ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

The Green Revolution was a homogenous technological model for agricultural development that originated in the breadbasket of the United States following World War II. It turned " swords into plowshares " by " transforming the vast stocks of wartime nitrate and poisons into fertilizer and pesticides, and by refitting materiel factories to make newer, bigger farm machinery. Hybrid seeds were developed to respond vigorously to irrigation and chemical inputs. Industrial agriculture boomed. However, by 1960 US farmers had bought all of the new technology they needed. Seeds, agrochemicals and machinery began to pile up in warehouses. The Rockefeller Foundation decided to solve this " surplus " problem by exporting this model of production to a very different set of geographical, cultural and social environments in the Global South. Carl Sauer, a highly respected Professor of Geography at University of California, Berkeley with vast experience in Latin American agriculture was originally contracted by the Rockefeller Foundation to investigate the possibility of starting the Green Revolution in Mexico—ostensibly to help poor Mexican farmers increase their productivity. But when he filed his report, Sauer warned Rockefeller about the potential socio-cultural consequences of such approach (Jennings 1988): " A good agressive bunch of American agronomists and plant breeders could ruin native resources for good and all by pushing their American stocks…and Mexico cannot be pointed toward standarization on a few comercial types without upsetting native economy and culture hopelessly. Unless the Americans understand that, they better keeop out of this country entirely. This must be approached from an appreciation of native economies as basically sound. " The Green Revolution was spread with loans, projects and government programs to millions of farmers in the Global South. With massive investment, food production increased dramatically. But, Carl Sauer's predictions came true. Because the technology required capital and well endowed lands, it favored larger farmers. Smallholders were driven off the high quality land and pushed to the fragile hillsides and into the rainforests. When they were offered cheap credit to buy Green Revolution seeds and chemicals, these inputs quickly deployed the fertility of their soils and eroded their local genetic diversity. Yields fell, millions of small farmers were economically ruined, and forest cover and topsoil was lost on a massive scale. The Green Revolution proved to be a disastous mismatch for the majority of the food producers in the Global South. In its aftermath, peasant farmers struggled to stay on the land and restore the ecological integrity of their farming systems. They found a way with Agroecology.
Can agroecology survive without being coopted in the Global North?
Miguel A Altieri
University of California, Berkeley
Eric Holt-Gimenez
Food First
The Green Revolution was a homogenous technological model for agricultural
development that originated in the breadbasket of the United States following World War
II. It turned “swords into plowshares” by “transforming the vast stocks of wartime nitrate
and poisons into fertilizer and pesticides, and by refitting materiel factories to make newer,
bigger farm machinery. Hybrid seeds were developed to respond vigorously to irrigation
and chemical inputs. Industrial agriculture boomed. However, by 1960 US farmers had
bought all of the new technology they needed. Seeds, agrochemicals and machinery began
to pile up in warehouses. The Rockefeller Foundation decided to solve this “surplus”
problem by exporting this model of production to a very different set of geographical,
cultural and social environments in the Global South.
Carl Sauer, a highly respected Professor of Geography at University of California, Berkeley
with vast experience in Latin American agriculture was originally contracted by the
Rockefeller Foundation to investigate the possibility of starting the Green Revolution in
Mexicoostensibly to help poor Mexican farmers increase their productivity. But when he
filed his report, Sauer warned Rockefeller about the potential socio-cultural consequences
of such approach (Jennings 1988):
A good agressive bunch of American agronomists and plant breeders could ruin native
resources for good and all by pushing their American stocks…and Mexico cannot be
pointed toward standarization on a few comercial types without upsetting native economy
and culture hopelessly. Unless the Americans understand that, they better keeop out of
this country entirely. This must be approached from an appreciation of native economies
as basically sound.
The Green Revolution was spread with loans, projects and government programs to
millions of farmers in the Global South. With massive investment, food production
increased dramatically. But, Carl Sauer’s predictions came true. Because the technology
required capital and well endowed lands, it favored larger farmers. Smallholders were
driven off the high quality land and pushed to the fragile hillsides and into the rainforests.
