AgroecologyThe role of stakeholder participation

Prof. dr. Pablo A. Tittonell

Farming Systems Ecology Group, Wageningen University, The Netherlands

2

Agroecology as a scientific

discipline

2000s1960/70s 1980s 1990s1940/50s1920/30s

Scale: field/plotScope: biology/physicsDescriptive nature

Scale: agro-ecosystemScope:ecology/agronomyAnalytical nature

From descriptive to

analytical, increases

scope and scale

From analytical to

prescriptive, further

increases scope and scale

Conceptual framework to design and manage agro-

ecosystems

Agroecology as a set of practices

2000s1970s 1980s 1990s

Further increases scope

and scale: Agroecology as

the interdisciplinary

study of food systems

Agro-ecological

principles inspire

farming practices

Indigenous agricultural knowledge for natural

resources management

Agroecology as a social movement

2000s1980s 1990s

Spread of practices

is intertwined with

movements

Indigenous knowledge and

family farms

Agro-biodiversity, food sovereignty

Sustainable agricultural

intensification and food systems

Agroecological practices are introduced or further developed (conservation

agriculture, permaculture, system of rice intensification, organic farming)

Agroecological practices as alternative

paradigm to conventional agric.

http://pubs.iied.org/14629IIED.html?c=foodag

Historical perspective

Agroecology principles

Diversity

Resource efficiency

Recycling

Natural regulation

Synergies

new paradigm in research for development

No blueprint!

Noise is important!

Community-led or farmer-led process

agroecology

Biological N2 fixation

Maize-Pigeon pea intercrops

No interference Relaying effect Nutrient cycling

Mai

ze g

rain

yie

ld (

t h

a-1)

Residual effects on maize

Ruzinamhodzi et al., 2012

More than fivefold yield increase without fertilisers!

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Africa Asia Europe Latin America North America Oceania

Millio

n to

nn

es o

f N

pe

r ye

ar

Fertiliser use

N fixation (agriculture)

N fixation (natural)

Dry deposition

Wet deposition

Anthropogenic and natural N inflows per continent

Tradeoffs at farm scale

Rainy seasonDry seasonRainy season

• Rotation effects on pest

and diseases

• Fodder availability

• C input and soil C

stocks

• Weed control

• N fixation and nutrient

cycling

• Soil biological activity

and physical properties

• Erosion control

Evolving labour demands due to climate change

Razakavololona, 2011

Diversity and dynamics of land use

• Different landscape organisation across ethnic groups

•heterogeneous agricultural landscapes?

Reading the landscape

Debru, J. (2009) L’abandon de la culture du cotonnier est-il momentané ou définitif ? AgroParisTech

‘Hangingin’

‘Steppingup’

‘Steppingout’

T3

T4

T5

T1

T2

Resources(natural,social,human)

Perform

ance(well-being)

P’

P’’

R’’ R’

Farm diversity seen as alternate states

Kondwani Khonje

Social networks and knowledge systems

How does the nature and strength of social networks affect

adoption of soil and water conservation technologies?

Why is stakeholder participation crucial?

1. Agroecology requires innovative design

2. Agroecology requires landscape approaches

3. Farmers’ knowledge is central to dealing with system- and context-specificity

4. Social organisation and movements to foster learning and mutual support

agroecology

Diagnosis Design

Analysis

Synthesis

Structure

Function

Purpose

Purpose

Function

Structure

New facts, new realities

Conclusions

Decisions

Knowledge

Questions

Problems

Reality (current agroecosystems)

Goewie, 1993

Approaches to design in agriculture (Meynard et al., 2012)

Innovative designRule-based or pre-set design

Objectives and purpose known from the start?

Yes No

Gradual, incremental

design

Example: cereal breeding for high yield with high N rates ‘De Novo’

design

Cycles of learning and action; e.g. farmer field schools

Stakeholder participation is central (diagnosis and design done together)

Hard targets vs. soft targets

Conversion to organic farming in La Camargue, France

Light interception by canopies

of pure stands vs. associations

Systems analysis tools

(i) Bio-economic models (BEM): Plausible futures

(iii) Land use/cover change models (LUCC): Most

probable spots for change

(ii) Multi-agent models (MAS): Possible pathways Delmotte, 2012

Mid-hills of Nepal (PhD Victoria Alomia)

Supervisors

Andy McDonald, Jeroen Groot, Pablo Tittonell

Nutritional calendarsSpecies used as fresh vegetables

SPECIES/GENERA

PRESENCE FREQUENCY (%)

VIHIGA MIGORI

Amaranthus spp. 96 100

Asystasia spp. 0 69

Basella alba L. 0 46

Brassica carinata A. Br. 0 23

Brassica oleracea L. var. acephala 80 62

Cleome gynandra L. 68 77

Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott 68 77

Commelina spp. 0 77

Corchorus spp. 88 92

Crotalaria spp. 92 46

Cucurbita maxima Duch. Ex Lam. 60 77

Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam. 20 31

Launaea cornuta (Oliv. & Hiern) Jeffr. 0 8

Manihot esculenta Crantz. 20 0

Momordica rostrata A. Zimm 0 23

Oxygonum sinuatum (Meisn.) Dammer 0 46

Phaseolus vulgaris L. 20 31

Solanum nigrum complex 52 85

Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. 92 77

Contribución de las hortalizas locales tradicionales a los requerimientos diarios de una familia en dos comunidades rurales del oeste de Kenia

Vihiga Migori

Maíz

Hortalizas

tradicionales Maíz

Hortalizas

tradicionales

Energía 59.0 4.0 71.0 3.0

Proteína 10.9 44.8 12.5 32.6

Calcio 7.5 48.3 7.4 27.5

Hierro 9.2 29.7 11.2 22.8

Vitamina A trazas 16.5 trazas 11.9

Figueroa Gomez et al., 2009

Contribution of local vegetables (weeds) to requirements of a rural family in two communities in Kenya

Nutrition sensitive landscapes

Bulozi, Zambia

• Arthropods provide a range of ecosystem services– Pest control, pollination, weed seed predation, decomposition

• Economic value of pest control – 33 US$/ha for soybean aphid (239 million US$/year in 4 USA states)

– 4.5 billion US$/year in USA

– 400 billion US$/year world wide

• Economic value of pollination– 3 billion US$/year in USA

– 117 billion US$/year world wide

Landis et al. 2008; Losey & Vaughan 2006; Costanza et al. 1997

Arthropod-mediated ecosystem services

B

C D

A

1km

B

C D

A B

C D

A

1km

Nectar

Aphids

Lepidoptera

cereal

alfalfa

forest

SW forest edge

field margin

urban

oilseed rape

pasture

Designing pest suppressive landscapes

0

20

40

60

80

100

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Rel

ativ

e n

ecta

r av

aila

bili

ty

0

20

40

60

80

100

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Rel

ativ

e ap

hid

ava

ilab

ility

National Vegetation Databasegrey = field borders

green = existing hedgerows

red = planned new hedgerows

500 m.

Participatory landscape design

7 objectives prioritised

Simulation and gaming for improving local adaptive capacity;The case of a buffer-zone community in Mexico

E.N. Speelman (2008-2013)Supervisory team

J.C.J. Groot, L.E. Garcia-Barrios, P. Tittonell

Mapa de la Reserva de la Biosfera de la Sepultura. Fuente: CONANP

Simulation and gaming - Mexico

CONSUMAT approach

Jared Diamond, Nature 418, 700-707(8 August 2002)

Building on indigenous knowledge

Fernando Funes-Monzote

Integrating scientific and farmer knowledge - Cuba

Technical innovation

Inst

itu

tio

nal

inn

ova

tio

nCritical

transition zone

(vulnerability)

Transition or transformation? Continuity or rupture?

Policy innovationTittonell, 2014. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 8: 53–61

ETC group

1st International Symposium on Agroecology, FAO Rome, 18th-19th Sept 2014

Farmers addressing scientists!

A dialogue between scientificand farmer wisdom

Thanks for your attention

pablo.tittonell@wur.nlwww.wageningenUR/FSE

https://www.facebook.com/FSE.WageningenUR