Agro-ecology Systems
Approach to Achieving Sustainable Livelihoods in Africa: Contributions of
Uganda Martyrs University
Julius Tedson
Mwine (Uganda Martyrs University, Nkozi)
and
Johnnie W. F.
Muwanga-Zake (Cavendish University Uganda. Kampala)
Abstract
It has become increasingly clear that traditional linear thinking and
problem solving approaches isolate subject areas and tend to suggest simplistic
and too often ineffective solutions. It is therefore very easy for such
simplistic solutions to be challenged when viewed in a holistic mirror of
system complexity, climate change, and growing human food challenges.
Agro-ecology is a philosophy and set of practices that challenge the
conventional reductionist approach in separate academic disciplines.
Divisionism into departments and specialised thinking excludes a holistic
consideration of fragile and complex environments in which communities live and
derive their livelihoods. Agro-ecology, through a systems model, identifies
potential leverage points for systemic interventions, using multi-actor
collaborations to develop an overall systemic management plan for coordinated
actions towards sustainable and resilient livelihoods. This book chapter
features Uganda Martyrs University (UMU) ’s own contribution in this debate in
form of a systems thinking model characteristic of agro-ecological
interventions and we therefore analyse: the problems of simplistic research,
the complex environment and contemporary issues like climate change,
Sustainable Livelihood Analysis (SLA), and a new world order. Beyond analysis,
it is essential to suggest solutions towards improving research and education
approaches. The chapter provides a chronology of events that have led to
systems thinking and a synopsis of completed practical agro-ecological research
projects as evidence of success of agro-ecological strategies. UMU’s
contribution in the pioneering and fronting of Agro-ecology as a discipline and
agro-ecological interventions for sustainability in Africa are also
highlighted. In addition to attributes, the chapter presents challenges that
have been impediments to widespread adoption of agro-ecological systems,
appropriate technologies, and holistic thinking in research and education.
Introduction
The need to propose an alternative approach using systems thinking
arises from our realization that current systems are failing the neediest
people, often found in rural areas, leading to their dismal livelihood systems.
Various organisations, many of them international, have for some time recognised
the need for change. For example, the United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO, 2013) has estimated that millions of people globally are
undernourished, and it is shocking that half of these hungry people are
small-scale farmers and their families, for whom agriculture is a livelihood,
providing food for their own needs and generating income. According to OXFAM
(2014), climate change and the injustice of hunger are to blame, thus requiring
urgent attention, and investment in a model of agriculture that is truly
sustainable. OXFAM (2014: 3 - 4) further highlights the challenges that a
country like Uganda has to attend to, all of which originate in large part from
current agricultural models and economic systems. These include:
·
Eroding soil nutrient quality and health, with
implications for future productivity. The use of synthetic fertilizers has
helped to increase yields, but excessive or inappropriate fertilizer use and
lack of vegetative cover on the land has also led to significant soil
degradation and water pollution.
·
Contributing to climate change and a loss of
resilience - current agriculture is both a source of carbon emissions and a
carbon sink. Hence, Agriculture both
contributes to and potentially mitigates climate change. Major agricultural
sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions include the use of fossil fuels and
fertilizers and the loss of organic matter in soils resulting from intensive
cultivation practices.
·
Loss of biodiversity and decline in human health due
to indiscriminate use of pesticides. The use of synthetic pesticides, as often
practised throughout the developing world, poses significant risks to human
health and to biodiversity, and to important sources of food and livelihoods for
many of the world’s poorest people.
·
Perpetuating dependency and failing to meet the needs
of the poorest farmers. For many small-scale farmers, the purchase of
manufactured fertilizers and pesticides is constrained by the high costs of
these chemicals relative to output prices, or simply by their unavailability.
However, sustainability is a futuristic concept in that it looks at
developing agro-ecological methods that preserve the environment for future
generations. Hence, inevitably, the importance of intergenerational equity has
to be recognised. This. Its major features that distinguish sustainable
development policy from traditional environmental policy is the requirement of
conserving resources for future generations. Therefore, sustainability also seeks
to internalize the externalities of environmental degradation, with an overall
long-term goal of stability of the economy and environment. This is achievable
through the integration and acknowledgement of economic, environmental, and
social concerns throughout the decision making process (Emas, 2015).
The big picture calls for people on planet earth to understand our
common problems. Mother Earth faces overwhelming problems and crises including
hunger, economic recession and poverty, industrial pollution, energy shortfalls
as well as other social and ecological problems that have eventually reached
levels seen as critical. These are human life. More recently, issues of climate
change have compounded the crisis even further. Such problems do not evolve
randomly but instead could be as result of the simplistic notion of viewing
development in the lens of economic growth at the expense of people, nature,
and the earth. It is increasingly clear that this whirlwind of problems is
deep-rooted in the prevalent socioeconomic system, which promotes monocultures,
high input technologies, and agriculture that is exploitative to natural
resources and people. We recognise that nature has its limits. Pushed beyond
these limits, its reactions will and have already been disastrous. People too
have their limits, and, pushed to action by lack of income and food, they seek
ways to remedy their situation through some type of social change.
The advantages that come with monocultures and simplicity of systems
have been noted. The control of pests and diseases by synthetic pesticides, the
creation of monocultures in the present day large farms, the oversimplification
of food chains to present global dependency on only 12 types of grains and 23
species of vegetables, the exploitation of crude oil and other hydrocarbons for
provision of energy provided exciting advances in productivity. Yet these
advantages have also reached their limits. The overall consequence is feedback
mechanisms where problems in one area can cause catastrophic change in the
next, even similar to a nuclear chain reaction. There are now many critical
observers who believe that Mother Nature has been defiled beyond what she can
handle, or so to speak we are beyond the
tipping point.
Just as Alteiri and Nicholls (2005) conclude, today, we should be
looking for a system that has high biodiversity, resource use efficiency, high
recycling rates, low external inputs, and efficiency in use of local inputs
with a high level of synergy and integration. That is the point where we shall
see a system that is self-organising, one that optimises negative feedback
mechanisms, and will not require daily interventions such as current pesticide
sprays on a fixed schedule, reactions to unpredictable weather changes, as well
as resultant violent social-economic outbursts that characterise our world.
Then, Mother Nature will be at peace and the world will be seen clad in a ‘coat
of sustainability’.
In response to
present challenges, OXFAM (2014) argues that agro-ecology should be one of the
vehicles to alleviate diminishing opportunities for people to sustain
themselves. An agro-ecological approach provides a range of social, economic,
and environmental benefits that, with the right policy support and associated
investments, can be scaled up to enable smallholder farming communities to
achieve food security and food sovereignty. A systems thinking approach is
required to make sense out of this sea of current predicaments.
These challenges in
Uganda and much of the South persist in a worldwide situation where the overall
situation is even more complex. Enough food must be produced for the
ever-growing human population and the declining incomes of farmers. Nevertheless,
the world is facing challenges with regard to the quality of food and feeding
habits. It is advisable that the proportion of plant protein should be
increased in the diet. Some parts of the world are over-fed to obesity, whilst
other parts are facing hunger, as over 40% of food produced does not reach people
and is thrown away. Importantly, agro-ecological practices have to be more efficient
in the face of current and future scarcities of fossil fuels, critical plant
nutrients, fresh water, as well as the inequitable distribution of these
resources. These are not challenges only in the South, nor only for poor
people, but for all of humanity to confront and solve.
Agro-ecology
Background of Agro-ecology
Sustainable
agriculture refers to the capacity of agriculture over time to contribute to
people’s well-being by providing them with sufficient food and other goods and
services in ways that are economically efficient and profitable, socially
responsible, culturally acceptable, and environmentally sound. These
characteristics, as they relate to the well-being of people and the environment,
are also requisites of principles of agro-ecology (UNDESA/DSD, 2000),
According to
Gliessman (2013), modern agro-ecology emerged as Agroecología in Mexico in the 1970s as a form of resistance to the
Green Revolution. Presently, it has become much more than a science for
developing better, safer, and more environmentally sound production
technologies. It is more than a way to practice agriculture, such as organic or
ecological production, but also a social movement with a strong ecological
grounding that fosters justice, relationship, access, resilience, resistance,
and sustainability. Hence, agro-ecology goes beyond alternative farming
practices as it develops agroecosystems with minimal dependence on high
agrochemical and energy inputs (Altieri, 2002). It is therefore both a science
and a set of practices, and has been referred to as a ‘movement’ (Wezel et al., 2009).
Principles of Agro-ecology
Core principles of
Agro-ecology are listed as:
i.
Networks:
nature is a network of living systems nesting within other living systems that
are interconnected.
ii.
Cycles:
matter cycles continually through the web of life, hence ecosystems do not
generate waste.
iii.
Solar energy:
this is the fundamental source of energy that drives all ecological cycles.
iv.
Partnership:
exchanges of energy and resources in an ecosystem are sustained by pervasive
cooperation, including competition to achieve efficient resource use.
v.
Diversity:
all ecosystems derive stability and resilience through the richness of
diversity.
vi.
Dynamic
balance: an ecosystem is a flexible, ever-fluctuating network that is ever
changing and adapting to new conditions.
These principles
connote that agro-ecology requires systematic and purposeful methodological
processes (UNDP Technical Guidance, 2015). This guidance advises that there is
a need to increase efficiency of conventional practices by reduced use of
expensive inputs and creating more awareness on the negative effects of
conventional agricultural practices on the environment. Diversity, for example,
could be obtained by using alternative agro-ecological practices, in accordance
to a ‘new’ set of ecological processes and practices. This increases the
balance between ecological health and agricultural practices (agro-ecological
connection), which embraces a culture of sustainability and takes advantage of
interactions between all the components of the agro-systems to interrelate
internally and contribute sustainability to the overall system.
