The Potential of Agroecology to Combat Hunger
in the Developing World
Miguel
A. Altieri
Department of Environmental Science, Policy
and Management
University of California at Berkeley
Peter
Rosset
Institute for Food and Development
Policy/Food First
Oakland, CA
Lori
Ann Thrupp
World Resources Institute
Washington, DC
Hunger and
malnutrition affect nearly 800 million people
in the developing world. By and large those
problems are not due to an absolute scarcity
of food, however, but to the more complex
issues of who grows food and how and where it
is grown, how it is distributed, and finally,
who has access to it. In this complicated web
of causality, inequality is the outstanding
driving force behind hunger. Misuse and
over-exploitation of natural resources are
other central factors underlying food gaps.
Any technological policy for rural and
agricultural development then, must be judged
on, among other factors, whether it tends to
increase or decrease inequity in the
distribution of and access to resources and
food, and whether it ensures sustainability
of resource use.
Proponents of
a ‘second’ Green Revolution (GRII)
generally argue that scarcity and low
agricultural productivity cause food
insecurity and will also aggravate global
hunger in the future. Those holding this
perspective usually believe that
"overpopulation" and food scarcity
cause hunger, and likewise, dwell on
aggregate global food production/consumption
figures to justify GRII, but seldom look at
distribution and disparities at the local or
regional level. Therefore they propose a new
wave of agricultural intensification based on
stepped up fertilizer and pesticide use in
Africa and parts of Latin America,
bioengineered crop varieties, and trade
policies that would allow northern food
supplies to cover for any ‘food gaps’
remaining in the South after GRII. Likewise,
they usually promote the agroindustrial model
that stresses uniformity, standardized
technologies for large-scale high-input and
mechanized systems, aimed at maximizing
yields of commercial crops, to fuel a global
food system.
Yet, evidence
suggests that this GR approach is unlikely to
be the appropriate strategy to end hunger.
Serious concerns have been raised by economic
analysts, NGOs (non-governmental
organizations), and farmers in many parts of
the world, about the validity of this
approach. Earlier versions of the GR
technological package have in many cases
generated soil, pest and weed problems,
sometimes leading to long-term yield decline.
Bioengineering produces varieties that are
not locally adapted, and must be purchased by
cash-strapped farmers. The widespread
introduction of such varieties poses
environmental risks and can reduce the
genetic diversity of food crops and
varieties, elevating risk and food insecurity
for farmers in many areas. Dumping of
Northern food surpluses is already a key
factor depressing productivity in the South.
The GR II emphasis on capital-intensive,
off-farm, chemical inputs, is likely to both
reinforce yield leveling or decline, and
generate further inequity, thus making it a
less than ideal policy package for attacking
hunger.
In contrast,
the agroecological approach favored by
increasing numbers of farmers, NGOs, and
analysts around the world, offers several
advantages. First, it is a alternate path to
agricultural productivity or intensification
that relies on local farming knowledge and
techniques adjusted to different local
conditions, management of diverse on-farm
resources and inputs, and incorporation of
contemporary scientific understanding of
biological principles and resources in
farming systems. Second, it offers the only
practical way to actually restore
agricultural lands that have been degraded by
conventional agronomic practices. Third, it
offers an nvironmentally sound, and
affordable way, for smallholders to
sustainable intensify production in marginal
areas. Finally, it has the potential to
reverse the anti-peasant biases inherent in
strategies that emphasize purchased inputs
and machinery, valuing instead the assets
that small farmers already possess, including
local knowledge and the low opportunity costs
for labor that prevail in the regions where
they live. Thus it is an approach that is
likely to decrease, rather than exacerbate,
inequality, and also enhance sustainability.
Box 1:
THE MEANING AND PRINCIPLES OF AGROECOLOGY
Agroecology is
a scientific discipline that defines,
classifies, and studies agricultural systems
from an ecological and socioeconomic
perspective. It is also considered the
scientific foundation of sustainable
agriculture as it provides ecological
concepts and principles for the analysis,
design, and management of productive,
resource-conserving agricultural systems.
