Comparative table: Eco-functional, sustainable and ecological intensification

Transcription

1 Comparative table: Eco-functional, sustainable and ecological intensification

2 Introduction Increasingly, the global community has recognized that while the last half-century has witnessed striking increases in global food production through intensive use of inputs, such practices may deplete natural resources and impair the ability of agro-ecosystems to sustain production into the future. However, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations- FAO (2011) along with numerous recent reviews (The Royal Society 2009; Clay 2011; Foley et al. 2011, Bommarco et al. 2013) have highlighted that it is both possible and highly advantageous to address future needs by transitioning to systems of food production that are based on ecological intensification using land, water, biodiversity and nutrients efficiently and in ways that are regenerative, while minimizing negative impacts. Ecological intensification may be formally defined as a knowledge-intensive process that requires optimal management of nature s ecological functions and biodiversity to improve agricultural system performance, efficiency and farmers livelihoods. Areas of the world where agricultural productivity is extremely high - such as in Europe or North America- often depend on unsustainably high levels of external inputs. Here the challenge for ecological intensification is to reduce the reliance on external inputs while maintaining high productivity levels through the reestablishment of soil and landscape ecosystem services. In other places where productivity is less high, the challenge is to enhance productivity by optimising ecosystem services rather than by increasing agricultural inputs. A further challenge for ecological intensification is the development of novel poly-cropping systems and landscape-scale management of matrix habitats to increase the stability of agricultural production systems and provide ecological resilience. The FAO in its role in leading a work package on Communication, Dissemination and Training of Effective Ecological Intensification in the EU FP7-funded project LIBERATION is providing tools and documents to help policy-makers and practitioners understand and utilize the concepts of ecological intensification in agricultural production. There is a growing debate on the use of ecological intensification VS eco-functional VS sustainable intensification. In this line a comparative table highlighting the principal differences and similarities of these approaches has been developed. The table was created with complete citations from literature in order to avoid changing their meaning and purpose. At the end of the document you will find a complete list of references. For each approach, the table identifies its relevant: 1. Objectives. 2. Arguments 3. Principles/elements 4. Knowledge 5. Agronomic approach 6. Paradigm/goal The comparative table has been assembled by a joint effort of Helga Gruberg and Toby Hodgkin (Platform for Agrobiodiversity Research) and FAO (Elizabeth Ng ang a, Barbara Gemmill-Herren and Benjamin Gräub).

3 Approach Objective What differentiates them in their objective Arguments Eco-functional intensification Sustainable intensification Ecological intensification They all aim at increasing/maximizing productivity while reducing/minimizing negative impacts over the environment and ecosystem services in order to meet the anticipated increase of food demand. It aims at maintaining the system s Some authors argue for an increase in ability to sustain its productive capacity productivity, while others for improved through resource use efficiency (FAO performance and efficiency (Agropolis 2009; The Montpellier Panel 2013). 2010; GRiSP n/d; IFOAM n/d). Levidow (2012) explains that such an objective needs to be reached without conventionalizing organic farming (p. 182). Eco-functional intensification is proposed as an approach to improving the global food situation in a sustainable way and implementing the right to food, while reducing the need and use of external inputs and the negative impacts of food production; and fostering resilience of agroecosystems (GIZ 2010 p. 2, 8). According to Niggli, Slabe et al. (2008), eco-functional intensification can overpass organic agriculture s weakness of insufficient productivity FAO (2009) explains that it does not only aims at increasing productivity but also quality. Likewise, it aims at enhancing the natural capital and ecosystem services flow (FAO 2011). It searches for resource use efficiency, such as cultivation resulting in more production in the same amount of land (consistent with land sparing) and the reduction of the dependency on external inputs (Garnett and Godfray 2012; The Montpellier Panel 2013). It is argued that land sparing will avoid generating negative effects over ecosystem and biodiversity services, rural livelihoods and the overall environment (The Royal Society 2009). This approach also aims at reducing the use and need of external inputs. In this sense, some authors argue for increased efficiency of external inputs, labour and natural resources (Tittonell and Giller 2013; GRiSP n/d). Ecological intensification can prevent the expansion of agriculture (consistent with land sparing). Especially to marginal land not suited for continuous crop production or natural ecosystem that provide habitat for wildlife and diversity (Brown, Eells et al. 2012). It is argued that this approach can increase nutrition, greater year round food availability, decrease the costs of production, increase farms profitability and increase resilience at the farm and landscape level (IFOAM n/d).