Agro-ecology as a Science
As a science,
agro-ecology consists of the application of ecological sciences to study,
design and manage a sustainable agroecosystem. Dalgaard et al. (2003) have analysed agro-ecology as a science and confirm
that it passes all the Mertonian norms of science as described by Robert King
Merton (1973). These include communalism,
universalism, as well as disinterest in reporting and originality. Thus, agro-ecology is not
just a concoction of disciplines akin to agriculture and ecology but could be
considered a separate scientific discipline in its own right (Wezel et al., 2009).
Agro-ecology as a Set of Practices
In practice,
agro-ecology describes the diversification of farms in order to promote
beneficial biological interactions and synergies among the components of the
agroecosystem so as to promote the regeneration of soil fertility, and to
maintain productivity and crop protection (Altieri 2002). Additionally, Méndez et al. (2013) have identified unique
features of agro-ecology including being transdisciplinary and often including
a participatory action-oriented approach. These features essentially suggest
that agro-ecology requires a complex systems approach. Therefore, in agreement with Gliessman (1998),
agro-ecology practitioners should manage and enhance complexity and synergy on
their farms by doing the following:
i.
Recycle
nutrients and energy on the farm, rather than introducing external inputs.
ii.
Enhance soil
organic matter and soil biological activity.
iii.
Diversify
plant species and genetic resources in agro-ecosystems over time and space.
iv.
Integrate
crops and livestock.
v.
Optimize
interactions of all possible types.
vi.
Respect and
measure productivity of total farming systems, rather than the yields of
individual species.
It is when these
practices are made a daily routine of the farm that sustainability of
livelihoods will be achievable, as confirmed by Wezel et al. (2009).
Agro-ecology as a Movement
As
described by Wezel et al. (2009),
agro-ecology could also be considered as a social movement as observed in Latin
America. The social relevance of integrated and holistic production systems has
been described by Altieri (1995) and Altieri et al. (2012). These authors have especially focused on small farm
systems and their importance to farmers with limited farm size and resources.
The systems are designed to utilize available internal resources for
maintaining soil fertility and accomplishing adequate crop protection, without
the purchase of external inputs. They also address social concerns about
distribution of benefits from farming, where much of what is produced on small
farms is used for family and livestock nutrition, rather than cash crops for
export. They also employ multiple species in a myriad of intercropping patterns
that are both spatially and temporally diverse, building resilience and
sustainability into system production and provision of family food needs. Thus,
agro-ecology is viewed as a viable system for social coherence, better
distribution of benefits from agriculture, and contributes to food security and
food sovereignty.
Transdisciplinary Nature of Agro-ecology
From
the above, it is clear that agro-ecology transcends borders of disciplines,
thus it is not a simplistic subject and type of science. This complex emerging
field of study and application draws from a number of bio-geosciences and
socio-economic disciplines. Agro-ecology promotes bridges and connections among
and beyond traditional disciplines in production agriculture, as well as beyond
the farm gate into the rural and urban landscape and community. It covers
fields of sociology, anthropology, environmental sciences, ethics, and
economics which are crucial to the mix (Francis et al., 2003). Hence, its principles are multi-faceted and tend to
create a web that is all-inclusive. Thus, according to Vandermeer (1995),
Agro-ecology goes beyond a one-dimensional
view of agroecosystems - their genetics, agronomy, and edaphology - and
embraces an understanding of ecological and social levels of co-evolution,
structure and function. Instead of focusing on one particular component of the
agroecosystem, agro-ecology emphasises the interrelatedness of all components
and complex dynamics of ecological processes. Agro-ecology integrates a
multitude of cycles, webs and systems and therefore builds on the splendour of
biodiversity in nature.
Research in Agro-ecology
We propose that
research in agro-ecology should incorporate a participatory action oriented
(PAR) approach that is in concert with a systems thinking strategy. In order to
highlight the factors hindering farmers’ adoption of agro-ecological practices,
systems approaches and participatory research tools are highly needed (Noe et al., 2015). According to Méndez
(2017), participatory research in agro-ecology has to integrate work across the
areas of agriculture, human livelihoods, and environmental conservation. In
that approach, research and non-research partners engage in an
iterative process of reflection and action (Bacon et al. 2005). Méndez (2017) goes on to say that the agro-ecological
principle of integrating farmer/local and scientific knowledge represents one
of the core intersections of science and practice. PAR therefore offers a
practical approach for bringing forward the expertise of non-researchers –
including smallholder farmers and other stakeholders who have deep knowledge of
place, content and practices, and who become active partners with those trained
more formally in research and experimental design. Ideally, the result of this
collaborative work is knowledge that has been co-created and that is
actionable.
Agro-ecology and the Design of Sustainable
Agroecosystems
The main call in agricultural systems today is to
create food systems that can transcend the test of time, and thus are
sustainable. Agro-ecology by its very nature and principles is premised to
achieve this. According to Vandermeer (1995), the following steps are cardinal
in developing a sustainable agro-ecological system and practitioners need to
familiarise and work with them:
i.
Optimising
the use of locally available resources by combining the different components of
the farm system, i.e. plants, animals, soil, water, climate and people, so that
they complement each other and have the greatest possible synergetic effects.
ii.
Reducing the
use of off-farm, external and non-renewable inputs with the greatest potential
to damage the environment or harm the health of farmers and consumers, and a
more targeted use of the remaining inputs with a view to minimizing variable
costs;
iii.
