M. Jahi Chappell

Organic agriculture and the global food supply

The principal objections to the proposition that organic agriculture can contribute significantly to the global food supply are low yields and insufficient quantities of organically acceptable fertilizers. We evaluated the universality of both claims. For the first claim, we compared yields of organic versus conventional or low-intensive food production for a global dataset of 293 examples and estimated the average yield ratio (organic : non-organic) of different food categories for the developed and the developing world. For most food categories, the average yield ratio was slightly 1.0 for studies in the developing world. With the average yield ratios, we modeled the global food supply that could be grown organically on the current agricultural land base. Model estimates indicate that organic methods could produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population, and potentially an even larger population, without increasing the agricultural land base. We also evaluated the amount of nitrogen potentially available from fixation by leguminous cover crops used as fertilizer. Data from temperate and tropical agroecosystems suggest that leguminous cover crops could fix enough nitrogen to replace the amount of synthetic fertilizer currently in use. These results indicate that organic agriculture has the potential to contribute quite substantially to the global food supply, while reducing the detrimental environmental impacts of conventional agriculture. Evaluation and review of this paper have raised important issues about crop rotations under organic versus conventional agriculture and the reliability of grey-literature sources. An ongoing dialogue on these subjects can be found in the Forum editorial of this issue.

Putting meaning back into “sustainable intensification”

In light of human population growth, global food insecurity is an escalating concern. To meet increasing demand for food, leading scientists have called for “sustainable intensification”, defined as the process of enhancing agricultural yields with minimal environmental impact and without expanding the existing agricultural land base. We argue that this definition is inadequate to merit the term “sustainable”, because it lacks engagement with established principles that are central to sustainability. Sustainable intensification is likely to fail in improving food security if it continues to focus narrowly on food production ahead of other equally or more important variables that influence food security. Sustainable solutions for food security must be holistic and must address issues such as food accessibility. Wider consideration of issues related to equitable distribution of food and individual empowerment in the intensification decision process (distributive and procedural justice) is needed to put meaning back into the term “sustainable intensification”.

Food sovereignty: an alternative paradigm for poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation in Latin America

Strong feedback between global biodiversity loss and persistent, extreme rural poverty are major challenges in the face of concurrent food, energy, and environmental crises. This paper examines the role of industrial agricultural intensification and market integration as exogenous socio-ecological drivers of biodiversity loss and poverty traps in Latin America. We then analyze the potential of a food sovereignty framework, based on protecting the viability of a diverse agroecological matrix while supporting rural livelihoods and global food production. We review several successful examples of this approach, including ecological land reform in Brazil, agroforestry, milpa, and the uses of wild varieties in smallholder systems in Mexico and Central America. We highlight emergent research directions that will be necessary to assess the potential of the food sovereignty model to promote both biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction.

Effects of industrial agriculture on climate change and the mitigation potential of small-scale agro-ecological farms

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), agriculture is responsible for 10–12% of total global anthropogenic emissions and almost a quarter of the continuing increase of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Not all forms of agriculture, however, have equivalent impacts on global warming. Industrial agriculture contributes significantly to global warming, representing a large majority of total agriculture-related GHG emissions. Alternatively, ecologically based methods for agricultural production, predominantly used on small-scale farms, are far less energy-consumptive and release fewer GHGs than industrial agricultural production. Besides generating fewer direct emissions, agro-ecological management techniques have the potential to sequester more GHGs than industrial agriculture. Here, we review the literature on the contributions of agriculture to climate change and show the extent of GHG contributions from the industrial agricultural system and the potential of agro-ecological smallholder agriculture to help reduce GHG emissions. These reductions are achieved in three broad areas when compared with the industrial agricultural system: (1) a decrease in materials used and fluxes involved in the release of GHGs based on agricultural crop management choices; (2) a decrease in fluxes involved in livestock production and pasture management; and (3) a reduction in the transportation of agricultural inputs, outputs and products through an increased emphasis on local food systems. Although there are a number of barriers and challenges towards adopting small-scale agroecological methods on the large scale, appropriate incentives can lead to incremental steps towards agro-ecological management that may be able to reduce and mitigate GHG emissions from the agricultural sector.

Wildlife‐friendly farming vs land sparing

land sparing Fischer et al. (Front Ecol Environ 2008; 6[7]: 380–85) discussed the important debate between approaches addressing the global biodiversity crisis and the pressures to provide for the increasing human population. Although we agree with the general thrust of their argument, we feel that they miss several crucial points in comparing “land sparing” (intensifying agriculture in some areas to save biodiversity elsewhere) and “wildlife-friendly farming” (farming that integrates conservation and production). First, their argument regarding lower yields in wildlife-friendly farming might be better supported with more recent literature. For example, Badgley et al. (2007) reviewed 293 examples comparing alternative and conventional agriculture from 91 studies (broadly speaking, alternative agriculture may be considered as “wildlife friendly”). This study found that even under conservative global estimates taking nitrogen sourcing into account, alternative agriculture could provide almost as much food on a caloric basis as is produced today by conventional means, whereas the more realistic estimate indicated the potential for a substantial increase in production. Likewise, many farmers in poorer nations use low-intensity or subsistence methods – intensification, either by conventional or wildlife-friendly means, would increase yields. Considering the biodiversityrelated benefits of wildlife-friendly agriculture, these findings alone obviate much of the basis for the “land sparing” approach. We also feel that a more skeptical view (questioning whether “sparing land for nature” schemes work) is warranted, as we are unaware of any empirical evidence showing that any type of intensification can reliably yield “spared land”. We would add that (1) intensification itself may produce economic incentives encouraging expansion of the intensified land base, possibly endangering the very land that is to be saved (Perfecto and Vandermeer 2008), and (2) population pressure and hunger have little direct relationship with actual agricultural production. To the latter point, it is capitalization and conspicuous consumption that most affect agricultural expansion, since enough food is already produced on a caloric, per capita basis (Badgley et al. 2007). Often, increased production does little for the poorest people, who lack effective economic demand (eg Patnaik 1991; Waldman 2002). Continuing business-as-usual (as assumed by Balmford et al. 2005) means overconsumption by some, while others remain hungry. Addressing socioeconomic inequalities has the potential to decrease the need for agricultural expansion. Without a relinking of resource use to actual need, there is little reason to think expansion would stop if or when the global population stabilizes. By overlooking such points, Fischer et al. miss perhaps the most important point of contention in the “sparing land” debate. Inclusion of these factors would strengthen their valuable call for careful consideration of options in this crucial area. M Jahi Chappell, John Vandermeer, Catherine Badgley, and Ivette Perfecto Department of Science and Technology Studies, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (mjc365@cornell.edu); Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

