The blurred boundaries of ecological, sustainable, and agroecological intensification

14 Pages·2017·1.48 MB·English

The blurred boundaries of ecological, sustainable, and
agroecological intensification: a review
Alexander Wezel, Gizachew Soboksa, Shelby Mcclelland, Florian Delespesse,
Apolline Boissau
To cite this version:
Alexander Wezel, Gizachew Soboksa, Shelby Mcclelland, Florian Delespesse, Apolline Boissau. The
blurred boundaries of ecological, sustainable, and agroecological intensification: a review. Agronomy
for Sustainable Development, 2015, 35 (4), pp.0. ￿10.1007/s13593-015-0333-y￿. ￿hal-01532268￿
HAL Id: hal-01532268
https://hal.science/hal-01532268
Submitted on 2 Jun 2017
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de
teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés.
Agron.Sustain.Dev.(2015)35:1283–1295
DOI10.1007/s13593-015-0333-y
REVIEWARTICLE
The blurred boundaries of ecological,
sustainable, and agroecological intensification: a review
AlexanderWezel1&GizachewSoboksa1&ShelbyMcClelland1,2&FlorianDelespesse1&
ApollineBoissau1,3
Accepted:23July2015/Publishedonline:7September2015
#INRAandSpringer-VerlagFrance2015
Abstract Theprojectedhumanpopulationofninebillionby explicitlystateddefinitions.Forinstance,ecologicalintensifi-
2050 has led to ever growing discussion of the need for in- cation emphasizes the understanding and intensification of
creasingagriculturaloutputtomeetestimatedfooddemands, biological and ecological processes and functions in
while mitigating environmental costs. Many stakeholders in agroecosystem. (5) The notion of agroecological intensifica-
agricultural circles are calling for the intensification of agri- tionaccentuatesthesystemapproachandintegratesmorecul-
culturetomeetthesedemands.However,itisneitherclearnor turalandsocialperspectivesinitsconcept.(6)Evenifsome
readilyagreeduponwhatismeantbyintensification.Here,we boundariescanbeseen,confusionisstillpredominantinthe
compare the three major uses, ‘ecological intensification’, use of these terms. These blurred boundaries currently con-
‘sustainable intensification’ and ‘agroecological intensifica- tributetotheuseofthesetermsforjustifyingmanydifferent
tion’, by analysing their various definitions, principles and kinds ofpractices and interventions.We suggest thatgreater
practices, and also their historical appearance and evolution. precision in defining the terms and the respective practices
Weuseddatafromthescientificliterature,thegreyliterature, proposedwouldindicatemoreclearlywhatauthorsorinstitu-
thewebsitesofinternationalorganizationsandtheScopusand tions are aiming at with the proposed intensification. In this
FAOLEX databases. Our major findings are: (1) sustainable sense,weprovidenewdefinitionsforallthreeintensification
intensificationisthemostfrequentlyusedtermsofar.(2)The conceptsbasedontheearlierones.
threeconceptsecologicalintensification,sustainableintensifi-
cation and agroecological intensification overlap in terms of Keywords Agroecology.Agroecologicalintensification .
definitions,principlesandpractices,thuscreatingsomecon- Ecologicalintensification .Practices .Principles .Sustainable
fusion in their meanings, interpretations and implications. agriculture .Sustainableintensification
Nevertheless,somedifferencesexist.(3)Sustainableintensi-
fication ismorewidelyused and representsinmany cases a
rathergeneralised category, intowhich mostcurrent farming Contents
practicescanbeputsolongassustainabilityisinsomeway 1.Introduction
addressed.However, despite its wideruse,itremains impre- 2.MethodsandMaterial
ciselydefined.(4)Ecologicalandagroecologicalintensifica- 3.EcologicalIntensification
tiondointroduce somemajor nuances and,ingeneral,more 3.1 Historical uses and definitions of ecological
intensification
3.2Principlesofecologicalintensification
* AlexanderWezel
3.3.Practicesofecologicalintensification
[email protected]
4.SustainableIntensification
4.1. Historical uses and definitions of sustainable
1 DepartmentofAgroecologyandEnvironment,ISARALyon,23rue intensification
JeanBaldassini,69364Lyoncedex07,France
4.2.Principlesofsustainableintensification
2 CornellUniversity,Ithaca,NY,USA 4.3.Practicesofsustainableintensification
3 EIPurpan,Toulouse,France 5.AgroecologicalIntensification
1284 A.Wezeletal.
5.1. Historical use and definitions of agroecological
intensification
5.2.Principlesofagroecologicalintensification
5.3.Practicesofagroecologicalintensification
6.Discussion
6.1. Differences and blurred boundaries between the
threeintensificationterms
6.1.1. Ecological versus sustainable
intensification
6.1.2.Agroecologicalintensification versuseco-
logicalandsustainableintensification
6.2.Synthesisofdefinitionsonthe three conceptsof Fig. 1 Field-focused intensification: relay intercroppingof wheat and
intensification undersown lucerne in south-eastern France. Lucerne is an interesting
6.3.Policycontextandintensification intercrop to be undersown in cereals for N-fixation and providing
increasedsoil cover for weed competition during cereal cropping and
7.Conclusions
afterwards.Itcanalsobeharvestedasforagebecauseofitshighfodder
Acknowledgements value(PhotoA.Wezel)
References
intensification’,‘sustainableintensification’and,morerecent-
ly, ‘agroecological intensification’. An important problem is
1Introduction thattheseconceptsdonotresultoutofacommonconsensus
andremainpoorlydefinedandunderstoodglobally(Petersen
Inrecentyears,anincreasingbodyofscientificliteratureon andSnapp2015).Resultingfromthislackofcommondefini-
foodsecurityandagricultureintroducetheirresearchbyoffer- tions,someconceptshavebeenmisusedorhavebecomeun-
ingasettledfuture:In2050,therewillbearoundninebillion clear in their practical implications (Garnett and Godfray
humanstofeed.Thesenumberscombinedwithongoingglob- 2012). Indeed, controversies have arisen on certain terms;
alclimatechangeimpacts,thedepletionofnaturalresources some advocating that they will not bring enough changes to
andchangesindietduetoanincreaseofeconomiclivelihoods solve the existing problems, others that these are the only
indevelopingcountriesaresuggestedtoofferanalmostinsur- possible answers. When a debate is taking place with unde-
mountablechallengefortheworldinproducingenoughfood finedterms,thereisahighchancethatthepartiesarereferring
forallwhiletakingcareoftheenvironmentandsocialjustice tosimilartermswithoutunderstandingoracknowledgingthe
(Foleyetal.2011;Godfrayetal.2010). difference in meanings they may each hold (Garnett and
Inthisperspective,manyarguethatbusinessasusualisno Godfray2012).
longer possible because increasing production with current Inthispaper,wefocusontermsandconceptsrelevantto
food systems will induce more environmental impacts, efforts to increase productivity while being sustainable or,
undermining the capacity of future generations to produce in other terms, in concepts that advocate intensifying our
enoughfood(McIntyreetal.2009).Othersstatethatitisalso current production models while reducing their environ-
important and possible to adapt within present farming sys- mentaltradeoffs.Weselectedthethreemajorintensification
tems,e.g.thereishighpotentialtoincreasecropproductivity conceptspresentlyused:ecologicalintensification,sustain-
in Africa (Tittonell and Giller 2013). In the same context, ableintensification,andagroecologicalintensification.The
expandingagriculturallandisonlypossibleinalimitedman- noveltyofthispaperisthatthesethreeconceptshavenotyet
nerasfarmingisalreadyputtingpressureonnaturalareasand beenanalysedinacomparativeanalysis,takingallofthem
is an important factor in deforestation resulting in losses of into account at once. In addition, the historical analysis of
biodiversityandincreasesingreenhousegasesemissions(Fo- the first appearance of the terms and the evolution of the
leyetal.2005;Phalanetal.2011). definitionsusedarealsonew.Morespecifically,thepresent
To solve these issues, many stakeholdersin food produc- paperaimsatanalysingthevarioususesofthethreeterms,
tionareadvocatingforan‘intensification’ofagriculture.The theirvariousdefinitions,underlyingprinciplesandpractical
proposedsolutionsvaryfromradicalfoodsystemchangesto implications. We then compare the narratives behind the
smaller field-focused improvements (e.g. Clay 2011; Foley threetermswitheachothertobetterunderstandthediffer-
et al. 2005; Royal Society London 2009) (Fig. 1). Avariety encesandcommonalitiestheyhave.Tocompletethisanal-
of terms have emerged referring to general or more specific ysis,wediscusshowtheseintensificationtermsareopera-
concepts and approaches to solve these issues. The present tionalized through agricultural practices and in which way
three major intensification concepts are ‘ecological thesetermsarealreadyintegratedinpoliciesorlaws.
Ecological,sustainable,andagroecologicalintensification 1285
2Methodsandmaterial 3Ecologicalintensification
For this review, research on the different terms ecological 3.1Historicalusesanddefinitionsofecological
intensification,sustainableintensificationand agroecological intensification
intensification has been conducted in scientific literature as
well as in grey literature. We searched back to the first year Thetermecologicalintensificationwasprobablyfirstusedby
ofappearanceofthetermasfaraswecouldtracethemback. Egger(1986)todescribeadoubleapproachwhich,ontheone
We present an analysis from 1983 up to present. Websites hand,usesallpossiblemeasuresfavouringsoilfertilitymain-
connected to organizations making use of these terms were tenanceand,ontheotherhand,establishestheintegrationof
alsousedasothersourcesofinformation.Aspecificanalysis cropandlivestockproductionwithforestryonthesameparcel
was carried out on references from peer-reviewed scientific oflandwiththeobjectivetohaveanagro-sylvo-pastoralsys-
literature.ThereferenceshavebeenselectedoutoftheScopus tem.A decadelater, Cassman and Pingali (1995) mentioned
databasesusingthekeywordsecologicalintensification,sus- the intensification ofagriculture,but it isnot until 1999that
tainable intensification and agroecological intensification or Cassman(1999)statedthatthegoalofecologicalintensifica-
agro-ecological intensification in the title, abstract or key- tioninagricultureis“furtherintensificationofproductionsys-
words. The search tool Scopus was utilized to gather data temsthatsatisfytheanticipatedincreaseinfooddemandwhile
about the frequency per yearofuse for eachrespectiveterm meeting acceptable standards of environmental quality”. In
inthetitle,abstractorkeywordsofscientificarticlestoanalyse thelate2000s,organizationsandresearchcentresworldwide
the temporal evolution of the use of the terms. In total, 241 startedusinganddefiningthetermecologicalintensification.