Relying
mainly on resources within the agroecosystem by replacing external inputs with
nutrient cycling, biodiversity for pest management, better conservation, and an
expanded use of local resources;
iv.
Improving the
match between cropping patterns and the productive potential and environmental
constraints of climate and landscape to ensure long-term sustainability of
current production levels;
v.
Working to
value and conserve biological diversity, both in the wild and in domesticated
landscapes, and making optimal use of the biological and genetic potential of
plant and animal species; and
vi.
Taking full
advantage of local knowledge and practices, including innovative approaches not
yet fully understood by scientists although widely adopted by farmers.
Based on implementation of these cardinal steps,
Agro-ecology reduces dependence on energy-intensive
inputs, while improving soil fertility, productivity, and biodiversity.
Agro-ecological practices give farmers greater control and enable them to meet
their own food needs and boost their incomes, while decreasing their exposure
to climate shocks. For these outcomes to be achieved, investments and a
supportive policy environment are needed (OXFAM,
2014: 12).
In conclusion, it is
apparent that systems thinking is one approach that could enhance sustainable livelihoods
in Africa. A systems thinking approach is compatible with agro-ecology because
it carefully considers every part of agro-ecosystems, involving all
stakeholders and the multiple disciplines that inform agro-ecology.
Systems Thinking and Sustainable Livelihoods
Agro-ecology is the
main bedrock of livelihoods, especially in Africa. From the above discussion,
agro-ecology is looked at as the integrative study of the ecology of the entire
food system, encompassing ecological, economic and social dimensions. This view
leads to a practical approach that encourages researchers, educators, and
students to embrace the wholeness and connectivity of systems, and stimulates a
focus on uniqueness of each place, and solutions appropriate to its resources
and constraints (Francis et al.,
2003). This integrative view expands the thinking beyond production practices
and immediate environmental impacts at the field and farm level in the
direction of sustainability and sustainable livelihoods.
Sustainable Livelihoods (SL)
A livelihood
comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social
resources) and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is
sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and
maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future,
while not undermining the natural resource base’ (DFID, 1999). According to
Fouracre (2001: 2), key components of the framework for analysing the
livelihoods of individuals and the community are their capital assets, their
vulnerability context and the transforming structures (layers of organisations
both in the private and government sectors) and processes (laws, policies,
incentives) which shape and influence the livelihood strategies which they
adopt. Fouracre (2001: 3) explains that the capital assets are grouped as:
·
Natural Capital: The natural resource stocks
from which resource flows useful for livelihoods are derived (including land,
water, wildlife, biodiversity, environmental resources);
·
Social Capital: The social resources upon
which people draw in pursuit of livelihoods (i.e. networks, membership of
groups, relationships of trust, access to wider institutions of society);
·
Human Capital: The skills, knowledge, ability
to labour and good health important to the ability to pursue different
livelihood strategies;
·
Physical Capital: The basic infrastructure
(transport, shelter, water, energy and communications) and the production
equipment and means which enable people to pursue their livelihoods; and
·
Financial Capital: The financial resources
which are available to people (whether savings, supplies of credit or regular
remittances or pensions) and which provide them with different livelihood
options.
Furthermore,
according to Fouracre (2001: 3-4), the vulnerability context indicates
the nature of trends, shocks and culture, and the ability of the poor to
withstand their impact. The vulnerability context it is vital to understand the
structures and processes, which define people’s livelihood options that are
critical in determining who gains access to the various assets, and in
influencing the effective value of each asset. Increased agricultural
production (more outputs per unit area with increased capital or labour
inputs), or by cultivating more land are among the livelihood strategies. It is
important to note that the implementation of a sustainable livelihoods approach
requires the active participation of all sectors which have a vested interest
in increasing the capital assets of communities.
The Brundtland
Commission on Environment and Development conceptualised the term ‘Sustainable
Livelihoods’ (SL) by integrating socio-economic and ecological factors in a
cohesive, inclusive, policy-relevant structure (Krantz, 2001). The 1992 United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) expanded the concept,
and adopted it in Agenda 21. UNCED advocated for the achievement of sustainable
livelihoods as a broad goal for poverty eradication, stating that policies to
simultaneously address ‘development, sustainable resource management, and
poverty eradication’ could be framed around the concept of ‘sustainable
livelihoods’. The achievement of sustainable livelihoods has since then been
seen as a goal for poverty eradication especially in rural areas. Hence,
sustainable livelihoods are closely linked to agro-ecology practices, rural
areas, and farmers. Thus, the concept of sustainable rural livelihoods is
increasingly central to the debate about rural development, poverty reduction
and environmental management (Scoones, 2000: 3).
Scoones (2000)
explains that the Sustainable Livelihoods (SL) approach is a programming
framework to devise a set of integrated support activities to improve the
sustainability of livelihoods among poor and vulnerable groups by strengthening
the resilience of their coping and adaptive strategies. The
framework can be applied at a range of different scales – from individual, to
household, to household cluster, to extended kin grouping, to village, region
or even nation, with sustainable livelihood outcomes assessed at different
levels. This might include
the introduction of improved technologies as well as social and economic
investments (UNDP).