Exploring the concept of agroecological food systems in a city-region context

ABSTRACT Based on urgent needs for food security compounded by a changing climate which impacts and is impacted by agricultural land-use and food distribution practices, we explore the processes of action in implementing agroecological food systems. We identified the following characteristics for an agroecological food system: 1. Minimizing use of external inputs, 2. Extent of internal resource recycling, 3. Resilience, 4. Multifunctionality, 5. Building on complexity and incorporating greater systems integration, 6. Contextuality, 7. Equity and, 8. Nourishment. We focus on the city-region food systems context, concluding with practical drivers for realizing more agroecological food systems in city-region contexts. Agroecological food systems are widely diverse, shaped by context, and achieved through multi-actor planning in rural, peri-urban and urban areas. Application of agroecological food systems in rural–urban contexts emphasize the necessity of diversification, zoning rural–urban landscapes, planning for seasonality in a food systems context, and producing at scale. Rural–urban food systems are a relevant and challenging entry point that provides opportunities for learning how food systems can be shaped for significant positive change. Social organization, community building, common learning, and knowledge creation are crucial for agroecological contextualized food systems, as are the supports from appropriate governing and institutional structures.

Participation in a city food security program may be linked to higher ant alpha- and beta-diversity: an exploratory case from Belo Horizonte, Brazil

ABSTRACT This article reports the results of a case study examining the connections between municipal food security policy and biodiversity in the region of Belo Horizonte, a populous city in the heavily fragmented Brazilian cerrado (savannah)/Atlantic forest transition region. Belo Horizonte, through its Secretariat of Food and Nutrition Security (SMASAN), has generated increased food security in the city, in part by economically supporting local small farmers. Farmers’ economic security has been previously linked to their agricultural practices and sustainability; thus, SMASAN’s programs potentially affect biodiversity in the region’s agricultural matrix and rainforest fragments through their work with farmers. In order to examine this dynamic, we compared ground-foraging ant diversity on four SMASAN and three non-SMASAN farms and adjoining forest fragments. Supported by data from farmer interviews, sampling in 2005 and 2006 indicated SMASAN farms had: a) higher alpha and beta diversity and b) potentially greater overlap between species found on-farm and in adjacent forest fragments. This case study may be the first directly linking biodiversity conservation with food security and changes in local food policy institutions, emphasizing the importance of an approach integrating politics and ecology, and the potential for human wellbeing and conservation to go hand-in-hand.

Linking Brazil’s food security policies to agricultural change

Poverty, food security, and sustainability are intimately intertwined, driving conflict and synergy between environmental and societal concerns. Brazil’s flagship food security policies were implemented over a decade ago to address these issues simultaneously. Global institutions have pledged over 2 million US

Does organic farming present greater opportunities for employment and community development than conventional farming? A survey-based investigation in California and Washington

to develop similar programs in sub-Saharan Africa, yet empirical assessments of many aspects of these policies are still lacking. We focus on a case study in the state of Minas Gerais and assess the agricultural and environmental impacts of the Purchase with Simultaneous Donation (PSD) program. The PSD provides stable markets as incentives to diversify production, but we find no effect of participation on changes in local agricultural practices, production or income. While some farms are expanding, regional agricultural production appears to be declining due to local economic development and related shortages in farm labor. The PSD’s limited impact arises because most farmers only participate irregularly, typically during the dry season when the program offers higher prices than the local market price. Furthermore, participation is constrained by the specific nature of PSD contracts and centralized governance of the program. We complement these findings with data from the Brazilian Ministry of Social Development and the 2006 agricultural census, which show substantial variation in the availability of PSD initiatives, and the funding allocated to them at local, regional and national levels. We suggest that adaptive management strategies that can respond to local market conditions could lead to more equitable and efficient food security and agricultural policies in Brazil and elsewhere.

The Localization Reader

ABSTRACT Organic farming may present opportunities for job creation over and above those provided by conventional agriculture; this study is one of a small number to have empirically examined this proposition. We compared countywide averages of hired farm labor from the USDA’s 2007 Agricultural Census with data collected through a mirrored survey of organic farmers in the same counties in Washington and California. Based on mixed-effects linear models to estimate differences (if any) in employment between organic farms and countywide farm averages, our analysis indicated that organic farms employed more workers per acre (95% CI: 2–12% more). Further, a greater proportion (95% CI: 13–43% more) of hired labor on organic farms worked 150 days or more compared to the average farm, suggesting increased labor requirements—and potentially more secure employment—on organic farms. We conclude the present study by considering possible policy implications of our findings with regard to organic agriculture as part of regional economic development strategies.