According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), agriculture is responsible for 10–12% of total global anthropogenic emissions and almost a quarter of the continuing increase of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Lin et al., 2011). Not all forms of agriculture have the same impacts on global greenhouse gas emissions, however. In their 2012 literature review study, Lin et al. found that agro-ecological farms release fewer GHG’s into the atmosphere than industrial agriculture production, and have the potential to sequester more carbon than industrial agriculture.
This year, the Rodale Institute put out their 2020 whitepaper claiming that:
“Recent data from farming systems and pasture trials around the globe show that we could sequester more than 100% of current annual CO2 emissions with a switch to widely available and inexpensive organic management practices, which we term “regenerative organic agriculture.” These practices work to maximize carbon fixation while minimizing the loss of that carbon once returned to the soil, reversing the greenhouse effect.”
Studies endorsed by the FAO estimate that total emissions from global livestock represent 14.5% of all anthropogenic GHG emissions (FAO, 2020). Not all livestock production emits GHG’s, however. A study conducted at an agroecological dairy farm in Costa Rica, Finca Agroecologíca El Progreso conclude that they can achieve a carbon positive balance. According to a study by UCR student Maria Gómez-Cortés, “The carbon balance in carbon dioxide tons per year equivalent were calculated with [Finca Agroecologíca El] Progreso hav[ing] a positive emissions budget most likely influence by the cattle ling activities therein.” (Gómez Cortés, M. (2014). If we are able to recreate these environments, it means more than applying scientific and technological solutions to large scale industrial farming methods to reach carbon neutrality for the world. This will be explored in greater detail in the case studies section.
Agroecology first appeared in literature in the 1930’s as a combination between the fields of agronomy ecology, to study biological interactions between crops and other natural elements of the agro-ecosystem at the field/plot scale (Wetzel and Sodat, 2011). Since the 1960s, early agroecologists began to incorporate indiegnous knowledges such as the use of mechanisms which accommodate crops to natural variability without the use of external inputs (Gliessman, 2007). In the 1980s, with growing realizations of the negative effects of the green revolution, agroecology began to take off as an alternative model to rival industrial agriculture and corporate supply chains. In Latin America, agroecology is framed by social movements to promote indigenous and ecological farming practices and support smallholder or landless farmers. Since the 2000’s, agroecology has been repeatedly presented by academics (Gliessman, 2007; 2015, Holt-Gimenez & Alteri, 2013; Rosset, 2005; Toledo 2016), social movements such as La Vía Campesina (LVC) and The Landless Workers Movement (MST) in Brazil, and as a framework for designing sustainable food systems with smallholder farmers. In recent years, global governance organizations concerned with the climate crisis and food security have coined agroecology definitions as a way for the world to feed a growing population with limited natural resources. The agreed upon international definition of agroecology by the FAO:
“A scientific discipline, a set of practices and a social movement. As a science, it studies how different components of an ecosystem interact. As a set of principles, it seeks sustainable farming solutions that optimize and stabilize yields. As a social movement, it pursues multifunctional roles for agriculture, promotes social justice, nurtures identity and culture, and strengthens the economic viability of rural areas. Agroecology is an integrated approach that simultaneously applies ecological and social concepts and principles to the design and management of food and agriculture systems.” (FAO, 2018).
Agroecology has the potential to face the climate, food and fuel crisis, narrow socio-economic inequality gaps, regenerate biodiversity and improve the livelihoods and wellbeing of rural producers, women, and indigenous communities. Though, agroecology in all of its applications is not a cure-all to facing climate change and socioeconomic inequality. Sustainable development projects may use the term ‘agroecology’ to refer to ecological intensification (EI) without holistically acknowledging the entire ecosystem. For example, Walmart has recently stated that they plan to become a ‘regenerative’ company and achieve a ‘net zero’ emissions by 2040, though they are only taking responsibility for direct emissions, not food and supply chain emissions and discusses sourcing beef products that prioritise “soil health, animal welfare and responsible use of antibiotics” (Walmart, 2020). This ‘greenwashed’ version of agroecology which focuses on technological solutions without taking into account the socio-economic realities of the whole supply chain may leave behind the marginalized groups who created and promoted the discipline from the grassroots.
PREVIOUS
NEXT