Krantz (2001) argues
that the conventional definitions and approaches to SL had been found to be too
narrow because they focused only on certain aspects or manifestations of
poverty, such as low income, or did not consider other vital aspects of poverty
such as vulnerability and social exclusion. Therefore, the concept of
sustainable livelihood (SL) was developed to encourage more attention to the various
factors and processes which either constrain or enhance poor people’s ability
to make a living in an economically, ecologically, and socially sustainable
manner (Krantz, 2001). It is now recognized that the SL concept offers the
prospects of a more coherent and integrated approach to poverty, and it is
suggested that the portfolio out of which people construct their living is a
major component of livelihood, since it includes tangible assets and resources,
and intangible assets such as claims and access.
Additionally, the definition of livelihood
sustainability has to include the ability to avoid, or more usually to
withstand and recover from stresses to the extent that such abilities have
gained presence in definitions of livelihoods. Hence, Scoones (2000: 5) of the
Institute of Development Studies (IDS) proposed a modified definition of SL:
A livelihood comprises the
capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and
activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it
can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks, maintain or enhance its
capabilities and assets, while not undermining the natural resource base.
However, this definition excludes the requirement for
sustainability of agricultural livelihoods of contributing towards net benefits
to other sources of income. However, this is the definition adopted by
international organisations such as
The Department for International Development (DFID). According to
Scoones (2000: 3), the key question to be asked in any analysis of sustainable
livelihoods is:
Given a particular context (of policy
setting, politics, history, agro-ecology and socio-economic conditions), what
combination of livelihood resources (different types of
‘capital’) result in the ability to follow what combination of livelihood
strategies (agricultural intensification/ extensification, livelihood
diversification and migration) with what outcomes? Of particular
interest in this framework are the institutional processes (embedded
in a matrix of formal and informal institutions and organisations) which
mediate the ability to carry out such strategies and achieve (or not) such
outcomes.
In a country like Uganda, the question must be
unpacked and analysed to construct processes through which livelihoods can be
achieved. This is where a systems analytical approach comes in, since the
analysis includes working out the relationships and links between and among the
multiple elements of livelihoods. Preferably, local people must contribute their
knowledge, perceptions, and interests. Such contributions are likely to be
located in the different traditional sectors such as agriculture, commerce,
technology and politics.
Innovations should
generally be driven by poverty eradication. That is, processes to build
sustainable livelihoods should be integrated with economic growth although the
two are not necessarily related. This relationship often needs to be built. Yet
people who need sustainable development lack the capacity to take advantage of
expanding economic opportunities, for so many reasons including poverty and
lack of education. Furthermore, matters of perceptions the targeted people hold
about concepts such as sustainable development and livelihoods can challenge
well-meaning innovations.
Prioritisation is
another challenge that deserves the systems thinking approach, since
sustainable livelihoods are not just limited to economic progress but includes
people’s priorities such as improvements in health, literacy, social services,
and education. Even the poor have an idea about their situations and needs and
must therefore be involved in the design of policies about innovations for
sustainable livelihoods. It is therefore counterproductive when people are
immersed in feelings of vulnerability and of powerlessness.
Thus, there should be
a unified approach to applying a systems thinking approach to building
sustainable livelihoods. The approach is therefore innovative and primarily
includes analytical frameworks. The point that has to be carried forward is
that agro-ecology is the bedrock of livelihoods in Africa, and that the
integrative nature of agro-ecology is best dealt with through a systems
thinking approach.
Approaches and Partners of Developing Sustainable
Livelihoods
UNDP (2018) approaches
and identifies sustainable development partners through focussing on
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), also known as Global Goals. The goals
could be achieved by making a universal call for action to end poverty,
protecting the planet and ensuring that all people enjoy peace and prosperity.
The goals apparently are built on the successes of the Millennium Development Goals, but add new areas such
as climate change, economic inequality, innovation, sustainable consumption,
peace and justice, among other priorities. The goals are interconnected – often
the key to success on one will involve tackling issues more commonly associated
with another. Thus, it is apparent achieving these goals requires partnerships,
which should come up with appropriate approaches that are sensitive to the
different contexts.
Examples of global
partners in this venture include Cooperative
for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE). Founded in 1945, CARE as a global humanitarian organization represented
boasted of livelihood recovery for 1.4 million people as well as providing food
and nutrition security to 4.1 million people by 2016. Their approach included
implementing long-term projects of agriculture as well as of climate change and
resilience that have so far reached over 69 million people. CARE holds fundraising events, partners with the private and public sectors
and invites everyone to participate in developing sustainable livelihoods
across the globe. As an international NGO, CARE focusses its programmes
on helping the poorest and most vulnerable, either through regular development
programmes or through relief work, which addresses improving human capabilities
(such as education, skills, health, psychological orientation); access to tangible
and intangible assets; and existence of economic activities. People ought to
take initiatives to secure their own livelihoods, according to CARE, an
organization, which stresses empowerment as a fundamental dimension of
sustainable development.