scientificpaperswerefoundandanalysed.Toassesstheper- In2008,theFrenchAgriculturalResearchCentreforInterna-
tinence of the articles for our qualitative analysis, we used tionalDevelopmentdefinedecologicalintensificationasagri-
severalcriteria:either(1)theexistenceofadefinitionofone cultural systems “designed to use ecological processes and
oftheterms,(2)theexplanationofthepracticesinvolvedwith functions for different purposes, such as biological control,
the specific use of the term or (3) the existence of explicit invasive species management, and efficient use of resources
statements of general principles related to the term. In addi- andecologicalservices”(CIRAD2008).TheFoodandAgri-
tion, we complemented our investigation with a historical cultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations(FAO)initsGlos-
analysis of appearance of the terms and the evolution of the saryonOrganicAgriculture(FAO2009)makesthefirstlink
definitions. However, for the qualitative analysis on defini- toorganicagriculture.Inthisdocument,ecologicalintensifi-
tions,practicesandprinciples,onlyareducednumberofpa- cation and sustainable intensification are grouped under the
perscouldbeusedasthemajorityofpapersdidnotprovide samedefinition,“maximizationofprimaryproductionperunit
clearinformationonatleastoneofthesethreecriteria. areawithoutcompromisingtheabilityofthesystemtosustain
Apartfromtheanalysisoftheacademicliterature,theau- itsproductivecapacity”(FAO2009).
thors also performed a Computer-Aided Text Analysis AsshowninFig.2,theuseofthetermecologicalintensi-
(CATA) of key policy documents searching the terms: Sus- fication in scientific publications appeared first in 1999, but
tainable Intensification, Ecological Intensification and Agro- not providing an explicit definition (Cassman 1999). The
ecological Intensification. The CATAwas carried out using numberofpublicationusingthistermincreasedmoresignif-
NVivo (V. 10), one of the programs considered appropriate icantlyfromaround2010onwards.
for such content analyses (Krippendorf 2004).CATA ispar- Inrecentyears,thetermecologicalintensificationseemsto
ticularly useful as it has been found to be more reliable and haveevolvedfromaplotscale,agronomicalapproachwitha
fasterthanhumancoders(Shortetal.2010).Thegoalofthis focus on crop yields to a holistic and multi-disciplinary ap-
analysiswastoidentifytheuseoftermsrelatedtointensifica- proachintegratingconceptssuchasecosystemservicesorbio-
tion in international policy fora and within national legisla- diversity. Some authors (Doltra and Olesen 2013; Griffon
tions.Intheinternationalrealm,allfinalreportsofFAOCon- 2013; Hochman et al. 2013) still use the initial definition of
ference, FAO Council, FAO’s Committee on Agriculture, increasingfoodproduction while minimizingnegativeeffects
FAO’sCommitteeonWorldFoodSecurity,allFAORegional ontheenvironment.Others(Brussaardetal.2010;Doréetal.
ConferencesaswellasECOSOCMinisterialDeclarationsand 2011; GRiSP 2013; Tittonell and Giller 2013) build on that
General Assembly Resolutions with the words ‘food’ or definition and suggest an increase in resource-use efficiency,
‘agricult*’from2000until2013weresearchedtoidentifytext includingreducingexternalinputs.Lastly,someauthorshave
containing the focal terms. This search was amended by integratedthenotionofecosystemservicesintheirdefinition.
searching the FAOLEXdatabase, “a comprehensive and up- Doré et al. (2011) argue thatecologicalintensification should
to-datelegislativedatabase,oneoftheworld'slargestelectron- ‘provide’ ecosystem services, while Bommarco et al. (2012)
iccollectionofnationallawsandregulationsonfood,agricul- andTittonellandGiller(2013)suggestthatecologicalintensi-
tureandrenewablenaturalresources”(FAO2014). fication should ‘manage’ ecosystem services in production
1286 A.Wezeletal.
Fig.2 Theuseoftheterms
“ecologicalintensification”,
“sustainableintensification”and
“agroecologicalintensification”
intitles,abstractsandkeywords
ofscientificpublicationslistedin
Scopus.Whereasthefirstuseof
oneofthetermswasin1999,they
havebeenmoreoftenemployed
since2010.Sustainable
intensificationhasincreased
enormouslysince2011andis
todaythemostoftenusedofthese
termsinscientificpublications
systems. Although not directly expressed in their definitions, a deep knowledge and understanding of these processes
Doré et al. (2011), Bommarco et al. (2012) and Tittonell and (Agropolis2013;Bommarcoetal.2012;CIRAD2008;Doltra
Giller(2013)integratesocialaspectsintoecologicalintensifi- andOlesen2013;Doréetal.2011).Manyauthorsagreethat
cation. According to these authors, ecological intensification developingin-depthknowledgeofecologicalprocessesispar-
should also focus on human well-being and provide fiber, ticularlyimportanttodevelopexpertiseinthisfield.CIRAD
agro-fuels and food products, as well as environmental ser- (2008) targets not only the interactions between biotic and
vices.Inarecentpublication,Tittonell(2014)statesthateco- abioticfactors(i.e.bio-geochemicalcyclesandwatercycles),
logical intensification proposes landscape approaches that but also plant and animal associations, the competition
makesmartuseofnaturalfunctionalitiesthatecosystemsoffer. between them and their complementarities. Doré et al.
Here, the landscape approach mentioned provides a new di-
mension for the definition of ecological intensification. Gaba
etal.(2014)supportthisinstatingthattointensifyecological
processes to increase beneficial biotic interactions, redefining
farming systems with a holistic approach to agroecosystems
andscalingupfromplottolandscapescaleisrequired.
Ingeneral,weseeahistoricalevolutionforthedefinitions
on ecological intensification gradually integrating new as-
pects, e.g. ecosystem services and a landscape approach in
morerecentdefinitions.Themajorkeywordsusedinthedif-
ferent definitions are shown in Fig. 3. To have more details
about their use in definitions, we summarize this in Table 1
showingthekeycomponentsoftextusedbydifferentauthors
in theirdefinitions.A comparison with the other intensifica-
tionconceptswillbeprovidedanddiscussedunderthediscus-
sionsection.
