No abstract

Abstract:The concept of agroecology is being mobilized increasingly. However, its socioeconomic dimensions receive little attention from academia. This study helps to clarify the socioeconomic principles of agroecology by first identifying a list of principles in popular and scientific literature and, as a second step, by putting the principles to the test of a qualitative study of two Belgian organizations. Agribio is a grain cooperative, and Les Grosses Légumes is a network of consumers, farmers, and the members of an association set up to organize the production and distribution of vegetable boxes. Semi-directed interviews of the various actors linked to these organizations were conducted and then analyzed through an approach inspired by the convention theory in order to reveal the principles that the stakeholders have adopted. The main findings are then made explicit by analysis of four strong agreements (which concern the two organizations' marketing schemes, a Participatory Guarantee System set up by Les Grosses Légumes and Agribio's flour mill). The two case studies show the gap that exists between the principles that describe the horizon of agroecology and the principles that are actually put into practice by the parties in the field through various transition pathways.

Humanity faces a triple threat of climate change, biodiversity loss, and global food insecurity. In response, increasing the general adaptive capacity of farming systems is essential. We identify two divergent strategies for building adaptive capacity. Simplifying processes seek to narrowly maximize production by shifting the basis of agricultural production toward centralized control of socially and ecologically homogenized systems. Diversifying processes cultivate social-ecological complexity in order to provide multiple ecosystem services, maintain management flexibility, and promote coordinated adaptation across levels. Through five primarily United States focused cases of distinct agricultural challenges—foodborne pathogens, drought, marginal lands, labor availability, and land access and tenure—we compare simplifying and diversifying responses to assess how these pathways differentially enhance or degrade the adaptive capacity of farming systems in the context of the triple threat. These cases show that diversifying processes can weave a form of broad and nimble adaptive capacity that is fundamentally distinct from the narrow and brittle adaptive capacity produced through simplification. We find that while there are structural limitations and tradeoffs to diversifying processes, adaptive capacity can be facilitated by empowering people and enhancing ecosystem functionality to proactively distribute resources and knowledge where needed and to nimbly respond to changing circumstances. Our cases suggest that, in order to garner the most adaptive benefits from diversification, farming systems should balance the pursuit of multiple goals, which in turn requires an inclusive process for active dialogue and negotiation among diverse perspectives. Instead of locking farming systems into pernicious cycles that reproduce social and ecological externalities, diversification processes can enable nimble responses to a broad spectrum of possible stressors and shocks, while also promoting social equity and ecological sustainability.

No abstract

Despite the increasingly widespread use of the term agroecology by farmers, scientists, agrarian social movements, and lawmakers, the definition of the concept is still the object of controversies. Current interpretations range widely, from fully transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary definitions integrating ecological, socioeconomic, and political dimensions of agriculture, to more narrow definitions of agroecology as a discipline bridging ecology and agronomy. No less importantly, few actors have developed criteria and methodologies to identify and evaluate agroecological systems based on both ecological and socioeconomic dimensions. The lack of consistency in the study and application of "agroecology," resulting from varying definitions for agroecology and the absence of standardized methodologies to identify agroecological systems, is problematic. It limits the recognition of associated benefits and disadvantages of different agroecological systems, as well as the identification of drivers that favor the implementation of agroecological practices. While lessons learned from individual case studies are valuable and showcase the potential of agroecology, results are not always relevant to other contexts. Here, we review existing theoretical and empirical agroecological literature. The major points that emerge are the following: (1) we integrate six historical ecological principles with seven socioeconomic principles to propose an overarching framework for recognizing systems oriented towards agroecology; (2) the implementation of different principles may vary greatly across spatial scales or governance contexts; (3) there are numerous barriers that farmers may face in their transition towards an agroecological "ideal"-this highlights the need for improved recognition of systems in transition, as well as the need for supportive policies to scale up agroecology. The application of two complementary methodological approaches presented in our review has the potential to help practitioners evaluate to what extent a system can be considered as agroecological based on ecological and socioeconomic principles.