The magnitude and urgency of the challenges facing agriculture and food systems demand profound modifications in different aspects of human activity to achieve real transformative change and sustainability. Recognizing that the inherent complexity of achieving sustainability is commonly seen as a deterrent to decision-making, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has approved the 10 Elements of Agroecology as an analytical framework to support the design of differentiated paths for agriculture and food systems transformation, hence facilitating improved decision-making by policymakers, practitioners and other stakeholders in differing contexts at a range of levels on a number of scales. Biodiversity, consumers, education and governance are identified as promising entry points to build a structured process using visual narratives that rely on the 10 Elements of Agroecology to graphically dissect prospective social-ecological transition trajectories. We illustrate such applications with examples from agroforestry worldwide, public food procurement in Brazil and the United States of America, and agroecology education vis-à-vis secure access to land in Senegal. Nexus approaches are used to highlight and examine salient interactions among different sectors and entry points, and to develop visual narratives describing plausible theories of transformative change towards sustainable agriculture and food systems.

Agroecology and regenerative agriculture have plenty in common: soil and ecosystem restoration, reliance on biological interactions and ecosystem services, integration of domestic plants and animals, efficient use of the photosynthetic potential of annual and perennial combinations, amongst other principles. One aspect of agroecology that does not always fit comfortably in the realm of regenerative agriculture is political activism, or the place and emphasis that the ‘social’ dimension takes in the definition of the social-ecological system. This is perhaps one of the reasons why agroecology is more closely associated with peasant movements, for whom claims on rights and access to natural resources are urgent. Regenerative agriculture is an approach increasingly – but not exclusively – adopted by commercial, often large-scale farmers or external investors less concerned with e.g. land tenure security or access to water or genetic resources. Is it possible to think about resilience, adaptability or sustainability without considering their overarching political and social dimensions? Here we explore to what extent different types of regenerative agriculture approaches internalise social and political issues, as well as other principles of agroecology, relying on lexical analysis of the scientific literature (n = 647 publications) and on first-hand engagement of the authors in both agroecology and regenerative farming approaches in different parts of the world. Three types of regenerative agriculture (RA) were identified: ‘philosophy RA’, ‘Development RA’ and ‘Corporate RA’, They share in different degrees the ecological and social principles of agroecology, more easily at farm than at community level. By creating tighter links with the science and movement of agroecology, and fundamentally, by engaging in much needed political debates to foster agri-food transitions and transformations, regenerative agriculture will be able to build broader legitimacy among the relevant stakeholders.

Agroecology promises a third way between common global agriculture tradeoffs such as food production and nature conservation, environmental sustainability and ecosystem services. However, most successful examples of mainstreaming agroecology come from smallholder, family agriculture, that represents only about 30% of the world agricultural area. Mainstreaming agroecology among large scale farmers is urgently needed, but it requires addressing specific questions in research, technology and policy development to support sustainable transitions. Here we take stock of the existing knowledge on some key aspects necessary to support agroecological transitions in large scale farming, considering two contrasting starting points: highly subsidized and heavily taxed agricultural contexts, represented here by the examples of Western Europe and temperate South America. We summarize existing knowledge and gaps around service crops, arthropod-mediated functions, landscape and watershed regulation, graze-based livestock, nature-inclusive landscapes, and policy mechanisms to support transitions. We propose a research agenda for agroecology in large scale farming organized in five domains: (i) Breeding for diversity, (ii) Scalable complexity, (iii) Managing cycles beyond fields and farms, (iv) Sharing the cultivated landscape, and (v) Co-innovation with farmers, value chains and policy makers. Agroecology may result in a renewed impetus in large scale farming, to attract the youth, foster clean technological innovation, and to promote a new generation of large-scale farmers that take pride in contributing to feeding the world while serving the planet and its people.

Agroecology is increasingly promoted by scientists, non-governmental organisations (NGO’s), international organisations and peasant movements as an approach to foster the transition to sustainable and equitable food systems. The challenges to agroecological transitions are not the same for all farmers, as they can face different social and bio-physical conditions. We developed a farm typology combining participatory and quantitative methodologies to assess and categorise farm diversity and its implications for developing strategies to promote agroecological transitions. The participatory typology was developed during workshops to acquire insights on local farmers’ perceptions and knowledge, and to generate hypotheses on family farm diversity. The participatory-based hypotheses were tested in the quantitative farm characterisation, which provided information on household characteristics, production strategies, land use, participation in public policies and extension services. Farms were located in Zona da Mata, Minas Gerais, Brazil, which harbour a wide diversity of farmers and where different actors have been engaged in agroecological transitions for the past 30 years. Our main findings were: (i) In the face of agroecological transitions, farmers differ in their management strategies, practices and principles; (ii) farmers identified as agroecological typically had stronger engagements in a network composed of farmers’ organisations, universities and NGO’s; (iii) agroecological farms showed great potential to provide a wide range of ecosystem services as they featured a higher crop diversity and a higher number of crops for self-consumption; (iv) to promote agroecology, it is crucial to recognise peasant knowledge, to change the dominant discourse on agriculture through social movement dynamics, and to generate support from public policies and funds; and (v) participatory and quantitative methodologies can be combined for more precise and relevant assessments of agroecological transitions.

Bakker, L., W. Van der Werf, P. Tittonell, K. A. G. Wyckhuys, and F. J. J. A. Bianchi. 2020. Neonicotinoids in global agriculture: evidence for a new pesticide treadmill? Ecology and Society 25(3):26. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11814-250326