Agroecology Archives - Zero Carbon Analytics

Agroecological practices support climate change resilience

July 12, 2024 by ZCA Team Leave a Comment

Key points:

A number of meta-analyses, reviews and studies have compared the environmental and economic outcomes of agroecological practices compared to conventional agricultural practices.
There is a strong empirical evidence base for agroecology-aligned practices in supporting climate change adaptation, mitigation and resilience.
Benefits from agroecology practices include improved grain yields with fewer inputs, greater biodiversity, improved soil health and water security, and enhanced carbon sequestration.
Agroecology practices also reduce the need for pesticides and fossil-fuel-intensive synthetic fertilisers, reducing environmental risks as well as economic and health burdens for farmers.
Studies have also found that the concurrent application of more than one agroecological practice increases beneficial outcomes, with some finding that the positive outcomes increase with time.
While a number of agroecological benefits have been identified, the impacts are highly context-specific. Approaches will need to be tailored to the conditions of the region, ecosystem or farm.

What the science tells us about the benefits of agroecological practices

Agroecology emphasises the use of natural processes and resources to create sustainable and resilient agricultural systems. It is a response to modern intensive agricultural systems that focus on maximising production, sometimes at the expense of ecological and environmental health. A number of common agricultural practices are aligned with agroecology. For example, planting legumes alongside other crops – a centuries-old practice that is still widely used today – can improve soil fertility and water infiltration into the soil, thereby enhancing the health of the soil ecosystem and ultimately leading to increased crop yields.

Critics question the ability of agroecology to meet food security needs in a world that is increasingly at risk of climate change-induced threats that place pressure on natural systems, humans and economies.¹ However, scientific support does exist for agroecological practices in enhancing resilience through energy efficiency, ecosystem services, food security and economic outcomes.

Through assessing more than 30 meta-analyses, seven second-order meta-analyses, and several reviews and field trials, this article summarises some of the ways by which agroecology-aligned practices can contribute to climate change resilience.

Yield and economic benefits with fewer inputs and emissions

One of the core tenets of agroecology is to reduce reliance on external inputs, such as synthetic fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides, in favour of practices that support biodiversity and soil health. As synthetic fertilisers are energy-intensive to produce and are typically made using fossil fuels, limiting their use can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Synthetic fertilisers also contribute to nitrous oxide emissions – a potent greenhouse gas with significant ozone-depleting potential – once applied to the soil, with one study estimating that two thirds of emissions from synthetic fertilisers occur once they have been applied to the field.² Fertiliser application in conventional agriculture is excessive – nitrogen and phosphorus inputs are 60% and 48% higher than what major crops can use to grow – marking a clear space for agroecology-aligned principles in reducing emissions.³

Excessive chemical fertiliser application does not necessarily improve yields. For example, larger quantities of nitrogen or phosphorus fertiliser application did not have a positive effect on grain crop yields in a meta-analysis of more than 70 smallholder farms based in sub-Saharan Africa.⁴ Rather, a positive effect was only noted at the lowest phosphorus fertiliser application rates of 0–20 kg P ha−1 and 20–40 kg P ha−1, while increasing the amount of fertiliser had negative effects on yield. Other estimates suggest that nitrogen and phosphorus application could be reduced by up to 29% and 22%, respectively, while maintaining current yields of wheat, rice and maize.⁵ Reduced fertiliser inputs in agroecological systems also alleviate a major economic expense for farmers.⁶ However, it is important to note that in certain areas, such as those with historically low fertiliser input levels, input reduction may not be appropriate.⁷

Shifting cropland systems towards agroforestry systems – whereby trees or shrubs are planted alongside crops or livestock – is a viable solution to addressing the leaky nitrogen cycle – whereby excess nitrogen is leaked into the environment or atmosphere, leading to emissions and water pollution, biodiversity loss and habitat degradation.⁸ The consistent use of cover crops – which are crops that are not planted for immediate harvesting but rather because they offer some ecosystem benefit – can help reduce emissions from fertilisers by adding more nitrogen to the soil and reducing nitrate leaching. This limits the need for nitrogen application, with some analyses finding that cover cropping reduces nitrate leaching by up to 69% compared to fields left to fallow.⁹ ¹⁰

Multiple studies confirm that agroecological practices can improve crop yields with fewer inputs compared to conventional farming practices.¹¹ This is increasingly important as the effects of human-caused climate change, such as reduced rainfall, are anticipated to lower agricultural yields, thereby threatening food security. For example, a global systematic review of legume rotation – whereby staple crops are rotated with legumes – found a 20% increase in crop yields (rice, wheat and maize) on average compared to non-legume cropping systems.¹² In China, a long-term field experiment on the effects of intercropping – the simultaneous cultivation of two or more crops on one field – on grain yields found that yields were on average 22% higher than in comparable monoculture systems.¹³ A review on the economic performance of agroecology in Europe found that agroecological farming generates incomes that exceed those of conventional agriculture, provides more employment per hectare, uses less fossil fuels and enhances biodiversity and landscapes.¹⁴

A key finding of several of these studies is that the adoption of multiple agroecological practices maximises yield benefits over a single practice, and that these yield benefits tend to increase with time and are more stable year-to-year than in comparable conventional farming systems.

Improved ecosystem services, offering multiple benefits

Human-caused climate change is significantly impacting the provision of ecosystem services, defined as the benefits that humans derive from nature.¹⁵ For example, changes in precipitation can lead to water scarcity, with knock-on effects for food production, or can lead to biodiversity loss, which would reduce the provision of various ecosystem services important for resilience. Studies show that farms with higher biodiversity show greater resilience to climate disasters.¹⁶ A number of studies from across the world have found that agroecological practices improve ecosystem services such as pollination, pest control, erosion, soil fertility and water management compared to conventional systems, and also enhance biodiversity.¹⁷ ¹⁸ ¹⁹ ²⁰ A third of the negative effects of landscape simplification – such as reduced provision of services and decreased crop production – were found to be due to decreased pollinator richness, emphasising the importance of practices that support pollinator diversity.²¹

While conventional farming practices, such as intensive cultivation and pesticide use, are some of the biggest contributors to pollinator decline globally, agroecological practices increase the abundance and density of beneficial insects, reduce the abundance and density of insect pests, increase pollinator diversity, and reduce weed density and the abundance of parasitic and non-parasitic weeds.²² ²³ ²⁴ ²⁵ With pollination services globally valued at around USD 1 trillion, an abrupt pollinator collapse could cost around 1-2% of global GDP in the short term.²⁶

Diversified farming systems, which are aligned with agroecology in that they incorporate different species or varieties rather than relying on single crops or species, in both high- and low-income countries are more profitable for farmers than conventional monoculture systems even when increased labour costs are considered, thereby dispelling myths that increased labour costs offset the benefits of diversification.²⁷ In addition, diversification enhances biodiversity, pollination, pest control, nutrient cycling, soil fertility, and water regulation without compromising crop yields.²⁸ Estimates for rice suggest that diversification can increase biodiversity by 40%, improve economic performance, such as incomes and profits, by 26% and reduce crop damage by 31% in global production.²⁹

Diversification practices deliver multiple benefits relating to ecosystem services without compromising yield, highlighting that mainstream, high-yielding agricultural systems can benefit from diversification practices and that these practices can help bolster future sustainable food production.³⁰

Agroecological practices can also significantly decrease soil erosion – the most important indicator of land degradation – in temperate, tropical and mediterranean-type soils.³¹ A systematic evidence map of temperate agroforestry on sheep and cattle productivity, environmental impacts and economics found that temperate agroforestry offers benefits compared to pasture without trees through sequestering carbon, reducing soil erosion, and improving water quantity and quality regulation.³² There is also some evidence, albeit limited, that agroecological practices can improve livestock productivity.³³ ³⁴

Enhanced food security and health

As food systems are highly vulnerable to climate risks, improving resilience to these risks is important for ensuring food security. There is empirical evidence for agroecological practices such as livestock integration, intercropping, crop diversification, organic manure application and agroforestry in improving food security and resilience.³⁵ A 2024 review found that livestock diversification, soil conservation and non-crop diversification – practices not recognised as traditional crop production, such as the planting of hedgerows – improved food security in an assessment of 2,655 farms, and that a combination of these practices yielded greater improvements than they achieved singularly.³⁶ A number of studies on the potential for agroecology to improve food security and nutrition have found that the number of agroecological practices implemented on a farm was positively associated with better food security and nutrition outcomes.

