Humans the world over have depended on wild-growing plants in their diets for hundreds of thousands of years, and many people continue to rely on these species to meet at least part of their daily nutritional needs. Wild harvested plant foods include: roots and other underground parts; shoots and leafy greens; berries and other fleshy fruits; grains, nuts and seeds; and mushrooms, lichens, algae and other species. Use of any of these species requires special cultural knowledge regarding harvesting, preparation, cooking and other forms of processing. Many were, and are, prepared and served in mixtures or combinations. In most cases, too, the species are managed, tended or manipulated in some way to increase their productivity and availability. Many of themost widely used species are categorized as weeds-species that grow and reproduce readily in disturbed or cleared land, and are common around human settlements and agricultural areas. This paper presents case examples of edible wild plant use and the roles of these species in agroecosystems from different parts of the world and discusses similarities and differences in use across different cultures and segments of society.

No abstract

There is ongoing debate among stakeholders about the future development of agricultural and food systems to meet the global challenges of food supply, biological and cultural diversity, climate change, and social justice. Among other options, agroecology and organic agriculture are discussed. Both have similar goals and use a systems approach; however, they are recognised and received differently by stakeholders. Here we review and compare principles and practices defined and described in EU organic agriculture regulations, International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movement (IFOAM) norms, and agroecology scientific literature. The main finding are as follows: (1) Regarding principles, EU organic regulations mainly focus on appropriate design and management of biological processes based on ecological systems, restriction of external inputs, and strict limitation of chemical inputs. IFOAM principles are very broad and more complete, and include a holistic and systemic vision of sustainability. Agroecology has a defined set of principles for the ecological management of agri-food systems, which also includes some socio-economic principles.(2) Many proposed cropping practices are similar for EU organic, IFOAM, and agroecology, e.g. soil tillage, soil fertility and fertilisation, crop and cultivar choice, crop rotation, as well as pest, disease and weed management. In contrast, the origin and quantity of products potentially used for soil fertilisation and pest, disease, and weed management are different. Additionally, some practices are only mentioned for one of the three sources. (3) In animal production, only a few proposed practices are similar for EU organic, IFOAM, and agroecology. These include integration of cropping and animal systems and breed choice. In contrast, practices for animal management, prevention methods in animal health, animal housing, animal welfare, animal nutrition, and veterinary management are defined or described differently. (4) Related to food systems, organic agriculture focusses on technical aspects, such as food processing, while in agroecology there is a prominent debate between a transformative and conformative agenda. Both agroecology and organic agriculture offer promising contributions for the future development of sustainable agricultural production and food systems, especially if their principles and practices converge to a transformative approach and that impedes the conventionalisation of agro-food systems.

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.

ABSTRACT. New and alternative models for agri-food production and consumption have brought up questions regarding the effects they have on local development processes in terms of the economic exploitation of rural areas as well as environmental, cultural, and social factors. The agri-food system proposed by the Slow Food (SF) Presidia Project, which focuses on farm-to-market systems for local, high-quality, sustainable products, can respond to the new and emerging needs of both rural and urban populaces via several approaches in addition to food production itself. However, evaluating these parameters is challenging. The aim of this study was to develop an indicator-based tool to monitor the sustainability in agri-food systems that considers quality as well as economic, ecological, social, and cultural aspects. We: (i) translated the major SF principles of "good," "clean," and "fair" into five major criteria to evaluate sustainability; (ii) designed multiple indicators to monitor progress toward sustainability for each of those criteria; and (iii) applied the monitoring tools to three case studies as a first attempt at end-use validation. Indicators and criteria were weighted either equally or based on their importance to surveyed stakeholders, i.e., consumers, producers, and scientists/experts. The proposed approach performed well as a tool for a broad sustainability evaluation by effectively combining the indicators with the same feedback. With this approach, we demonstrated that the SF Presidia project increases all dimensions of sustainability and in particular socioeconomic and cultural capital by preserving the environmental and quality aspects of the food products.