4 and the stability of yields (p. 34). It fosters resilience of agro-ecosystems (GIZ 2010 p. 2) Likewise, it can contribute to lowering of GHG emissions through resource use efficiency (The Royal Society 2009). Principles/elements Eco-functional intensification has the following principles (GIZ 2010 p. 2): Empowerment and education of farmers (through extension services, Farmer Field Schools, etc.) Policies to protect ecological functions. Investment in people and in the protection of ecosystem functions rather than inputs. The Royal Society (2009) identifies 4 principles for sustainable intensification: persistence (capacity to continue to deliver desired outputs over long periods of time), resilience (capacity to absorb, use and/or benefit from perturbations), autarchy (capacity to deliver desired outputs from inputs and resources acquired from within key system boundaries) and benevolence (capacity to produce desired outputs while sustaining the functioning of ecosystem services and not causing depletion of natural capital). FAO (2011) include two more principles: Institutional principles: Institutional change/support is needed for translating the environmental principles into largescale both national, local and community levels (p. 11). Social principles: It is a process of social learning, since the knowledge required is generally greater than that used in most conventional farming approaches. Therefore, it requires strengthening of extension services, people s participation According to IFOAM (n/d) ecological intensification is based on nature s ecological functions and biodiversity. In this line, Bommarco, Kleijn et al. (2013) present a series of principles for ecological intensification: Replacement of anthropogenic inputs for environmentally friendly ones (p. 230). Enhancement of crop productivity through ecosystem services (supporting, regulating, provisioning and cultural services) management in agricultural practices. Although it focus mainly on regulating and supporting services (p. 230). Understanding of the relations between land use at different scales and the community composition of ecosystem service-providing organisms (p. 230). Distinguishing between promoting biodiversity for the services it delivers and biodiversity with inherent conservation value (p. 235).

5 Knowledge Agronomic approach It is a knowledge intensive approach. Based both in scientific and local knowledge (Niggli, Slabe et al. 2008; GIZ 2010). It considers four types of innovation: technological, know-how, organizational and social (Moeskops, Murphy-Bokern et al. 2012). Eco-functional intensification is part of the wider concept of Agroecology: improving nutrient recycling techniques, enhancing biodiversity and the health of in local decision-making with a strong gender approach (p. 12) It is argued that under this approach the knowledge required is generally greater than the required in other approaches (FAO p. 12). Hence it has an strong social learning and farmer s capacity building approach through extension services (FAO. 2011). FAO (2009) explains that one controversial aspect of sustainable intensification is the use of local knowledge and adaptive methods versus externally-supplied and capital-intensive technologies such as genetically engineered seeds and irrigation (p. 39). Sustainable intensification follows and ecosystem services approach in order to enhance them (FAO 2009). FAO (2011) explain that sustainable intensification is based on biological According to Doré; Makowski et al. (2011) ecological intensification should be based on: Mobilizing advances in plant sciences for agronomist to design ecologically intensive cropping systems. Learning lessons from the functioning of natural ecosystems for the design of agroecoystems. Farmers knowledge and lay expertise valorization and integration into scientific knowledge. Meta-analysis and agriculture. More powerful than a simple narrative; review of a series of studies. Comparative analysis of agroecosystems in order to identify structural characteristics of cropping and farming systems underlying properties of interest. Ecological intensification follows an ecosystem services approach. It builds on the mobilization of ecological processes. It implies designing

6 soils, crops and livestock (Levidow 2012; Moeskops, Murphy-Bokern et al p. 1) processes, integration of a range of plant species and judicious use of external inputs (fertilizers and pesticides). sustainable production systems that save on external inputs and are less harmful to the environment. Paradigm/goal It follows and integrated system approach (Niggli, Slabe et al p. 34; GIZ 2010): Uses the self-regulating mechanisms of organisms and of biological or organizational systems in a highly intensive way. Searches for cooperation and synergy between different components of agriculture and food systems. Closes materials cycles in order to minimize losses. Intensifies the beneficial effects of ecosystem functions, including biodiversity, soil fertility and homeostasis. Increases livestock welfare, with a positive impact on the health and productivity of animals. According to Levidow (2012) ecofunctional intensification belongs to Agroecology via farmers knowledge of agro-ecological methods: improving nutrient recycling techniques, enhancing biodiversity and the health of soils, crops According to the Royal Society (2009) it follows a multi-pronged approach: prudent application of recent and prospective biological advances; improvements in farming practices, crop management and modern genetics. According to Levidow, Pimbert et al. (2013) it incorporates some agroecological methods. According to the Montpellier Panel (2013) there are three categories of intensification: ecological, genetic and socio-economic. FAO (2011) and the Montpellier Panel (2013) present Sustainable Intensification as a new paradigm for food production. According to Levidow (2012) sustainable intensification belongs to Life Sciences via smart inputs from lab knowledge: Such efficiency is based on scientific agroecological principles (GRiSP n/d). For some authors like Doré,et al. (2011) and Tittonell and Giller (2013) ecological intensification is a new paradigm to face current agricultural challenges. While Cassman (1999) presents it as a goal, where intensification of production systems can be achieved in