Agroecology integrates indigenous knowledge
with modern technical knowledge to arrive at
environmentally and socially sensitive
approaches to agriculture, encompassing not
only production goals, but also social equity
and ecological sustainability of the system.
In contrast to the conventional agronomic
approach that focuses on the spread of
packaged uniform technologies, agroecology
emphasizes vital principles such as
biodiversity, recycling of nutrients, synergy
and interaction among crops, animals, soil,
etc., and regeneration and conservation of
resources. The particular methods or
technologies promoted by agroecologists build
upon local skills and are adapted to local
agroecological and socioeconomic conditions.
The implementation of such agroecological
principles within the context of a pro-poor,
farmer-centered rural development strategy is
essential for healthy, equitable, sustainable
and productive systems.
Today there
are thousands of examples where rural
producers in partnership with NGOs and other
organizations, have promoted and implemented
alternative, agroecological development
projects which incorporate elements of both
traditional knowledge and modern agricultural
science, featuring resource-conserving yet
highly productive systems such as
polycultures, agroforestry, the integration
of crops and livestock, etc.
There is
enough evidence available today—despite
the fact that researchers have paid scant
attention to these systems—to suggest
that these agroecological technologies
promiss to contribute to food security at
many levels. Just how productive and
sustainable they are is to some degree still
an empirical question. But it is likely that
the prevalence of similar systems among
smallholders is a factor in the universally
observed inverse relationship between farm
size and production, whereby smaller farms
make far more productive use of the land
resources than do large farms. Yet, even
medium and large scale producers are
increasingly making use of the agroecological
approach, recognizing the advantages of these
principles and techniques over conventional
approaches.
Critics of
such alternative production systems point to
lower crop yields and in high-input
conventional systems. Yet all too often it is
precisely the emphasis on yield—a
measure of the performance of a single crop—that
blinds analysts to broader measures of
sustainability and to the greater per unit
area productivity obtained in complex,
integrated agroecological systems that
feature many crop varieties together with
animals and trees. There are also cases where
even yields of single crops are higher in
agroecological systems that have undergone
the full conversion process.
Assessments of
various initiatives in Africa, Asia and Latin
America show that agroecological technologies
can bring significant environmental and
economic benefits to farmers and communities.
If such experiences were to be scaled up,
multiplied, extrapolated and supported in
alternative policy scenarios, the gains in
food security and environmental conservation
would be substantial. In this article we
summarize some cases from Latin America and
Africa to explore the potential of the
agroecological approach.
Stabilizing
the Hillsides of Central America
Perhaps the
major agricultural challenge in Latin America
is to design cropping systems for hillside
areas, that are both productive and reduce
erosion. Several organizations have taken on
this challenge with initiatives that
emphasize the stewardship of soil resources,
utilization of local resources, and inputs
produced on-farm.
Since the mid
1980s, the private voluntary organization
World Neighbors has sponsored an agricultural
development and training program in Honduras,
to control erosion and restore the fertility
of degraded soils. Soil conservation
practices were introduced—such as
drainage and contour ditches, grass barriers,
and rock walls—and organic fertilization
methods were emphasized, such as chicken
manure and intercropping with legumes.
Program yields tripled or quadrupled from 400
kilograms per hectare to 1,200-1,600
kilograms, depending on the farmer. This
tripling in per-hectare grain production has
ensured that the 1,200 families participating
in the program have ample grain supplies for
the ensuing year. Subsequently COSECHA, a
local NGO promoting farmer-to-farmer
methodologies on soil conservation and
agroecology, helped some 300 farmers
experiment with terracing, cover crops and
other new techniques. Half of them have
already tripled their corn and bean yields;
35 have gone beyond staple production and are
growing carrots, lettuce and other vegetables
to sell in local markets.
Throughout
Central America, CIDDICO and other NGOs have
promoted the use of grain legumes to be used
as green manure, an inexpensive source of
organic fertilizer to build up organic
matter. Hundreds of farmers in the northern
coast of Honduras are using velvet bean
(Mucuna pruriens) with excellent results,
including corn yields of about 3,000kg/ha,
more than double than national average,
erosion control, weed suppression and reduced
land preparation costs. The velvet beans
produce nearly 30 t/ha of biomass per year,
or about 90-100 kg of N/ha per year. Taking
advantage of well established farmer to
farmer networks such as the campesino a
campesino movement in Nicaragua and
elsewhere, the spread of this simple
technology has occurred rapidly. In just one
year more than 1,000 peasants recovered
degraded land in the Nicaraguan San Juan
watershed. Economic analyses of these
projects indicate that farmers adopting cover
cropping have lowered their utilization of
chemical fertilizers (from 1,900 kg/ha to 400
kg/ha) while increasing yields from 700 kg to
2,000 kg/ha, with production costs about 22%
lower than farmers using chemical fertilizers
and monocultures.
Scientists and
NGOs promoting slash/mulch systems based on
the traditional "tapado" system,
used on the Central American hillsides, have
also reported increased maize yields (about
3,000 kg/ha) and considerable reduction in
labor inputs as cover crops smother
aggressive weeds, thus minimizing the need
for weeding. Another advantage is that
drought resistant mulch legumes such as
Dolichos lablab provide good forage for
livestock.
These kinds of
agroecological approaches are currently being
used on a relatively small percentage of
land, but as their benefits are being
recognized by farmers, they are spreading
quickly. Such methods have strong potential
and offer important advantages for other
areas of Central America and beyond.
Agroecology
in the Andean Region
In Peru, NGOs
have studied pre-Columbian technologies in
search of solutions to contemporary problems
of high altitude farming. A fascinating
example is the revival of an ingenious system
of raised fields that evolved on the high
plains of the Peruvian Andes about 3,000
years ago. According to archaeological
evidence, these waru-warus, platforms of soil
surrounded by ditches filled with water, were
able to produce bumper crops despite floods,
droughts and the killing frosts common at
altitudes of nearly 4,000 meters.
In 1984,
several NGOs and state agencies created the
Projecto Interinstitucional de Rehabilitación
de Waru-warus (PIWA) to assist local farmers
in reconstructing the ancient systems. The
combination of raised beds and canals has
proven to have important temperature
moderation effects, extending the growing
season and leading to higher productivity on
the waru-warus, compared to chemically
fertilized normal pampa soils. In the
district of Huatta, reconstructed raised
fields produced impressive harvests,
exhibiting a sustained potato yields of 8-14
t/ha/yr. These figures contrast favorably
with the average Puno potato yields of 1-4
t/ha/yr. In Camjata, potato yields reached 13
t/ha/yr and quinoa yields reached 2t/ha/yr in
waru-warus.
Elsewhere in
Peru, several NGOs in partnership with local
government agencies have engaged in programs
to restore abandoned ancient terraces. For
example, in Cajamarca, in 1983 EDAC-CIED
together with peasant communities initiated
an all-encompassing soil conservation
project. Over 10 years they planted more than
550,000 trees and reconstructed about 850 has
of terraces and 173 has of drainage and
infiltration canals. The end result is about
1,124 has of land under conservation measures
(roughly 32% of the total arable land),
benefiting 1,247 families (about 52% of the
total in the area). Crop yields have improved
significantly. For example, potato yields
went from 5 t/ha to 8 t/ha and Oca yields
jumped from 3 to 8 t/ha. Enhanced crop
production, fattening of cattle and raising
of alpaca for wool, have increased the income
of families from an average $ 108 per year in
1983 to more than $ 500 today.
In the Colca
valley of southern Peru, PRAVTIR (Programa de
Acondicionamiento Territorial y Vivienda
Rural) sponsors terrace reconstruction by
offering peasant communities low-interest
loans or seeds and other inputs to restore
large areas (up to 30 has) of abandoned
terraces. The advantages the terraces are
minimizing risk in times of frost and/or
drought, reducing soil loss, broadening
cropping options because of the microclimate
and hydraulic advantages of terraces, and
improvement productivity. First year yields
from new bench terraces showed a 43-65%
increases of potatoes, maize and barley,
compared to these crops grown on sloping
fields. The native legume Lupinus mutabilis
is used as a rotational or associated crop on
the terraces; it fixes nitrogen, which is
available to companion crops, minimizing
fertilizer needs and increasing production.
As shown in Table 1, though yields are
greater in chemically fertilized and
machinery prepared potato fields, energy
costs are higher and net economic benefits
are not necessarily greater than the
agroecological system. Surveys indicate that
farmers prefer this alternative system as it
optimizes the use of scarce resources, labor
and available capital, and is accessible to
even poor producers. These kinds of methods
are being scaled up and multiplied, showing
great potential for improvements in
productivity and sustainable food security
throughout the region.
Integrated
Production Systems
A number of
NGOs promote the integrated use of a variety
of management technologies and practices. The
emphasis is on diversified farms in which
each component of the farming system
biologically reinforces the other components,
for instance where wastes from one component
become inputs to another. Since 1980, CET, a
Chilean NGO, has engaged in a rural
development program aimed at helping peasants
reach year-round food self-sufficiency while
rebuilding the productive capacity of their
small landholdings. The approach has been to
set up several 0.5 ha model farms, which
consist of a spatial and temporal rotational
sequence of forage and row crops, vegetables,
forest and fruit trees, and animals.
Components are chosen according to crop or
animal nutritional contributions to
subsequent rotational steps, their adaptation
to local agroclimatic conditions, local
peasant consumption patterns and, finally,
market opportunities. Most vegetables are
grown in heavily composted raised beds
located in the garden section, each of which
can yield up to 83 kg of fresh vegetables per
month, a considerable improvement to the
20-30 kg produced in spontaneous gardens
tended around households. The rest of the
200-square meter area surrounding the house
is used as an orchard, and for animals,
(cows, hens, rabbits and langstroth
beehives).
Vegetables,
cereals, legumes and forage plants are
produced in a six-year rotational system
within a small area adjacent to the garden.
Relatively constant production is achieved
(about six tons per year of useful biomass
from 13 different crop species) by dividing
the land into as many small fields of fairly
equal productive capacity as there are years
in the rotation. The rotation is designed to
produce the maximum variety of basic crops in
six plots, taking advantage of the
soil-restoring properties and biological
control features of the rotation.
Over the
years, soil fertility in the original
demonstration farm has improved, and no
serious pest or disease problems have
appeared. Fruit trees in the orchard and
fencerows, as well as forage crops are highly
productive. Milk and egg production far
exceed that on conventional farms. A
nutritional analysis of the system based on
its key components shows that for a typical
family it produces a 250% surplus of protein,
80 and 550% surpluses of vitamin A and C,
respectively, and a 330% surplus of calcium.
A household economic analysis indicates that,
the balance between selling surpluses and
buying preferred items provides a net income
beyond consumption of US$ 790. If all of the
farm output were sold at wholesale prices,
the family could generate a monthly net
income 1.5 times greater than the monthly
legal minimum wage in Chile, while dedicating
only a relatively few hours per week to the
farm. The tiime freed up is used by farmers
for other on-farm or off-farm income
generating activities.
In Cuba, the
Asociación Cubana de Agricultura Orgánica
(ACAO), a non-governmental organization
formed by scientists, farmers and extension
personnel, has played a pioneering role in
promoting alternative production modules. In
1995 ACAO helped establish three integrated
farming systems (called ‘agroecological
lighthouses’) in cooperatives (CPAs) in
the province of Havana. After the first six
months, all three CPAs had incorporated
agroecological innovations (i.e. tree
integration, planned crop rotation,
polycultures, green manures, etc.) to varying
egrees, which, with time, have led to
enhancement of production and biodiversity,
and improvement in soil quality, especially
organic matter content. Several polycultures,
such as cassava-beans-maize,
cassava-tomato-maize, and sweet potato-maize
were tested in the CPAs. Productivity
evaluation of these polycultures indicates
2.82, 2.17 and 1.45 times greater
productivity than monocultures, respectively.
The use of Crotalaria juncea and Vigna
unguiculata as green manure have ensured a
production of squash equivalent to that
obtainable applying 175 kg/ha of urea. In
addition, such legumes improved the physical
and chemical characteristics of the soil and
effectively broke the life cycles of insect
pests such as the sweet potato weevil.
At the Cuban
Instituto de Investigaciones de Pastos,
several agroecological modules with various
proportions of the farm area devoted to
agriculture and animal production were
established. Monitoring of production and
efficiencies of a 75% pasture/25% crop
module, reveals that total production
increases over time, and that energy and
labor inputs decrease as the biological
structuring of the system begins to sponsor
the productivity of the agroecosystem. Total
biomass production increased from 4.4 to 5.1
t/ha after 3 years of integrated anagement.
Energy inputs decreased, which resulted in
enhanced energy efficiency (from 4.4 to 9.5)
(Table 2). Human labor demands for management
also decreased over time. Such models have
been promoted extensively through field days
and farmers cross visits. Similar results
have been obtained by ICLARM researchers in
Philippines, where integrated rice-based
systems with livestock, aquaculture, tree and
vegetable components have proven to be
productive, efficient and profitable, given
labor availability and secure tenure.
In the African
context, positive results from agroecological
approaches have also been achieved. In
Senegal, for example, the Senegal
Regenerative Agriculture Center is working to
promote sustainable agriculture based on soil
regeneration for small-scale farmers who have
suffered from soil degradation. The cropping
system is a millet-groundnut rotation, and
legumes and intercropped with cereals.
Compost is also being used to restore soil
fertility. Cows, goats, and sheep are usually
kept by each household, and their manure is
collected for the compost mixture. This
project is operating in 11 villages, with
active farmer participation. Results show
that farmers can obtain an increase in millet
grain of more then 400 kilograms per hectare
if they put on at least 2 tones of compost.
Similar yield increases were achieved with
chemical ertilizers, but the cost-benefit
ratio was less favorable.
In Tanzania, a
Soil Erosion Control and Agroforestry project
was begun in 1980 in the Lushoto district. It
included planting of perennial grass along
contours to alleviate soil erosion and
promote soil regeneration, as well as use of
contour strips of trees, shrubs, and creeping
legumes. The combination of these integrated
methods reduced erosion by an average of 25
percent, and improved soil health. Trees
species are also valuable for fodder. Total
yields per hectare increased by 64 percent
for areas with grass strips, and 87 percent
for areas with contours. Gross marginal
returns were 74 percent higher in the contour
systems compared to conventional approaches.
These practices are being adopted by hundreds
of people in this district, and offer
promising alternatives for many other similar
farming areas.
Current
experiences in Ethiopia also show the
importance of respecting and upholding
agroecological principles. In this country,
as in other African nations, there have been
heavy pressures to promote GR II
technologies, particularly through the
widespread imposition of uniform wheat and
maize varieties, and a technology package
policy that requires farmers to buy
fertilizers and other inputs. However, local
people and government and NGO officials have
opposed this model, recognizing the problems
and risks it entails, and they have defended
and upheld the use of their diverse valuable
local varieties of teff, sorghum, millet, and
other grains that provide food security for
the people. They also have worked on revival
and "rescuing" of local seed
varieties in community-based seedbanks, and
promote integration of diverse sustainable
farming practices in food security efforts.
These examples
offer evidence of positive results, and also
indicate increasing adoption and spread of
the methods, as farmers realize their
benefits for food security and sustained
production for market as well. In many parts
of the world there is great potential for
even wider application of these
agroecological approaches.
Conclusions
Throughout the
developing world— in addition to the
examples summarized above—there are
thousands of experiences of sustainable
agriculture implemented at the local level by
farmer organizations, NGOs, and other
agencies. These experiences demonstrate the
feasibility of intensifying production,
regenerating and preserving soils, and
maintaining biodiversity, based on
agroecological technologies and locally
available resources. In fact, data from
documented cases show that when correctly
managed, agroecological systems:
- exhibit
more stable levels of total
production per unit area over time,
- produce
economically favorable rates of
return, in both energetic and
monetary terms,
- provide a
return to labor and other inputs
sufficient to provide an acceptable
livelihood to small farmers and their
families,
- ensure
soil protection and conservation and
enhance agrobiodiversity.
The
combination of stable and diverse production
with relatively high levels of production,
internally generated and recycled inputs and
nutrients, favorable energy input/output
ratios and articulation of both subsistence
and surplus for market production, is a clear
indication of what the agroecological
strategy of intensification can achieve. This
approach also enables farmers to reduce
dependency on external capital-intensive
inputs, to take advantage of local resources,
and to avoid the vulnerability associated
with monocultural production systems. As
such, it is a more equitable and sustainable
strategy than the conventional GR approach.
These experiences show direct improvements
for household food security and livelihoods.
The values of such an approach are also being
recognized and shown by
scientists/researchers in the science of
agroecology and its applications. Even modern
commercial agriculture enterprises who have
become tired of the high costs and
constraints of conventional chemical-oriented
approach are now realizing that the ‘state
of the art’ in achieving success farming
requires significant changes, to better
understand, respect, uphold and enhance
agroecological principles and biological
limitations/capacities. As we move toward the
21st Century, agriculture should take on a
new orientation or paradigm to achieve
win-win-solutions; this orientation should be
ecologically and socially oriented,
knowledge-based, and farmer-friendly. A major
question often asked is why hasn’t this
agroecological approach spread more rapidly
in recent decades? A major xplanation is that
powerful economic/corporate and institutional
interests have backed R&D for the
conventional GR agroindustrial approach,
while R&D for agroecology and sustainable
approaches has been largely ignored or even
ostracized. Only in recent years has there
been growing realization of the advantages of
alternatives.
Since there is
increasing evidence and awareness about the
advantages of agroecological alternatives,
how can this approach and associated
technologies be multiplied and adopted more
widely and consistently, worldwide? Clearly,
a technological or ecological approach is not
enough. Major changes must be made in
policies, institutions, and methods of
R&D to ensure that these agroecological
alternatives are adopted, made accessible
equitably and broadly, and multiplied, so
that we can realize their full benefit in
terms of food security.
The challenge
is to increase the investment and research
into this strategy, and to scale-up projects
that have already proven successful, thereby
generating a meaningful impact in the income,
food security and environmental integrity of
the world’s population, and especially
the millions of poor farmers yet untouched by
modern agricultural technology. Existing
subsidies and policy incentives for
conventional chemical approaches must be
dismantled, and institutional structures and
partnerships and educational processes must
change to enable this agroecological approach
to blossom. In addition, participatory,
farmer-friendly methods of technology
development must be incorporated, ensuring
that women, men, elders, and marginalized
poor farmers or labor groups are included in
development of alternatives. If we fail to
seize this opportunity, the existing cases
will remain as "islands of success"
in a sea of deprivation, merely living
testimonies of the potential of the
"path not taken" to feed the rural
poor. On the other hand, if we go forward to
widely support and develop an agroecological
approach, humanity can benefit from its
potential to address the inequity, hunger and
environmental degradation that so often
accompany high-input, energy intensive,
corporate-style agriculture.