When they were offered cheap credit to buy Green Revolution seeds and chemicals, these
inputs quickly deployed the fertility of their soils and eroded their local genetic diversity.
Yields fell, millions of small farmers were economically ruined, and forest cover and
topsoil was lost on a massive scale.
The Green Revolution proved to be a disastous mismatch for the majority of the food
producers in the Global South. In its aftermath, peasant farmers struggled to stay on the
land and restore the ecological integrity of their farming systems. They found a way with
Agroecology.
Although many northern academics claim that the term Agroecology was first coined by
European scientists such as Bensin, Henin, Tischler and Azzi at the beginning of the 20th
century (Wezel et al 2009), the roots of agroecology lie in the ecological rationale of
indigenous and peasant agriculture still prevalent in many parts of the developing world
(Altieri 2002).
Thirty years ago, Latin American agroecologists argued that a starting point for new, pro-
poor agricultural development strategies were the very systems that traditional farmers had
developed over centuries. From the early 1980s, hundreds of agroecologically-based
projects have been promoted throughout Latin America and other parts of the developing
world that incorporate elements of both traditional knowledge and modern agricultural
science. A variety of projects emerged showing that over time these agroecologically
managed systems bring benefits to rural communities by enhancing food security with
healthy local food, strengthening their resource base (soils, biodiversity, etc.), preserving
cultural heritage and the peasant or family farm way of life, and promoting resilience to
climate change (Altieri and Nicholls 2008).
Agroecology contributes towards the process of “re-peasantization” in which, contrary to
the general tendency of migration from the countryside to the city, smallholders are
returning to the land. For peasant organizations agroecology has proven vital in their
struggle for autonomy by reducing their dependence on external inputs, credit and
indebtedness and also by recovering their territories (van der Ploeg 2009).
Because they are often developed and shared through extensive Campesino a Campesino
(farmer-to-farmer) social networks, peasant-based agroecological approaches are an
integral part of many agrarian struggles for land and market reforms as well as peasant
movements against land grabs and extractive industries. For them agroecology is not just a
scientific or technological project, but a political project of resistance and survival.
Historically, Agroecology in Latin America has been viewed as an applied science
embedded in a social context that challenges capitalist relations of production and is allied
with agrarian social movements. Strongly engaged with ongoing agrarian debates,
agroecologists in Latin America have typically embraced the critiques of top-down rural
development and supported peasant resistance against the corporate food regime, industrial
agriculture and neoliberal policies.
There is growing interest in adopting and spreading agroecology in the USA and Europe.
This is good news. But similar to the southward spread of the Green Revolution, the
northward spread of agroecology has encountereda politicalmismatch. The political
dimension of agroecology, as conceived in Latin America, is problematic for the
application of agroecology in the Global Northparticularly the United States because
challenging the root causes of the environmental and social crisis of industrial agriculture,
implies challenging capitalism itself. It transcends the reformist notion that changes can be
achieved within the current system with minor adjustments or ‘industrial greening’ of the
current neoliberal economic model. It requires resituating agroecology from the political
confines of academia and non-governmental organizations, into the political arena of
progressive social movements that embrace agroecology as a pillar of food sovereignty,
local autonomy, and community control of land, water and agrobiodiversity.
Agroecology in the US and Europe is not anchored in strong social movements. The arena
of agroecological debate is an eclectic soup of largely a-political (read: avoiding the subject
of capitalism) narratives, each suggesting different pathways to sustainable agriculture.
These narratives are promoted by entitled actors (elite consumers and academics,
mainstream NGOs and big philanthropy) who embody particular values and goals that
dominate debates in academic, media and policy circles. Practitioners of agroecology
remain marginal or even hidden from view (Afro-American, Latino, Indigenous and Asian
voices, poor consumers, progressive academics and NGOs critical of capitalism). This
institutional camp, using a variety of names (sustainable intensification, climate smart
agriculture, diversified farming systems, etc.) promote a lukewarm definition of
agroecology and see it essentially as a set of additional tools to improve industrial
agriculture’s tool box. In other words, they see agroecological tools as ways to make this
"dominant model" a little bit more sustainable, without challenging underlying relations of
power, nor the structure of large-scale monoculturesnor the ways in which the industrial
model undermines the very farmers who are practicing agroecology.