The demand for protein is projected to increase in the future, placing further demands on land and resources. Animal protein is an important source of nutrition, meaning a balance will need to be stuck between nutritional and environmental needs.³⁷ A review on whether agroecology can help meet protein requirements for 2050 estimated that using an agroecological model where livestock are fed only on pasture, waste or by-products – and never fed on human-edible crops – can achieve a global diet within a limitation of 11–23 grams of protein per day from animal products.³⁸

The adoption of agroecological principles can help alleviate disease costs associated with pesticide exposure. Pesticides have been linked to diabetes, reproductive disorders, neurological dysfunction, cancer and respiratory disorders in farmers.³⁹ A meta-analysis found a link between mental illnesses such as depression and pesticide exposure in farmers, with affected farmers experiencing financial difficulties and poor health.⁴⁰ For the general public, the annual health and disease costs of exposure to organophosphate pesticides in 2010 were estimated at USD 121 billion in Europe and USD 42 billion in the US.⁴¹ Exposure to pesticides in Europe in 2003 was estimated to cause an average burden of lifetime lost per person of 2.6 hours and up to 45.3 days, and average costs per person over lifetime of EUR 12 and up to EUR 5,142.⁴² In addition, as pollinators are directly responsible for up to 40% of the world’s micronutrient supply, including essential micronutrients such as vitamin A, pollinator collapse could result in 1.42 million additional deaths per year from non-communicable and malnutrition-related diseases, and 27 million lost disability-adjusted life-years annually at the global scale.⁴³

Sequestration in plants and soil can help meet Nationally Determined Contributions

Estimates suggest that agroforestry can sequester 0.12 to 0.31 gigatons of carbon (Gt C) per year, making it comparable to other nature-based solutions such as reforestation (0.27 Gt C per year) and reduced deforestation (0.49 Gt C per year).⁴⁴ Agroforestry has also been identified as a key intervention for achieving Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). A 2023 review looked at the extent to which agroforestry is represented in current NDCs in 22 developing countries and found that more than 80% of countries that experienced deforestation between 2000 and 2015 could meet their unconditional NDC targets by converting 25% of deforested lands to agroforestry.⁴⁵ Integrating agroecological practices into countries’

National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) can also help fulfill Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) commitments by encouraging the use of sustainable practices that protect biodiversity, build climate resilience and enhance food security.⁴⁶

A literature review on soil carbon sequestration in the context of climate change found that agroecological practices such as the incorporation of organic matter into the soil, crop rotation and the use of cover crops can improve soil carbon sequestration.⁴⁷ One analysis suggests that increasing the soil organic carbon pool of degraded croplands using agroecological practices has the potential to increase yields of wheat by 20-40 kg per hectare, maize yields by 10-20 kg per hectare and cowpea yields by 0.5-1 kg per hectare.⁴⁸ The analysis also suggests that this approach can offset fossil fuel emissions by 0.4-1.2 Gt C per year, which is as much as 3% of current global fossil fuel emissions. Other estimates suggest that improved cropland management using agroecological principles could mitigate around 1.4–2.3 Gt carbon dioxide equivalent per year (CO2eq/year), while improved grazing management could mitigate 1.4–1.8 Gt CO2eq/year.⁴⁹

The potential for sequestration will be highly context-specific, and the possible reversal of sequestration benefits remains an important limiting factor, especially for soil carbon.⁵⁰ Carbon sequestered in the soil can be retained for as long as agroecological practices are maintained and with minimal disturbance to the soil, thereby helping to address issues around the permanence of the sequestered carbon.⁵¹ The consistent application of sustainable management practices is important for realising the mitigation benefits of soil and plant carbon sequestration.⁵²