CARE's introduction
of the sustainable livelihoods approach:
·
targets truly
poor and vulnerable households in its programmes, yet builds on households'
existing abilities and activities rather than resource needs;
·
ensures that
needs addressed in project activities are those which will centrally address
households' livelihood security needs;
·
provides a
useful link between CARE's emergency relief and development programmes;
·
generates
coherency in Country Office information systems, and assists Country Offices
achieve complementary relationships between projects with the same
geographical;
·
provides a
clear conceptual focus for building partnerships to address poverty alleviation
(including with community institutions);
·
is equally
applicable in urban and rural settings, and;
·
results in
poor households and communities being able to show definable improvements in
their livelihoods.
Another partner in
developing sustainable livelihoods is the
Department for International Development (DFID). DFID approaches sustainable
development by two main principles:
i.
Poverty-focused
development activity should be people-centred, responsive and participatory, as
well as multi-level, and;
ii.
Support
activities should be holistic and should correspond to issues or areas of
direct relevance for improving poor people’s livelihoods.
Both of these DFID’s
approaches seem to be in concord with a systems thinking as the approaches
facilitate more integrated and deep SL analyses, which help in understanding
the various factors that constrain or enhance livelihood opportunities, and how
they relate to each other.
What is a system?
The term "system" comes from the Latin word systēma, in
turn from Greek σύστημα: a whole made of several parts or members. In simple
terms, a set of things
working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network or a set of
principles or procedures according to which something is done; an organized
scheme or method. According to the
Centre for Systems Philosophy (2014), a systems thinking arose out of the need
to develop a scientific worldview that reflected the realization that
everything in the concrete world is a system or part of one, with
"system" being understood as "a whole that functions as a whole
in virtue of the relationship between its parts". This view posits that to
properly understand something we have to know its composition (as in the
classical reductionistic approach), and to discern the relationships or
interdependence between its parts, between the parts and the whole, and between
the whole and its environment that work together for a purpose. A system has to identify
boundaries between its parts, and between itself and the other systems, upon
which entities inside and outside the system can be predicted (UNESCO UNITWIN
Complex Systems Digital Campus). Their parts must be inter-related and they
work as a coherent entity, otherwise they would be two or more distinct
systems.
A system is defined in multiple ways. Perhaps
inevitably, the definition of a ‘system’ varies according to a discipline or subject
area. For example, human systems refer to
organs that work together in a human body. An example is the respiratory system
comprising the nostrils, esophagus, lungs, etc. Ecological or environmental systems can be described as
complex interconnected parts that make up the environment. These include abiotic and biotic units. Other ways
of analyzing systems include but are not limited to the following.
- Natural and human-made.
Natural systems comprise of elements, objects or concepts which exist outside of
any practical human control. Human-made systems may involve such human approaches as defining and
developing concepts, analyses, designs, implementation, deployment, structure,
behaviour, input data, and output data. The human
and natural systems are complex because they are dynamic (as opposed to being
static such as in machines).
- Systems can be open or closed (Harary and Batell, 1981).
Open systems have input and output
flows, representing exchanges of matter, energy or information with their
surroundings, and are normally natural. An ecosystem is natural, and is an
example of an open system because organisms and energy enter and leave
ecosystems. People within an organization have multiple interests, and
consensus-building or conflictual processes drive organizational action.
A closed system is usually exchanges energy, but not matter, with its
environment. Closed systems can be natural such as the solar systems, although
occasionally meteorites escape a solar system. Most closed systems are
human-made. Examples include an explosive, and temporarily, temperature
controlled environments such as refrigerators.
- Systems architecture.
Systems architecture is
about how the parts in a system are connected. Architecture may integrate
multiple views such as concept, analysis, design, implementation, deployment,
structure, behaviour, structure-behaviour coalescence, input data, and output
data views.
·
System model.
A system model is useful to
describe and represent all these multiple steps we employ to understand
reality.
We choose to adopt the more inclusive definition from Bertalanffy (1968),
who defines a system as a set of interacting or interdependent component parts
forming a complex or intricate whole,
because it seems more compatible with systems thinking and the sustainable
livelihoods topic. In such a case, every system is delineated by its spatial
and temporal boundaries, surrounded and influenced by its environment,
described by its structure and purpose and expressed in its functioning. All
the parts of a system must be related (directly or indirectly). These views
accommodate the context of complex livelihood systems. Research about systems is thus imaginative and
sophisticated (Pfirman, and the AC-ERE,
2003). Hence, the agro-ecological systems approach grapples with determining the
identity and boundaries of the components of the environment.
What is a Systems Thinking Model?
A Systems Thinking
can be clarified by contrasting it against linear models such as knowledge
transfer, research uptake. Linear thinking models are one-way processes. For
example, researchers produce new knowledge, which gets disseminated to end
users, and then incorporated into policy and practice. According to Best, Hiatt
and Norman (2008), knowledge is seen as a product, generalisable across
contexts, whose use depends on effective packaging in the linear model.
