Agroecology centers in situ ecological innovation and offers farmers more choice, flexibility, and adaptability to changing circumstances. By contrast, industrial models of agriculture lock farmers into purchasing inputs and create cycles of indebtedness, benefiting large corporations at the expense of food producers.

A common critique levied against agroecology is that it is focused on the past and seeks to keep local farmers in poverty. In contrast, critics claim that industrial agriculture and accompanying agricultural technologies boost development and improve livelihoods. 

Although it certainly draws on cultural and ecological traditions, agroecology is a scientific approach to agriculture. People practicing agroecology consider the complex interactions between plants, animals, and the environment, with the goal of creating sustainable and resilient food systems. It is based on the principles of ecology, which is the scientific study of the relationships between living organisms and their environments. Agroecology recognizes that farming is not just about producing food, but also about managing ecosystems, conserving natural resources, and building social and economic resilience. It is therefore deeply rooted in the scientific understanding of ecological relationships among species, the physical environment and natural systems. Agroecology recognizes that farmers themselves have a deep understanding of their local environments and the challenges they face, and that this knowledge must be fully integrated into any sustainable farming system. 

While proponents of industrial agriculture position farmers as needing to “improve” by purchasing goods and services, agroecology recognizes farmers themselves as innovators, entrepreneurs, and knowledge producers. For example, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) argues that innovations to local problems must be developed in partnership with farmers and communities or they are unlikely to succeed. The IAASTD was a project initiated by the World Bank and the United Nations that brought together more than 400 scientists from all continents and a broad spectrum of disciplines working together for four years to answer the question of how agricultural knowledge, science, and technology could best be used to reduce hunger and ensure sustainable livelihoods.

Contrary to criticisms of agroecology as static, it is responsive to changing environmental and social conditions, and embraces innovation. For example, a partnership between the non-profit Bio Gardening Innovations (BIOGI) and local farmers in Western Kenya demonstrates how innovative practices, combined with local farmer knowledge, can lead to revitalized farming systems. The staple crop in the region is maize, traditionally harvested twice a year and grown using agrochemicals. As a growing population encroached on the land, farmers resorted to increasingly aggressive farming techniques to maintain yields. This led to soil exhaustion, decreased quality of each yield, dependence on third parties to provide chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and the high risks that come with monocropping. BIOGI worked with farmers to grow food forests, combining farmers’ knowledge of the land with innovative permaculture methods. Food forests involve layers of plants and wildlife that live harmoniously with little human intervention, producing crops and trees useful to the farmers as both food and cash crops. It also involved making fertilizer from fallen leaves and animal droppings, which restored soil fertility and increased the economic independence of farmers, who were no longer reliant on expensive inputs. The collaboration has enabled farmers to confront food insecurity and restore and protect biodiversity. As the success of the practice grows, more farmers are joining through farmer-to-farmer education and farmer-led experimentation.

Agroecology actually provides more control to farmers than does industrial agriculture, by reducing their reliance on expensive external inputs such as synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Accordingly, many small-scale and Indigenous farmers themselves are demanding a greater focus on agroecological farming practices rather than industrial agriculture. For example, at the 2015 International Forum on Agriculture, diverse social movements and organizations representing small-scale food producers gathered and produced a final declaration stating that they considered “agroecology as a key element in the construction of food sovereignty.” Far from being locked in to the past, many farmers see agroecology as crucial to a  future of empowerment and food sovereignty — “the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems.”

(source: Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa)

What’s in a name? Agroecology and other terms for ecological agriculture

In this film series, we expressly advocate for agroecology, rather than sustainable, organic, or regenerative agriculture. Although these approaches share some similarities in moving toward more environmentally-friendly forms of food production, there are major differences that set agroecology apart as a better model.

Sustainable agriculture is a catch-all term for practices that consider long-term viability. The UN’s 1987 report Our Common Future (also sometimes referred to as the Brundtland Report) defined sustainability as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” According to the report, sustainability must address three Es: ecology, economy, and social equity. However, sustainability as a term has been applied so widely and to such contradictory practices that it has become meaningless. There are no rigorous guidelines governing what is or is not sustainable agriculture, which allows organizations and companies to greenwash their activities—in other words, they claim to be “sustainable” and environmentally conscious, while continuing to engage in harmful practices. 

Organic agriculture is a farming approach that seeks to reduce the use of synthetic chemical fertilizers and pesticides. In the US, it typically refers to farms that meet a minimum set of ecological standards, as certified by an independent third party. In this context, some producers who may use low-input practices or “organic” methods cannot get certified due to cost and access issues. Organic agriculture also retains market imperatives and is silent on issues of labor rights or equity (although some attempts have been made to incorporate these into global definitions). As such, many organic producers and companies are massive farms or subsidiaries of huge corporations, with rampant labor violations. Additionally, the imperative of serving large markets means that many organic producers are forced to purchase “alternative” inputs, rather than relying on more time-intensive biophysical processes (like composting or crop rotation). 

Like sustainable agriculture, regenerative agriculture is very poorly defined and open to sometimes contradictory interpretations. Even among practitioners, it is used to refer to different processes or objectives, from sequestering carbon to maintaining soil health to emphasizing human health. This lack of a clear or cohesive definition makes it easily co-opted by organizations and companies in greenwashing their work. Furthermore, like organic agriculture, the regenerative agriculture movement is largely silent on issues of social equity, including the impacts of racism on the food system. 

Agroecology is a recent name for a set of practices and overall approaches that have been used by farmers around the world for generations. It is based on observing and mirroring ecological processes in producing food, including practices that improve or maintain soil health, use water efficiently, and deter unwanted pests. It has been codified by organizations like the UN Food and Agriculture Organization as including 13 ecological, social, and political principles. It is therefore more cohesive, unified, and prescriptive than other terms, and it requires fundamental changes to outlooks, political systems, and social processes, unlike other movements that seek to make capitalist forms of agriculture simply “greener.” At the same time, there are ongoing efforts to co-opt it, by reducing it to a set of discrete components (rather than a holistic approach).

The UN FAO's 13 Principles of Agroecology (source: Agroecology Europe)

Sources: