Conclusion

As highlighted in the introduction, the social, environmental and economic crisis we face calls for a profound change in the way our food systems are organised. Climate change makes it an imperative and adds a certain sense of urgency. This necessitates tackling all four dimensions of agroecology together. The separation into several dimensions helps us to understand the potential of agroecology more clearly, but it must be seen as a whole, as a holistic approach. Indeed, many farmers and peasants stress the holistic character of agroecology, as a way of living, something which gives sense to life. To them, it is not merely about providing a means of livelihood and a sustainable agro-ecosystem but of living in harmony with nature and other people. Equally, the potential impact of agroecology must not be limited to a single dimension.

Unfortunately, lack of clarity has been used by some to weaken the concept of agroecology: “suddenly agroecology is in fashion with everyone, from grassroots social movements to the FAO, governments, universities and corporations. But not all have the same idea of agroecology in mind. While mainstream institutions and corporations for years have marginalized and ridiculed agroecology, today they are trying to capture it. They want to take what is useful to them – the technical part – and use it to fine tune industrial agriculture, while conforming to the monoculture model and to the dominance of capital and corporations in structures of power”. This paper is our own attempt to clarify what agroecology means, what it looks like and show that, when taken as a whole, agroecology and its various principles can lead to tremendous positive effects in terms of human rights and the right to food. At the same time, it contributes to tackling the root causes of the issues our societies are currently facing and challenging existing power structures. This is why agroecology, as a movement, is key to us.

We are well aware that ultimately, many complimentary political actions, a transition process and a paradigm shift will be required for agroecology to deliver and its principles be applied jointly and progressively. We are also aware that the principles listed above might evolve, might need to be revised, might not be perfectly well phrased or not 100% in line with what agroecology looks like in practice. But we see this as a first step in a wider process that will eventually lead to an updating and further illustration of the current list of principles we identified.

Next steps include building a “practical guide to using the principles” that would ideally serve as a basis for initiating dialogue between our organisations (on advocacy strategies and programmes and consistency between them) as well as within the broader agroecological movement. This therefore needs to be seen as a living document and an invitation to start a dialogue on what agroecology means and looks like.

Prof. Michel Pimbert, Coventry University (UK)