Information technologies often emphasise this model but perpetuates the myth
that knowledge is the same as data, and that transferring it effectively
depends on sophisticated computing. Best and Holmes (2010) explains that in
linear models knowledge is viewed as a product, and its production to
application is seen as moving through relatively discrete, predictable and
manageable stages. That is, the exchange process is largely one-way, from
research producer to research user, and so effective communication is the key
to successful outcomes. Frenck (1992) further states that linear models shape,
embed and organize diffusion and dissemination processes through structures
that mediate the types of interactions that occur among multiple agents with
unique worldviews, priorities, languages, means of communication and
expectations.
Systems thinking (ST) originates from diverse sources ranging from Jan
Smuts' holism in the 1920s, to the general systems theory that was advanced by
Ludwig von Bertalanffy in the 1940s and cybernetics advanced by Ross Ashby in
the 1950s. This thinking was further developed by Jay Forrester in 1956 when he
founded the Systems Dynamic Group at MIT's Sloan School of Management. Later,
with members of the Society for Organizational Learning at MIT, a book titled The
Fifth Discipline by Peter Senge (1990) defining systems thinking as the
capstone for true organisational learning was published. According to Senge et al. (1999), the
essence of ST is to grasp the systemic sources of problems and to reach
holistic solutions that are applicable in real-life situations. The approaches
by CARE and DFID apparently employ a systems thinking model.
The systems
thinking is best understood as a complex adaptive system, whose theoretical
underpinnings includes parts that are dynamic in that they are constantly
changing. Systems exist along with other interdependent systems. Therefore,
changes in one part of the system can have unexpected changes in other parts of
the system. It follows that understanding the roles and actions of key
stakeholders, and how they are shaped by and in turn shape the system is
particularly important, in echoing the circular model’s emphasis on the
importance of relationships, linkage and exchange (Graham, Logan, Harrison,
Strauss, Tetroe, Caswell and Robinson, 2006). Graham and Tetroe (2007) explain
that specific elements of a systems model involve feedback loops from all of
the key stakeholders to be active collaborators in the modelling and solution
seeking process. Therefore, systems require considerable investment.
Systems thinking integrates not only traditionally separate disciplines,
but also their unique theories and practices. In this approach, there is no
‘outside’ since all phenomena are parts of a whole. Scientifically speaking,
individual events that are separated by space and time may be catalytic and can
cause significant changes in a complex system. Thus to understand system
performance, all elements have to be analysed. In terms of systems theory, the
ability to comprehend and address the whole, and to examine the
interrelationships between the parts, provides both the incentive and the means
to integrate the disciplines (Senge et
al., 1999). However, systems thinking techniques may be used to
study any kind of system – physical, biological, social, scientific,
engineered, human, or conceptual in an integrated approach.
Systems Thinking applied to Agro-ecology
for Improved Livelihoods
To put this in the context of livelihoods, systems thinking is a holistic approach
to analysis that focuses on the way that a system's constituent parts interrelate and how systems work over time and within the
context of larger systems. According to systems thinking, system
behaviour results from the effects of reinforcing and balancing processes. The
component parts of a system can best be identified in the context of
relationships with each other and with other systems, rather than in isolation.
Additionally, systems thinking focuses on cyclical rather than linear cause and
effect. Therefore, all system components or processes must be balanced to
maintain equilibrium in a particular system. Additionally, feedback is an
essential component of system thinking, especially when one looks for solutions
rather than waste resources on a counterproductive method.
For some thinkers, ST is the cognitive process of studying and
understanding systems of every kind. For this chapter, the focus is on
integrating information from different sources and disciplines to apply to
agro-ecology and livelihoods. ST avoids simplistic application of agro-ecological
models to the complex relationships between agro-ecology and livelihood
systems. Indeed, the systems viewpoint is generally oriented toward a long-term
perspective. That is why delays and feedback loops are so important, as these
allow a more critical analysis of the system. It takes work to acquire the
basic building blocks of systems theory, and to apply them to each unique
system. Applied to agro-ecology and livelihood systems, most short-term
approaches have led to more problems. Cases of use of synthetic pesticides and
development of monocultures which at first sight look like winners are rampant.
In the light of sustainability, we suggest an integrated system thinking
(IST) model in agro-ecology as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Our
model of a systems representation in agro-ecology
Figure 1 shows our systems thinking approach applied to agro-ecology and
livelihood systems. The inner-section in the middle includes food production
and the value chain. This Venn diagram shows that agro-ecology and livelihoods
are an embodiment of a wide array of subject areas and practices, all of which
could be better considered by systems thinking. The integration of economic,
social and environmental aspects of the continuum in the light of their values
and needs culminates into a complete and sustainable Agro-ecology and
livelihood system. It is our thinking that all the aspects must be considered
in tandem to bring about the complexity, harmony and coherence characteristic
of sustainable systems. The model is applicable in any living system regardless
of location and status of livelihoods. It should be noted that natural (agro-ecological)
systems are more prone to erosion, making them more vulnerable, which makes
this integrated model more relevant to them.