Agroecologyas a countermovement to the Green Revolutionis at a crossroads,
struggling against cooptation, subordination, and revisionist projects that erase its history
and strip it of its political meaning (e.g., Tomich et al. 2011, Roland and Adamchak
2009). If de-politicized, the term agroecology is rendered meaningless, divorced from the
realities of smallholders and family farmers, and politically powerless in the face of the
corporate food regime and the urgent social and environmental challenges of our food
system.
Agroecology does have a pivotal role to play in the future of our food systems. If
agroecology is co-opted by reformist trends in the Green Revolution, the countermovement
will be weakened, the corporate food regime will likely be strengthened, and substantive
reforms to our food systems will be highly unlikely. However, if agroecologists build
strategic alliances with radical food sovereignty struggles, the countermovement could be
strengthened. A strong countermovement could generate considerable political will for the
transformation of our food systems. (Holt-Gimenez and Altieri 2013).
Whether one recognizes the politics of agroecologyor tries to hide itit is precisely
these politics that will determine our agricultural future.
References
Altieri, M.A. 2002. Agroecology: the science of natural resource management for poor
farmers in marginal environments. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 93:
124.
Altieri, M.A. and C.I Nicholls. 2008. Scaling up agroecological approaches for food
sovereignty in Latin America. Development, 51(4): 47280. URL:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/dev.2008.68
Holt-Gimenez, E and M.A. Altieri 2013 Agroecology, Food Sovereignty, and the New
Green Revolution. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 37: 90-102
Jennings, B. 1988 Foundations of International Agricultural Research: Science and Politics
in Mexican Agriculture. Boulder CO: Westview Press, 196 pp.
Roland, P. C, and R. W. Adamchak. 2009. Tomorrow’s table: Organic farming, genetics
and the future of food. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Rosset, P.M. & Martinez-Torres, M.E. 2012. Rural Social Movements and Agroecology:
context, theory and process. Ecology and Society, 17: 17-26
Tomich, T., S. Brodt, F. Ferris, R. Galt, W. Horwath, E. Kebreab, J. Leveau, et al. 2011.
Agroecology: A review from a global-change perspective. Annual Review of
Environment and Resources 36(15): 130.
Van der Ploeg, J.D. 2009. The new peasantries: new struggles for autonomy and
sustainability in an era of empire and globalization. Earthscan, London, 356 p.
Wezel, A., S. Bellon, T. Doré, C. Francis, D. Vallod and C. David. (2009) Agroecology as a
science, a movement, and a practice. Agronomy for Sustainable Development,
29(4): 503515.
Article
Plantations have long been justified by moral and racial hierarchies that value specialised, export-oriented producers over domestic or subsistence-oriented producers. In this paper, I associate this value hierarchy with the neoliberal moral economy, explain its roots in classical political economy, provide examples of its workings and argue that the Covid-19 crisis provides a crucial opportunity to debunk the neoliberal moral economy. Collective experiences of food insecurity wrought by the pandemic expose the fallacy of central moral economic values underpinning industrial capitalist food supply chains, such as comparative advantage. Shared experiences of food supply chain failures, borne by people in the global North as well as the South, strengthen the moral and economic legitimacy of alternatives.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
소위 의제 2030이라 불리는 유엔의 지속가능개발목표의 내용에서 확인되는 것처럼 농업·먹거리의 지속가능성은 지속가능성 논의에서 가장 중요한 의제 중 하나가 되었다. 하지만 주류 지속가능성 담론의 한계로 구체적인 정책적, 실천적 변화나 진전은 매우 더딘 상황이다. 본 연구는 지속가능성 담론의 확대와 그 일환으로서 지속가능한 농업과 먹거리의 보장 또는 지속가능한 먹거리체계로의 전환 논의에 주목하면서 지속가능성 패러다임의 구체성을 보완할 개념이자 실천적 방향으로서 최근 비판적 연구자들과 초국적 농업·농민 운동이 주목하는 식량주권과 농생태 패러다임에 대한 국제적 연구, 실천의 동향을 정리한다. 더불어 사회의 많은 부문이 그렇지만 특히 먹거리체계의 지속가능성은 현장의 실천과 결합되지 않으면 공허한 담론에 불과하다는 측면에서 학술운동의 필요성을 제기하는 비판적 연구자들의 논의를 빌려 한국의 비판적 농업연구자와 먹거리운동 진영에 주는 시사점을 정리한다.
Article
Full-text available
Rural social movements have in recent years adopted agroecology and diversified farming systems as part of their discourse and practice. Here, we situate this phenomenon in the evolving context of rural spaces that are increasingly disputed between agribusiness, together with other corporate land-grabbers, and peasants and their organizations and movements. We use the theoretical frameworks of disputed material and immaterial territories and of re-peasantization to explain the increased emphasis on agroecology by movements in this context. We provide examples from the farmer-to-farmer movement to show the advantages that social movements bring to the table in taking agroecology to scale and discuss the growing agroecology networking process in the transnational peasant and family farmer movement La Vía Campesina.
Article
Full-text available
This review by a multidisciplinary team maps key components and emerging connections within the intellectual landscape of agroecology. We attempt to extend and preview agroecology as a discipline in which agriculture can be conceptualized within the context of global change and studied as a coupled system involving a wide range of social and natural processes. This intrinsic coupling, combined with powerful emerging drivers of change, presents challenges for the practice of agroecology and agriculture itself, as well as providing the framework for some of the most innovative research areas and the greatest potential for innovation for a sustainable future in agriculture. The objective of this review is to identify forward-looking scientific questions to enhance the relevance of agroecology for the key challenges of mitigating environmental impacts of agriculture while dramatically increasing global food production, improving livelihoods, and thereby reducing chronic hunger and malnutrition over the coming decades.
Article
Full-text available
Agroecology involves various approaches to solve actual challenges of agricultural production. Though agroecology initially dealt primarily with crop production and protection aspects, in recent decades new dimensions such as environmental, social, economic, ethical and development issues are becoming relevant. Today, the term `agroecology' means either a scientific discipline, agricultural practice, or political or social movement. Here we study the different meanings of agroecology. For that we analyse the historical development of agroecology. We present examples from USA, Brazil, Germany, and France. We study and discuss the evolution of different meanings agroecology. The use of the term agroecology can be traced back to the 1930s. Until the 1960s agroecology referred only as a purely scientific discipline. Then, different branches of agroecology developed. Following environmental movements in the 1960s that went against industrial agriculture, agroecology evolved and fostered agroecological movements in the 1990s. Agroecology as an agricultural practice emerged in the 1980s, and was often intertwined with movements. Further, the scales and dimensions of agroecological investigations changed over the past 80 years from the plot and field scales to the farm and agroecosystem scales. Actually three approaches persist: (1) investigations at plot and field scales, (2) investigations at the agroecosystem and farm scales, and (3) investigations covering the whole food system. These different approaches of agroecological science can be explained by the history of nations. In France, agroecology was mainly understood as a farming practice and to certain extent as a movement, whereas the corresponding scientific discipline was agronomy. In Germany, agroecology has a long tradition as a scientific discipline. In the USA and in Brazil all three interpretations of agroecology occur, albeit with a predominance of agroecology as a science in the USA and a stronger emphasis on movement and agricultural practice in Brazil. These varied meanings of the term agroecology cause confusion among scientists and the public, and we recommend that those who publish using this term be explicit in their interpretation.
