大会講演
Territorial Scaling of Agroecology: at the Intersection of Agri-food Sustainability Transitions and Rural Revitalization
2022 年 58 巻 1 号 p. 36-43
詳細
2022 年 58 巻 1 号 p. 36-43
The discussion around global environmental issues such as climate change, as well as changes in societal expectations towards the role of agriculture and food production, have focused attention on sustainability transitions in agri-food systems. In parallel, there is a growing recognition of the potential of small-scale, agroecological and territorially integrated farming and food systems to help transition towards more sustainable more sustainable forms of production. Redesigning local and regional agri-food systems according to agroecological principles also holds the potential to increase the resilience of farming systems and rural communities and create linkages among agri-food system actors—from producers to consumers—based on fairer and more democratic relationships. This paper employs concepts from the field of sustainability transitions, together with the notion of territorialization, to discuss opportunities and barriers to scale agroecology at the territorial level and suggest directions for future research and practice.
The unsustainability of current agricultural practices and modes of agri-food system organization is becoming a central concern in the context of climate change, rapid ecological degradation and growing socio-economic inequality at global and local levels (Rockström et al., 2020). As a result, calls for a radical transformation of food production based on agroecological principles and practices are increasing (Dale, 2020; Lamine and Dawson, 2018). Although agroecology is considered a promising paradigm for agri-food system transformation, an open question is how to bring agroecological principles and practices to scale in order to enact transformative change (Mier et al., 2018). A central concern is how to expand successful agroecological initiatives beyond isolated, local experiences towards the inclusion of more farms across larger territories, which in turn can accelerate an agroecological transition.
To explore opportunities and barriers for the scaling of agroecology, this paper employs concepts from the field of sustainability transitions in connection with the notion of territorialization, examining how the the interplay between the three basic elements of transitions—culture, practices, and structures—can support or hinder the uptake of agroecological practices at territorial level. The paper concludes by outlining promising directions for future research and leverage points for change.
Over the past decades, tremendous gains in agricultural yields and labour productivity have been achieved through the industrialization, scale enlargement, and corporatization of farming systems. These gains, however, came at the price of increasing dependence on manufactured inputs and high vulnerability to external disruptions and shocks. These issues are likely to be exacerbated by growing economic and environmental instability, challenging the ability of current farming systems to adapt to an increasingly uncertain world (Knickel et al., 2018).
The current agricultural model is also characterized by negative social, economic and cultural impacts. The globalization of food supply chains and the increasing domination of vertically integrated agri-food corporations marginalizes small scale farmers and farm workers (Tilzey, 2019), while also failing to provide healthy, nutritionally adequate and culturally appropriate food for the global population (Willett et al., 2019). Smaller, diversified and agroecologically managed farms, on the other hand, significantly contribute to the global food supply both in terms of quantity and quality (Fanzo, 2018). Besides, it has been shown that farming systems based on small scale, diversified farms can be both more sustainable and productive than large-scale industrial farming operations (DeLonge et al., 2016).
These global issues are interconnected with local and regional-level challenges. Rural areas not suitable for agricultural intensification, scale-enlargement and specialization, in particular, have been characterized by the progressive reduction of agricultural activities, or ‘de-agrarianization’ (Hisano et al., 2018). Mountainous and hilly areas—prevalent in countries such as Japan—comprise a majority of agriculturally marginal regions, and are characterized by widespread abandonment, depopulation and outmigration process, in a vicious circle that leads to the further weakening of rural communities. In this context, the multifaceted importance of marginal rural areas and small-scale farming is being re-evaluated in relation to their potential of spearheading the transition towards more sustainable agri-food systems. In marginal regions, as well as those characterized by ‘peasant-like’ forms of agriculture, farming systems tend to be characterized by a higher degree of diversity and multifunctionality compared to intensively farmed areas, making them more suitable for the faster uptake of sustainable practices. In the same vein, “small farms’ role in rural sustainability should be recognised as a progressive, postneoliberal alternative rather than as a pre-modern obstacle to economic efficiency and productivism” (Shucksmith and Rønningen, 2011: p. 285).