1
David Zaruk, ‘Is Agroecology a Solution or an Agenda?’, Outlook on Agriculture 52, no. 3 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1177/00307270231191807.
2
Yunhu Gao and André Cabrera Serrenho, ‘Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Nitrogen Fertilizers Could Be Reduced by up to One-Fifth of Current Levels by 2050 with Combined Interventions’, Nature Food 4 (2023): 170–78, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00698-w.
3
Paul C. West et al., ‘Leverage Points for Improving Global Food Security and the Environment’, Science 345, no. 6194 (2014): 326, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1246067.
4
Marc Corbeels et al., ‘Limits of Conservation Agriculture to Overcome Low Crop Yields in Sub-Saharan Africa’, Nature Food 1, no. 7 (2020): 449, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0114-x.
5
West et al., ‘Leverage Points for Improving Global Food Security and the Environment’, 326.
6
David Weisberger, Virginia Nichols, and Matt Liebman, ‘Does Diversifying Crop Rotations Suppress Weeds? A Meta-Analysis’, ed. Upendra M. Sainju, PLOS ONE 14, no. 7 (2019): e0219847, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219847.
7
Gatien N Falconnier et al., ‘The Input Reduction Principle of Agroecology Is Wrong When It Comes to Mineral Fertilizer Use in Sub-Saharan Africa’, Outlook on Agriculture 52, no. 3 (2023): 311–26, https://doi.org/10.1177/00307270231199795.
8
Ahmed S. Elrys et al., ‘Expanding Agroforestry Can Increase Nitrate Retention and Mitigate the Global Impact of a Leaky Nitrogen Cycle in Croplands’, Nature Food 4, no. 1 (2022): 109–21, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00657-x.
9
Richard Waite and Alex Rudee, ‘6 Ways the US Can Curb Climate Change and Grow More Food’, World Resources Institute, August 20, 2020, https://www.wri.org/insights/6-ways-us-can-curb-climate-change-and-grow-more-food.
10
Amin Nouri et al., ‘When Do Cover Crops Reduce Nitrate Leaching? A Global Meta‐analysis’, Global Change Biology 28, no. 15 (2022): 4736–49, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16269.
11
Sieglinde S. Snapp et al., ‘Biodiversity Can Support a Greener Revolution in Africa’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107, no. 48 (2010): 20840–45, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1007199107; Gudeta Sileshi et al., ‘Meta-Analysis of Maize Yield Response to Woody and Herbaceous Legumes in Sub-Saharan Africa’, Plant and Soil 307, no. 1–2 (2008): 1–19, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-008-9547-y; Marc Corbeels et al., ‘Limits of Conservation Agriculture to Overcome Low Crop Yields in Sub-Saharan Africa’, Nature Food 1, no. 7 (2020): 447–54, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0114-x; Shem Kuyah et al., ‘Agroforestry Delivers a Win-Win Solution for Ecosystem Services in Sub-Saharan Africa. A Meta-Analysis’, Agronomy for Sustainable Development 39, no. 5 (2019): 47, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-019-0589-8; Georges F. Félix et al., ‘Enhancing Agroecosystem Productivity with Woody Perennials in Semi-Arid West Africa. A Meta-Analysis’, Agronomy for Sustainable Development 38, no. 6 (2018): 57, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-018-0533-3.
12
Jie Zhao et al., ‘Global Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis Reveals Yield Advantage of Legume-Based Rotations and Its Drivers’, Nature Communications 13, no. 1 (2022): 4926, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-32464-0.
13
Xiao-Fei Li et al., ‘Long-Term Increased Grain Yield and Soil Fertility from Intercropping’, Nature Sustainability 4, no. 11 (2021): 943–50, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00767-7.
14
Jan Douwe van der Ploeg et al., ‘The Economic Potential of Agroecology: Empirical Evidence from Europe’, Journal of Rural Studies 71 (2019): 46–61, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.09.003.
15
Yadvinder Malhi et al., ‘Climate Change and Ecosystems: Threats, Opportunities and Solutions’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 375, no. 1794 (2020): 20190104, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0104.
16
Stacy M. Philpott et al., ‘A Multi-Scale Assessment of Hurricane Impacts on Agricultural Landscapes Based on Land Use and Topographic Features’, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 128, no. 1–2 (2008): 12–20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2008.04.016; Eric Holt-Giménez, ‘Measuring Farmers’ Agroecological Resistance after Hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua: A Case Study in Participatory, Sustainable Land Management Impact Monitoring’, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 93, no. 1–3 (2002): 87–105, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(02)00006-3.
17
Felipe Cozim-Melges et al., ‘Farming Practices to Enhance Biodiversity across Biomes: A Systematic Review’, npj Biodiversity 3, no. 1 (2024): 1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s44185-023-00034-2.
18
Mario Torralba et al., ‘Do European Agroforestry Systems Enhance Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services? A Meta-Analysis’, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 230 (2016): 150–61, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.06.002.
19
Sara Palomo-Campesino, José A. González, and Marina García-Llorente, ‘Exploring the Connections between Agroecological Practices and Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Literature Review’, Sustainability 10, no. 12 (2018): 4339, https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124339.
20
Matthew W. Jordon et al., ‘Implications of Temperate Agroforestry on Sheep and Cattle Productivity, Environmental Impacts and Enterprise Economics. A Systematic Evidence Map’, Forests 11, no. 12 (2020): 1321, https://doi.org/10.3390/f11121321.
21
Matteo Dainese et al., ‘A Global Synthesis Reveals Biodiversity-Mediated Benefits for Crop Production’, SCIENCE ADVANCES, 2019, 4.
22
Joseph Millard et al., ‘Global Effects of Land-Use Intensity on Local Pollinator Biodiversity’, Nature Communications 12, no. 1 (2021): 2902, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23228-3.
23
Charlie C. Nicholson et al., ‘Pesticide Use Negatively Affects Bumble Bees across European Landscapes’, Nature 628, no. 8007 (2024): 355–58, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06773-3.
24
Anjaharinony A.N.A. Rakotomalala, Anoush M. Ficiciyan, and Teja Tscharntke, ‘Intercropping Enhances Beneficial Arthropods and Controls Pests: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis’, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 356 (2023): 108617, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2023.108617.
25
Lorena Pumariño et al., ‘Effects of Agroforestry on Pest, Disease and Weed Control: A Meta-Analysis’, Basic and Applied Ecology 16, no. 7 (2015): 573–82, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2015.08.006.
26
Christian Lippert, Arndt Feuerbacher, and Manuel Narjes, ‘Revisiting the Economic Valuation of Agricultural Losses Due to Large-Scale Changes in Pollinator Populations’, Ecological Economics 180 (2021): 106860, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106860.
27
Andrea C. Sánchez et al., ‘Financial Profitability of Diversified Farming Systems: A Global Meta-Analysis’, Ecological Economics 201 (2022): 107595, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107595.
28
Giovanni Tamburini et al., ‘Agricultural Diversification Promotes Multiple Ecosystem Services without Compromising Yield’, Science Advances 6, no. 45 (2020): eaba1715, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba1715.
29
Xueqing He et al., ‘Agricultural Diversification Promotes Sustainable and Resilient Global Rice Production’, Nature Food 4, no. 9 (2023): 788–96, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00836-4.
30
Tamburini et al., ‘Agricultural Diversification Promotes Multiple Ecosystem Services without Compromising Yield’, 4.
31
Mbezele Junior Yannick Ngaba et al., ‘Meta-Analysis Unveils Differential Effects of Agroforestry on Soil Properties in Different Zonobiomes’, Plant and Soil 496, no. 1–2 (2024): 589–607, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-023-06385-w.
32
Jordon et al., ‘Implications of Temperate Agroforestry on Sheep and Cattle Productivity, Environmental Impacts and Enterprise Economics. A Systematic Evidence Map’.
33
Paulo César De Faccio Carvalho et al., ‘Land-Use Intensification Trends in the Rio De La Plata Region of South America: Toward Specialization or Recoupling Crop and Livestock Production’, Frontiers of Agricultural Science and Engineering 8, no. 1 (2021): 97, https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FASE-2020380.
34
Jordon et al., ‘Implications of Temperate Agroforestry on Sheep and Cattle Productivity, Environmental Impacts and Enterprise Economics. A Systematic Evidence Map’.
35
Gilbert Dagunga et al., ‘Agroecology and Resilience of Smallholder Food Security: A Systematic Review’, Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 7 (2023): 1267630, https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1267630.
36
Laura Vang Rasmussen et al., ‘Joint Environmental and Social Benefits from Diversified Agriculture’, Science 384, no. 6691 (2024): 87–93, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adj1914.
37
Maeve Henchion et al., ‘Future Protein Supply and Demand: Strategies and Factors Influencing a Sustainable Equilibrium’, Foods 6, no. 7 (2017): 53, https://doi.org/10.3390/foods6070053.
38
Georgia Forsyth Sijpestijn, Alexander Wezel, and Sghaier Chriki, ‘Can Agroecology Help in Meeting Our 2050 Protein Requirements?’, Livestock Science 256 (2022): 104822, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2022.104822.
39
Lata Rani et al., ‘An Extensive Review on the Consequences of Chemical Pesticides on Human Health and Environment’, Journal of Cleaner Production 283 (2021): 124657, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124657.
40
Mariane Magalhães Zanchi, Katiuska Marins, and Ariane Zamoner, ‘Could Pesticide Exposure Be Implicated in the High Incidence Rates of Depression, Anxiety and Suicide in Farmers? A Systematic Review’, Environmental Pollution 331 (2023): 121888, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2023.121888.
41
Teresa M Attina et al., ‘Exposure to Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in the USA: A Population-Based Disease Burden and Cost Analysis’, The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology 4, no. 12 (2016): 996–1003, https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(16)30275-3.
42
Peter Fantke, Rainer Friedrich, and Olivier Jolliet, ‘Health Impact and Damage Cost Assessment of Pesticides in Europe’, Environment International 49 (2012): 9–17, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2012.08.001.
43
Matthew R Smith et al., ‘Effects of Decreases of Animal Pollinators on Human Nutrition and Global Health: A Modelling Analysis’, The Lancet 386, no. 10007 (2015): 1964–72, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)61085-6.
44
Drew E. Terasaki Hart et al., ‘Priority Science Can Accelerate Agroforestry as a Natural Climate Solution’, Nature Climate Change 13, no. 11 (2023): 1179, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01810-5.
45
Jagdish Chander Dagar, Sharda Rani Gupta, and Gudeta Weldesemayat Sileshi, eds., Agroforestry for Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture in Asia and Africa, Sustainability Sciences in Asia and Africa (Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2023), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-4602-8.
46
‘FAOLEX Database’, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2023.
47
Cristina I. Dias Rodrigues, Luís Miguel Brito, and Leonel J. R. Nunes, ‘Soil Carbon Sequestration in the Context of Climate Change Mitigation: A Review’, Soil Systems 7, no. 3 (2023): 64, https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems7030064.
48
R. Lal, ‘Soil Carbon Sequestration Impacts on Global Climate Change and Food Security’, Science 304, no. 5677 (2004): 1623–27, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1097396.
49
Pete Smith et al., ‘Which Practices Co‐deliver Food Security, Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation, and Combat Land Degradation and Desertification?’, Global Change Biology 26, no. 3 (2020): 1532–75, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14878.
50
Cécile M. Godde et al., ‘Soil Carbon Sequestration in Grazing Systems: Managing Expectations’, Climatic Change 161, no. 3 (2020): 385–91, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02673-x.
51
Lal, ‘Soil Carbon Sequestration Impacts on Global Climate Change and Food Security’.
52
Rodrigues, Brito, and Nunes, ‘Soil Carbon Sequestration in the Context of Climate Change Mitigation’.

An introduction to sustainable agriculture in smallholder farming

July 13, 2023 by ZCA Team Leave a Comment

Key points:

Smallholder farmers produce at least one-third of the world’s food
Smallholder farmers are disproportionately experiencing the effects of climate change and are particularly vulnerable to climate shocks, yet it is estimated that they receive only 1.7% of total climate finance
The FAO describes sustainable agriculture as meeting “the needs of present and future generations, while ensuring profitability, environmental health, and social and economic equity”
Various farming approaches can be considered sustainable, such as sustainable intensification, climate-smart agriculture, regenerative agriculture, organic farming and agroecological farming
The WEF recognises that farmers are key to addressing the current ecological and climate crises and need to be supported through the provision of financing and fair economic opportunities in order to embrace sustainable food production practices
Ninety-five percent of climate finance for small-scale agriculture comes from the public sector, including government donors, multilateral development finance institutions and bilateral development financial institutions
Smallholder farmers are vulnerable to production risks, so they need initiatives and investments that are relatively low-risk and that offer short-term returns on investment
Impact-oriented funds, blended finance and green bonds offer finance solutions for climate resilient and sustainable agriculture.

Smallholder farming

More than half of agricultural land globally is degraded, leading to productivity losses of USD 400 billion every year. Projections indicate that globally, agricultural production will need to expand by 60% by 2050 to meet increased demand, and most of this will need to come from increased productivity. Food production also makes up more than a third of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, of which 58% is from animal-based agriculture (including livestock feed) and 29% is from the production of plant-based foods.

Smallholder farms of less than two hectares in size produce around one-third of the world’s food. Farms of up to 20 hectares produce over half (see the chart below).¹ These farms face various production risks due to a range of factors, including they are small in size, are held under traditional or informal land tenure, are more vulnerable to market shocks, are constrained by low soil productivity and low-quality or marginal lands, feature complex production systems hosting a diversity of plants and animals, face regulatory regimes in the Global North that have strict and ever-changing policies on food security and safety, suffer from isolation and low levels of technology, and may be subject to armed conflict and state fragility.

Small-scale farmers, particularly in developing countries, therefore play a crucial role in ensuring food security despite experiencing major food insecurity themselves. Smallholder farmers are disproportionately vulnerable to the effects of climate change and climate shocks, yet it is estimated that they receive only 1.7% of total climate finance. The World Economic Forum (WEF) recognises that farmers are key to addressing the current ecological and climate crises and need to be supported through the provision of financing and fair economic opportunities in order to embrace sustainable food production practices.

Sustainable agriculture

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) describes sustainable agriculture as meeting “the needs of present and future generations, while ensuring profitability, environmental health and social and economic equity”. Various types of agricultural production can be considered sustainable, and these are discussed below.

Sustainable intensification

The main aim of sustainable intensification is to increase crop and livestock yields and the associated economic activity without negatively impacting soil, water or the integrity of natural ecosystems. In general, this means a move away from the typical seed, fertiliser and pesticide technologies used in modern agriculture to restorative practices that rely more on ecological processes and internal resources. It also means increasing output on existing agricultural land and reducing the loss of natural habitat for agricultural production. Examples of how agricultural systems in both developed and developing countries may be redesigned to fit the principles of sustainable intensification are provided in the table below:

Many argue that sustainable intensification can only be achieved if public investments encourage the adoption of innovations and support farmers by making technologies accessible and affordable. As smallholder farmers are vulnerable to production risks, they need initiatives and investments that are relatively low-risk and that offer short-term returns.

For example, agroforestry, which is one of the tools that can be used in different types of sustainable agriculture and involves planting trees alongside pasture and crops, is being supported by the non-profit research institute CIFOR-ICRAF. Their Trees for Food Security II project trained smallholder farmers in Africa in agroforestry principles and business skills, allowing them to participate more effectively in timber, fruit and fodder value chains while increasing outputs and improving sustainability. Another initiative is designed to demonstrate to smallholder oil palm producers in Cameroon that the use of industrial mills is more efficient than small local mills and could improve their productivity and income. Research supported by research centre CIFOR-ICRAF has shown that pests in Zambia and Malawi that would ordinarily be controlled using pesticides can be managed through the use of low-cost agroecological farming principles.²

Sustainable intensification and climate-smart agriculture (discussed below) are closely interlinked, with sustainable intensification forming the foundation of climate-smart agriculture. Therefore, the constraints, solutions and financing options discussed below under climate-smart agriculture will be broadly applicable to sustainable intensification.

Climate-smart agriculture

Climate-smart agriculture aims to guide agricultural systems towards supporting food security in the context of a changing climate, through “integrating climate change into the planning and implementation of sustainable agricultural strategies”. As climate change presents considerable risk in terms of unpredictable weather patterns, climate-smart agriculture focuses on building resilience in order to respond more rapidly to these risks and reduce the chances of becoming food insecure. It has three broad principles:

Increased sustainable production to meet food security and equitably increase incomes, food security and development
Enhanced resilience to climate shocks and risks through adaptation and resilience building
Development of opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, thereby reducing the greenhouse gases emitted per calorie of food.

Climate-smart agriculture uses existing approaches focused on supporting ecosystem services for achieving these principles, with sustainable intensification being a foundation.³ The tools and approaches that are used will vary depending on the regional context, but some examples include:

Integration of crop, livestock, agroforestry and aquaculture systems
Improved management of pests, water and nutrients, including using nitrogen fertiliser more efficiently
Landscape approaches, which focus on the use of collaborative initiatives in farming
Improved management of forests and grasslands, and the integration of trees into agricultural systems
Reduced tillage and the use of a variety of breeds and varieties
Restoration of degraded land
Manure management, which may include the use of anaerobic bio-digesters.

A recent analysis of climate-smart agriculture on small-scale farms found the common barriers to be poor education, skills and knowledge; potentially high investment costs and delayed benefits; and uncertainty.

The constraints and potential solutions have been summarised in the table below:

Source: Climate-Smart Agriculture on Small-Scale Farms: A Systematic Literature Review

This analysis highlights that knowledge sharing and education, among other factors, are key to realising climate-smart agriculture. Solutions also need to consider that the benefits and costs of agricultural transitions differ in different social groups and contexts.

An analysis by McKinsey identified the approaches that could be taken by government, development partners and the private sector to encourage the adoption of climate-smart agricultural measures for smallholder farmers. Among other things, it recommended the following:

Provision of opportunities for land-use optimisation linked to financing and incentive mechanisms
Redesign of subsidies and tax incentives for the adoption of adaptation and mitigation measures
Design of agricultural lending products that are are linked to the adoption of adaptation and mitigation measures
Investment in infrastructure to reduce postharvest losses and investment to make infrastructure more resilient (such as flood protection)
Improvement of traceability and sustainability certifications for applicable crops
Launch of a results-based payment scheme tied to specific goals
Scaling of investment in research and development of technologies for mitigation and adaptation, such as pest-resistant seeds, biostimulants and livestock breeds.

The World Bank Group is supporting the development of climate-smart agriculture and is committed to working with countries to increase productivity, improve resilience and reduce agricultural emissions. It has developed more than 10 Climate Smart Agriculture Investment Plans, offering financing of over USD 2.5 billion for climate-smart agriculture projects that are aligned with its objectives. Two examples include:

Investment of USD 50 million in a Livestock and Dairy Development Project in Bangladesh
Supporting the design of the USD 50 million second phase of the Smallholder Agricultural Development Project in Lesotho through identifying potential climate change challenges and solutions.

Various green bonds have also been developed to support climate-smart agriculture in the Global South. For instance:

Bank Windhoek has issued green bonds for climate-smart agriculture in Namibia
The Nigerian sovereign bond includes investments in sustainable agriculture and climate-smart farming
The Trust Funds for Agricultural Development (FIRA) supports water efficiency and protected greenhouses in Mexico
The Sovereign Bond Issuance in Egypt supports the development of crop species that are resilient to salinity and temperature increase.

The CGIAR, a global partnership linking international organisations concerned with food security, aims to improve the resilience of small-scale farmers to climate shocks through providing climate adaptation solutions through national innovation schemes. Examples include ‘climate-smart villages’, which identifies villages or regions that are likely to be badly affected by climate change and then connects community representatives and researchers to work together to identify climate-smart solutions.

The African Development Bank Group and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) have launched the ‘Mission 1 for 200’ initiative, which aims to “double agricultural productivity through the use of state-of-the-art, climate-smart technology and advice” and “build resilience by helping food systems and farmers adapt to climate change and reducing agriculture’s environmental impact and emissions”.

Organic farming

The aim of organic farming is “to create integrated, humane, environmentally and economically sustainable production systems, which maximize reliance on farm-derived renewable resources and the management of ecological and biological processes and interactions, so as to provide acceptable levels of crop, livestock and human nutrition, protection from pests and disease, and an appropriate return to the human and other resources”. Increasing awareness of the negative impacts on inputs, such as pesticides, on human health and the environment has spurred public interest in organic products. It is suggested that organic agriculture has room to expand globally, and given its various sustainability benefits over conventional farming, such as improved soil and food quality, greater biodiversity, less pollution and greater social benefits, it could contribute greatly to feeding the world.

Organic farming systems can promote food security by using minimal external inputs and promoting environmentally-friendly techniques. They are characterised by the following five features:

Respect for the environment and animals, such as through reduced pesticide pollution and lower nitrate leaching
Promotion of sustainable cropping methods, such as crop rotation and legume intercropping, as well as the promotion of crop and livestock diversity
Use of non-chemical fertilisers and pest/disease/weed control means, such as green fertilisers, compost and animal manures, natural pest control and no prophylactic antibiotics
Production of high-quality foodstuffs, such as those with no pesticide residue
Zero use of genetically modified crops.

There are various advantages of organic farming for small-scale producers, including:

Increased social capital through higher bargaining power and improved access to credit and markets
Saving money due to lower costs of inputs and energy, including potential savings from the use of non-fossil energy
Increased income through the sale of certified organic products at premium prices (10%-300% higher than conventional products)
Increased social interactions between farmers and consumers, greater employment of farmworkers and cooperation among farmers

Some disadvantages include:

Yields are approximately 25% lower than yields from conventional farms⁴
It may not be possible to produce sufficient compost and green manures in certain regions due to landscape constraints
The average return on investment for farmers is around five years
Achieving organic certification requires around three years, and during this time farmers will need to produce organic products but will not be able to sell their products at premium and will also need to endure reduced yields at the same time
Higher labour costs⁵
Challenges with soil nutrient management.

Compared to intensively-managed agriculture, organic farming tends to improve species richness and abundance, although there may not be a major difference between organic farms and small-scale farms made up of different agricultural fields and species. Organic farming has been found to have higher soil carbon levels, better soil quality and less soil erosion than conventional farms. Organic farming, on average, has a lower climate impact than conventional farming, whether considering the carbon footprint per land unit (43% fewer greenhouse gas emissions) or the carbon footprint per product unit (12% fewer greenhouse gas emissions). However, there are some examples of where organic farming performs less well than conventional farming:

As the chart above shows, while organic farming mostly performs better in certain impacts, such as greenhouse gas emissions, it performs less well in others, such as land use. For some impacts, the effects might be mixed – for example, energy use for producing vegetables in organic farming is higher because of certain alternative pesticides that may be used. The eutrophication (enriching a body of water with minerals and nutrients) potential in organic farming is high due to differences in the nutrient release of synthetic fertilisers versus manures.

Regenerative agriculture

Regenerative agriculture has been broadly defined as “a system of farming principles and practices that increases biodiversity, enriches soils, improves watersheds and enhances ecosystem services”. It strongly emphasises the improvement of soil health and the restoration of degraded soils, which in turn enhances the quality of water and vegetation, improves land productivity and restores the carbon content of the soil. Another core feature of regenerative agriculture is the reversal of biodiversity loss.

A wide variety of practices may be promoted under regenerative agriculture, as summarised in the table below:

Source: Regenerative Agriculture: An agronomic perspective

In terms of financing, in Brazil Rizoma-Agro has issued green bonds for regenerative agriculture, while Biotrop has issued green bonds worth BRL 100 million for regenerative agriculture. PepsiCo has issued a 10-year USD 1.25 billion green bond focused on investments into environmental sustainability, including regenerative agriculture.

Agroecology

Agroecology is “the integrative study of the ecology of the entire food system, encompassing ecological, economic and social dimensions”. It offers a framework for supporting sustainable agriculture and food systems that is focused on three aspects:

The scientific aspect, which uses modern ecological knowledge to design and manage sustainable farming ecosystems
The practical aspect, which values the local, empirical and indigenous knowledge of farmers to develop innovative and effective farming practices
The social change aspect, which advocates for changes to the food system that ensure food security for all.

Rather than altering the practices of existing unsustainable agricultural systems, agroecology requires the complete transformation of food and agricultural systems. The way in which agroecological principles are applied will depend on the local context.

The 10 Elements of Agroecology, which is a framework that was developed by the FAO and multiple stakeholders, offers a guideline:

Diversification is key to agroecological transitions to ensure food security and nutrition while conserving, protecting and enhancing natural resources
Agricultural innovations respond better to local challenges when they are co-created through participatory processes
Building synergies enhances key functions across food systems, supporting production and multiple ecosystem services
Innovative agroecological practices produce more using less external resources
More recycling means agricultural production with lower economic and environmental costs
Enhanced resilience of people, communities and ecosystems is key to sustainable food and agricultural systems
Protecting and improving rural livelihoods, equity and social well-being is essential for sustainable food and agricultural systems
By supporting healthy, diversified and culturally appropriate diets, agroecology contributes to food security and nutrition while maintaining the health of ecosystems
Sustainable food and agriculture requires responsible and effective governance mechanisms at different scales, from local to national to global
Circular and solidarity economies that reconnect producers and consumers provide innovative solutions for living within our planetary boundaries while ensuring the social foundation for inclusive and sustainable development.

Source: International Fund for Agricultural Development

For a project to be considered agroecological, it should be:⁶

Increasing resource use efficiency while reducing and/or substituting external inputs
Recycling water, nutrients, biomass and/or energy
Diversifying and integrating different farming sectors (various crops and/or animals)
Facilitating efficiency and recycling, spreading risks, increasing resilience and producing a greater variety of nutritious food.

The Scaling-up Agroecology Initiative is a UN-led platform that aims to support national agroecology processes through policy and technical capacity. The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) supports the initiative, and of the 207 IFAD-supported projects completed between 2018-2023, around 60% are implementing agroecological principles. The total investment in all IFAD projects in these years was USD 8.25 billion, though more financing was allocated to non-agroecological farming projects. Financing from the Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Programme (ASAP) and the Global Environment Facility (GEF) has been key in providing access to funds for agroecological practices – around 87% of projects with ASAP financing and 90% of projects with GEF financing entirely or partially promote agroecology. While the public sector is the primary financing source for both agroecological and non-agroecological IFAD, ASAP and GEF-supported projects, the private sector has played very little role in this financing, highlighting a key financing source to be developed.

Finance for small-scale farms in the Global South

IFAD is a UN-linked international financial institution focused on small-scale agriculture and supporting farmers through projects that provide small-scale farmers with access to finance, markets and technology, including via grants and low-interest loans. Together with finance and policy advisory organisation the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI), it released a report on the climate finance gap for small-scale farming. Climate finance is aimed at “reducing emissions and enhancing sinks of greenhouse gasses, and aims at reducing vulnerability and maintaining and increasing the resilience of human and ecological systems to negative climate change impacts”. The report found that 95% of climate finance for small-scale agriculture comes from the public sector, including from government donors, multilateral and bilateral development finance institutions (see the chart below).

The financial instruments used by the public sector mostly include grants (50%), followed by concessional (low cost) debt (33%) and non-concessional debt (16%). Of these grants, the majority (80%) were provided by governments, while concessional debt was largely issued by multilateral and bilateral development finance institutions. Multilateral development banks also provided the majority of the non-concessional debt.

There are various impact-oriented funds aimed at small-scale agriculture, including:

The Land Degradation Neutrality (LND) Fund, which is an “an impact investment fund blending resources from the public, private and philanthropic sectors to support achieving LDN through sustainable land management and land restoration projects implemented by the private sector”.
The Meloy Fund, which is an “impact investment fund focused on proving the triple bottom line viability of investing in fishing and seafood-related enterprises that will lead to better management and protection of these formerly under-appreciated and undervalued natural assets”.
&Green, which aims to “finance the delinking of major commodity supply chains from deforestation in a way that is commercially viable and replicable” through offering “innovative financial instruments that take away part of the risks of investing”.
Root Capital, which “provides credit and capacity building to small and growing agricultural businesses around the globe”.

Blended finance, which is “the strategic use of development finance and philanthropic funds to mobilise private capital flows to emerging and frontier markets”, is viewed as a finance solution for climate resilient and sustainable agriculture. Blended finance helps reduce both real and perceived risks in an investment, thereby facilitating private capital investment. Between 2014-2019, around 22% of blended finance transactions globally went to rural and smallholder farmers (see the chart below). The median transaction size for smallholder farmers during this period was USD 35 million, though the scale of these transactions has increased in recent years.

Blended finance is helping small-scale farmers through market initiatives such as Aceli Africa, which is supporting loans to agricultural small and medium sized enterprises in Africa. For instance, Aceli’s financial incentives helped Tanzania Commercial Bank provide loans for business to purchase cassava from smallholder farmers. Another example is the African Agricultural Capital Fund, which has made investments ranging from USD 250,000 to USD 2.5 million in small and medium sized agricultural businesses in Africa.

The Commission on Sustainable Agriculture Intensification (CoSAI) commissioned a report that found that around USD 60 billion was spent each year on agricultural innovation in the Global South between 2010-2019, of which 60%-70% came from national governments, 20%-25% from the private sector (mostly related to the research and development and marketing of new products related to mechanisation, crop protection, and seed development and biotechnology), and 10%-20% from development partners, including institutional investors, bilateral and multilateral agencies, and international philanthropies.⁷ Of this funding, less than 7% was directed at sustainable intensification specifically.

