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.

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.

This special issue presents the outcomes from “Designing sustainable and circular agricultural systems for the year 2100,” the joint scientific workshop of ISOFAR, the Thünen-Institute, and INRA-Morocco, which was held from November 14 to 16, 2019 in Marrakesh, Morocco. Nineteen scientists from a broad array of background and nationalities came together with the understanding that food security globally is at risk, especially in the post-2050 timeframe. Current concepts, strategies, measures, and scientific efforts carried out by governments, NGOs, businesses, and societies do not deliver satisfying solutions for how to sustainably produce enough healthy and affordable food to support the global population. With the economic and social impact of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, it became even more evident that food security is a challenge. This workshop took an innovative approach to addressing the challenges of future agriculture by considering sustainable, circular agricultural systems. Participants presented research results on algae-based food, edible insects, mushrooms, novel concepts for nutrient management, bioreactor-based farming, sustainable food culture, as well as sensor- and remote-controlled automatic food production. This special issue presents the papers contributed to the workshop and the results of the discussions.

Provides case studies addressing sustainability in agroecosystem management; Explores innovative technologies and scientific development in the field of agriculture for maintaining the sustainable production; Address the key policy issues related to agroecosystem and sustainability intensification aspects.

This edited book provides a comprehensive account of the sustainable intensification process through various forms of case studies and scientific approaches studied across the globe. It also focuses on the agroecosystem services and their subsequent management for ecological integrity. The book helps to understand the interconnection of food, nutrition, economic growth, and environmental security on the planet. It provides comprehensive information with photographic illustration and various other forms of scientific databases on sustainable intensification of agroecosystems. The book also supports decision-making, strategies, and policy formulation for effective implementation of sustainable intensification towards higher productivity along with maintenance and management of agroecosystem services.

Increased agricultural production through both intensification and extensification is a major driver of the current biodiversity crisis. As a response, two contrasting approaches have been advocated: ‘land sparing’, which minimizes demand for farmland by increasing yield, and ‘land sharing’, which boosts densities of wild populations on farmland but decreases agricultural yields. While these approaches have been useful in drawing attention to the impact of meeting the growing global demand for agricultural products on biodiversity, they have been driven mainly by conservation ecologists, and have often overlooked important issues related to farming. As agricultural scientists with practical experience in developing, testing and scaling alternative forms of agriculture in some of the most biodiversity-rich areas of Latin America, Eastern and Southern Africa and South Asia, we are pointing in this paper at what we see as being two major limitations of the land sparing/sharing framework: (1) the reliance on yield-density relationships that focus on trade-offs and overlook synergies between agriculture and biodiversity, and (2) the overemphasis on crop yield, neglecting other metrics of agricultural performance which may be more important to local farmers, and more strongly associated with positive biodiversity outcomes. It is our hope that this paper will stimulate other agricultural scientists to contribute to the land sparing/sharing framework, in order to develop together with conservation ecologists viable solutions for both improved agricultural production and biodiversity conservation.