Intensification durable ou agroécologie ? Confusion et interrogations     

A majority agrees on the diagnosis: current agricultural systems are unsustainable. They deplete biodiversity and natural resources and contribute substantially to climate change; furthermore, a large portion of the world's population lacks access to sufficient quantity and quality food. But consensus breaks down when it comes to defining alternatives and considering their implementation. Torn between gradual adaptations and radical changes, public policies cultivate ambiguity. Yet urgent action is needed to restore soil fertility and improve agricultural productivity in an environmentally sustainable manner.  

Two schools of thought

Two camps are in conflict. On one side, the reformists, proponents of sustainable intensification, whose principle is to make “better with less”, that is to say, to improve the efficiency of resource use, without fundamentally calling into question the nature of agricultural production systems with high external input intensity[1]On the other hand, supporters of agroecology conceived as a systemic transformation of agriculture, based on the valorization of interactions between plants, animals and humans, but also as a change in social practices aimed at greater equity in food systems.[2].

These two approaches have different implications for protecting biodiversity and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Sustainable intensification is based on a logic of "land sparing," i.e., land saving, which relies on a strong increase in agricultural yields. This high productivity theoretically makes it possible to limit the expansion of cultivated areas, thus reducing deforestation, or even freeing up land that can then be reforested to increase the carbon sink or used to produce biomass energy. Agroecology, on the other hand, follows a logic of "land sharing," i.e., sharing land, based on lower yields, even if this crucial point depends on the context.[3]It is more difficult to reconcile with the objective of carbon neutrality for the economy but responds better, according to its advocates, to several key issues of sustainable development: improvement of human health, maintenance of greater biodiversity on cultivated land, better soil health, increased resistance of agroecosystems to climatic, health and economic shocks thanks to the diversity of production.[4].

Peasant agroecology

As a social movement, agroecology cannot be understood solely through its technical or environmental dimension. “It is based on a comprehensive overhaul of agricultural and food systems that must guarantee access to quality food for all citizens, while ensuring autonomy and a decent income for farmers. (…) Peasant agroecology thus represents a major lever for strengthening social cohesion by reducing social inequalities, promoting local governance, food sovereignty and the autonomy of local communities. She hears “putting the needs and interests of citizens and small farmers, who provide 53% of the world’s food (…) back at the heart of decision-making”[5].

This movement does not only concern the countries of the South: it opposes the dynamics of enlargement, concentration and specialization of farms, very advanced in high-income countries, and "which are seen to be a major cause of the degradation of biodiversity and agricultural landscapes"[6]For proponents of agroecology as defined in this way, an incremental approach such as sustainable intensification is not enough. To establish a new development paradigm, we must change our relationship with nature and place social inclusion at the heart of policies.

Political ambiguities 

Faced with these two camps with their entrenched positions, public policies are veering. They want to encourage an "agroecological transition," without, however, specifying its end point. There are several explanations for this. First, doubts surrounding agroecology's ability to provide a decent income for farmers, doubts linked to the yields it achieves, even if its performance cannot be judged solely on the basis of productivity, without taking into account the induced health, environmental, and other benefits.[7]In fact, the success of organic farming in Europe and the United States depends very largely on the higher prices that consumers are willing to pay, which more than compensate for the additional production costs and lower yields of organic crops; it is not necessarily reproducible on a large scale in countries of the South, where the purchasing power of the population is much lower.

Keen above all to produce more to ensure food security in their countries, but without risking losing donor funding, many African governments are holding a “political 'double talk' where divergent and competing objectives are juxtaposed in the statements of elected officials” : support displayed for agroecology on the one hand, support for "export agriculture" and to the "modernization" family farms based on "industrial agriculture", on the other[8]. According to IPES Food (International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems), this double standard is not necessarily intentional. It may simply result from the weak strategic steering capacity of states, the fragmentation of funding sources, and the ability of financial partners to assert their interests in the design and implementation phases of the various programs. Often, in fact, the inconsistency of political objectives at the national level is simply a reflection of the multiple contradictions present in regional and pan-African regulatory frameworks on agriculture, nutrition, and food security.

Shared landlords

The analysis of the aid provided by the European Union to agricultural projects in developing countries clearly illustrates, beyond declarations of intent, the vagueness of donor strategies.[9]. Over the period 2016-2018, less than 3% of EU funding to FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development) and WFP (World Food Programme) supported projects that partially support agroecology. No EU support was provided to projects explicitly targeting agroecological transformation. (graph 1)It has funded more agroecological projects under the Green Climate Fund.[10], but these remain a very small minority: 21 % of the payments made to this Fund in the field of agriculture went to projects which partially support agroecology (10 %) or agroecological transformation (11 %) (graph 2).

But the situation is more complex than it appears. Indeed, 31,000 million of EU contributions to international agricultural organizations based in Rome (FAO, IFAD, WFP) and 53,000 million of those paid to the Green Climate Fund supported projects aimed at sustainable intensification of agricultural production, notably by reducing the consumption of synthetic inputs, water, and energy. The objective of European funding is therefore to encourage a reduction in the environmental footprint of agricultural production, even if the transition is not as radical as some would like. There is a lack of such precise data on the actions of other donors, which is regrettable because a large part of agricultural support spending in sub-Saharan African countries is financed by external aid.

For an agronomic revolution

Faced with the immense challenges ahead, the worst thing would be for ideological differences to keep African farmers trapped in the "poverty trap" of their low productivity. Time is of the essence. An agroecological transition that targets long-term transformation without quickly achieving substantial results would be implausible and short-lived.

Proponents of sustainable intensification and agroecology agree on one point: the need in Africa, as in other regions, for an agronomic revolution, placing soil health at the center of the technical itineraries followed by farmers.[11]The content of this revolution remains to be specified, but it could be based on a reasoned strategy for managing soil fertility, in response to both the imperative of productivity and the fight against climate change. Given the extent of land degradation on the continent, this strategy should prioritize their enrichment with organic matter, but it would be difficult to understand if it excluded any reasoned use of mineral fertilizers, knowing that current consumption of the latter is very low.[12]. All the more so since for new practices to be adopted on a large scale by farmers, they must quickly perceive the economic interest, in the form of yield gains.[13]These gains are not a sufficient condition for the development of African agriculture, but they are a necessary one. No public support can completely replace them, even if interventions by states and donors are essential. It also remains to be determined how value chains can promote and enhance sustainable development efforts focused on soil health.

[1] Xavier Poux and Pierre-Marie Aubert (2018), “An agroecological Europe in 2050: multifunctional agriculture for healthy food. Lessons from a model of the European food system”, Iddri AScA, Study No 09/18.

[2] FAO (2019), “The 10 elements of agroecology. Guiding the transition to sustainable food and agricultural systems.”

[3] There are numerous bibliographic references on the ability of agroecology to improve yields in the Global South, generally in situations where farmers have reduced access to external inputs. On the contrary, in Europe, the study conducted by IDDRI and ASCA (see note 1) is based on a hypothesis of yields (based on organic farming references) that are 10 to 50 % lower than current average yields, depending on the crops.

[4] Pierre-Marie Aubert, Marie-Hélène Schwoob and Xavier Poux (2019), “Agrecology and carbon neutrality in Europe by 2050: what are the challenges?”, Iddri, Décryptage No. 05.

[5] Coordination SUD (2020), “Peasant agroecology: a societal alternative for sustainable agricultural and food systems”, Les Notes de SUD, No. 22.

[6] See note 1.

[7] Nassib Mugwanya, “Why traditional agricultural practices ('agroecology') cannot transform African agriculture,” overblog, September 2, 2019.

[8] IPES Food (2020), “Added value(s) of agroecology: unlocking the potential for transition in West Africa”.

[9] Moeller, NI (2020), “Analysis of Funding Flows to Agroecology: the case of the European Union monetary flow to the United Nations' Rome-based agencies and the case of the Green Climate Fund”, CIDSE & CAWR.

[10] A financial mechanism under the auspices of the United Nations, created at the Cancun climate conference in 2010, the Green Climate Fund aims to help developing countries implement means of combating global warming thanks to financial support from developed countries.

[11] Approximately 22,000 sq km of land in sub-Saharan Africa is considered degraded, based on changes in land cover, productivity and soil organic carbon levels. Source: UN, Sustainable Development Goals Report 2019.

[12] In 2018, nitrogen fertilizer consumption in Africa averaged 5 kg/ha in organic form (compared to a global average of 17 kg/ha) and 16 kg/ha in mineral form (compared to a global average of 70 kg/ha). Source: FAO, Statistical Yearbook. World Food and Agriculture 2020.

[13] Bernard Vanlauwe and Achim Dobermann (2020), “Sustainable intensification in sub-Saharan Africa: first things first! ", Frontiers of Agricultural Science and Engineering.