1
Small-scale farmers are typically those that produce food on up to two hectares of land in Asia and Africa and up to 15 hectares in Latin America. Small-scale farmers may or may not hold land titles.
2
Conventional pesticides are expensive for these farmers, who often do not have access to adequate protective clothing.
3
Ecosystem services are the basic services that are provided by the natural environment that offer benefits to humans, such as pollination
4
Despite the lower yields, the economic profitability is around 22%-35% higher than conventional agriculture.
5
In certain regions, this could be viewed as an advantage, such as by promoting rural employment.
6
This is according to the International Fund for Agricultural Development Agroecology Framework
7
Examples of innovation funding in the report included research into new seed varieties, training on new agroforestry practices, the adoption of agricultural policies such as fertiliser subsidy reforms, digital marketplaces for agricultural sales and purchases, and the maintenance and management of research institutes or infrastructure, such as the modernisation of slaughterhouses.

Eating better and less meat and dairy is key to tackling climate change

December 5, 2021 by ZCA Team Leave a Comment

The way we produce and consume livestock is fueling the nature and climate crisis. By 2050, if all other economic sectors followed a 1.5C pathway while the meat and dairy industry’s growth continued as usual, the livestock sector could eat up 80% of the remaining GHG budget in 32 years. Experts agree we need to shift diets. “To meet global climate targets, per capita consumption of meat would need to fall drastically,” says Chatham House, but it doesn’t mean meat has to be off the menu for everybody.

Veganuary is a key moment when companies and consumers think more about the personal and wider impacts of the food system. This briefing outlines the reasons we need to rapidly change how we produce animal products, and how eating less and better meat and dairy is one of the best ways for consumers to reduce the impact of their diets on the environment.

Current state of play in livestock and plant-based protein markets

Global meat consumption and production is rising across the world. This trend is expected to continue. But, as people become more concerned about the health and environmental impact of their diets, the market for Alternative Protein (AP) products is also growing. In this briefing, AP products are meat and dairy alternatives created to substitute animal products (i.e do not include fruit and vegetables) (see appendix for more stats).

Production trends: Production of meat is nearly six times higher than in 1961. This growth means that total meat production has been rising at a much faster rate than the rate of population growth. The world now produces more than triple the amount of milk than it did fifty years ago. Meat production will keep rising, reaching 374 million tonnes by 2030.
Types of meat and dairy: The world is shifting to poultry production, with its share nearly tripling to ~35% from 1961 to 2014. Poultry meat will continue to be the primary driver of growth, but at a slower rate. Beef and dairy production will also grow at a slower rate.
Geographies: The world’s top five meat producers are China, the US, the EU, Brazil and Russia. The top dairy producers are India, New Zealand, the EU, and the US. In North America, beef production is projected to grow 6% by 2030. In the EU, it is projected to fall by 5%.
Consumption: Per capita meat consumption has increased by ~20 kilograms since 1961 and it is projected to increase by 14% by 2030. Consumption has been shifting towards poultry, which is forecast to represent 41% of all the protein consumed from meat sources in 2030. Meat consumption is highest across high-income countries (see country breakdown), but per capita consumption of animal protein is expected to level off due to growing health and environmental concerns. In middle-income countries, consumption is expected to remain strong and keep rising, narrowing the consumption gap with rich countries. Despite being top producers, the EU and US milk consumption is expected to decline and increase in India and Pakistan.
AP products: The global AP market has been growing for many years, and is now worth USD 14 bn, which represents 1% of the global meat market. The EU has been at the forefront, with AP sales jumping 49% between 2018-20. In the US, it is a USD 7 bn market, and AP sales grew ~2.5x faster than total food sales between 2018 and 2020. It is estimated that 42% of global consumers are eating fewer animal products to improve their health and reduce their impact on the environment, with younger consumers driving this shift. The growth in the global AP market is expected to accelerate, with estimates from Bloomberg suggesting the market will exceed USD 162 bn within the next decade, a fivefold increase over 2020. According to global consultancy AT Kearney, 60% of meat eaten globally in 2040 will be from AP or lab-grown alternatives.

Financing and government subsidies

Governments have been subsidising meat and dairy production. For example, nearly 90% of total global farming subsidies (USD 540 bn per year) goes to the production of beef, milk and rice. In the EU, reform of farming subsidies – which account for a third of the EU’s total seven-year budget – is failing to incentivise change towards a more resilient food system. According to OECD, in high-income countries, beef receives the largest subsidies among meats, whereas in middle-income countries, these funds go to poultry, sheep and pork production. However, while many small producers would not be able to survive without this help, a lot of this money is going to support big agribusinesses. The world’s largest banks, investment firms and pension funds have also been big backers of industrialised animal agriculture. Between 2015-20, global meat and dairy companies received over USD 478 bn from over 2,500 investors in the forms of loans, insurance and securities. Two of the world’s leading development banks have pumped billions of dollars into the global livestock sector (USD 2.6 bn) in the past 10 years.
The AP market has received financing mainly from companies and investors. Many venture capital funds are investing in AP companies and research efforts. The global alternative protein companies received USD 3.1 bn in disclosed investments in 2020, which is more than three times as much as the USD 1 bn raised in 2019. Alternative protein companies have raised almost USD 6 bn in capital in the past decade (2010–2020), more than half of which was raised in 2020 alone. Traditional meat producers, newcomers and major food conglomerates (e.g Nestlé and Unilever) are increasingly adding AP alternatives to their product ranges and investing in new companies.

Major impacts from meat, dairy and AP products

Livestock production and consumption can harm the environment and people’s health. While not all types of production systems lead to negative impacts on the environment – pastoralism in the Sub-Saharan region in Africa helps to conserve biodiversity and sequester carbon, for example – large-scale industrial production contributes to the climate and nature crisis. Over-consuming meat products, especially red and processed meat, is increasing diseases and ill-health in humans. See below for some key stats.

Impacts from overproduction and consumption of meat, dairy and ultra processed AP products¹

What does science say the solutions are?

In order to reduce the emissions from our livestock, consumers and producers need to change.

Producers need to adopt land management practices to mitigate the highest impacts of production, as the world is not going to abandon livestock farming completely.² According to the IPCC, improving livestock and grazing land management as well as including mixing crop-livestock production can help to reduce climate and environmental impacts. Farming systems that shift away from industrial agriculture, such as agroforestry and organic farming, not only help to reduce emissions of all GHG, but also improve farmers’ livelihoods, food security and biodiversity. There are many questions about technological fixes, such as feed additives and anaerobic digesters to reduce methane emissions. These concern their scalability, cost and potential to reduce emissions. Even if they reduce beef’s methane emissions, these emissions would still be higher than those from pork and chicken and AP meats.

Consumers also have a key role to play.Experts agree that a shift to plant-based diets can play a key role in reducing emissions from food systems, which represent up to 37% of global greenhouse emissions . Going vegan can reduce emissions the most (e.g up to 8 GtCO2 eq/yr according to the IPCC).³ But people don’t need to completely exclude meat from their diets to reduce their dietary footprint. Eating less meat or switching to lower impact meats raised in sustainable systems, such as chicken, could also have a major impact. According to the IPCC, these diets (i.e flexitarian, vegetarian) can reduce emissions between 4.3-6.4 GtCO2 eq/yr by 2050.⁴ These diets also tend to be easier for people to adopt, healthier, have smaller land footprints and “present major opportunities for climate adaptation.” People also need to be careful about what they choose to substitute meat with to achieve large global benefits. They should opt for sourcing from farmers that practice regenerative agriculture or other agroecological methods that can support the fight against climate change and biodiversity loss. Reducing consumption in wealthy regions is also necessary to allow people across Asia and Africa to reach their nutritional goals while keeping consumption within planetary boundaries.

What governments and companies can and are doing?

Governments can support diet shifts through their own food procurement practices and policies that shape consumption (e.g. dietary guidelines and trade, food and agricultural policies). They can recommend lowering red meat consumption, promote research on alternative proteins or introduce fiscal policies to shift consumption patterns. Several European countries are investing in research on alternative proteins and changing dietary guidelines focusing on reducing consumption of meat. Policy reforms will have a greater impact if governments provide support and incentives for farmers to move away from industrial agriculture, such as redirecting public spending support and encouraging farming that produces meat in ways that benefit the environment, human health and animal welfare. At the same time, policy reforms provide a fair return for farmers and support consumers on lower incomes to access healthy and sustainable diets. However, in reality, most governments are failing to take action. For example, most of the current climate targets (NDCs) pay insufficient attention to agriculture, land-use emissions and food systems. Politicians are also afraid of conflict with farming groups and want to avoid a public backlash against policies that interfere in people’s daily lives, such as meat taxes. They also are failing to include sustainability in their dietary guidelines.