Agroecology has been gaining attention as a paradigm to address sustainability transitions across all dimensions of agri-food systems (Lamine and Dawson, 2018). Agroecology is a “transformative science, practice, and movement that is explicitly committed to a more just and sustainable future by reshaping power relations from farm to table” (Nicholls and Altieri, 2018: p. 17). It recognizes that agri-food systems’ sustainability requires a reconnection both between agriculture and environment, and between agriculture and society. It stresses the social and political dimensions of food production and consumption, and advocates for a shift away from mainstream visions of sustainability transitions in agriculture, dominated by input-substitution paradigms and reliance on technological ‘fixes’ (e.g., patented crop genetics, precision farming), that do not address the underlying socio-economic causes of unsustainability (Duru et al., 2015). Agroecology focuses instead on whole system redesign at farm, landscape and food system level (Gliessman, 2015). This applies not only to the management of the biological processes involved in crop production, but also to the wider economic, social and cultural context in which food production and consumption occur.
This conceptualization of agroecological transitions resonates with broader research on sustainability transitions. A ‘transition’ is a fundamental change in the culture (behaviours, norms, values, identity, ethics), practices (routines, skills, actions) and structures (rules and regulations, institutions, networks, infrastructure), of a societal (sub)system, such as the agri-food system (Loorbach and Rotmans, 2010). A transition occurs when these three elements co-evolve through social, technological, and institutional innovations, until they change in such fundamental ways that the system itself is deeply transformed. Crucially, innovations often emerge within ‘niches’ (such as agroecology) seeking to challenge and replace the culture, practice and structures of the dominant regime (Geels and Schot, 2010).
In the field of sustainable agri-food system research, this understanding of transitions is leading to a growing emphasis on the ‘territorial’ dimension of agri-food practices. Territorial agri-food systems are conceptualized as “systems of actors and institutions that may have different visions and aims guiding their actions but yet are interdependent” (Lamine et al., 2019: p. 163). A territorial perspective helps understand the diversity of actors and institutions involved in a specific agri-food system (delimited for example on the basis of topography and/or cultural identity), and of related initiatives. It also allows for a deeper understanding of contradictions, complementarities and interdependencies, indicating possible pathways for increasing the transformative potential of sustainable agri-food initiatives and bringing them to scale (Lamine and Dawson, 2018).
In a similar way, agroecology scholars are also increasingly concerned with how to scale successful agroecological initiatives beyond isolated, local experiences towards the inclusion of more farms across larger territories, which in turn can bring about a transition towards more sustainable farming systems on a larger scale (McGreevy et al., 2021). Previous literature on the territorialization of agroecology and agroecological territories has identified various factors, or drivers, necessary to this process (e.g. Mier et al., 2018; Nicholls and Altieri, 2018). The following sections examine drivers of agroecological scaling in relation to the three elements of transitions, namely culture, practice and structures, contextualizing them from a territorial perspective.
(1) CultureThe importance of the cultural dimension of sustainability transitions—including the importance of motivations, mindsets and values in influencing sustainability behaviours—has only recently been acknowledged. Transitioning to sustainability “entails a shift in mindsets, engaging with emotions and changing cultural narratives and worldviews” (Horlings et al., 2020: p. 359). As a result, individual and collective motivations guiding agroecological choices are emerging as an important driver of agroecological transitions and scaling. Farmers’ motivations to engage in agroecological practices emerge from the interplay between individual values and needs (desired lifestyle, economic sustainability, social status, well-being) and a desire to positively affect sustainability-oriented change in the agri-food system at both local and global level. Territorial embeddedness and attachment to place also play an increasingly important role, with a growing awareness of the role of agroecological farming for the environmental and social well-being of communities, both locally and through relational connections (e.g. between producers and consumers) (Zollet and Maharjan, 2020, 2021b).
Personal motivations are in turn shaped by broader systemic crises that directly affect farmers and that drive the search for alternative models. These crises create windows of opportunity for alternatives (niches) to the agro-industrial regime to emerge (Mier et al., 2018). Crucially, these crises do not drive change only among established farmers, but also contribute to attracting new actors into the farming landscape. Instances such as the 2008 economic crisis, or the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan, for example, have increased the desirability of rural and agrarian lifestyles and heightened concerns over local and global agri-food issues. Global North countries have recently seen an intensification of processes of ‘return to rural’ or ‘return to farming’ (Milone and Ventura, 2019). A growing number of new agroecological farmers in Europe, Japan, and North America, for example, come from non-farming families or are urban-to-rural migrants. Although still a minority among the farming population, the innovative mindsets and practices pioneered by newcomers may play an important role in agroecological scaling (Zollet and Maharjan, 2021a).
Finally, to sustain the momentum for agroecological transitions, discourses and leadership able to turn individual into collective action are also crucial (Mier et al., 2018). Like other social movements, the scaling of agroecology depends on the capacity of involved actors to frame a common identity and principles, and be culturally relevant to their context to drive democratic and meaningful change (Andree et al., 2019; Zollet and Maharjan, 2021b).
(2) PracticesThe uptake of agroecological practices crucially depends on their effectiveness, i.e. their capacity to produce positive observable results and to allow for continued uptake over time, while also increasing the social, economic and ecological resilience of farmers. Although a detailed examination of agroecological practices is beyond the scope of this paper, practices appear to be affected by three territorially-rooted factors: 1) diversity (from on-farm crop and animal diversity to market channel diversification); 2) resource flows, meaning the dynamics of dependence on external inputs and interactions between farm components and the agri-food system; and 3) the availability of effective and appropriate tools and techniques developed and/or controlled by farmers (Mier et al., 2018; Nicholls et al., 2020).
Constructivist teaching and learning processes are crucial for the diffusion of agroecological practices, especially given the lack of institutional support for agroecological research. Examples include farmer-to-farmer knowledge sharing, the co-creation of knowledge between farmers and extension actors, and the inclusion of local and traditional knowledge to account for site-specific characteristics (e.g. working with local seed varieties). The growth of farmer-led communities of practice and knowledge, especially at the territorial level, has greatly contributed to the expansion of agroecological knowledge on the ground. This subverts the mainstream approach that treats farmers as mere recipients of knowledge produced elsewhere by institutional actors (Sumane et al., 2016). Horizontal farmer networks also represent a site of resistance where knowledge about tools and techniques suitable for agroecology can be democratically shared and controlled, unlike patented technologies promoted by dominant regime actors. Farmers can learn from each other and reproduce or adapt locally successful experiences to similar territories, often with a multiplier effect (Nicholls and Altieri, 2018; Tregear and Cooper, 2016).
(3) StructuresThe term ‘structures’ encompasses the following interconnected elements, operating at various interconnected levels: a) farmers’ social organization (membership in formal and informal farmer networks, organizations, cooperatives, etc.); b) the characteristics of local agri-food systems, both in terms of their physical structures and socio-cultural constructs and relationships; and c) Agricultural policies, organisations and institutions.
The degree of social organization of farmers, intended primarily as horizontal social processes and linkages, has been widely recognized as one—if not the most—vital element for successful agroecological scaling at territorial level. Social organization creates “the structure through which values, meanings, lessons learned, and horizons of political action circulate” (Mier et al., 2018: p. 19). Beyond political action and knowledge creation, social organization among agroecological farmers also leads to the establishment of structures such as alternative land management models, cooperatives, and processing infrastructures that allow farmers to retain more control and value over the entire supply chain (Tregear and Cooper, 2016; Wittman et al., 2017).
In addition to farmer-centric networks, the creation of alliances between farmers and other actors and institutions whose values and goals align with agroecology is also crucial (Dale, 2020). Far from being only a production-side concern, the scaling of agroecology is a wider social process that reverberates across the agri-food system, connecting a multitude of actors concerned about sustainability across the different phases of food production, processing, distribution and consumption. This is exemplified by the emergence of transversal initiatives connecting rural and urban areas as sites of both production and consumption, in which attempts are being made to reorganize local food systems around agroecological principles and practices (Blay-Palmer et al., 2021). The development of favourable markets (such as Alternative and Local Food Networks, AFNs) is one of the most cited examples (Forssell and Lankoski, 2014). These markets often represent an entry point for agroecological scaling, as they increase the socio-economic viability of farmers adopting agroecological practices. Moreover, when paired with supportive food policy initiatives at local level (such as Food Policy Councils), they also contribute to the creation of a ‘food citizenship’ mindset within citizens and institutions.
At a higher institutional level, favourable policies are also key for agroecological scaling, as they can effect rapid and large-scale change within the agri-food sector. Examples include policies ensuring preferential access to land and economic support for small-scale and agroecological farming (Mier et al., 2018). Previous research, however, suggests that the spread of agroecological initiatives requires a combination of complementary policies targeting both the production and consumption side of the agri-food system. One example is public food procurement programs prioritizing food sourced from local small-scale farmers, in combination with economic incentives for agroecological conversion (Nicholls and Altieri, 2018).
A common criticism to the agroecological paradigm is its perceived lack of economic viability and scalability, which impedes the broader uptake of agroecology. Many critics, however, choose to ignore that farmers and farming systems are embedded in a broader economic system that rewards a narrow set of outcomes, such as productivity, global competitiveness, and low prices. Despite recent attempts, in context such as the EU and Japan, at ‘greening’ agricultural policies and steering them in a more sustainable direction, policy coherence remains a central issue. Policies in support of agroecology have to contend with more entrenched support for industrial farming and corporate agri-food actors. A major example is the persistence of agricultural subsidies that buttress industrial farming and the overproduction of foods with negative environmental and social outcomes (Willett et al., 2019), and perpetuate existing inequalities and power relations by marginalizing small scale and agroecological farmers.
Farmers have been countering these social and economic barriers through social organization and participation in alternative market systems that reward agroecological values and promote a reconnection between producers and consumers. It is not clear, however, to what extent these can drive agroecological scaling if policy support for the reproduction of the agro-industrial model remains in place. Moreover, market arrangements such as AFNs have real transformative potential only when they represent an entry point to address systemic issues, and become arenas for socio-political action (Andree et al., 2019; Forssell and Lankoski, 2014). The ability of multi-actor and multi-scale alliances and networks to meaningfully scale sustainable agri-food practices also depends on the value-alignment and power relationships among partners, and is subject to the continuous danger of co-option by the dominant regime. At the territorial level, the farming system an agroecological farm belongs to also plays a key role. Beyond personal choices, farmers are constrained by a series of factors related to the locally dominant farming mode. Agroecological farmers often face opposition from local conventional farmers, or lack control over the landscape elements needed for agroecological management. In this context, agroecological farmers’ social organization again emerges as crucial, as highlighted by the literature on organic and agroecological clusters (McGreevy et al., 2021; Zollet and Maharjan, 2021a). Despite this, research also shows examples of limited capacity for social organization and cooperation among farmers, mainly due to the atomization of agroecological practices and experiences; this feeds into the neoliberal focus on farmers’ individuality and competition in niche alternative markets, which hinders the territorialization of agroecology by limiting cooperation.
The paper has outlined the contours of agroecological transition processes, examining transformations in terms of agri-food system culture and practices and their relationship with dominant and emerging structures. The territorial scaling of agroecology is a multidimensional process that depends on the convergence of multiple drivers, and that has implication both for the sustainability of the agri-food system at local and global level and for the revitalization and resilience of farming communities.
Promising areas of future research are manifold, starting from the influence of changing farming identities and values on agroecological transitions, and the role played by the influx of new farming system actors (such as newcomer farmers) on driving or accelerating change. This focus, however, needs to be complemented by an understanding of the context across multiple scales, in order to obtain a more nuanced understanding of opportunities and barriers to the transition process. Contextual aspects that need to be investigated include the characteristics of locally dominant farming modes (such as their historical evolution and degree of productivist orientation) and their path-dependency effect on farmers. How do these contextual elements hinder or support the territorial scaling of agroecology (e.g. by influencing the development of stronger cooperation among agroecological farmers and with other local actors)? And how do national and global political and economic dynamics influence and shape this process?
The examination of alliances for agroecology is another key area of research, one that needs to overcome a narrow focus on farmers and rural areas to encompass multidimensional and multi-scalar rural–urban linkages and alliances with the potential for steering policy and market dynamics. These include more attention for alternative practices and structures, such as community-based or cooperative ownership of land and solidarity-based food systems alternative to capitalist and corporate agri-food regimes (Wittman et al., 2017).
Research on the territorialization of agroecology also lends itself to fruitful cross-fertilization with economic and sociological studies on rural resilience and revitalization, by examining the potential of agroecology to (re-)build local and regional agri-food systems able to withstand multiple social, environmental and economic shocks. To do so, however, researchers will need to overcome narrow sectoral viewpoints by employing inter- and trans-disciplinary perspectives and a richer array of methodological tools—including in-depth qualitative observation—to understand the increasingly complex and relational nature of agri-food system dynamics. A central issue also concerns how to translate this complexity into practice: here research can help design non-reductionist policies that consider a broader set of farm organization and management outcomes and emphasize social and ecological goals in agri-food sustainability transitions.
The author wishes to thank Prof. Maharjan Keshav Lall for his guidance and support.
