Contrary to the rhetoric that often circulates, agroecology actually has a much better chance of feeding the world than does industrial agriculture.

As demonstrated in Companion Guide 1, tackling hunger and malnutrition is not simply about increasing food production; food must be readily available not only to those who can purchase it but also to the poor. Several recent studies suggest that dramatic increases in food access in developing countries can be achieved most quickly and most affordably by applying the principles of agroecology, including local ownership and autonomy over what is produced, sold, and consumed.

In terms of overall food production capacity, a number of studies have shown that implementing agroecological farming practices can lead to large increases in crop yields. A comprehensive 2011 report, presented before the UN Human Rights Council and based on an extensive review of recent scientific literature, showed that agroecologically-guided restructuring of agro-ecosystems can double food production in entire regions within ten years, while mitigating climate change and alleviating rural poverty. Similarly, a review of 286 agroecological projects across 57 low-income countries found an average yield increase of 79 percent.

Agroecology can also increase food security by producing a wider range of crops, thus providing more diverse and nutritious diets. In 2018, the FAO projected that a “business as usual” scenario is likely to lead to significant undernourishment by 2050, even if gross agricultural output increases by 50 percent. By contrast, agroecological approaches consistently lead to improved diet diversity and household food security. For example, a community-level intervention where Nepalese women groups learned about agroecological practices led to a significant improvement in children’s diet quality, with the strongest effect observed during seasons when food access is typically the most difficult. Children of families that received the intervention were more likely to consume an additional food group, achieve minimum dietary scores, and consume animal proteins.

Critics of agroecology often suggest that to keep up productivity, small-scale agriculture will require even more land to be brought under cultivation, contrasting this with industrial agriculture’s “intensive” use of land. But industrial agriculture’s intensive model of agriculture, which relies on the use of fossil fuels and chemical inputs, has led to biodiversity loss, land degradation, loss of soil fertility, and chemical contamination of soil and water, with major consequences on human, animal, and planetary health. Because of declining soil fertility and the exhaustion of resources, industrialized farms’ productivity actually diminishes over time, requiring more chemicals and often more land clearance. By contrast, agroecology restores, replenishes, and increases soil fertility, as well as ensuring broader environmental quality and positive spillover effects. This, combined with experimentation and adaptation to local particularities, allows agroecological farmers to produce continually high yields of diverse crops, even on very small plots of land.

According to an extensive review of studies from around the world, agricultural diversification practices increase biodiversity and other ecological metrics, without reducing crop yields. (source: Giovanni Tamburini, 2020, Agricultural diversification promotes multiple ecosystem services without compromising yield)

Agroecological methods are essential in ensuring food security for future generations. A number of studies suggest that industrial agriculture cannot ensure sustainable food systems in the long term because of its negative impacts. Agroecology, on the other hand, would counter many of the harmful impacts of industrial agriculture. Rebuilding soil fertility to pre-industrial levels would capture 30 to 40 percent of current excess CO2 in the atmosphere. Selling most food through local markets would lead to a 10 to 12 percent reduction in current global emissions. And halting land clearance and deforestation for large agribusinesses would further reduce emissions by 15 to 18 percent.

Former FAO Director-General, José Graziano da Silva, on the potential of agroecology (2014):

“While past efforts focused on boosting agricultural output to produce more food, today’s challenges — including climate change — demand a new approach. We need to shift to more sustainable food systems — food systems that produce more, with less environmental cost. In many countries agriculture has been seen as an enemy of the environment, but there is increasing recognition that a regenerative, productive farming sector can provide environmental benefits while creating rural employment and sustaining livelihoods. 

Agroecology offers the possibility of win-win solutions. By building synergies, agroecology can increase food production and food and nutrition security while restoring the ecosystem services and biodiversity that are essential for sustainable agricultural production. I firmly believe that agroecology can play an important role in building resilience and adapting to climate change.”

Sources:

(source: Our World in Data)

Sources of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, forestry, and land use (AFOLU) from 2001-2010 (source: FAO)