Businesses, restaurants and supermarkets can optimise the pricing and improve marketing of AP foods and dishes, while stopping promoting and discounting meat products. They can also continue to invest in development of AP products and increase efforts to reduce emissions from their supply chain. Several food companies, meatpackets and major retailers, for example, have set net zero targets, which include support for regenerative agriculture, carbon labelling or targets to increase sales of meat alternatives. But most of these net zero target are meaningless. For example, most of the top 35 global meat and dairy giants and top retailers either do not report or underreport their emissions. Also, none of the net zero commitments made by major meat and dairy companies call for reducing the number of animals in their supply chains.

1
Ultra-processed products usually have many added ingredients such as sugar, salt, fat, artificial colours, preservatives, flavours or stabilisers. Examples of these foods are frozen meals, soft drinks, hot dogs and cold cuts, fast food, packaged cookies, cakes, and salty snacks.
2
There are a number of reasons we wouldn’t want it to – it is not only an important source of income for many, but can also be a key source of nutrition in local settings. Particularly in lower-income countries where diets lack diversity, small amounts of meat and dairy can be an essential source of protein and micronutrients.
3
For comparison purposes; in 2010 the whole transport sector produced 7.0 GtCO2-eq of direct GHG emissions.
4
A flexitarian is a person who eats primarily a vegetarian diet but occasionally eats meat or fish.

The role of agroecology in more resilient and fair food systems

April 25, 2021 by ZCA Team Leave a Comment

Key findings

Agroecology has the potential to make food systems environmentally sustainable and socially equitable
Approximately 30% of farms around the world are estimated to have redesigned their production systems around agroecological principles, yielding many benefits
In 57 nations, agroecological projects increased average crop yields by 79%
Beyond yields, agroecology increases incomes, jobs and access to fresh and nutritious foods for communities, keeping local food cultures alive
Agroecology increases resilience to climate change, improves soils, biodiversity and ecosystem services. In some instances, it can also help reduce emissions
There is a need to change governance and finance systems that only support industrial agriculture
Increasing research and funding, plus inclusive governance and education, is key to agroecology’s expansion.

The global system of industrial food production today is largely unsustainable. It is a major source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions – accounting for up to 37% of total GHG emissions globally. Its processes erode soil nutrients and kill species, impacting biodiversity. Its structures allow power to be concentrated in the hands of a few corporations, contributing to the exploitation of workers and the impoverishment of small-scale farmers. The system also fails to feed the world, despite its claims and intentions – world hunger is on the rise, affecting 8.9% of the global population.

Many agricultural experts, scientists and activists agree that a radical transformation of our global food system is needed. In recent years, agroecology has emerged as a science-based set of practices and a social movement for a sustainable alternative to the global industrial food system. At its core, agroecology “centres on food production that makes the best use of nature’s goods and services while not damaging these resources”. It also involves the application of socioeconomic principles to build resilience and food system security.

Many experts, NGOs and multilateral agencies, including the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), The High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE), and the Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Food, support agroecology. In addition, 12.5% of nationally determined contributions (NDCs) addressing climate change also include agroecology, with the governments of these countries considering it a valid approach to climate change.

This briefing maps out the key concepts and current thinking on agroecology. It is important to note that there are competing terminologies being pushed in agricultural sustainability debates, especially in corporate commitments. Beware of exaggerated claims and vague terms that do not align with agroecological principles and thus do not help in transforming the food production system.

What is agroecology?

Agroecology is the application of ecological principles in agriculture. For example, replacing chemical inputs and optimising biodiversity, water and energy use. It is an umbrella term covering many agricultural practices, including organic, biodynamic and permaculture. Over the years, the definition of agroecology has expanded to include a food systems approach, encompassing economic and socio-cultural principles. For example, empowering farmers, supporting local food markets and promoting co-learning. It has been defined in many ways by many different stakeholders (1,2,3). As a broad set of approaches, it provides the flexibility to adapt to local contexts.

The FAO developed a set of principles to help countries implement agroecology, which can also be used as metrics to evaluate corporate commitments. These ten principles span five levels of transitions towards sustainable food systems. These levels were adapted by the FAO from Gliessman, and can be used as a framework to evaluate the level of transformation of each agroecological practice. Higher levels yield more transformative changes.

The FAO’s 10 elements of agroecology/Gliessman’s five levels of food system transformation

The numerous benefits of Agroecology

Across the world, farms and communities are transitioning to agroecology, often delivering impressive results, especially when solutions are tailored to the local context. Worldwide, it is estimated that nearly 30% of farms have “redesigned their production systems around agroecological principles”. A growing body of evidence shows there a number of benefits from agroecology, including: ¹

Increased food security

Agroecology can increase yields and productivity, improving the availability and stability of food production (Box V, p.35-36). For example, yields can go up between 50%-100% (p.34) in certain settings, challenging the idea that ecological farming methods are less productive than conventional agriculture and, therefore, insufficient to feed the world. In 57 nations, agroecological projects covering 37 million hectares (equivalent to 3% of the total cultivated area in these countries) were shown to increase average crop yield by 79%, as well as land productivity on 12.6 million farms.² In Africa, farmers had even higher gains with average crop yields rising by 116%.³

Some low-input agroecological systems, such as organic agriculture, can decrease yields. In developed countries, organic farms produced 8% lower yields than conventional farms.⁴ However, higher yields and stability can be achieved when other practices that boost diversity are also in place, such as growing different crops in rotation or growing two or more crops simultaneously (i.e. intercropping).

Agroecology improves health as well as food security by increasing access to food and diversifying diets.⁵ Different agroecological systems can increase the level of beneficial nutrients in food, leading to more diverse and healthy diets. For example, organic milk and meat contain around 50% more beneficial omega-3 fatty acids than conventional equivalents. Agroecology can also help to avert the negative health impacts of conventional agriculture, such as diseases caused by pesticide use. In many countries – from Mexico and Nicaragua to Ghana and Kenya – agroecology methods have improved diets, health and the nutritional value of crops.

Environmental and climate benefits

Agroecology improves soil health, biodiversity and ecosystem services, increasing climate adaptation and resilience. A recent literature review found that many practices improve soils and biodiversity (p.30-31), including soil organic carbon content, soil biodiversity and species richness.⁶ These are central aspects of climate change adaptation, as they help farmers handle (p.467) climate extremes, particularly in the Global South. For example, in semi-arid and sub-humid areas in Africa and in 17 food-insecure countries, agroecological practices have been shown to help improve soil, crop and water management (p.15-20).⁷

Given that industrial agriculture is the source of agricultural emissions, transitioning the current system to agroecology could significantly contribute to mitigation. A recent literature review found that some practices, like using organic fertilisers and maximising resource efficiency, help to reduce emissions. For example, small agroecology farms may be two to four times more energy efficient than large conventional farms. Similarly, agroecological farming is more efficient in storing carbon in soils than conventional systems. Agroecological practices that rebuild the organic matter in soils lost from industrial agriculture, for example, can store an equivalent to 20%–35% of current GHG emissions, according to GRAIN. Agroforestry – growing trees in or near croplands and pasture – can store 0.1 to 5.7 Gt of CO₂ a year globally (for reference, the higher estimate is nearly six times the aviation emissions in 2019), according to the IPCC.⁸ But the mitigation potential can vary, depending on the type of practice adopted (p.33). For example, practices that focus only on improving soils can reduce emissions locally, but not necessarily globally.⁹ More importantly, the mitigation potential of scaling up agroecology is achieved because it can reduce emissions of the industrialised food system as a whole. For example, by distributing food mainly through local markets instead of transnational food chains, total GHG emissions can be reduced by 10%–12%.

Improvements to farmers’ lives

Agroecology increases incomes and creates more stable jobs. A recent literature review found that profitability and labour productivity increased in 66% and 100% respectively compared to conventional agricultural practices. Case studies in European farms show that farmers’ incomes can rise by 10% to 110%. In India, a project transitioning six million farmers to agroecology increased household food autonomy, income and health, as well as reducing farm expenses and credit needs. In Mexico, the combination of traditional indigenous knowledge with agroecological practices enabled 31,000 coffee farmers to obtain higher profit margins than conventional farmers.

A higher income reduces production costs and means farmers are less dependent on local retailers and moneylenders, and therefore less vulnerable to price volatility and debt. Agroecology also creates jobs at lower costs with work spread more evenly throughout the year, allowing for more full-time employment.