3.2Principlesofecologicalintensification Fig. 3 Keywords used in definitions on ecological, sustainable and
agroecologicalintensification.Thetopofthefigureshowsthecommon
keywordsforbothecologicalandsustainableintensification.Themiddle
Principlesofecologicalintensificationrelyheavilyonbiolog-
partaddsotherkeywordswhichwereeithermentionedinpublicationsfor
icalprocessesformanagementofsoilfertility,resourcesand eitherecologicalorsustainableintensification.Thebottompartindicates
nutrients, biodiversity and interactions between organisms which keywords were introduced in addition with agroecological
intensification. Note: The keywords are summarized from a broad
(plants, animals and soil organisms) (Agropolis 2013;
diversityofpublicationsand mightthusnot always completely reflect
Brussaard et al. 2010; CIRAD 2008; Egger 1986; FAO
the content of one specific publication on one of the intensification
2009).Theaimistointensify,makeefficientuseanddevelop concepts
Ecological,sustainable,andagroecologicalintensification 1287
Table1 Summaryofkeycomponentsusedinthemajordefinitionsof Ecological intensification aims to achieve multiple goals:
various authors for ecological, sustainable and agroecological
(i) biodiversity conservation (Brussaard et al. 2010), (ii) im-
intensification. In general, the key components in definitions for
proved soil fertility management via the use of biodiversity
ecological intensification appear are found with different authors,
whereasindefinitionsforsustainableandagroecologicalintensification and key symbioses that will facilitate nutrient recycling and
theyareoftenusedonlyinonepublication balancednutrientflows(Agropolis2013;CIRAD2008;FAO
2009),(iii)reductionofpestanddiseaseinfestationsbasedon
Keycomponentsindefinitionsforthethreeintensificationconcepts
better understanding of the relations between organisms that
Ecologicalintensification will enable control and balance the number of parasites and
(cid:129)Intensificationofproductionsystemsofincreasingfoodproduction predatorsintheecosystems(Agropolis2013;FAO2009)and
whileminimizingnegativeeffectsontheenvironment(Cassman (iv)developmentoffarmingsystemresiliencethroughdiver-
1999;DoltraandOlesen2013;Griffon2013;Hochmanetal.2013)
sified plant breeding adapted to environmental constraints
(cid:129)Increaseinuseefficienciesofinputsandresources(CIRAD2008; such as climate change and water shortage (CIRAD 2008).
Brussaardetal.2010;Doréetal.2011;GRiSP2013;Tittonelland
Onahigherlevelofanalysis,furtherprinciplesofecological
Giller2013)
intensificationinrelationtofoodsystemsandhumanfactors
(cid:129)Systemsusingecologicalprocessesandservices(CIRAD2008;Doré
include decreased energy use, thus reducing greenhouse gas
etal.2011;TittonellandGiller2013;Tittonell2014)
emission and dependence on fossil fuels (Cassman 2005;
Sustainableintensification
Doréetal.2011),recyclingofby-productsortakingintoac-
(cid:129)Substantialgrowthofyieldswhileprotectingorevenregenerating
naturalresources(Prettyetal.1996;Pretty1997) count consumers’ expectations of product quality (CIRAD
(cid:129)Manipulationofinputsandoutputstoincreaseproductivityand/or 2008) and reduction in meat consumption and food losses
productionwhilemaintainingtheintegrityofthesystemandthe andwaste(Bommarcoetal.2012),reducingnegativehealth
environment(Gibonetal.1999) andenvironmentalexternalities(Bommarcoetal.2012;Doré
(cid:129)Increaseinreturnstolandandlabourandmaintenanceofsoilnutrient etal.2011;TittonellandGiller2013)andincreasingpartici-
balances(RubenandLee2000) patoryinvolvementofstakeholders,buildingonlocalknow-
(cid:129)Intensificationusingnatural,socialandhumancapitalassets, how and knowledge in the introduction of new practices
combinedwiththeuseofbestavailabletechnologiesandinputsthat
(Caron et al. 2014; CIRAD 2008) and collective decision-
minimizeharmtotheenvironment(Pretty2008)
making(Tittonell2014).
(cid:129)Producingmoreoutputfromsameareaoflandwhilereducing
negativeenvironmentalimpactsandincreasingcontributionsto
naturalcapitalandflowofenvironmentalservices(RoyalSociety 3.3Practicesofecologicalintensification
London2009;FAO2011;Prettyetal.2011;Firbanketal.2013)
Agroecologicalintensification The principles of ecological intensification are implemented
(cid:129)Integrationofecologicalprinciplestoreducedependencyonexternal through numerous tools and practices concerning cropping
inputsandincreasetheproductivecapacityofbioticandabiotic
systems,soil,pest,nutrientsandbiodiversitymanagement:
systemcomponents(Milderetal.2012)
(cid:129)Sustainingecosystemservices,whileminimizingenvironmental & Mixedcroppingsystems,diversifiedcroprotation,useof
costsandmaintainingfunctionalbiodiversitythroughwildlife-
cover crops, direct-seeding and mulch-based cropping
friendlyfarmingsystems(Tscharntkeetal.2012)
(cid:129)Improvedperformancethroughintegrationofecologicalprinciples systems (Affholder et al. 2010; Agropolis 2013; Egger
intofarmsandsystemsmanagement(CCRP2013) 1986;FAO2009;Bommarcoetal.2012)
(cid:129)Asetofimprovedinputs,implements,andpracticesthatproduce & Conservationtillage,minimizingsoilcompactionandsoil
moreoutputperunitofinputwherebytheuseefficiencyofthose detoxification (Agropolis 2013; Bommarco et al. 2012;
inputsismaximized(Vanlauweetal.2013a) Cassman2005)
& Integrated pest management (Bommarco et al. 2012;
Cassman2005;CIRAD2008)
(2011) suggest improving knowledge of soil and plant sci- & Improved fertilizer and nutrient management, regulation
encesandtheinteractionsbetweenrootsandmicro-andmac- and monitoring of nutrient supply and fertigation
ro-organisms. Bommarco et al. (2012) point out the need to (Agropolis 2013; Cassman 2005; CIRAD 2008; Egger
understand the economic costs and benefits of biological 1986)
processes and ecosystem services. CIRAD (2008) notes that & Biodiversitypreservationandpromotionofpositivealle-
“describing,explainingandexploitingthebiodiversityofand lopathiceffects(Brussaardetal.2010;CIRAD2008).
the functions thatregulateecosystems” isofimportanceand
along with other sources (Bommarco et al. 2012; CIRAD Toconclude,keywordsusedinthedefinitionsonecologi-
2008;DoltraandOlesen2013).Tittonell(2014)stressesthat calintensificationare‘increasedproduction’,‘minimizeden-
this will facilitate the efficient use of resources, functional vironmentalimpacts’,‘resourceuseefficiency’and‘ecologi-
biodiversityandecosystemservices. calprocessesandecosystemservices’.Principlesofecological
1288 A.Wezeletal.
intensification rely heavily on biological processes for man- definition “increasing yields without adverse environmental
agementofsoilfertility,resourcesandnutrients,biodiversity impact and without the cultivation of more land.” A more
and interactions between organisms. These principles are recent and widely cited definition of sustainable intensifica-
translated into a broad variety of practices more commonly tioncomesfromFAO’s2011publicationonSaveandGrow,
agreedbythe majorityofauthors.Few additionalmorespe- describingsustainablecropproductionintensificationas“pro-
cificpracticesarementionedbyotherauthors. ducing more from the same area of land while conserving
resources, reducing negative impacts on the environment
andenhancingnaturalcapitalandtheflowofecosystemser-
4Sustainableintensification vices.”QuitesimilardefinitionswerealsousedbyPrettyetal.
(2011)andFirbanketal.(2013).
4.1Historicalusesanddefinitionsofsustainable In the last decade, sustainable intensification has gained
intensification worldwiderecognitioninmanyinternationalpolicy,education
andresearchorganizations.Someofthenotableinternational
Sustainableintensificationisemergingasthemostfrequently organizationsthatemploythistermaretheFoodClimateRe-
referencednewparadigmofagriculturalproduction,anditis searchNetworkin2012,theMontpellierPanelin2013,Food
continuingtogainmomentuminscientificanddevelopment and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO
literature(Prettyetal.2011). 2011),UnitedNationsGeneralAssemblyin2010,Consulta-
Theusageandoccurrenceofthetermsustainableintensi- tive Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR
fication have increased in scientific publications since 2009 2011), the International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA
and verysignificantly since 2013(Fig. 2).Thetermsustain- 2013)andUSAID(2013).
able intensification can be traced back to a 1983 workshop In the dialogue on the future of food production, various
report on sustainable intensification of tidal swamplands in industries, environmental activists and farmers also employ
Indonesia by the Research Group on Agro-ecosystems thetermsustainableintensificationintheirreports,conference
(KEPAS1985).Inthesameyear,thetermwasagainusedin speechesandmagazines.Environmentalmovementsseemto
areportproducedforenvironmentalassessmentandmanage- be more aware of this term, although its openness of defini-
mentofcoastalresources(BurbridgeandMaragos1985).In tion—moreanaspirationtoincreaseyieldswithoutenviron-
this report, the definition and principles of sustainable mental damage—rather than a clear set of specific practices
intensification are not stated explicitly, but the authors hasledtosomesuspicionandcriticism.Onetypicalexample
clearly foster the use of aquatic and associated natural of such critique is Friends of the Earth International’s state-
resources, while at the same time proposing compatible ment,“awolfinsheep’sclothing”inreferencetotheconven-
multiple usages that do not compromise upcoming tionalagricultureindustry’suseofsustainableintensification
opportunities or diminish prevailing resources. Pretty et al. (Collinsand Chandrasekaran2012).Moreabout thisdiscus-
(1996)andPretty(1997)firstdefinedsustainableintensifica- sion and debate can be found in the studies of Garnett and
tionas“substantialgrowthofyieldsincurrentlyunimproved Godfray (2012), Kuyper and Struik (2014) and Tittonell
or degraded areas while at the same time protecting or even (2014).
regenerating natural resources”. Later, Gibon et al. (1999)
reused this term with special reference to animal production 4.2Principlesofsustainableintensification
as“themanipulationofinputsto,andoutputsfrom,livestock
production systems aimed at increasing productivity and/or Given the current variety and controversy, overthe usage of
production and/or changing product quality, while maintain- the term sustainable intensification, analysis and description
ingthelong-termintegrityofthesystemanditssurrounding ofthefundamentalprinciplesandpracticesthatunderpinitis
environment, so as to meet the needs of both present and of great importance. Such an analysis helps to more clearly
futuregenerationsofhumans”.RubenandLee(2000)defined draw boundaries, also to the other types of intensification.
sustainable intensification from an agricultural economics However, although the sustainable intensification dialogue
standpointwith“thesimultaneousincreaseinreturnstoland hasbeenembracedbymostinternationalandnationalresearch
andlabour(intheshortrun)andthemaintenanceofsoilnu- and policy organizations as an aspiration, it has hardly ever
trientbalances(inthelongrun)”.Themostcitedandbroadest beenclearlylimitedtoaspecificsetofprinciplesandpractices
definitionofsustainableintensification,however,wasprovid- foritsrealization.
edbyPretty(2008):“Intensificationusingnatural,socialand Differentauthorshavepresenteddifferentprinciplesofsus-
humancapitalassets,combinedwiththeuseofbestavailable tainableintensification.Flavell(2010),Godfrayetal.(2010),
technologies and inputs (best genotypes and best ecological Pretty etal. (2011) and Firbank et al. (2013) have presented
management)thatminimizeoreliminateharmtotheenviron- theprinciplesofincreasesinproductionwithaslittleaddition-
ment.” A bit later, Royal Society London (2009) used the allandconversionaspossibleandincreaseduseofrenewable
Ecological,sustainable,andagroecologicalintensification 1289
resources suchaslabour, light and knowledge.Other princi- 5Agroecologicalintensification
ples mentioned are to increase resource use efficiency and
optimizing application of external inputs (Bos et al. 2013; 5.1Historicaluseanddefinitionsofagroecological
Friedrich et al. 2012; Matson et al. 1997; McCune et al. intensification
2011; Pretty 1997, 2008), to minimize direct negative envi-
ronmentalimpactsoffoodproduction,tocloseyieldgapson Agroecologicalintensificationisarelativelynewterminthe
underperformingexistingagriculturallands(Bosetal.2013; discourse ofagriculturalintensification.The growingimpor-
Garnett et al. 2013; Mueller et al. 2012) and to improve the tance of agroecology in the past decades and, in particular,
utilization of crop varieties and livestock breeds (Carswell since the 2000s (Gliessman 2007; Wezel and Soldat 2009;
1997; McCune et al. 2011; Pretty 2008; Ruben and Lee Wezeletal.2009)mighthavecontributedtothisterm’scon-
2000). Moreover, objectives to change human diets, reduce tinuallyincreasinguseinliterature,alongsidealonghistoryof
foodwastes(Bosetal.2013;Garnettetal.2013)anddeliver practicesandmovementsinLatinAmerica(AltieriandToledo
productivity gains in ways that are socially acceptable 2011; Rosset and Martínez-Torres 2012; Wezel et al. 2009).
(Garnettetal.2013)arementioned. Anincreaseduseinscientificliteraturecanonlyberecognized
since 2011 (e.g. CCRP 2013; Fonte et al. 2012; Haussmann
2011;Staveretal.2013;Vanlauweetal.2013b).Ingeneral,
4.3Practicesofsustainableintensification thetermismuchlessfrequentlyusedinscientificpublications
thansustainableintensificationandecologicalintensification
Agronomicandlandmanagementpracticespromotedwiththe (Fig.2).ThefirstuseofthetermisbyDarkoh(2003),butdoes
termsustainableintensificationarereferencedinmanypubli- notprovideanydefinitionoftheconcept.
cationsreviewed.The mostcommonpracticesthatappeared Several characterizations and definitions exist around the
withsustainableintensificationcanbesummarizedasfollows: term agroecological intensification. Each definition includes
differentconceptsofintensificationaswellaswhatconstitutes
& Conservationtillage(McCuneetal.2011;Reardonetal. intensificationthroughagroecologicalprinciples.Milderetal.
1999), improved crop rotations and applying living and (2012) declare that “agroecological intensification integrates
residual mulches to cover the soil (FAO 2011; Matson ecologicalprinciplesintoagriculturalmanagementtoreduce
etal.1997) dependency on external inputs and increase the productive
& Useoflegumes,covercropsandcatchcropsinrotations capacityofbioticandabioticsystemcomponents”.Tscharntke
(Sumberg 2002; Tilman et al. 2011) and alley cropping etal.(2012)statethat“agroecologicalintensificationsustains
(Pretty1997;RaintreeandWarner1986) ecosystem services, while minimizing environmental costs
& Integrated pest management (Pretty 1997; Pretty et al. and maintaining functional biodiversity” through wildlife-
2011;Reardonetal.1998) friendly farming systems. The Collaborative Crop Research
& Soilconservation(FAO2011;McCuneetal.2011). Program(CCRP2013)provides“improvingtheperformance
ofagriculturethroughintegrationofecologicalprinciplesinto
Morespecificallymentionedare: farm and system management”. Finally, Vanlauwe et al.
(2013a) state it as “a set of improved inputs, implements,
& Use of worm composts (McCune et al. 2011), on-farm andpracticesthatproducemoreoutputperunitofinputrela-
mechanization (Friedrich et al. 2012), smarter, precision tivetotraditionalpracticesandwherebytheuseefficiencyof
technologies for irrigation and nutrient use efficiency thoseinputsismaximised”.
(FAO2011),useofhighyieldingvarietiesincludingtrans- Theissuewiththedefinitionsofagroecologicalintensi-
genic crops (Flavell 2010) and animal crop-integration fication, however, lies not necessarily with the number of
(McCuneetal.2011) varyingdefinitionsbutwiththenumberofdefinitionsthat
eitherdirectlyquoteunderstooddefinitionsofecologicalor
Toconclude,keywordsusedinthedefinitionsonsustain- sustainableintensificationorcitepaperspromotingeitherof
ableintensificationare‘increasedproduction’,‘minimizeden- the two terms in the definition of agroecological intensifi-
vironmental impacts’, ‘best management of inputs and out- cation.BothCôteetal.(2010)andHaussmann(2011)link
puts’ and ‘environmental services, natural resources/capital’. their definition to that of CIRAD (2008, 2013), and
Principles of sustainable intensification remain often quite Dobermann and Nelson (2013) link their definition to
broadanddiverseandaremostlylessconcretethanthoseof Cassman (1999) with all original publications using the
ecological intensification. The practices proposed are quite term ecological intensification. Similarly, Ochola et al.
similartotheonesfoundforecologicalintensification.Some (2013)actuallyprovidethesustainableintensificationdefi-
single specific practices were also proposed by different nitionofFAO(2011)andPrettyetal.(2011)astheonethey
authors. useforagroecologicalintensification.
1290 A.Wezeletal.
5.2Principlesofagroecologicalintensification Milderetal.2012;Ocholaetal.2013)andbalancedand
more efficient use of fertilizers (Dobermann and Nelson
With regard to principles, Milder et al. 2012 state core 2013)
principles as those cited in agroecology literature such
as maintaining and enhancing soil health, improving Inaddition, Dobermann and Nelson(2013)added:use of
recycling of biomass and nutrients, increasing biological qualityseedofawell-adaptedhigh-yieldingvarietyorhybrid;
diversity and beneficial interactions among species and righttimeplantingtomaximizetheattainableyieldbycaptur-
optimizing use of water, energy, nutrients and genetic ing light, water and nutrients; enhance crop–tree–livestock
resources. CCRP (2013) provides a list of six characteris- interactions; maximized capture and efficient utilization of
tics of agroecological intensification: (i) optimizes local availablewater;andrecycleanduseofbiomassandagricul-
andglobalknowledgetoimproveefficiencyandeffective- turalby-products.Manyofthesepracticeswerealsodefined
ness of crop, soil and pest management; (ii) focuses on by Wezel et al. (2014) as agroecological practices, although
soil health and fertility and avoids pre- and post-harvest they do not refer to agroecological intensification in their
losses; (iii) is flexible and responsive to local conditions, publication.
including farmers’ access to inputs and markets; (iv) re- To conclude, the different definitions for agroecological
quires deep and evolving understanding of biophysical, intensification are mostly derived or taken from definitions
socio-economic, cultural, gender and other contexts, (v) of either ecological or sustainable intensification. Many of
reduces risk and increases productivity through resilience the principles mentioned are based on principles defined in
and adaptation and (vi) requires cross-sector and multilat- agroecology. Thepractices proposedare generally similar to
eral collaboration. Dobermann and Nelson (2013) define them found for ecological or sustainable intensification, but
thefollowingprinciples:“increasedproductivityandprof- theyseemtobeinsomecasesmorediverseandmorespecific.
itability, enhanced use of local resources, maximized
returns from external inputs, improved stability and diver-
sity of yields, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, en- 6Discussion
hanced ecological resilience, and environmental service
provision.” In all other instances where agroecological 6.1Differencesandblurredboundariesbetweenthethree
intensification is defined and principles are provided, the- intensificationterms
searebasedoncitationsofotherauthorswhichusedthem
for describing ecological or sustainable intensification Definitions,principlesandassociatedpracticeswiththeterms
principles (e.g. Ochola et al. 2013). ecological, sustainable and agroecological intensification are
sometimes confusing and overlapping, but some differences
5.3Practicesofagroecologicalintensification can be worked out. For this discussion, we use the major
keywordsusedinthedifferentdefinitionsasabasistoshow
Agroecologicalintensificationpracticesbuildupontheabove commonalitiesanddifferenceforthethreetypesofintensifi-
principlesbygivingmorespecificmeasurestobeemployedin cation (Fig. 3) and look also at their use in definitions
designingagriculturalsystems.Manypracticesarementioned (Table1).
bymanyauthors:
6.1.1Ecologicalversussustainableintensification
& Mulching,intercropping,croprotations,(Côteetal.2010;
DobermannandNelson2013;Haussmann2011;Karamura The keywordsusedinthe differentdefinitions onecological
et al. 2013; Milder et al. 2012; Ochola et al. 2013) and intensification are ‘increased production’, ‘minimized envi-
integratedsoilandnutrientmanagement,includingconser- ronmentalimpacts’,‘resourceuseefficiency’and‘ecological
vationagriculture(DobermannandNelson2013) processes and ecosystem services’ (Fig. 3). How these key-
& Soilandwaterconservation(Côteetal.2010;Haussmann wordsareusedinthemajordefinitionsforecologicalintensi-
2011; Karamura et al. 2013; Milder et al. 2012; Ochola ficationissummarizedinTable1.Ingeneral,thekeycompo-
etal.2013) nents in definitions for ecological intensification appear al-
& IPM and biological control strategies, (Côte et al. 2010; ways with different authors, indicating a larger agreement
Dobermann and Nelson 2013; Haussmann 2011; amongauthors.
Karamura et al. 2013; Milder et al. 2012; Ochola et al. Forthedefinitionsofsustainableintensification,thesame
2013) and the judicious use of pesticides (Dobermann keywordsincreasedproductionandminimizedenvironmental
andNelson2013) impactscanbefoundasforecologicalintensification.Incon-
& Use oforganic inputs(Côte etal. 2010;Dobermann and trast, resource use efficiency is stated less with sustainable
Nelson 2013; Haussmann 2011; Karamura et al. 2013; intensification (only in FAO 2011), but mostly ‘best
Ecological,sustainable,andagroecologicalintensification 1291
managementofinputsandoutputs’.Also‘ecologicalprocess- wording might differ and specific definitions among certain
esandecosystemservices’isnotpresentbuttheterms‘envi- authors can vary by for example taking into account social
ronmental services’ or ‘natural resources/capital’ are used, aspects.
except for FAO (2011) which uses the term ‘ecosystem ser-
vices’. In contrast to the key components provided in major 6.1.2Agroecologicalintensificationversusecological
definitions for ecological intensification, key components in andsustainableintensification
definitions for sustainable intensification are often usedonly
inonepublication. Comparingagroecologicalintensificationwithecologicaland
In general, regarding keywords and key components of sustainable intensification requires a more nuanced analysis.
definitions for ecological and sustainable intensification, a Many of the authors use existing definitions or concepts of
strongoverlapformostdefinitionscanbefoundeventhough ecologicalandsustainableintensification,butre-labelthemas
theexactwordingmightdiffer.Nevertheless,thespecificdef- agroecological intensification (Côte et al. 2010; Dobermann
initionsamongcertainauthorscanvarybyforexampletaking and Nelson 2013; Haussmann 2011; Karamura et al. 2013;
into account social aspects. Although it is not directly Ocholaetal.2013).Thisunderstandingofecologicalorsus-
expressed intheir definitions,Doréetal. (2011),Bommarco tainable intensification as agroecological intensification is
et al. (2012) and Tittonell and Giller (2013) integrate these problematicbecauseitblurrstheboundariesbetweenthethree
social aspects into ecological intensification and Garnett termsevenmore.
et al. (2013) into sustainable intensification. Moreover, Ontheotherhand,theprinciplesforagroecologicalinten-
Kuyperand Struik(2014) and Struik etal. (2014) see inthe sificationclearlyshowacertaindifferenceintermsofpractical
co-existenceofthetermsecologicalandsustainableintensifi- implications.Thefirstistheinsertionofthesocialandcultural
cationthatsimilarwordsandsharedlanguageareused,butthe perspectives into the definition of the principles of agroeco-
discourseusingthetermcanshowverydifferentworldviews. logicalintensification(CCRP2013).Theseperspectivesareof
Mostdefinitionsofecologicalandsustainableintensification great importance as most of the solutions advocated in eco-
areprimarilyfocusedonproductivityandenvironmentalaspects, logical and sustainable intensification do not address these
thusmoreorientedtofieldandfarmscales.However,themore issuesandmostlyfocusontheagronomicandenvironmental
recent integration of social aspect mentioned before and also aspectsand,tosomeextent,theeconomicones.Agroecolog-
aspectssuchashumannutritionandfoodsecurity,ruralecono- icalintensificationalsodistinguishesitselfbyemphasizingthe
mies,sustainabledevelopmentandsustainablevaluechainman- importanceofintensifyingknowledge,notonlyforscientists
agement(Garnettetal.2013;vanBuerenetal.2014)enlargethis and decisionmakersbut for smallholdersaswell(Karamura
tothefoodsystemsscale.Tittonell(2014)statesthatecological etal.2013).Whilesocialpracticessuchasrelyingonlocaland
intensificationproposesalandscapeapproach. culturalcontextsandbuildingonfarmersknowledgeareapart
A large number ofpractices have been considered by the of agroecological intensification (Côte et al. 2010; CCRP
various authors to be part of both ecological or sustainable 2013),proponentsofsustainableorecologicalintensification
intensification.Thereremain,however, a fewdifferentopin- do not generally include these aspects as central to their
ionsoncertainkeypractices,forexamplewhethertoinclude concepts.
transgeniccropsintosustainableintensification(Flavell2010; Asecondpointisthatagroecologicalintensificationputsa
PetersenandSnapp2015). stronger emphasis on having a systems approach (CCRP
Anotherpointisrelatedtothewayforwardadvocatedfor 2013; Dobermann and Nelson 2013). Most of the papers
intheshortterm.Ecologicalintensification,asseenbysome discussing the term refer to agricultural systems or
authors, puts a strong emphasis on the intensification of agroecosystemsandtoanalysingelementsoftheseinaholis-
knowledge to better understand the many components of ticperspective.Thisperspectiverequirestakingintoaccount
agroecosystems, particularly to enhance the cycles between the many and varied aspects of the systems to assess their
thedifferentbiological,chemicalandmineralcomponentsto interactiveeffectsandleveragepointstoward(andawayfrom)
achievehigherproductivity.Achievingsustainabilitythusre- sustainability,includingvaluechainsandmoregloballyfood
quiresastrongefforttobetterunderstandagroecosystemsand systems as well as knowledge systems. Although ecological
the roleofscientistsworking withfarmers isofprimary im- intensificationcomprehendssomeofthefundamentalsofsys-
portance (CIRAD 2008; Doré et al. 2011; Bommarco et al. tems thinking by integrating the notions of ecosystems, it is
2012).ThelatterpointwasonlyalsostressedbyFAO(2011) sometimes not clearly stated as a guiding principle by just
forsustainableintensificationandotherwise‘ecologicalliter- focussing on implementing certain plot-scale practices for
acy’ has not beencentral tomostdescriptionsofsustainable ecologicalintensification.
intensification. Therearedifferentwaysinwhichagroecologicalintensifi-
A strong overlap for many definitions of ecological and cation is operationalized, particularly among smallholders.
sustainable intensification exist even though the exact For example, Dobermann and Nelson (2013) present