Article
Full-text available
As the expansion of agroexports and biofuels continues unfolding in Latin America, the concepts of food sovereignty and agroecologically based production systems gain increasing attention. Miguel A. Altieri and Clara I. Nicholls suggest that the key importance will be the involvement of farmers directly in the formulation of the research agenda and on their active participation in the process of technological innovation and dissemination through models that focus on sharing experiences, strengthening local research and problem-solving capacities. Development (2008) 51, 472–480. doi:10.1057/dev.2008.68
Article
In modern agricultural politics, organic farming and genetic engineering occupy opposite ends of the spectrum. In the Ronald-Adamchak household, the world is not so black and white. Ronald is a professor of plant genetics at the University of California, Davis. Adamchak manages the student-run organic farm. Together, they're exploring the juncture where their methods can meet to ensure ecologically friendly farming. This book roughly chronicles one year in their lives. Through dialogue with friends and family, the authors thoughtfully explore the use of GE crops. The authors discuss the contents of their own pantry, what they choose to feed their children, and criteria for the use of GE in agriculture. From their personal vantage points, Ronald and Adamchak explain what geneticists and organic farmers actually do, and help readers distinguish between fact and fiction in the debate about GE crops. Each section of the book addresses a different issue related to the role of GE and organic farming in food production. Ronald provides a farmer's view of the philosophy and practice of organic farming and how it differs from conventional agriculture; Adamchak describes the tools and processes of genetic engineering, the potential ecological benefit of using GE technology to generate plants, and the associated risks. At the end of the book, they describe one of their typical family dinners, explain their choice to bring both genetically engineered and organic food to their table, and share some of their family's best recipes.
Article
Throughout the developing world, resource-poor farmers (about 1.4 billion people) located in risk-prone, marginal environments, remain untouched by modern agricultural technology. A new approach to natural resource management must be developed so that new management systems can be tailored and adapted in a site-specific way to highly variable and diverse farm conditions typical of resource-poor farmers. Agroecology provides the scientific basis to address the production by a biodiverse agroecosystem able to sponsor its own functioning. The latest advances in agroecological research are reviewed in order to better define elements of a research agenda in natural resource management that is compatible with the needs and aspirations of peasants. Obviously, a relevant research agenda setting should involve the full participation of farmers with other institutions serving a facilitating role. The implementation of the agenda will also imply major institutional and policy changes.
Article
'Jan Douwe van der Ploeg combines long engagement in the empirical study of farming and farmers, and of alternative agricultures, in very different parts of the world, with a sophisticated analytical acumen and capacity to provoke in fruitful ways.' Henry Bernstein, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, UK 'This book makes a timely and original contribution. The author revitalizes our interest in peasant societies through an in-depth examination of how rural populations in state systems respond to neo-liberal globalization.' Robert E. Rhoades, Distinguished Research Professor, University of Georgia, US 'There is an increasing interest in this topic, especially as the author links the debate on the peasantry with Empire and Globalization. He has an excellent reputation in the field and is highly qualified to write this book, which draws on his extensive worldwide experience with the issues he discusses.' Crist?bal Kay, Institute of Social Studies, The Hague, The Netherlands This book explores the position, role and significance of the peasantry in an era of globalization, particularly of the agrarian markets and food industries. It argues that the peasant condition is characterized by a struggle for autonomy that finds expression in the creation and development of a self-governed resource base and associated forms of sustainable development. In this respect the peasant mode of farming fundamentally differs from entrepreneurial and corporate ways of farming. The author demonstrates that the peasantries are far from waning. Instead, both industrialized and developing countries are witnessing complex and richly chequered processes of 're-peasantization', with peasants now numbering over a billion worldwide. The author's arguments are based on three longitudinal studies (in Peru, Italy and The Netherlands) that span 30 years and provide original and thought-provoking insights into rural and agrarian development processes. The book combines and integrates different bodies of literature: the rich traditions of peasant studies, development sociology, rural sociology, neo-institutional economics and the recently emerging debates on Empire.
  • B Jennings
Jennings, B. 1988 Foundations of International Agricultural Research: Science and Politics in Mexican Agriculture. Boulder CO: Westview Press, 196 pp.
  • E Holt-Gimenez
  • M A Altieri
Holt-Gimenez, E and M.A. Altieri 2013 Agroecology, Food Sovereignty, and the New Green Revolution. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 37: 90-102