Agroecological Research: Conforming—or Transforming the Dominant Agro-Food Regime?

Abstract

SUMMARYAgroecology has three practical forms-a scientific discipline, an agricultural practice, and a social movement. Their integration has provided a collective-action mode for contesting the dominant agro-food regime and creating alternatives, especially through a linkage with food sovereignty. At the same time, agroecology has been recently adopted by some actors who also promote conventional agriculture. Agroecology can play different roles-either conforming to the dominant regime, or else helping to transform it-contingent on specific empowerment strategies. Tensions between "conform versus transform" roles can be identified in European agroecological research, especially in three areas: farm-level agroecosystems development; participatory plant breeding; and short food-supply chains remunerating agroecological methods. To play a transformative role, collaborative strategies need to go beyond the linear stereotype whereby scientists "transfer" technology or farmers "apply" scientific research results. To the extent that farmer-scientist alliances co-create and exchange knowledge, such gains can transform the research system.

Addressing the Knowledge Gaps in Agroecology and Identifying Guiding Principles for Transforming Conventional Agri-Food Systems

“…The relationship between the two agendas is discussed by Levidow et al [31]. The importance of social movements is a shared concern between progressive and radical agendas.…”

“…These organisations have been successful in institutionalising agroecology, with influential civil society groups including the Latin American Consortium on Agroecology (CLADES), the National Agroecology Alliance (ANA) and the Brazilian Agroecological Association (ABA-Agroecology), along with scientific institutions like the Brazilian Agricultural Research Organisation. While the ANA and ABA-Agroecology are characterised by Petersen et al [2] as providing a countermovement to Brazil's hegemonic state-corporate neoliberal food regime, elsewhere these institutions are perceived as embodying a top-down, mainstream defence of agroecology in contrast with more radical, bottom-up food movements [31]. Brazil has over 100 under-and postgraduate courses in agroecology in teaching and research organisations [2], along with technical assistance and rural extension programmes which promote agroecology under the National Policy for Technical Assistance and Rural Extension (PNATER) policy of 2003. Notable recent policy developments include the National Agroecology and Organic Production Policy (PNAPO).…”

“…This debate centres on how agroecology can bring about changes to the global food system to make it more socially equitable and ecologically sound. Levidow et al [31] and Holt Giménez and Shattuck [25] identify three divergent tendencies in responses to the global neoliberal food system. The first accepts the tenets of the corporate food system described previously, but considers that minor reforms such as microcredit, agricultural aid and some local food production, along with an intensification of neoliberal measures like further market liberalisation are necessary.…”

“…The importance of social movements is a shared concern between progressive and radical agendas. Indeed, both Levidow et al [31] and Holt Giménez and Shattuck [25] consider that strategic alliances between progressive and radical social movements are key to bringing about wider change, provided progressive projects and ideas are not co-opted into mainstream reformist agendas. However, there are also multiple tensions between and within these broad-brush agendas that deserve further attention.…”

“…[30][31]. Analysing a food regime encompasses political, economic and social analysis to understand the role of food production and consumption relations, particularly in the context of global capitalism [25].…”