Sustainable intensification – “oxymoron” or “third-way”? A systematic review

Abstract

Sustainable Intensification (SI) is a term that has been advanced to capture a concept that some consider as the 'third paradigm' for global agricultural development. However, the term has become subject to intense debates as well as scepticism and confusion regarding its meaning and the characteristics of production systems that could indicate SI (defined as "indicators"). This has resulted in a proliferation of literature. We have conducted a systematic review of a sample of this literature analysing the most commonly suggested indicators of SI in order to investigate the extent to which the critiques of SI are valid in their viewpoints that SI is an oxymoron, underpinned by a productivist agenda, and to identify the critical issues in the development of a comprehensive and unambiguous set of SI indicators. From 633 articles identified by a search of relevant databases, a sample of 75 articles were selected and analysed using the NVIVO™ software. The results were organised according to a Socio-Ecological Systems (SES) framework comprising seven sub-systems or components − resource system, resource units, governance system, resource users, interactions, outcomes, and environment. A total of 218 indicators (both positive and negative) were identified. Most of these indicators focused on the 'outcomes' of agricultural systems with the majority being related to agricultural production. Few indicators were identified as relating to the economic and societal dimensions of food systems. Whilst this potentially suggested a productivist bias in the current interpretation of SI it was difficult to draw a black and white conclusion, since for the other system components, the majority of the indicators suggested appeared to take a more holistic point-of-view and emphasised both productivity and sustainability of agricultural systems. Our analysis suggests that a key reason why SI may be viewed with scepticism is a lack of specificity and elucidation of the rationale, scale, and farm type for which SI is proposed. Moreover, a number of the indicators were so loosely defined that the interventions they imply could be enacted without due consideration of the social impacts of their adoption. We conclude that there is need to develop SI indicators according to specific farming types and scales and also with more consideration of the social and political dimensions of food systems in order to promote a constructive dialogue around the concept of SI to take place. Unless the concept of SI is described and measured in such a holistic and inclusive manner, it is unlikely to be accepted as a valid descriptor of sought-after agricultural practices by players in the Third Sector.

Sustainable intensification in agriculture: the richer shade of green. A review

“…an ostensible self-contradiction, because intensification cannot be achieved in a sustainable way. Sustainable intensification suggests an acceptable practice for something that cannot be achieved or maintained, based on the fact that metrics are used that do not take into account important negative elements in the economic and ecological cost-benefit equation (Mahon et al 2017). The question is whether there is a way out of this quagmire and whether we, given the obvious problems with clearly defining it, can circumscribe sustainable intensification in useful ways.…”

“…(i) Scientific consensus on (the hierarchy of) sustainability issues at stake, including indicators (Mahon et al 2017), that can be applied to the diversity of farm types present and can capture aspects at different scales across time and space, but can also consider different dimensions (ii) Societal debates resulting in shared values and norms to be taken into account (iii) Institutional innovation to realize adaptive management and governance Jackson et al (2010) put emphasis on the capacity to change and claimed that "rapid changes in land use, food systems, and livelihoods require social-ecological systems that keep multiple options open and prepare for future unpredictability. We therefore need "sustainagility": "the properties and assets of a system that sustain the ability (agility) of agents to adapt and meet their needs in new ways"".…”

“…Governing bodies, policy makers, non-governmental organizations, citizens but also producers and other actors making use of natural resources worry about this process of decline, and therefore, "sustainability" is a frequently used noun and "sustainable" a frequently used attributive adjective, especially in relation to agriculture. The general opinion implied in the expression "sustainable agriculture" is that continuation of the conventional way of industrial agriculture (business-as-usual) is no longer possible (Van Noordwijk and Brussaard 2014;Mahon et al 2017).…”

What agricultural practices are most likely to deliver “sustainable intensification” in the UK?

“…Since SI is generally considered to be a goal, rather than a defined aim, methods for achieving it are relatively undefined (Mahon et al., ; Petersen & Snapp, ; Wezel, Soboksa, McClelland, Delespesse, & Boissau, ). In a review of indicators used to measure SI, Mahon et al.…”

“…In a review of indicators used to measure SI, Mahon et al. () found that many are very loosely defined, which has led to an under‐appreciation of social implications, and a lack of specificity over the rationale, scale, and farm type for which SI is proposed. Many research articles on SI have focused on debating the usefulness of the term, and on refining definitions, at the expense of developing a set of SI practices that could lead to practical gains.…”