The current limitations to agroecology research and application:

Public investment in agroecological approaches is very limited – it accounts for just 1%-1.5% of total agricultural and aid budgets. Most education programmes and funding for researchers, for instance, only promote industrial agriculture.
There is less research on the social and economic aspects of agroecology (1,2) than on its environmental benefits.¹⁰ Two key knowledge gaps are how to effectively link agroecology to public policies, and how to identify its social and economic impacts in a range of socio-ecological conditions. There is also limited research on how to scale agroecology in ways that foster democratic processes and address the needs of marginalised groups.
Meta analysis (1,2,3) usually considers case studies on certain types of farms, such as organic (see mind map below), as agroecological. However, while these farms apply some agroecological practices that focus on the environment, they tend not to engage the social and economic practices.

What will it take to scale up agroecology’s deployment?

Scale up is possible but requires the obstacles to transitioning away from industrial agriculture to be removed. Today, “the world spends at least USD 600 billion each year on agricultural subsidies. Roughly 70% of these funds provide direct income support, while only 5% support any kind of conservation or sustainability objective,” according to the World Resources Institute.

Governments, donors and the agro-food industry are the primary hindrance to agroecology. Policymakers are concerned about profitability and scalability and believe, mistakenly, that agroecology is too complex. This reduces their capacity to enact laws that foster agroecology. Through trade and agricultural policies, governments tend to favour the interests of the existing agro-food industry, such as providing agricultural subsidies to support conventional farming.¹¹ The intensive lobby of large corporations also supports a legal and economic framework in favour of industrialised agriculture.

Only a few public, bilateral donors and international organisations – France, Switzerland, Germany, the FAO and International Fund For Agricultural Development – specifically identify agroecology as a sustainable approach for achieving food security. Most donors endorse some principles of agroecology but in practice direct funding towards reinforcing and tweaking conventional agriculture methods, effectively locking out funding for agroecology. For example, 85% of projects funded by the Gates Foundation were for industrial agriculture and increasing its efficiency (e.g. improving pesticide practices or livestock vaccines). Agroecology is often reduced to the ecological dimension, with donors paying less attention to concerns like the circular economy or co-creation of knowledge with farmers and local communities. Furthermore, lack of finance plus insecure land tenure tend to discourage poor farmers to take up agroecology. Taken together, these obstacles reinforce the economic and political power currently held within the agro-food industry.

Long-term action is needed to scale up agroecology. Suggestions by FAO and experts include:

Building a strong evidence base and convincing narrative in support of agroecology. Interdisciplinary research can help to raise awareness and disseminate key messages among policymakers and the public to challenge the misconceptions about agroecology that impede political recognition and support. Integrating agroecology in agricultural research and education, such as by focusing public agricultural research on agroecological innovations or supporting the development of farmer-led and community-driven research, enables the co-construction and dissemination of agroecological knowledge. This can motivate farmers to adopt new methods.
Introduce favourable policies and reorient funding. Policy reforms will have a greater impact if governments provide support and incentives for moving away from industrial agriculture, such as reorienting public spending to fund farmer-to-farmer networks and improve their ability to access credit and product markets, or redesigning trade and agricultural policies in favour of agroecological approaches. Governments should also improve agricultural and food governance at local, national and international level, with a focus on increasing the participation of small-scale producers in decisions that affect them and shape agricultural and food systems. This is necessary to bring control of the food system to the local level.

Wider stakeholder involvement. Civil society organisations (CSO) and research institutions could work with policymakers and farmers to provide technical expertise in support of agroecology. NGOs, for example, can also support efforts of agroecological farmers, farmer networks and organisations through collaboration with researchers to disseminate information among sceptical farmers on the benefits of agroecological farming and its increased resilience, including its economic profitability. CSO’s could also influence donors, policymakers and the private sector to improve funding and support for policies that democratise agricultural and food governance. In general, the voices of farmers, indigenous and local communities need to be amplified in policy development and knowledge sharing.

Appendix 1: Approaches and practices that are considered agroecological

Produced by researchers based on the meta-analyses: 1,2. These are a few of the most common examples. See studies for all.

Appendix 2: Key resources

The potential of agroecology to build climate-resilient livelihoods and food systems. FAO, 2020
Approaches to sustainable agriculture. IUCN, 2020
Climate Change and Agroecology and case study of CCAFS. CCAFS, 2020.
The Ten Elements of Agroecology. FAO 2019
The agroecological transition of agricultural systems in the Global South. AFD, CIRAD, 2019
Agroecological and other innovative approaches. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition. HLPE, 2019
Beacons of Hope: Accelerating Transformations to Sustainable Food Systems. GAFF, 2019
Scaling up agroecology initiative. FAO 2018
Breaking away from industrial food and farming systems: Seven case studies of agroecological transition. IPES-Food, 2018

1
The literature is quite heterogeneous, with some studies focusing solely on agroecological farming systems and others on other systems that adopt agroecological principles, such as organic agriculture. In the briefing, we will include both types of studies as previous literature reviews: 1,2,3,4,5,6.
2
his is one of the widest and systematic studies on agroecology. It included 286 projects in six regions of the world: Sub-Saharan Africa; Middle East and North Africa; Europe and Central Asia; South Asia; East Asia and Pacific; Latin America and Caribbean. See Table A2.For example, average food production per household was up by 73% for 4.42 million small farmers growing cereals and roots.
3
A reanalysis of the previous studies. It included 114 agroecological organic projects.
4
Organic agriculture is included in literature reviews as a type of agroecological practice even though it is not as holistic as “agroecology”.
5
Hunger and malnutrition is not only a measure of food production, but of unequal access to food, inputs, markets, etc.
6
FAO conducted the widest literature review to date about agroecology potential in increasing climate resilience. The meta-analysis from 2020 consisted of peer-reviewed studies on agroecology (n=34 meta-analysis and 17 case studies selected out of 185).Examples are: the use of organic fertilisers, higher crop diversity, agroforestry, biodiversification, soil management, and water harvesting.
7
Debray et al. (2019) focused on agropastoral land use in semiarid Africa and mixed-crop-livestock production in subhumid areas.
8
In Africa, agroforestry’s potential is high even in very dry grassland areas, as only 15% of farms currently have 30% tree cover. Across the continent, the practice of growing trees and crops in rotation can store 3,900 kg of carbonper year on average. Even in very dry, treeless parts of West Africa, like the Sahel, parklands can store 500 kg of carbon per hectare per year on average.
9
Based on the current evidence, their potential has been overestimated. The World Resources Institute took a deep dive into the science and found it is “unlikely to achieve large-scale emissions reductions.” This is because scientists are still learning about how much and for how long soils can store carbon. For example, unlike carbon in trees that tend to persist on its own, soil carbon is not something farmers can add to their soils once and leave alone. Sometimes carbon can escape and no study has accounted for this happening. For example, grazing livestock only sequesters carbon in certain settings and is made more likely alongside other factors – by and large, farms adopting agroecological practices in the US, Italy and England, and Wales had higher emissions because they required more land.
10
The literature is quite heterogeneous. There are many case studies that are judged agroecological by the authors while others analyse farms that strongly relate to agroecology or some of its key elements, but without referring explicitly to this term.
11
Subsidies have helped increase conventional farming productivity at lower costs, making products cheaper and distorting prices. All these make it harder for agroecological farmers to compete.

Agroecological practices support climate change resilience

Key points:

What the science tells us about the benefits of agroecological practices

Yield and economic benefits with fewer inputs and emissions

Improved ecosystem services, offering multiple benefits

Enhanced food security and health

Sequestration in plants and soil can help meet Nationally Determined Contributions

An introduction to sustainable agriculture in smallholder farming

Key points:

Smallholder farming

Sustainable agriculture

Sustainable intensification

Climate-smart agriculture

Organic farming

Regenerative agriculture

Agroecology

Finance for small-scale farms in the Global South

Eating better and less meat and dairy is key to tackling climate change

Current state of play in livestock and plant-based protein markets

Financing and government subsidies

Major impacts from meat, dairy and AP products

Impacts from overproduction and consumption of meat, dairy and ultra processed AP products¹

What does science say the solutions are?

What governments and companies can and are doing?

The role of agroecology in more resilient and fair food systems

Key findings

The FAO’s 10 elements of agroecology/Gliessman’s five levels of food system transformation

The numerous benefits of Agroecology

Increased food security

Environmental and climate benefits

Improvements to farmers’ lives

What will it take to scale up agroecology’s deployment?

Appendix 1: Approaches and practices that are considered agroecological

Appendix 2: Key resources

About

Follow Us

Get In Touch: