
University
(with
list
of
full
references).;
(2)
Uphof,
N.
(2012)
SupporEng
food
security
in
the
21st
century
through
resource-­‐conserving
increases
in
agricultural
producEon,
Agriculture
&
Food
Security
2012,
1:18.
Both
received
from
Norman
Uphoff

8. 2.
Agroecology
creates
jobs

9. Agroecology
creates
jobs/livelihoods
for
young
men
Agroecological
pracTces
generate
employment
opportuniTes
Reference(s)
:
Jules
Preoy
,
Camilla
Toulmin
&
Stella
Williams
(2011):
Sustainable
intensificaTon
in
African
agriculture,
InternaTonal
Journal
of
Agricultural
Sustainability,
9:1,
5-­‐24
• New
jobs
for
young
men
(Burkina
Faso)
– Work
groups
of
young
men
specialized
in
land
rehabilita;on
techniques
go
from
village
to
village.
– Also
Benin
(Songhai
center,
food
transformaTon)

10. Agroecology
creates
jobs/livelihoods
for
women
Examples
:
new
sources
for
feed,
and
edible
weeds
Reference(s)
(1)
Rosa
M
González-­‐Amaro,
Angélica
Marrnez-­‐Bernal,
Francisco
Basurto-­‐Peña
and
Heike
Vibrans
(2009)
Crop
and
non-­‐crop
producTvity
in
a
tradiTonal
maize
agroecosystem
of
the
highland
of
Mexico,
Journal
of
Ethnobiology
and
Ethnomedicine
2009,
5:38
Kenya
:
push-­‐pull
Weeds
>
feed
>
cows
>
milk
>
new
economic
ac;vi;es
for
women
>
addiTonal
incomes
Mexico
:
weeds
allowed
to
grow
in
maize
fields
Edible
weeds
(‘quelites’)
worth
25%
of
the
total
value
of
maize
crops
in
Mexico
(1)
Sold
by
women
on
markets

11. Agroecology
creates
jobs/livelihoods
for
women
(II)
Examples
:
Community
seed
banks
(owen
managed
by
women)
in
India,
Nepal,
…
d

12. Farmers
producing
trees
as
a
business
Malawi
Agroforestry
Food
Security
Programme
distributed
tree
seeds,
sexng
up
17
nurseries
that
raised
2,180,000
seedlings
and
establishing
345
farmer
groups
(1)
Job
creaTon
to
be
assessed!
Reference(s)
:
C.
Pye-­‐Smith,
Farming
Trees,
Banishing
Hunger:
How
an
agroforestry
programme
is
helping
smallholders
in
Malawi
to
grow
more
food
and
improve
their
livelihoods,
Nairobi,
World
Agroforestry
Centre,
2008,
p.
10.
Agroecology
creates
jobs
for
men
and
women
Malawi
:
agroecological
projects,
not
just
subzidized
ferTlizers
• Soils,
Food
and
Healthy
Communi;es
project
(>8,000
farmers)
• Malawi
Farmer-­‐to-­‐Farmer
Agroecology
project
(>2,000
farmers)
Socio-­‐economic
assessment
started
this
year

13. Reference(s)
:
(1)
Eric
Holt-­‐Giménez,
“Measuring
Farmers’
Agroecological
Resistance
Awer
Hurricane
Mitch
in
Nicaragua:
A
Case
Study
in
ParTcipatory,
Sustainable
Land
Management
Impact
Monitoring,”
Agriculture,
Ecosystems
and
the
Environment,
93:1-­‐2,
2002,
pp.
87-­‐105.
(2)
IPCC
Fourth
Assessment
Report:
Climate
Change
2007
-­‐
Figure
7.3.
Economic
impact
of
Hurricane
Mitch
and
the
1998
to
1999
drought
on
Honduras
Agroecology
maintains
exis;ng
jobs
Improving
resilience
to
climaTc
extremes
=
maintaining
jobs
Agroecological
methods
improved
resilience
to
Hurricane
Mitch
in
1998
(Nicaragua)
On
average,
agroecological
plots
– had
on
average
40
per
cent
more
topsoil,
higher
field
moisture,
less
erosion
and
lower
economic
losses
– lost
18
per
cent
less
arable
land
to
landslides
than
convenTonal
plots
and
had
69
per
cent
less
gully
erosion
compared
to
convenTonal
farms
(results
from
large-­‐scale
study
on
180
communiTes
of
smallholders)
IPCC
:
Resilience
to
shocks
magers
!
• IPCC
4th
Assessment
reports
highlights
the
impact
of
hurricane
on
economic
growth
in
LaTn
America.
• Shocks
affect
the
most
vulnerable
communi;es.
(2)