7 and livestock (p. 186). enhancing external inputs, engineering their compositional qualities and increasing land productivity (p. 186). While Garnett and Godfray (2012) present sustainable intensification as an aspiration. Levidow, Pimbert et al. (2013) explain that there are two approaches to the dominant agro-food regime: conforming and transforming. Sustainable intensification belongs to the conforming approach. It belongs to neoproductivist agendas promoting Life Sciences (e.g. GM crops) and selectively appropriating agroecological methods. The authors explain that by appropriating agroecological methods for productivist aims, the concept sustainable intensification blurs the distinction between an agroecological agenda and Green Revolution capitalintensive agenda (p. 2). order to satisfy the anticipated increase in food demand while meeting acceptable standards of environmental quality (p. 1).

8 References Agropolis (2010). "DMC-an ecological intensification engineering tool."in Research In Bommarco, R., D. Kleijn, et al. (2013). "Ecological intensification: harnessing ecosystem services for food security." Trends in ecology & evolution 28(4): Brown S, Eells J, and Schielke A (2010). Heartland: Where Water Matters. The Heartland Regional Water Coordination Initiative is funded by the United States Department of Agriculture National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) Integrated Water Program. USA. Pp 19. From 74C0C6C520F8/0/10080ISUHRWCIShowcaseReportfinal.pdf Cassman, K. G. (1999). "Ecological intensification of cereal production systems: Yield potential, soil quality, and precision agriculture." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96(11): Clay, J Freeze the footprint of food. Nature 475: Doré, T., D. Makowski, E. Malézieux, N. Munier-Jolain, M. Tchamitchian and P. Tittonell (2011). "Facing up to the paradigm of ecological intensification in agronomy: revisiting methods, concepts and knowledge." European Journal of Agronomy (34): FAO (2009). "Glossary on organic agriculture. Version 1.0 ( ) (EFS)." Rome, FAO:173 from ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/k4987t/k4987t01.pdf FAO (2009). Strategic framework Strategic framework Rome. FAO. (2011). Save and grow: A policymaker's guide to sustainable intensification of smallholder crop production, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Foley, J.A., et al Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478: Garnett, T. and C. Godfray (2012). Sustainable intensification in agriculture. Navigating a course through competing food system priorities. Oxford, Food Climate Research Network and the Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food, University of Oxford: 51. GIZ (2010). Eco-functional intensification of agricultural production seeds and fertiliser - contribution to food security. t. O. Documentation of the Workshop, GTZ (/GIZ)1, Eschborn. Eschborn, GIZ Dep. 45 Agriculture, fisheries and food : 17. GRiSP. (n/d). "Theme 3: Ecological and sustainable management of rice-based production systems." Retrieved 17/07/2013, from IFOAM. (n/d). "Ecological Intensification." from Levidow, L. (2012). Chapter 9. Contending European agendas for agricultural innovation. System Innovations, Knowledge Regimes and Design Practices towards Transitions for Sustainable Agriculture. M. Barbier and B. Elzen. Paris, INRA: Levidow, L., M. Pimbert, et al. (2013). Draft. Agroecology in Europe - Conforming or transforming the dominant agro-food regime? Agroecology for Sustainable Food Systems in Europe: A Transformative Agenda. Brussels, Belgium: 36. Moeskops, B., D. Murphy-Bokern, et al. (2012). Report on EU Commission Conference Organic and Low Input Agriculture: Implementing innovation to respond to EU challenges. Larnaca, TP Organics - The Open University: 7. Niggli, U., A. Slabe, et al. (2008). Vision for an Organic Food and Farming Research Agenda Organic Knowledge for the Future, IFOAM-EU and FiBL: 48.

9 The Montpellier Panel (2013). Sustainable intensification: A new paradigm for African Agriculture. T. M. P. Report. London. The Royal Society (2009). Reaping the benefits: science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture. RS Policy document 11/09. London: 86. Tittonell, P. and K. Giller (2013). "When yield gaps are poverty traps: The paradigm of ecological intensification in African smallholder agriculture." Field Crops Research 143: