View
114
Download
3
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
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
Recommended