14. Agroecology
creates
jobs
Need
to
consider
and
explore
the
range
of
impacts.
More
new
employment
opportuni;es
– Manufacture
of
adequate
machinery
– ProducTon
of
biological
control
extracts
– Technical
advice
–
Farmers!
Paradigm
shij
:
from
labour-­‐saving
to
employment-­‐genera;ng
techniques
and
policies
• Labour-­‐saving
policies
have
generally
been
prioriTzed
by
governments
• Crea;on
of
employment
in
rural
areas
in
developing
countries
is
an
advantage
rather
than
a
liability
and
may
slow
down
rural-­‐urban
migraTon
(underemployment
is
currently
massive,
and
demographic
growth
remains
high)
Small
farms
vs.
Big
farms
Small
farms
create
more
employment
per
hectare
Beyond
the
scope
of
this
presentaTon,
yet
strongly
connected
to
the
jobs
issue

15. 3.
Agroecology
is
posiTve
for
the
balance
of
payments

16. The
challenge
of
paying
the
import
bill…
Agroecology’s
uncalculated
impacts
• Savings
on
oil
imports
• Saving
on
ferTlizers
imports
• Savings
in
machinery
imports
(if
produced
locally)
-­‐>
Huge
benefits
• ParTcularly
for
net
oil-­‐imporTng
and
ferTlizer-­‐imporTng
countries
• Agroecology
increse
country
resilience
to
input
prices
volaTlity
Price
of
crude
oil
since
1970
Small
streams
make
big
rivers

17. Opportunity
costs
:
avoid
inves;ng
in
‘second
best’
op;ons
Relevant
measures
for
various
ministries
(Budget,
Agriculture,
etc)
Agroforestry
and
returns
per
unit
of
investment
cost?
Agroforestry-­‐based
soil
fer;lity
management
prac;ces
vs.
subzidized
fer;lizers
(Zambia):
• «
Each
unit
of
money
invested
in
agroforestry
prac;ces
yields
higher
returns
ranging
between
2.77
and
3.13,
(i.e.,
an
extra
gain
of
between
1.77
and
2.13
per
unit)
in
contrast
with
2.65
(or
a
net
gain
of
1.65
per
unit
of
money
invested)
obtained
in
fer;lised
maize
prac;ce
(subsidised)
(1)
Reference(s)
:
(1)
Ajayi
CO,
Akinnifesi
FK,
Sileshi
G,
Kanjipite
W
(2009)
Labour
inputs
and
financial
profitability
of
convenTonal
and
agroforestry-­‐
based
soil
ferTlity
management
pracTces
in
Zambia.
Agrekon
48:246–292
(at
p
279)
«
Smart
subsidies
»
recommended
by
experts
Relevance
of
assessing
the
return
on
investment
(ROI)
of
agricultural
public
spendings
Opportunity
costs:
"the
loss
of
potenTal
gain
from
other
alternaTves
when
one
alternaTve
is
chosen".

18. Nurses
in
the
field
Health
is
a
starTng
point
for
agroecological
iniTaTves
• Malawi
– Permaculture
gardens
were
iniTated
by
the
staff
of
a
health
and
nutriTon
center
Reference(s)
:
d
4.
Agroecology
generate
posiTve
externaliTes

19. Nurses
in
the
field.
Health
and
nutriTon
as
starTng
points
for
agroecological
iniTaTves
(Malawi)
• Integrate
improved
nutriTon
and
health
in
the
«
return
on
investment
»
assessments
will
improve
even
more
the
posiTon
of
agroecolohical
pracTces
Permaculture
gardens
iniTated
by
staff
of
a
health
and
nutriTon
center

20. Posi;ve
externali;es
Agroecology’s
uncalculated
impacts
(Niger,
Sahel)
Reforesta;on
in
Niger
through
“farmer-­‐managed
natural
regenera;on”
(FMNR)
-­‐
agroforestry
• Addi;onal
value
of
at
least
$56/ha/year
(in
form
of
improved
soil
fer;lity,
fodder,
fruit,
firewood
and
other
produce).
• Many
villages
now
have
10–20
Tmes
more
trees
than
20
years
ago.
Now
about
4.8
million
hectares
of
Faidherbia-­‐dominated
farmlands
generated
through
FMNR
(Maradi
and
Zinder
Regions
of
Niger
)
• >500,000
addiTonal
tonnes
of
food
produced
per
year.
Total
annual
producTon
value
of
$280
million
Reference(s)
:
Dennis
Philip
Garrity,
Festus
K.
Akinnifesi,
Oluyede
C.
Ajayi,
Sileshi
G.
Weldesemayat,
Jeremias
G.
Mowo,
Antoine
Kalinganire,
Mahamane
Larwanou,
Jules
Bayala
(2010)
Evergreen
Agriculture:
a
robust
approach
to
sustainable
food
security
in
Africa.
Food
Security
2:197–214
Increase
of
on-­‐farm
trees
in
Southern
Zinder,
Niger
(1975-­‐2005).
Photo
Gray
Tappan
Add
:
assessing
impact
on
(diminuTon
of)
rural
flight
;
fight
against
irreversible
deserTficaTon,
resilience
to
climaTc
crises…

21. Assessing
socio-­‐economic
impacts
Micro
level
Incomes
Cost/benefit
analysis
(cost
of
producTon)
Livelihoods
Food
and
nutriTon
security
;
Health
…
Macro
level
Return
on
investment
(ROI)
on
agricultural
public
spending
Value
of
producTon
Balance
of
payments
(Foreign
exchange)
Employment
Meso
level
Equity
-­‐
AllocaTon
of
producTvity
gains
in
value
chains
Empowerment
of
rural
communiTes
ExternaliTes
(soil
ferTlity,
etc)…
Need
to
scale
up
research
on
socio-­‐economic
impacts
Therefore,
necessity
to
define
agroecological
pracTces
&
contours
!

22. 1. Agroecology’s
socio-­‐economic
impacts
(employment,
incomes,
etc)
2. Agroecology’s
socio-­‐economic
principles
Agroecology
in
2014
:
A
trend.
Also
a
buzz.
opportuniTes
for
scaling
up
Risks
of
diluTon
Necessary
to
clarify
agroecology’s
socio-­‐economic
and
poliTcal
dimensions

23. «
Economics
»
:
a
relevant
framework
for
agroecology?
From
economics
to
socio-­‐economics
• Economics
as
such
is
not
a
self-­‐
contained
system,
but
embedded
in
society,
policy,
and
culture.
• ‘Socio-­‐economics’
is
a
much
more
powerful
framework
(compared
to
economics)
if
one
wants
to
fully
grasp
the
potenTal
of
agroecology
to
improve
global
food
security
and
go
towards
sustainable
food
systems
• Enables
to
grasp
the
full
extent
of
agroecology
Reference(s)
:
Society
for
the
Advancement
of
Socio-­‐Economics
(SASE)
IdenTfying
the
socio-­‐economic
principles
of
agroecology

24. 1.
Agroecology
is
about
social
organiza;on
Agroecology
is
not
an
individualisTc
&
technical
project
• Social
organiza;on
(cfr.
following
presentaTons
by
Rosset
&
AlTeri)
– Role
of
farmers
organizaTons
/
grassroots
organizaTons
/
networks
– in
idenTfying,
improving
and
disseminaTng
pracTces/innovaTons
(Co-­‐
construcTon
)
• Examples
– Community
seed
banks
– Campesino-­‐a-­‐Campesino
networks,
LVC
agroecology
colleges
– ParTcipatory
plant
breeding
– Networks
of
farmers/scienTsts/extension
officers/peasant
– Seeds
networks
(Réseau
semences
paysannes)
Principle
:
Generate
collec;ve
knowledge
and
adaptability
through
networks
involving
producers,
consumer
ciTzens,
researchers,
and
government
technical
advisors
in
order
to
foster
forums
for
deliberaTon,
public
debate,
and
the
disseminaTon
of
knowledge

25. www.agriculturesnetwork.org
Peasant
movements
and
networks
Experts
and
support
organizaTons
Online
plaƒorms
hop://ag-­‐transiTon.org/
Exis;ng
networks
and
organiza;ons
Not
a
comprehensive
mapping,
just
a
few
references

26. 2.
Knowledge
plays
an
essen;al
role
in
agroecology
Agroecology
is
about
knowledge
generaTon
and
diffusion
through
networks
• Agroecology
and
knowledge
– Agroecology
is
knowledge-­‐intensive
(subsTtutes
inputs
by
knowledge)
– Different
types
of
knowledge
:
tradiTonal
&
scienTfic
– Ability
of
communiTes
to
generate
and
spread
pracTces
and
innovaTons
Principle
:
Recognize
and
make
good
use
of
the
diversity
of
skills
and
knowledge
to
be
taken
into
account
–
local
pracTces
and
knowledge,
tradiTonal
pracTces
and
knowledge
(indigenous
technology
knowledge,
and
ordinary
knowledge)
–
in
construcTng
both
the
issues
and
the
publics
concerned
by
these
issues
as
well
as
in
searching
for
soluTons.

27. 3.
Agroecology
is
about
fostering
autonomy
‘PoliTcal’
dimensions
are
at
the
core
of
agroecology
• Autonomy
:
–
in
terms
of
1°
inputs
;
2°
knowledge
;
and
3°
from
global
markets
Major
linkage
with
peasant
principle
(van
der
Ploeg)
(1)
• Examples
• Peasant-­‐owned
and
–run
coopera;ve
seed
entreprises
;
Seed
«
Houses
»
(Brazil)
• Comté
cheese
AOC
(protected
designaTon
of
origin,
France)
:
milk
quanTty
ceiling,
cows
fed
on
local
resources,…
• Open
source
–
peer-­‐to-­‐peer
produc;on
of
agricultural
machinery
(FLOK
project
in
Ecuador
;
open-­‐source
farm
technology,
U.S.)
Reference(s)
:
(1)
van
der
Ploeg,
2008.
The
new
peasantries:
struggles
for
autonomy
and
sustainability
in
an
era
of
empire
and
globalizaEon.
Earthscan,
London,
UK.
Principle
:
Foster
the
possibili;es
for
choosing
autonomy
from
the
global
markets
by
creaTng
a
propiTous
environment
for
public
goods
and
the
development
of
socioeconomic
pracTces
and
models
that
reinforce
the
democraTc
governance
of
food
systems,
in
parTcular
through
systems
that
are
jointly
managed
by
producers
and
consumers,
and
highly
labor-­‐intensive
(re)territorialized
systems

28. 4.
Agroecology
seeks
to
improve
social
equity
in
food
systems
A
poliTcal
dimension
at
the
core
of
agroecology
• Equity
1. Principle
for
access
to
ressources
(land,
water,
…)
2. Principle
for
business
models
(upstream
or
downstream
entreprises
:
ConnecTons
with
social
and
solidarity
economy)
and
pricing
mechanisms
within
food
systems
3. In
agricultural
revenues
(responsability
of
the
State)
• Examples
– Solidarity-­‐based
pricing
mechanisms
in
some
Community-­‐supported
agriculture
(CSA)
(Grosses
Légumes,
Belgium)
– Pricing
systems
along
the
foodchain
:
AOC
Comté
cheese
(France)
– ‘Mul;na;onal
coopera;ves’
controlled
by
small-­‐scale
farmers
:
Divine
Chocolate
Ltd
company
:
42%
owned
by
Kuapa
Kukoo
Farmers
Union,
Ghana
(Fair
Trade
2.0)
Principle
:
Social
equity
between
all
stakeholders
at
any
levels
of
the
food
system
Reference(s)
:
(1)
Dumont,
A.,
Stassart;
P.,
Vanloqueren,
G.,
Baret,
P.
(2014),
Clarifier
les
dimensions
socio-­‐économiques
et
poliEques
de
l’agroécologie
:
au-­‐delà
des
principes,
des
compromis
?,
CommunicaEon
au
séminaire
‘Renouveler
les
approches
insEtuEonnalistes
sur
l'agriculture
et
l'alimentaEon:
la
"grande
transformaEon"
20
ans
après’,
Montpellier,
16-­‐17
juin
2014.
(+
journal
paper
forthcoming)

29. 5.
Agroecology
seeks
to
improve/strengthen
democracy
‘poliTcal’
dimensions
are
at
the
core
of
agroecology,
yet
frequently
let
aside
• Democracy
– Within
peasant
and
farmers
organiza;ons
(internal
demoracy)
– Within
entreprises:
Economic
democracy
&
social
and
solidarity
economy
– Partnerships
:
Partnership
between
consumers
and
producers:
«
the
formal
or
informal
but
clear
presence
of
a
social
contract
between
producers
and
consumers
»
(1)
– Food
sovereignty
(right
to
define
their
own
food
and
agricultural
systems)
• Examples
– Numerous
cooperaTves,
farmer
unions,
etc
– Assemblies
of
farmer
unions
and
movements
Principle
:
Foster
the
possibiliTes
for
choosing
autonomy
from
the
global
markets
by
creaTng
a
propiTous
environment
for
public
goods
and
the
development
of
socioeconomic
prac;ces
and
models
that
reinforce
the
democra;c
governance
of
food
systems,
in
parTcular
through
systems
that
are
jointly
managed
by
producers
and
consumers,
and
highly
labor-­‐intensive
(re)territorialized
systems
Principle
:
Member’s
power
within
an
organisa;on
is
not
based
on
their
assets.
Decisions
are
taken
through
a
democra;c
process

30.
Historical principles
(Altieri)
Methodological principles
(INRA)
Socio-economic (political) principles
(GIRAF)
1. Recycling of biomass, optimize
nutrient availability, and balance
nutrient flows
2. Ensure soil conditions that are
favorable for plant growth by
managing in particular organic
matter and improving the soil’s
biotic activity.
3. Minimize losses of resources
that are linked to the flows of solar
radiation, air, and soil by means of
microclimate management, water
collection, and soil management,
4. Promote genetic
diversification and the
diversification of species in the
agroecosystem in space and time.
5. Allow beneficial interactions
and biological synergies between
the components of agrobiodiversity
so as to promote key ecological
processes and services
6. Value agrobiodiversity as an
entry node for redesigning
systems so as to ensure farmers’
autonomy and food sovereignty
(INRA)
7. Facilitate and equip the
multifactoral management of
agroecosystems for their long-term
transition. This means arbitrating
between short and long time scales
and giving importance to the
properties of resiliency and
adaptability.
8. Make use of resources’ spatial
and temporal variability (diversity
and complementarity)
9. Stimulate the exploration of
situations that are far from
already-known local optima
10. Promote the development of
participatory research schemes
that will produce “finalized” research
while guaranteeing the scientific
validity of the approach (GIRAF)
11. Generate collective knowledge and
adaptability through networks
involving producers, consumer citizens,
researchers, and government technical
advisors in order to foster forums for
deliberation, public debate, and the
dissemination of knowledge
12. Foster the possibilities for choosing
autonomy from the global markets by
creating a propitious environment for
public goods and the development of
socioeconomic practices and models
that reinforce the democratic
governance of food systems, in
particular through systems that are jointly
managed by producers and consumers,
and highly labor-intensive
(re)territorialized systems
13. Recognize and make good use of
the diversity of skills and knowledge
to be taken into account – local practices
and knowledge traditional practices and
knowledge (indigenous technology
knowledge, and ordinary knowledge – in
constructing both the issues and the
publics concerned by these issues as
well as in searching for solutions.
Socio-­‐economic
principles
of
agroecology
Agroecology
:
3
sets
of
principles
Reference(s)
:
Stassart,
P.M.,
Baret,
P.,
Grégoire,
J.-­‐C.,
Hance,
T.,
Mormont,
M.,
Reheul,
D.,
Vanloqueren,
G.
and
Visser,
M.
(2012),
Trajectoire
et
potenEel
de
l'agroécologie,
pour
une
transiEon
vers
des
systèmes
alimentaires
durables.
In
Van
Dam,
D.,
Streith,
M.,
Nizet,
J.
and
Stassart
P.M.
(dir.)
Agroécologie.
Entre
praEques
et
sciences
sociales.
Educagri
édiEons,
2012,
Paris,
pp.
25-­‐51.

31.
Socio-­‐economic
principles
for
a
strong
agroecology
Agroecology
&
principles
Reference(s)
:
Dumont,
A.,
Stassart;
P.,
Vanloqueren,
G.,
Baret,
P.
(2014),
Clarifier
les
dimensions
socio-­‐économiques
et
poliEques
de
l’agroécologie
:
au-­‐delà
des
principes,
des
compromis
?,
CommunicaEon
au
séminaire
‘Renouveler
les
approches
insEtuEonnalistes
sur
l'agriculture
et
l'alimentaEon:
la
"grande
transformaEon"
20
ans
après’,
Montpellier,
16-­‐17
juin
2014.
(+
journal
paper
forthcoming)
Theme Brief presentation
Access and autonomy with
regard to markets
Access and autonomy with regard to markets for producers as well as any collective
structure of production or transformation
Environmental equity Environmental equity allowed by the taking into account of negative environmental
externalities in every economic choice
Social equity Social equity between all stakeholders at any levels of the food system
Partnership between consumers
and producers
The formal or informal but clear presence of a social contract between producers and
consumers
Limitation of profit distribution Benefits are used to reach a social purpose and not to maximise only return on
invested capital
Rural world development and
preservation of the social fabric
Projects of a food system participate to rural development as well as the preservation
of the social fabric
Financial independence Producers stay master of their economic and technical decisions even it implies to
limit input
Durability and adaptation
capacity
Durability and adaptation capacity of agricultural organisation via, mostly, belonging
to a network which could imply farmers, consumers, technical advisors, scientists
Democratic governance Member’s power of an organisation is not based on their capital. Decisions are taken
with a democratic process
Organisational proximity Organisational proximity between stakeholders of production and transformation
steps
Geographical proximity Geographical proximity between stakeholders of production, transformation and
consumption steps
Diversity of knowledge and
capacity of exchanging them
Traditional, empirical and scientific knowledge are shared between producers
Main
themes
of
socio-­‐economic
principles
idenTfied
in
the
literature
review

32. Socio-economic and political principles
5 principles (other wordings coexist)
1. Social
organiza;on
2. Knowledge
3. Autonomy
4. Social
Equity
5. Democracy
Can
we
strip
agroecology
from
these
dimensions
?
Source
:
Manuel
Gonzalez
de
Molina
(2013):
Agroecology
and
PoliTcs.
How
To
Get
Sustainability?
About
the
Necessity
for
a
PoliTcal
Agroecology,
Agroecology
and
Sustainable
Food
Systems,
37:1,
45-­‐59

33. Socio-economic and political principles
Real agroecology or simply sustainable agriculture
1. Social
organiza;on
2. Knowledge
3. Autonomy
4. Social
Equity
5. Democracy
Can
we
strip
agroecology
from
these
dimensions
?
Source
:
Manuel
Gonzalez
de
Molina
(2013):
Agroecology
and
PoliTcs.
How
To
Get
Sustainability?
About
the
Necessity
for
a
PoliTcal
Agroecology,
Agroecology
and
Sustainable
Food
Systems,
37:1,
45-­‐59
(Gonzales
de
Molina,
“the
necessity
for
a
poliTcal
agroecology”,
2013)
(1)
• Agroecosystems
are
socioecological
construc;ons
• The
product
of
the
relaTonships
between
the
populaTon
and
the
resources
available
to
them.
Power
and
conflicts
are
present
in
these
social
relaTonships.
• Addressing
sustainabilitu
requires
tackling
social
inequaliTes
(an
ecosystemic
pathology)
• Agroecology
is
a
powerful
tool
to
achieve
change
in
food
systems
(a
massive
redesign
of
the
economic
structures
that
govern
our
food
systems)
• A
technocra;c
agroecology
would
strip
socioecological
change
of
any
collec;ve
dimension
of
agroecology
Not
without
doing
SOMETHING
ELSE
THAN
agroecology

34. Should States, and the FAO, endorse and support it?
A horizon for achieving the progressive realization of the right to food
Source
:
Manuel
Gonzalez
de
Molina
(2013):
Agroecology
and
PoliTcs.
How
To
Get
Sustainability?
About
the
Necessity
for
a
PoliTcal
Agroecology,
Agroecology
and
Sustainable
Food
Systems,
37:1,
45-­‐59
FAO
-­‐ Agroecology
enables
the
FAO
to
beger
fulfill
its
mission
-­‐ Report
“Mission
to
the
FAO”,
UN
Special
rapporteur
on
the
right
to
food,
2012
States
-­‐ OpTng
for
the
best
way
to
improve
food
systems,
not
the
second
best.
-­‐ Scaling
across
and
scaling
up
agroecology
-­‐ No
‘islands
of
success’
An
‘ecological-­‐only’
soluTon
is
insufficient
given
the
scale
of
the
necessary
changes
in
food
systems
(inequaliTes,
concentraTon
in
agri-­‐food
changes,
…)

35. Source
:
(1)
Stassart,
P.M.,
Baret,
P.,
Grégoire,
J.-­‐C.,
Hance,
T.,
Mormont,
M.,
Reheul,
D.,
Vanloqueren,
G.
and
Visser,
M.
(2012),
Trajectoire
et
potenTel
de
l'agroécologie,
pour
une
transiTon
vers
des
systèmes
alimentaires
durables.
In
Van
Dam,
D.,
Streith,
M.,
Nizet,
J.
and
Stassart
P.M.
(dir.)
Agroécologie.
Entre
praEques
et
sciences
sociales.
Educagri
édiTons,
2012,
Paris,
pp.
25-­‐51.
(2)
InternaTonal
InsTtute
for
Environment
and
Development
(IIED):
"Agroecology
-­‐
What
it
is
and
what
it
has
to
offer"
Laura
Silici,
Issue
Paper
(June
2014).
The three meanings of agroecology
‘Strong’ agroecology
“Agroecology
is
not
defined
exclusively
by
scien;fic
fields,
social
movements,
or
prac;ces.
Its
role
is
to
become
a
federa;ng
concept
of
ac;on
in
the
middle
of
these
three
dimensions
(Stassart
et
al,
2012
building
on
Wezel,
Bellon
et
al.
2009)”
(1)
Agroecology
–
‘the
applicaTon
of
ecological
concepts
and
principles
to
the
design
and
management
of
sustainable
agro-­‐ecosystems’
–
has
three
facets.
It
is:
1. a
scien;fic
discipline
involving
the
holisTc
study
of
agro-­‐
ecosystems,
including
human
and
environmental
elements
2. a
set
of
principles
and
prac;ces
to
enhance
the
resilience
and
ecological,
socio-­‐economic
and
cultural
sustainability
of
farming
systems
3. a
movement
seeking
a
new
way
of
considering
agriculture
and
its
relaTonships
with
society.
(IIED,
2014)
(2)

36. Conclusions
From
impacts
to
policies
1. Acknowledge
that
agroecology
is
more
than
sustainable
agriculture.
– Agroecology
≠
sustainable
intensifica;on
• FederaTve
concept
:
PracTces
+
science
+
social
movement
• Horizon
&
pathway
towards
that
horizon
2. Agroecology
has
posi;ve
socio-­‐economic
impacts
– on
employment,
incomes,
livelihoods,
and
macroeconomic
indicators
as
well
– Assessment
of
socio-­‐economic
impacts
could
be
more
systemaTc
– Yet
• more
research
is
not
necessary
to
start
bringing
AE
to
scale
• ParTcipaTve
assessments
• not
narrowing
everything
down
to
economics
3. Necessity
and
feasability
of
bringing
agroecology
to
scale
– Engage
with
exisTng
networks
and
organizaTons
to
scale
agroecology
across
territories
– “Subsidies
to
sustainability”
– Support
champions
:
municipaliTes,
regions/districts/territories,
countries.

37. Paper
in
Solu;ons
Journal
-­‐-­‐>
Includes
secTons
on
• Roots
of
the
Future:
The
New
Agricultural
Paradigm
• The
Obstacles
to
the
Necessary
Change
• Scaling
Up
Sustainable
Agriculture:
Policies
for
Change
• Linking
Sustainable
Farming
to
Markets:
The
Poli;cal
Economy
of
Food
Chains
• Stopping
the
Damage:
The
Role
of
Land
Personal
contribu;ons
Titles
of
papers
use
words
that
seek
to
aoract
new
audiences
to
agroecology…
• 13
obstacles
to
scaling
up
agroecological
research
• Lock-­‐in
and
path-­‐dependence
in
agricultural
research
systems
(hop://thesoluTonsjournal.org/node/971)

38. Personal
publicaEons
on
Academia.edu.
Contact
:
gaetan.vanloqueren@gmail.com
Interuniversity
cer;ficate
‘Agroecology
&
Transi;on
towards
sustainable
food
systems
(French)
www.agroecologie.be/