Designing agroecological transitions; A review

Abstract

Concerns about the negative impacts of productivist agriculture have led to the emergence of two forms of ecological modernisation of agriculture. The first, efficiency-substitution agriculture, aims to improve input use efficiency and to minimise environmental impacts of modern farming systems. It is currently the dominant modernisation pathway. The second, biodiversity-based agriculture, aims to develop ecosystem services provided by biological diversity. It currently exists only as a niche. Here we review challenges of implementing biodiversity-based agriculture: managing, at the local level, a consistent transition within and among farming systems, supply chains and natural resource management. We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of existing conceptual frameworks developed to analyse farming, socialecological and socio-technical systems. Then we present an integrative framework tailored for structuring analysis of agriculture from the perspective of developing a territorial biodiversity-based agriculture. In addition, we propose a participatory methodology to design this agroecological transition at the local level. This design methodology was developed to support a multi-stakeholder arena in analysing the current situation, identifying future exogenous changes and designing (1) targeted territorial biodiversity-based agriculture, (2) the pathway of the transition and (3) the required adaptive governance structures and management strategies. We conclude by analysing key challenges of designing such a complex transition, developing multi-actor and multidomain approaches based on a combination of scientific and experiential knowledge and on building suitable boundary objects (computer-based and conceptual models, indicators, etc.) to assess innovative systems designed by stakeholders.

How can integrated valuation of ecosystem services help understanding and steering agroecological transitions?

“…Agroecology approaches farm systems from ecological and socioeconomic stances, its main objective originally being the development of sustainable and healthy production systems (Altieri 1989). Agroecology covers diverse practices, ranging from improving the efficiency of input use and minimizing farming environmental impacts to increasing the contribution of functional biodiversity and ES to agricultural processes and products (Duru and Thérond 2015).…”

Cultural and territorial vitality services play a key role in livestock agroecological transition in France

“…Any analyses of agroecological transition should thus consider the evolution of farming practices, the conservation of environment, and the development of embedded food systems. Still, the agroecological transition is mainly seen as a way to limit the negative impacts of farming on the environment without compromising farm economics (Duru et al 2015;Guillou et al 2013;MAAF 2012). Despite some recent changes in the concept of agroecology territories (Wezel et al 2016), research orientations tend to neglect the social dimension of agroecology that is particularly important for European livestock (Oteros-Rozas et al 2014;Rodríguez-Ortega et al 2014).…”

“…Only easily quantifiable services are considered such as the employment rate, the "time required and/or arduousness of work" (Guillou et al 2013). Yet, the social dimension of livestock, including territorial vitality and cultural identity, can constitute obstacles or levers towards the agroecological transition of livestock beyond often-mentioned technical and organizational issues (Duru et al 2015;Ryschawy et al 2015).…”

“…Likewise, it is a socio-cultural lock-in, which is impeding the development of Pays de Rennes' "forgotten local breeds". Still, the maintenance or reintroduction of these breeds would be in line with the development of agrobiodiversity, a historic principle of agroecology (Duru et al 2015). However, these breeds are symbolic of the impoverished era that preceded the advent of the Breton agricultural model, which is itself seen as a driver of local territorial vitality.…”

Linking the knowledge and reasoning of dissenting actors fosters a bottom-up design of agroecological viticulture

“…Tangled in this complexity, the lack of contradictory contributions underpinning research hypotheses has led to heuristic poverty (Pestre 2013). Responses to criticism regarding the environmental impacts of agriculture (Tanentzap et al 2015) have focused on the development of new standards, forms of environmental governance, or support for transitions (Barbier and Elzen 2012;Duru et al 2015). Research has also responded by designing new agronomic models, but without involving the end users (Prost et al 2012).…”