大会講演
Scaling up Agroecology from Policies to Practices: Transforming Our Research and Education Systems
2025 年 61 巻 1 号 p. 35-41
詳細
2025 年 61 巻 1 号 p. 35-41
The 2024 ARAFE International Symposium at the 74th Annual Meeting started with welcome addresses by Akitsu Motoki, President of ARAFE and Professor at Kyoto University, and Komatsuzaki Masakazu, President of the Japanese Society of Organic Agriculture Science (JSOAS) and Professor at Ibaraki University. Akitsu welcomed the opportunity to learn from the international experiences in Agroecology (hereafter AE) and glean insights to transform Japanese agriculture to be sustainable. Komatsuzaki referred to the significance of collaboration between social and natural sciences in the endeavor to advance sustainable agriculture for the next generations. Throughout the symposium, Masuda served as chair and Sekine and Takashino as moderators.
To transcend the global challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, hunger, social inequality and so on, the United Nations initiated the Scaling Up Agroecology Initiative at the Second International Symposium on AE held in Rome in 2018. Echoing to this initiative, the countries in the Global North recently launched their respective new agri-food policies that state to transform their current food systems towards more sustainable ones. The European Green Deal in 2019 and Farm to Fork Strategy in 2020, the United States’ Innovation Agenda in 2020, Japan’s Strategy for Sustainable Food Systems (MIDORI) in 2021 are the parts of these efforts.
While the transformation of our agri-food research and education systems in public and private research institutions, universities, agricultural colleges and high-schools, extension centers are essential to achieving the goals declared in the above mentioned green agri-food policies or transcend them, the speed of paving the roads is heterogeneous among countries and regions. For example, Japan is one of the countries that need scale up and scale out its transformation of agri-food research and education systems.
Against this backdrop, the ARAFE organizes two consecutive international symposia on “Scaling Up Agroecology from Policies to Practices” in 2023 and 2024. In the international symposium of 2024 focuses on “Transforming Our Research and Education Systems”. We invite three speakers who involved in the transformation of agri-food research and education systems in the UN, EU, and the US with interdisciplinary approaches.
After three paper presentations—Ferrand et al. (2025), Chiffoleau (2025), and Muramoto (2025)—Kaneko Nobuhiro from Fukushima University and Taniguchi Yoko from Setsunan University commented on the papers.
(C1) Comments by KanekoIn Japan, AE policy and practice are still in their infancy. MIDORI Strategy sets a goal of increasing the area of organic agriculture from 0.7% in 2022 to 25% by 2050. The Basic Agricultural Act does not mention AE. How can we achieve such an ambitious goal? I believe that AE advances through university education and cooperation with society.
Ferrand presented that FAO leads the AE promotion and supporting the policymaking in the Caribbean, South America, and Southeast Asia to cooperate in policymaking. What are the obstacles to extending AE to different countries? How can the FAO’s ideas be applied in Japan?
In France, AE plays a key role in expanding organic agriculture. In the DIVINFOOD project, food diversification is a very successful participatory research project linking producers, chefs, and consumers through training.
In Japan, Ibaraki University and Fukushima University started research on regenerative organic farming based on FAO’s conservation agriculture methods which is no-till, cover crop ones. While ecologically rational methods can support organic farming, we need to connect chefs and consumers as well as producers. How can we involve them? Is there any appropriate size of activity?
As for the education at universities, there is a strong interest in AE among students, farmers, and consumers. The AE initiative at UCSC is progressive and has been constantly developing. Their research, education, and dissemination are well integrated. In Japan, on the other hand, AE is only mentioned in one-shot lectures, and there is not enough research and dissemination programs.
Fukushima University established the first AE program in the master’s program in Japan in 2023. At the first year, 46 students enrolled in the program, of whom 32 students across disciplines took the AE lecture. How can we increase the number of professors/researchers engaged in AE, problem solving oriented, participatory research?
(C2) Comments by TaniguchiAlthough the farmers and other practitioners should play the central role in AE, government policies are expected to have a great impact on its development. In Japan, we do not have a policy that is explicitly promoting AE, but in May 2021, the government installed MIDORI Strategy. Though its aspiring targets are generally welcomed, there are criticisms against the way the strategy was created and against its basic approach to achieve sustainability in food systems.
For example, Sekine (2022) described that the critics of MIDORI Strategy pointed that it too much counts on the new technologies and innovation to achieve the goal, and biases towards industrial smart organic farming. JSOAS (2021) criticized the top-down approach taken by the government and stated that it is essential to promote bottom-up innovation through technology exchange among organic farmers, joint research between farmers and research institutions and diffusion of private-sector technology. Nakajima (2024) pointed out that it was wrong to introduce agricultural technology for environmentally friendly production from outside and try to diffuse them from top to bottom. He argued that “technologies should arise internally as a result of the farmer’s confrontation with the nature and by mimicking the natural order there.”
As shown in these criticisms, not only the policy design, but also the policy-making process significantly matters when we install a policy related to organic farming. In AE, the importance of participatory approach is more explicitly stated as it is a social movement or a peasants’ movement. Third World Network and SOCLA (2015) appropriately defines the concepts of AE to be “a science, a practice and a movement. It is based on scientific and traditional knowledge. It is a science that bridges ecological and socio-economic aspects. It can work at various levels—farm, community, national, regional, and so on. Biological processes are enhanced using agroecological principles and these principles can be shared via farmer-to-farmer exchanges.” It also points that “AE is highly knowledge intensive and is based on techniques that are not delivered top down but developed on the basis of farmer’s knowledge and experimentation.” For this reason, AE emphasizes the capability of local communities to experiment, evaluate, and scale up innovation through farmer-to-farmer research and grassroots extension approaches. From this statement, we can see the importance of involving farmers and other practitioners in the policymaking process when a government promotes AE.
Acknowledging this point, my first question to Ferrand is how can we reflect the views and opinions of farmers and other local stakeholders when a country installs a policy in promoting AE? My second question to Chiffoleau is regarding policy design. How important is it to set up a centralized platform that serve for the common interest of practitioners and other stakeholders in AE? Should not all policy measures be decentralized in promoting AE? My last question to Muramoto is concerning education program. I teach an introductory course of organic farming at Setsunan University, and I realized not all students are interested in the course, or many students forget most of what they learned in the course. How can we motivate the students to learn AE? What would be the effective pedagogical device in AE? What kind of knowledge or skills can attain greater satisfaction from the students?
(R1) Reply by FerrandReply to “what are the obstacles to extending AE to different countries?”: Extending AE to different countries presents a range of obstacles that can hinder its adoption and implementation. It is therefore important to understand these barriers for developing effective strategies to promote agroecological practices globally. However, it is critical to always keep in mind that agroecological approaches are context specific and therefore cannot be transposed from one place to another without adjustment/adaptation.
This being said, one significant obstacle often identified is the lack of awareness and understanding of AE among farmers and policymakers. This knowledge gap is often exacerbated by limited access to education and training programs that could facilitate the transition from conventional to agroecological farming.
Another critical barrier is the socio-economic context in which farmers operate. In many developing countries, older farmers may be particularly reluctant to change, preferring traditional farming techniques that they have been practicing for generations. Additionally, the financial constraints faced by farmers can limit their ability to invest in the necessary resources and technologies to implement agroecological practices. This is compounded by issues of land tenure insecurity.
Technology, innovation and knowledge challenges also play a role. The transition to AE often requires new tools, innovations and techniques that may not be available or affordable. The existing agricultural policies in many countries may also favor industrial farming practices, creating an uneven playing field that disadvantages agroecological approaches.
Environmental factors, such as landscape heterogeneity and genetic complexities, can complicate the implementation of agroecological practices. Different regions may require tailored approaches that consider local biodiversity and ecosystem services, which can be difficult to navigate without adequate research and support.
Lastly, social justice and equity issues can hinder the scaling of AE. Marginalized communities may not have equal access to resources, knowledge, or decision-making processes, which can limit their participation in agroecological initiatives. Addressing these social dimensions is essential for fostering inclusive and sustainable agricultural systems.
Reply to “how do we introduce FAO’s idea to policymakers in Japan?”: first, AE is not a “FAO’s idea” since it is still a rather new area of work for FAO compared to the work carried out by many other stakeholders for several decades. In FAO, AE was incorporated in the program of work less than 10 years ago.
There is a growing number of countries engaging in AE transition at national or regional level, or beyond. Supporting peer to peer exchange with other countries actively promoting AE could be a good start to encouraging policymakers in Japan to support AE. This approach was done for instance to promote the school meal program in the Philippines with experience sharing and technical assistance from Brazil where it had been successfully developed under the 1st Lula administration. The school meal program aims at procuring food for school canteens from smallholders and family farmers. The new policies launched by Brazil on World Food Day, the National Food Supply Plan “Alimento no Prato” (Planaab) and the National Plan for AE and Organic Production (Planapo) aimed at guaranteeing healthy food for all Brazilians, with a focus on agroecological production and valuing family farming, cooperatives, and small producers.
Reply to “how can we reflect views and opinions of farmers and other local stakeholders when a country installs a policy promoting AE?”: for most countries engaged in the development of agroecological policies, one of the critical steps is the organization of local consultations in order to gather relevant and context specific information from all stakeholders, especially from farming communities and other local stakeholders.
For instance, in the case of the development of the model law in Latin America, three sub-regional consultations were held (South America, Mesoamerica and the Caribbean) engaging with parliamentarians, Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), academia, social movements, and international organizations. This meant to ensure that the law reflects the specific realities and needs of each country and region as well as from each stakeholder group.
(R2) Reply by ChiffoleauReply to “how can we involve farmers, producers, consumers, and is there any appropriate size of activity?”: In the living labs, it’s always a challenge. For instance, in our DIVINFOOD project, we are working on minor cereals and pulses. It is interesting for consumers to have healthy food, for farmers to get more value, for local small-scale processors to also value their minimal processing techniques. What is important is to enroll these individuals by valuing their specific and unique contributions. Everyone has a specific role in the innovation network. Though each of us has no solution, together, we can have one in a systemic approach. The collective can evaluate the impacts of doing AE from seed to plate. We are building a common local community where we ensure symbolic gains, not only money, but also a social link, conviviality, friendship, and moral support.
What is important is to build this supporting network for farmers and for processors switching to AE. Mutual help, advice and moral support, these symbolic gains giving confidence to change of practices, are really important. Moreover, based on our evaluation, we confirm that AE can be a very economically interesting approach. It is not norms or official rules, but through the soft control under the pressure of norms or official rules, but through person-to-person interaction, we can scale up AE. You know there are two ways to scale up AE. The first way is to increase the size, and the second way is to increase the number of communities of AE, so that is what we developed. We developed communities with links between these different communities.
Reply to “how important it is to set up a centralized platform for the interest of practitioners and also stakeholders in AE?”: AE is fundamentally based on locally produced knowledge and innovation, a context specific in different communities. At the same time, we develop interactions between different communities at the national level and European level to share issues and build solutions together.
We together contributed to revise regulations that were mostly designed for the agro-industrial food system at national and European level, as they were blocking AE. For instance, in France, you are not allowed to exchange seeds that are not included in the official catalog. Even though you want to exchange local seeds that adapt to your territory and AE, you are not allowed. We also have a strict regulation on slaughterhouses, which is suitable for the agro-industry. Under this regulation, local slaughterhouses face difficulties to maintain their operations. Sharing these obstacles within the national and the European Network made it possible for us to formulate and add ordinance that changes the regulation. In Europe, the diffusion of Organic Heterogeneous Material is now possible, which is a first step won under pressure from the AE networks. In France, the network succeeded in obtaining greater flexibility for on-farm meat processing. These changes in regulations favor the development of AE based short and local food chain.
We work both at local, national, and European levels. Creating the meeting point between these different levels is essential to scale up agroecological approach and practices.
(R3) Reply by MuramotoReply to “how can we increase the number of professors/researchers engaged in AE, problem solving oriented, participatory research?”: First, AE encompasses both the natural and the social sciences, so interdisciplinary approach is critically important. Also, non-agricultural liberal arts colleges like UCSC may have advantages to start such a program because traditional agricultural schools tend to be too specialized or have strong connections to agro-industries. Fukushima University has just started an AE course, and Keisen University in Tokyo has AE-related activities. Setsunan University and Ryukoku Universities’ new agricultural departments could also have such programs. Keisen University sends students to UCSC almost every summer. Many other Japanese organic researchers came to UCSC to visit and learn. Such exchages could also help.
As for participatory research, I brought this question to Dr. Stephen R. Gliessman, and his response was the following: look for organic farmers who have made the agroecological transition to Level 3, which is not just substituting the input, but also redesign the whole system, or beyond Level 3, and work with them using the participatory approach. Find and work with farmers who have brought diversity back into their farms, established more direct relationships with consumers, and become activists for transforming their systems towards food sovereignty and worked to create local policy that promotes the transition.
In addition, I believe it is effective to create a competitive grant program that requires a participatory approach as a mandatory condition. In the US, the largest organic research competitive grant, called the USDA Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative, has this requirement. Probably you can revise the requirements in the Japanese KAKENHI grant system.
Reply to “how can we motivate students to learn AE? What would be the effective pedagogical device in AE? What kind of knowledge or skills can attain greater satisfaction from the students?”: First, I would suggest exposing students to local food, agriculture, environmental-related issues by connecting them with inspiring local problem solvers. Those could be researchers, organic farmers, NPOs, and policymakers. This could be done as student projects or internships, which could also create peer-to-peer learning opportunities for students.
Second, interdisciplinary research and teaching are essential. This is necessary to solve the environmental and food system issues, which covers agricultural production to food systems and requires AE’s holistic approach consisting of social and natural science disciplines. This could attract students with diverse interests and provide many future pathways to students as problem solvers.
