The State of Food and Agriculture 2021 presents country-level indicators of the resilience of agrifood systems. The indicators measure the robustness of primary production and food availability, as well as physical and economic access to food. They can thus help assess the capacity of national agrifood systems to absorb shocks and stresses, a key aspect of resilience.

The report analyses the vulnerabilities of food supply chains and how rural households cope with risks and shocks. It discusses options to minimize trade-offs that building resilience may have with efficiency and inclusivity. The aim is to offer guidance on policies to enhance food supply chain resilience, support livelihoods in the agrifood system and, in the face of disruption, ensure sustainable access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to all.

The Global Alliance for the Future of Food commissioned this compendium to gather and uplift the knowledge and evidence on agroecological and regenerative approaches and Indigenous foodways, recognizing that different forms of evidence, knowledge, and expertise are fundamental to shifting mindsets and the basis for action. It brings together the commonly held perspectives, narratives, questions, and gaps in these approaches, and explores ways to mobilize and elevate them to donors, researchers, and policymakers. Through this initiative, the Global Alliance, its members, and the contributing authors seek to better understand, synthesize, and mobilize the evidence base to create enabling environments for agroecology, regenerative approaches, and Indigenous foodways where supportive research, policy, and investments can flourish and benefit all.

IFAD’s second Biodiversity Advantage report showcases five IFAD projects which highlight the integral importance of biodiversity in agriculture. These projects show how promoting biodiversity improves human and ecosystem health, and the roles of small-scale agricultural producers in preserving and restoring biodiversity and schemes that reward them for their stewardship of healthy natural environments.

In this study, we analyze the production orientation (agroecological or conventional) of extension workers from nine countries in three continents, based on a questionnaire. We acknowledge the potential of extension workers as multipliers of an agroecological approach and as a way of scaling up agroecology. Results show that almost half of the participants support an agroecological approach, and with a higher frequency than the institutions they work for. Variables such as country (with their different historical contexts), objectives of extension practice, gender, age and years of experience influence the production approach of extension workers.

This paper explores patterns of exit from agriculture in rural Bangladesh by utilizing nationally representative repeat cross-section and pseudo-panel survey data. Our analysis focuses at the rural household level where we focus on three types of households: (a) “pure” agriculture households in which all workers are employed only in agriculture; (b) “mixed” households in which some members remain in the farm sector and others pursue nonfarm activities, and (c) rural “nonfarm” households who are exclusively dependent on non-agricultural employment.

We find that non-farm orientation has increased over the 2000 to 2013 period, and that nonfarm households rely more on salaried employment and less on unpaid work. Pseudo-panel data based on age-cohort of household heads from the Labor Force Survey (LFS) of 2000 and 2013 also shows a notable increase in mixed households formed by diversification of activities of formerly farm-only households. Employment patterns of younger households are changing especially rapidly: the share of mixed households among households with heads age 15–30 years increased from 17% to 30% in this period. Proximity to urban areas also is associated with a rapid shift in household employment patterns over time. In areas less than 2.5 kms from cities, the share of pure farm households fell from 46.5 to 30.3 percent of households, while the share of mixed households rose from 14.8 to 33.7 percent.

Overall, our findings confirm a process of transformation involving a shift from predominantly agriculture employment to increased non-farm employment. We find that the structural transformation considered does not necessarily involve large-scale permanent migration to cities. Rather, much of the shift out of agriculture occurs within rural areas with especially rapid change happening in areas of close proximity to cities.

The so-called conventionalisation of organic farming debate revolves around tensions between organic agriculture as an alternative to the dominant agri-food system and the rise of organic agribusiness. A contested issue is the conceptualisation and assessment of the impact of capitalist expansion in the organic sector on the transformative power of alternative agriculture. This article engages with critiques on Guthman’s analysis of conventionalisation and the concept of bifurcation. It brings a new perspective to the debate by introducing a case from the Global South, which reveals four different trajectories of organic agriculture development and certification in the Philippines. The expansion of organic farming differs considerably from the general representation in the conventionalisation debate. What becomes central in the debate is not agribusiness dominance but what kind of small farmers are considered the subject and object of organic agriculture development. Rather than rejecting Guthman’s political economy approach for creating binary oppositions, the article expands on its analytical potential to understand the empirical heterogeneity of organic forms of production and the conditions for politics that aim to create alternative economic spaces.

Key Findings
Substantial evidence exists for the impacts of agroecology in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) on climate change adaptation.

• Farm diversification had the strongest evidence for impacts on climate change adaptation.
•  The evidence for agroecology’s impact on mitigation in LMICs is modest and emphasises carbon sequestration in soil and biomass.
• Agroforestry had the strongest body of evidence for impacts on mitigation.
•  Locally relevant solutions produced through participatory processes and co-creation of knowledge with farmers improved climate change adaptation and mitigation.
• Knowledge gaps were found for agricultural climate change mitigation, resilience to extreme weather, and agroecology approaches involving livestock, landscape redesign and multi-scalar analysis.

As the gravity of the global social and ecological crises become more apparent, there is a growing recognition of the need for social transformation. In this article, we use a combination of narrative case study and discourse analysis to better understand how transformative concepts, such as agroecology, are shaped as they as they enter mainstream discursive arenas. We probe the different characteristics of the “innovation frame” and how they qualify and give meaning to agroecology. Our case study narrates the recent emergence of agroecology in the UN space and its relationship to the discursive frame of innovation. We then undertake a systematic discourse analysis of comments provided in an online consultation process on the “Agroecology and Other Innovations” report by the 2019 High-Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) in the World Committee on Food Security. We examine how different actors positioned themselves vis-a-vis the innovation frame and we analyse the discursive strategies used to advance particular political agendas. Our analysis reveals three primary sub-frames within the innovation frame (Evidence; Technology; Rights) which were deployed by both proponents and detractors of agroecology. We focus on the notion of social agency, and its different presentations, within the three sub-frames which raises a number of problematics of the innovation frame, not only for agroecology, but for sustainability transformations more widely.

Rasheed Sulaiman V, CoSAI Commissioner and Co-Chair of Working Group 3: Pathways for Innovation in Sustainable Agriculture Intensification; Director, Centre for Research on Innovation and Science Policy (CRISP), India

As the need for new approaches to sustainable agriculture increases, agroecological approaches have gained prominence in scientific, agricultural and political discourse. Agroecology is fundamentally different from other approaches to sustainable development in that it focuses on localized and bottom-up solutions, ensuring that farmers, their communities and their local knowledge are fully integrated in improving agricultural sustainability. This adaptable and flexible approach suggests ways to not only promote efficient and resilient agricultural systems, but to ensure food security and healthy diets, and support the conservation and restoration of biodiversity – thereby fulfilling the three pillars for integrated land use and food systems.

This report presents the case for why we all must throw our weight behind a global restoration effort. Drawing on the latest scientific evidence, it explains the crucial role played by ecosystems from forests and farmland to rivers and oceans, and charts the losses that result from our poor stewardship of the planet. The UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration provides a unique opportunity to transform food, fibre and feed production systems to meet the needs of the 21st century, and to eradicate poverty, hunger and malnutrition. This we seek to achieve through effective and innovative landscapes and seascapes management that prevents and halts degradation, and restores degraded ecosystems. The restoration of forest landscapes, farming, livestock and fish-producing ecosystems should primarily contribute to restoring them to a healthy and stable state, so that they are able to provide ecosystems services and support human needs for sustainable production and livelihoods.