Agroecologies and Local Knowledges. Contributions to Sustainability under Climate Change

Family farming, in the current context of multidimensional crises that threaten the availabil-ity of food and deepen the degradation of ecosystems, stands as a source of food security and keeping agroecosystems against the industrial agriculture model. In this sense, it has been gaining the attention and interest of international organizations, which declared 2014 as the International Year of Family Farming and the period 2019-2028 as the Decade of Family Farming.

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), this sector encompasses more than 90% of the world’s farms and produces 80% of the food consumed globally. It is important to note that it is women —rural, peasant, indigenous, native peoples’ and of African descent; defenders of land and territories— who represent 50% of the formal force of food production in the world, even though they only own 15% of agricultural land (FAO-IFAD, 2019). Therefore, it is women who produce food on a small scale.

Family farming is a complex, multi-layered, and multidimensional phenomenon. It is not defined only by the size of the farm, as when talking about small-scale agriculture, but by the way people farm and live. This is why family farming is a way of life. According to Van der Ploeg (2013), some of characteristics of this type of agriculture are the control of resources (mainly land) by the family; the predominance of family labor; the fact that it is the main provider of food and family income; that it is part of a continuum that makes past, present, and future dialogue by creating and preserving culture; that it contributes to the local rural economy, and works with nature favoring the conservation of biodiversity and fighting against global warming.

The need to transform the world’s agri-food systems, together with the characteristics of family farming, strengthen the agroecological proposal as a response or strategy for food justice, to conserve the important environmental functions of biodiverse agroecosystems in favor of food security and, above all, to achieve food sovereignty.

Agroecologies 
Agroecologies—we prefer the plural because they are constructed based on diversities and specificities of each territory and thus we recognize the different existing perspectives—are areas of scientific research and, at the same time, platforms for actions and movements for the construction and transformation of sustainable socio-ecological systems. As research fields, they incorporate the vision and methodological tools of ecology in the understanding of the processes taking place in agroecosystems and their environment. However, since agroecosystems are interactions between humans and their environments, agroecologies nec-essarily address the social processes that are determinant in their configuration and functioning. Thus, agroecosystems are eminently socioecological expressions and their treatment requires the conjunction of social and natural sciences approaches in interaction with each other, as well as beyond disciplinary points of view, from interand transdisciplinary per-spectives.

People engaged in agriculture, fishing, gathering, and herding are the managers of such systems and are often heirs to and represent continuities of age-old ethics, knowledge, and techniques, and drive continuous processes of innovation with a solid empirical base. Therefore, their knowledge and experiences are of extraordinary value and consequently, the interaction of academic research with local knowledge is essential to strengthening the prospects for sustainable agricultural management. Such interactions give shape to transdisciplinary approaches in which horizontal collaboration and dialogue of knowledge open up better possibilities for a deeper understanding of local and regional systems and for developing viable technical and organizational bases to address their problems. Based on such approaches, agroecologies propose to design and manage the indispensable conditions that allow us to achieve the sustainability of agroecosystems and our lives (Altieri, 2002). Simply put, these goals represent major scientific, ethical, technological, political, practical, and social organizational challenges. Hence, agroecologies are nourished by agronomic, ecological, anthropological, ethnoecological, and philosophical studies and, recently, by approaches such as feminist epistemologies, ecologies, and dialogues of knowledge and transdisciplinarity.

The state of agrobiodiversity and the interactions between its components contribute to the overall functioning of the system, but equally crucial is the cultural, social, and economic context in which it is found. Therefore, its understanding and the design of actions require a comprehensive and collaborative approach. Agroecological systems are complex systems. The agrobiodiversity that forms them includes the diversity of crops and their varieties, but also a wide range of weeds and wild plant species, animal species, fungi, and microorganisms integrated into the system. Agrobiodiversity also includes the genetic variability of each of these species, as well as the variety of ecosystems that make up an agricultural or agroforestry landscape and that influence the agroecosystems under analysis.

The interactions between all the components of this diversity influence how the system looks like, its risk of collapse, or its ability to sustain itself in the long term. Thus, for example, the diversity of species and crop varieties promotes the complementarity of niches that each species occupies in the system, promotes also emerging benefits resulting from the associations, as well as the optimization of the use of space, all of which results in net productivity, the capacity to adapt to social and environmental changes and other attributes of the system. The diversity of flora and fauna components promotes interactions that favor the presence of pollinators, herbivores, and insectivores that provide the system with greater stability and resilience, for example, in the face of unexpected climatic events or the incidence of pests and pathogens. Diversity in soil microbiota favors nutrient recycling and other processes that facilitate their assimilation by crops and the maintenance of the health of agroecosystems and the people who interact with them.

The diversity of agroecosystems at all the abovementioned scales is the basis for the resilience of these systems. In the face of climate change scenarios, conserving agrobiodiversity, in situ and ex-situ, is a strategy of paramount importance. Climate change, as well as other global change phenomena, are continuous sources of pressure on species and the system where they live. It is well known that genetic diversity is an attribute that allows biological populations greater possibilities of adaptive and resilient responses to adverse conditions. A similar figure has been documented for species diversity when analyzing adaptive capacity at the scale of the systems.

Agroecologies as socio-ecological movements and political projects have the objective and capacity to transform reality based on the principles of autonomy, self-determination, equality, epistemic reconstruction, and social justice, among others (Zaremba et al., 2021). Agroecologies act on the recognition and significance of agricultural work while stimulating creativity and personal capacities, and generating new power relations through the valorization of their specialized knowledge (Bezner et al., 2019).

Agroecology as science emerged from critical evaluations of the so-called Green Revolution that was promoted since the 1960s on a global scale by public and private international organizations, including FAO, and which established links with national governments around the world. The Green Revolution strategy was based on technological models of intensive production based on a few highly productive varieties in mechanized irrigation systems, and chemical inputs to standardize substrates and nutrients, as well as to control the incidence of pests, pathogens, and the presence of weeds. The model not only proved ineffective in the face of the diversity of environmental conditions and agricultural practices in the world, but also generated new problems, including the loss of numerous local crop varieties due to their displacement by new varieties emerging from experimental centers, a phenomenon known as genetic erosion; the substitution and progressive abandonment of local techniques; pollution of water bodies and soils and the decline of pollinator populations and other organisms with important regulatory functions in ecosystems, all caused by the massive use of agrochemicals, and the generation of new contexts of economic dependence that in many regions led to migration and the abandonment of agricultural and agroforestry practices, the disarticulation of communities and the acceleration of processes of cultural loss. The Green Revolution did not solve the problem of hunger and generated numerous food and health risks that continue to this day.

The socio-ecological phenomena triggered by these changes caused alarms since the early stages, first in the social and productive context (Freire, 1984) and shortly thereafter in the environmentalcontext. In the critique of environmental problems that led to the Brundtland Commission, agricultural and industrial forestry models occupied a special place. They were also involved in the emergence of information that led to the identification of causal factors of climate change and what ecologist Peter Vitousek (1994) called global change. In these analyses, the significant contribution of the modernizing agricultural model and agroindustrial systems to the deterioration processes was evident. Not only in terms of greenhouse gas emissions but also the alarming use of the planet’s freshwater reserves, the pollution, and eutrophication of huge bodies of water, and the accelerated rate of drastic transformation of ecosystems (Barnosky et al., 2012). The critical balance of this production model contrasts with its ineffectiveness in addressing the problem of malnutrition and hunger in the world. The productivity growth curves for humanity’s staple foods do not correspond to a proportional reduction in hunger and malnutrition. More food is produced today than in the entire history of humanity and at least one-tenth of humanity is in a condition of food insecurity. This has made it clear that the problem is not just a matter of developing techniques to increase production, but that food systems are much more complex and, in them, storage, distribution, and, above all, access to food are factors that involve major political, social and economic challenges. Likewise, the emergence of the concept of food sovereignty, proposed by La Via Campesina, put the cultural, ethical, and political challenges of food on the agenda.

Agroecologies are built in the territories even before their emergence as sciences based on the criticism of a production model that not only has not solved a fundamental problem such as the malnutrition of millions of human beings but has also contributed significantly to deepening global socio-ecological problems. The FAO has stated that food production targets for 2050 imply practically doubling current production levels, but it is clear that pretending to do so under the hegemonic agroindustrial model will not solve hunger, and will also have severe environmental and social consequences. FAO itself recognizes that this route lacks congruence with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

However, all this context has allowed agroecologies to be seen as more feasible ways to build sustainable alternatives. In this regard, FAO begins in 2014 to discuss agroecology through the organization of two international symposia: the first in 2014 entitled “Agroecology for Food Security and Nutrition” and the second, held from April 3 to 5, 2018, “Scaling Up Agroecology to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.”

FAO does not define agroecology but recognizes the alternative or resistance practices and experiences carried out by peasant movements in different parts of the world, in the face of the Green Revolution, as a field of proposals for the achievement of the SDGs defined by the United Nations system. In this context, agroecologies represent an integral paradigm for food security and for development, which takes into account the need for productive and regenerative systems that are adaptable to climate change and that are socially equitable. This is why in 2018 The 10 Elements of Agroecology (FAO, 2018) are published to guide countries’ agroecological transition toward more sustainable agriculture and food systems.

Some of the definitions provided by FAO in its documents state that agroecology is different from other sustainable development approaches in that it “provides contextualized solutions to local problems based on territorial and bottom-up processes.” In this sense, agroecological innovations are based on the co-creation of knowledge, combining science with the traditional knowledge and practice of producers who, together with their communities, are the key agents of change. It also reflects the importance of the rights of women, youth, and indigenous peoples. 

Much more than productivity 
Notwithstanding the above, social movements advocate preserving agroecology from insti-tutional dispossession, which also implies challenging the economism that reduces agroecology to productivity, yields, and competitiveness of economic and scientific neoliberalism (Giraldo, 2013), and also implies broadening the critical sense to reposition it as a diversity of ways of inhabiting the Earth, that is tied to peoples’ worldviews, their forms of symbolic understanding, their relations of reciprocity and their ways of existence and re-existence.

Therefore, agroecological systems are deeply rooted in the ecological rationality of tradi-tional agriculture (Altieri, 2004; Toledo, 1990) and are a conceptual basis for approaching the territory. From this basis, it is possible to generate proposals and strategies that allow to create conditions for transformations in different dimensions (Venegas, 2009).

Multiple actors converge in agroecological work, with different types of knowledge and worldviews, as well as practices and values. The knowledges dialogue, as an integrating pro-cess of multiple ways of knowing, offers a broad framework for the realization of epistemic justice (Merçon, 2018), in addition to broadening the understanding of the complexity of agroecological systems and enabling different ways of thinking-feeling-doing-living to express themselves and have a voice in the co-construction of alternatives (Merçon et al., 2014).

But this route requires recovering impulses that were affected by the previous stages, developing organizational processes and technological innovation, and attending to feasible and fair exchange circuits, all of which have led to the recognition of what we pointed out above: that agroecology is not only a field of scientific research but also a social movement with major challenges. According to Altieri (1995) and Gliessman (1998), production systems based on agroecological criteria must meet among their main attributes: be biodiverse, resilient, energy efficient, socially fair, and capable of contributing to food sovereignty.

Strategies are required to overcome these challenges at different scales; for example: in the area of biodiversity it is crucial to promote diverse production systems, with multi-species and multivariety polycultures, capable of accommodating agroforestry practices with forestry components in their borders, vegetation islands, soil retention dikes, among others (Moreno-Calles et al. 2013). A biodiversity conservation strategy should include in its agenda the importance of long-term productive systems that contribute to slowing down the expansion of the agricultural frontier and the restoration of transformed areas. Production systems require research to consider the design of strategies for soil conservation and restoration, to optimize water use and organic fertilization based on the recycling of nutrients in the system. From the economic point of view, the strategy should aim to achieve self-sufficiency at different territorial scales, which poses challenges in production and in reaching fair markets, but also in fighting against the junk food industry and the use of agricultural land for biofules production. The regulation of these activities and of consumption patterns is of extraordinary importance. Equity in access to land is a relevant issue since most women and young people do not own it.

Agroecology will have a viable and fair perspective in a context where luxury products and consumerism make a substantive halt. Agroecology should be a key element in achieving food sovereignty, the premise of which is that communities can decide on the healthy products they eat, on the way to prepare them, on their production systems, and on how they organize to obtain them.

Work at UNAM’s Ecosystems and Sustainability Research Institute and at the Higher Studies National School at Morelia
Our research groups carry out studies in different areas. On the one hand, the study of agro-biodiversity is central: documenting species associated with agricultural, agroforestry, and forestry systems in agricultural landscapes, documenting aspects of their use and management, and analyzing their role in local subsistence patterns, especially in food. Ethnobiological approaches are key to this goal. Studies of the structure and function of agroforestry systems are another main area of research: the species that compose them, their spatial ar-rangements, the interactions that occur between them, the study of the decisions and techniques that farmers use to achieve this, as well as the reproductive interactions and gene flow between the components of agroforestry systems and the components of the surrounding forests, are all relevant topics in our work agenda. So is the study of polycultures and the ecological and productive advantages of associations. A central part of our team’s vision is to accompany and support ongoing processes (Casas et al., 2017).

In Mexico, as in the Latin American region, there is a considerable diversity of agroecological systems and part of our work seeks to document and systematize information on such diversity. This is an activity of great importance to help maintain the biocultural memory of the agroecological systems that have been part of country’s history, of its ecosystems, and its cultures. Systematizing this memory would not only expand a repertoire of techniques for families and producer organizations that are continually experimenting with possible innovations but also establish a basis for recovering lost processes and invigorating those still active.

Exchange of experiences between people is crucial to building technically, socially viable, and vigorous alternatives. Nowadays, this important movement that supports agroecologies brings together farmers, social organizations, governmental entities, and academics, among others. Dialogues among all these individuals and groups are of extraordinary importance, not only at the local or regional level but beyond national borders. Forums have been created in Latin America that seek to promote this dialogue and all of them are of great value. Special mention should be made of LEISA revista de agroecología, which during 25 years has allowed the exchange of visions among these sectors (see box), functioning as a platform with the potential to weave alliances and boost efforts to preserve and sustainably develop the region’s food culture and peasant ways of life.

However, in order to continue responding to the challenges facing Latin America’s agroecologically based small-scale family farming, it is necessary to strengthen and expand these initiatives. Agroecology is a viable prospect, built from local experiences, but to transcend to larger scales, it requires communication strategies that reach out to efforts in distant places. In such communication efforts, lies the possibility of strengthening a global movement toward sustainable agriculture.

Another relevant aspect is related to training professionals that can collaborate in agroecologies development. Our groups have been active in the effort to create UNAM’s Higher Studies National School at Morelia, specifically the bachelor programmes on environmental and agroforestry sciences, which represent valuable platforms to educate students with a critical vision that can value inter- and trans-disciplinary collaborations addressing socio-ecological issues. Our groups are also in contact with different programmes at UNAM and other Higher Education Institutions. From that standpoint we promote studies with relevant results for an ongoing construction and reinforcement of the theoretical and methodological basis that agroecologies require.

---