Third, hands-on experiential learning on food production and soil health. Today, most students have no experience of growing crops. I believe learning how to grow crops will be very important for everyone in the future. Recent studies increasingly indicate the importance of soil health mediated by soil organisms as the foundation of plant, animal, and human health.
A simple experiment burying men’s cotton underwear in different soils and observing how fast they are decomposed can be a good hands-on activity for students to learn about soil health.
(Q1) Question from the floor:Feuer, Hart N. from Kyoto University asked how to overcome the language differences when you conduct long-term transdisciplinary research?
(R4) Reply by ChiffoleauLanguage issue is a real challenge. We respect the local language. In DIVINFOOD, living labs operate in local languages and interaction between living labs is facilitated by translators and by visits between countries: we understand each other better when we see what othor countries are doing in terms of crops or products.
(Q2) Question from the floor:Abedin, Anwarul from Bangladesh Agricultural University asked whether organic agriculture is really a good initiative to countries in South Asia and Africa where are under huge population pressure and huger. In Sri Lanka, the government that was promoting organic agriculture fell down.
(R5) Reply by MuramotoI believe that the transition to organic does not “one size fits all”. It has to be context specific. Of course, yield is important, but the social equity and autonomy of the local people also need to be realized.
(Q3) Question from the floor:Parvin, Gulsan A. from Ritsumeikan University asked the affordability of foods agroecologically produced.
(R6) Reply from ChiffoleauThe affordability is really a guiding line for us. We found solutions through collective business models in short chains. That was why I evoked the case of farmers sharing equipment to reduce the costs, selling directly without costly certification. In France, according to a national survey, organic products in short chain are less expensive than organic products in supermarkets. We also have to facilitate logistics, develop new solutions for short chains to be physically more accessible to people.
(C3) Comments by KanekoSoil health is important for agriculture and people. The practices of conservation agriculture improve soil health. Muramoto mentioned the farmers’ participation in evaluating the number of earthworms. We have a lot of theories to connect to this activity. Please remind that also the AE covers both natural science and social science. We need to put them together to improve our ideas on AE.
(C4) Comments by TaniguchiBy listening to your answers, I came to understand that we need to pay attention to the dynamic interactions between the local and national and even the international discussions on AE.
When we develop promoting policies for AE, the policy needs to fit into the local conditions. At the same time, though, if we try to scale up AE more, we need an efficient system and professional support. To do so, we need to have the national and international system to support and develop such local policies.
We don’t have a promoting policy in Japan for the AE yet. However, to develop those policies, we need to actively participate in the discussions going on at the international level, and that is not what we are not good at.
We have to train ourselves to improve our communication skills and language skills, and we need to join in the discussions and feed our experiences. That is something also we should do in our education program as well. Maybe we can motivate students to learn AE because it is also a way to develop their communication skills. I’d like to take this opportunity to improve our educational program as well.
The chair, Masuda acknowledged the contributors and participants and said that the international symposium of this year together with last year’s one, as well as the main symposiums held yesterday, hopefully contributed to persuading a more sustainable agri-food-environmental systems for us and for the next generation.
As concluding remarks, Masuda summarized the history and prospects of research into agricultural systems that harmonize the natural environment/ecosystem with the human society and economy.
From the 1970s to the 1990s, there was much debate as to whether agriculture has positive or negative externalities on the environment. For example, regarding the negative externalities of agriculture, Pretty et al. (2000) assessed total external environmental and health costs of modern agriculture in the UK.
At the beginning of the 21st century, the OECD (2001) reported that agriculture has net positive externalities, gaining international consensus. This international consensus has led to the promotion and strengthening of national and regional policies to transition agriculture to more environmentally friendly methods and systems.
FAO (2018) has compiled the Agroecology framework as one of the desirable agricultural systems. At the same time, the negative impacts of agriculture on the environment (such as methane gas emissions) are being recognized once again.
Through research and education, we will explore and promote better and more desirable agricultural systems that are in harmony with the environment and ecosystems and bring vitality to socio-economy.
Maharjan Keshav Lall, Vice President of ARAFE and Professor at Hiroshima University gave closing remarks.
First of all, I would like to thank the presenters for their insights sharing and the commentators, and the active participation from the floor. We had a good discussion to scale up AE.
As discussed, scaling up is a matter of not only numbers or size, but also the quality. Because of the greenhouse gas emission and environmental cost that we are paying, most of the countries, including Global South and Global North, have the target of carbon neutral by 2050. We have to have a device to meet the target. That is why this agroecological fora came into the context.
There are the issues of affordability, economics, and social justice. But actually, there are, even in developing countries, ecological goods that are demand-driven action, not supply driven. Unfortunately, Sri Lankan case happened as an accident because of the political condition.
Thank you so much for the wonderful session. Please give a big applause to all the contributors and participants.
