The acceleration of ecological crises has driven a growing body of thinking on sustainability transitions. Agroecology is being promoted as an approach that can address multiple crises in the food system while addressing climate change and contributing to the Sustainable Development Goals. Beyond the more technical definition as, “the ecology of food systems”, agroecology has a fundamentally political dimension. It is based on an aspiration towards autonomy or the agency of networks of producers and citizens to self-organize for sustainability and social justice. In this article, we use the multi-level perspective (MLP) to examine agroecology transformations. Although the MLP has been helpful in conceptualizing historic transitions, there is a need to better understand: (a) the role of and potential to self-organize in the context of power in the dominant regime, and (b) how to shift to bottom-up forms of governance—a weak point in the literature. Our review analyzes the enabling and disabling conditions that shape agroecology transformations and the ability of communities to self-organize. We develop the notion of ‘domains of transformation’ as overlapping and interconnected interfaces between agroecology and the incumbent dominant regime. We present six critical domains that are important in agroecological transformations: access to natural ecosystems; knowledge and culture; systems of exchange; networks; discourse; and gender and equity. The article focuses on the dynamics of power and governance, arguing that a shift from top down technocratic approaches to bottom up forms of governance based on community-self organization across these domains has the most potential for enabling transformation for sustainability and social justice.

This article discusses the economic dimensions of agroecological farming systems in Europe. It firstly theoretically elaborates the reasons why, and under what conditions, agroecological farming systems have the potential to produce higher incomes than farms that follow the conventional logic. This theoretical exposition is then followed by a presentation of empirical material from a wide range of European countries that shows the extent to which this potential is being realized. The empirical data draw upon different styles of farming that can be described as 'proto-agroecological': approaches to farming that are agroecological by nature, but which may not necessarily explicitly define themselves as agroecological. The empirical material that we present shows the huge potential and radical opportunities that Europe's, often silent, 'agroecological turn' offers to farmers that could (and should) be the basis for the future transformation of European agricultural policies, since agroecology not only allows for more sustainable production of healthier food but also considerably improves farmers' incomes. It equally carries the promise of re-enlarging productive agricultural (and related) employment and increasing the total income generated by the agricultural sector, at both regional and national levels. While we recognise that agroecology is a worldwide and multidimensional phenomenon we have chosen to limit this analysis to Europe and the economic dimension. This choice is made in order to refute current discourses that represent agroecology as unproductive and unprofitable and an option that would require massive subsidies.

Agriculture in Europe results in the production of food for both the European population and for the export sector. Significant environmental and social problems have emerged with the intensification of European agriculture. These include the loss of biodiversity, the contamination of soils, water, and food with pesticides, and the eutrophication of water bodies. Industrialized agricultural and food systems are also a major contributing factor in the decline of farm numbers, and the high use of antibiotics has led to serious human health problems. In this respect, agroecology can provide insights into important pathways and guide the design, development, and promotion of the transition towards sustainable farming and food systems. An analysis of the major challenges for the amplification of agroecology in Europe was carried out by 310 stakeholders in a World Café exercise and 23 sessions and workshops during the Agroecology Europe Forum 2017. The different challenges that were identified can be grouped into seven categories: (1) definition and concepts; (2) education, training, and knowledge sharing; (3) research approach and funding; (4) policies; (5) productivity and practices; (5) food systems and consumer awareness; and (6) co-optation. To address these challenges, the following key actions are recommended: (1) to develop a common understanding of agroecology; (2) to enhance education in agroecology and knowledge exchange; (3) to invest in agroecological research; (4) to develop policies enhancing agroecology; (5) to support new and existing agroecological practices; (6) to transform food systems; and (7) to strengthen communication and alliances. In this paper we present and discuss these recommendations for pathways and actions to develop sustainable agro-food systems in Europe through agroecology.

No abstract

In this chapter, we focus on issues of power, control and governance in agroecology transformations. Synthesizing the findings across the six domains of transformation introduced in Part II, we explore how the different ‘governance interventions’ of different actors have multiple effects on a transformative agroecology. Interventions that undermine agroecology have two effects: (i) suppressing agroecology by actively repressing and criminalizing it and (ii) co-opting agroecology by supporting it only to become equivalent to the dominant regime. Interventions that maintain the status quo enable co-existence by (iii) containing agroecology as elements of the dominant regime are strengthened and alternatives ignored and (iv) shielding agroecology from regime dynamics so it is less threatened. In contrast, agroecological transformation of agri-food systems are enabled by (v) processes that support and nurture agroecology to develop on its own terms and (vi) release agroecology from its disabling context by dismantling elements of the dominant regime and anchoring the values, norms and practices of agroecology within and between territories, and at different scales.

In this chapter we examine the importance of systems of economic exchange for agroecology. These include the practices and processes by which agricultural products move from producers to various users and by which agri-food producers acquire inputs that cannot be produced on the farm. We review the importance of traditional systems of exchange (such as informal markets and barter systems), subsistence (or family and community self-provisioning) and ‘nested markets’ that are embedded in democratic social relations for agroecology. These markets thicken networks of solidarity and relations of reciprocity in territories. Nested markets value the ecological, social, economic and political functions and outputs of agroecology and support the development of trust-based networks. Regrettably, mainstream food markets favour large volumes and standardization and exclude most agroecological producers.

In this chapter, we examine how marginalization and inequity—from international policy arenas to the household level and along the intersecting dimensions of gender, age, class and caste, religion, health and race—pose a major barrier to the development of sustainable food systems. The more transformative edges of the agroecology movement are advancing feminist, decolonial and anti-racist approaches that move the analysis from the centres of power to the margins where the hitherto excluded and oppressed are claiming power. Inequity manifests in overt discrimination as well as unequal access to resources and decision-making power at the household or farm level or to markets, credit, knowledge, governance, relations and other resources at the community or territorial level. In the absence of a focus on equity, efforts to advance agroecology risk exacerbating inequity.

In this chapter, we examine how discourse—or the ways in which language is used to frame debates, policy and action—is a critical domain for agroecology transformations. A range of different types of actors (e.g. politicians, private companies, activists) use a process called ‘framing’ to convey their interpretation of agroecology where they ‘simplify and condense’ its complexity to align with their own views and ideologies. We present seven main frames across a spectrum from those that tend to disable a transformative agroecology (e.g. ‘feed the world’) to those that are most likely to enable political agroecology (e.g. ‘food sovereignty’). Notably all of these frames are at times being deployed in both productivist and depoliticized (regime-reinforcing) ways and also as a part of a transformative politics of political agroecology at different times by different actors.