This model should provide a foundation for scientists and development
specialists to develop an agronomic vision where farms and agro-ecological
landscapes are designed in such a way as to synergise interactions and improve
overall biological efficiency, preserve biodiversity, and maintain productivity
in line with values for each agro-ecological component. Farms and landscapes
ought to deliver both agricultural production and ecosystem services (Altieri et
al., 2012; Malezieux, 2012). Management attends to key ecological processes
(soil and water conservation, nutrient and organic matter recycling, nitrogen
fixation, and pest control), resulting in resilient and persistent soil
fertility (Altieri et al., 2012).
A systems thinking approach addresses such questions as local limitations
of productive land. Challenges of productivity are understood and respected,
with appropriate matches between cropping patterns and the landscape’s
productive potential. In other words, the overall health of the agroecosystem
matters as much or more than crop yield. This incorporates the thinking local
farmers contribute towards food and agricultural policies, including deciding
what and how to produce, as well as who produces food. This new thinking offers
the citizens the right to public resources such as water, land, and seeds
(Nicholson, 2011). Thus, sustainable livelihoods entail actions at multiple
levels. In line with the views of Akram-Lodhi (2013) globally, the vision
should yield a series of interconnected, interdependent local food systems.
Divergent positions exist about agro ecological practices that can help
to deliver sustainable livelihoods. For example, a survey of sustainable
intensification covering 40 projects or programs in twenty African countries,
found that the use of novel or improved varieties with changes to agronomic
practice resulted in ‘multiplicative’ outcomes (Pretty et al., 2011).
The study found that combining disease resistant, faster-maturing cassava
varieties with use of water-troughs between rows led to more than fivefold
yield increases, to 15t/ha. Other African examples include adoption of soya bean,
inoculum, and fertilizer packages in Zimbabwe, building on research that began
in the 1960s; and a facilitated multi-stakeholder partnership that introduced
hybrid pigeon pea, a marketable legume previously ignored by conventional
breeders (Pretty et al., 2011).
Across eight categories of case studies covering an area of 12.8 million
ha, average crop yields rose by a factor of 2.13 in 3–10 years. Notably, the
authors attributed 57% of the yield increases to novel partnerships and
policies impacting seven countries: Benin, Cameroon, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire,
Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, and Nigeria (Pretty et al., 2011: Table 1; Table
2). Projects that appear to fall into the partnership or policy category
include: the Malawi fertilizer subsidy program, which reduced net imports of
maize and increased incomes by 10–100%; Kenya’s reformed, demand-driven
extension program (Kiara, 2011); the African Research Centre on Banana and
Plantain (Tomekpe et al., 2011); and
the Ghana Grains Partnership (Guyver & MacCarthy, 2011).
Strengths and Weaknesses of Systems
Thinking
By drawing attention
to the multiplicity of dimensions of sustainable development, systems thinking
produces a more holistic view of what resources, or combination of resources,
are important to the poor. These include not only physical and natural
resources, but also their social and human capital. Systems thinking
facilitates an understanding of the underlying causes of poverty by focusing on
the variety of factors, at different levels, that directly or indirectly
determine or constrain poor people’s access to resources/assets. A systems
thinking approach provides a more realistic framework for assessing the direct
and indirect effects on people’s living conditions than, any single
one-dimensional criterion such as income.
Among the weaknesses
is a lack of methodologies for how to identify the poor to whom sustainable
development is targeted. The thinking might necessarily exclude political
forces, especially in contexts of dictatorship that are common in developing
countries. There are challenges to get the full collaboration of the local
people whose understanding of a systems thinking approach might be limited,
since their education is traditionally along demarcated subject areas.
A transformation of
stakeholders thinking is likely a lengthy process. Few organisations such as
DFID include the required power relations as one aspect of ‘transforming
processes’ to be examined. For example, systems thinking (as shown in the
integrated model) should analyse issues of gender as an aspect of social
relations, and determine to what extent that inequality and social domination
is minimised.
The basic idea of an
integrated system thinking approach is to start with a broad and open-ended
analysis, but this requires a highly flexible planning situation, which rarely
exists in regions where it is badly needed. A systems approach requires that
development initiatives fit with people’s livelihood strategies, and these
might be beyond the practical realities of many local development
administrations, with the risk that this approach could remain an initiative of
donors and their consultants.
However, those few studies that have collected such data (e.g., Pretty et
al., 2007) claim that agro-ecological practices improve yields; this could
be contested because other factors could have also contributed (Tripp, 2006).
Before confirming the positive impressions of agro-ecology, conclusions would
require data on conditions several years before and after an intervention and a
sampling frame sufficiently large to control for other causal factors (e.g.,
use of other technologies, socio-economic differences, ecological differences).
Difficulty in assessing effectiveness of agro ecological innovations limits
conclusions about their general effectiveness. Validating intervention success
requires more sophisticated assessment methodologies (Blackman and Rivera,
2010; Horlings and Marsden, 2011). Critics also argue that agro-ecological
technologies are no different from other technologies—investing in them is more
likely to occur where there is an economic return.
Unfortunately, it is the commercially oriented farmers who are more
likely to adopt them, suggesting the need for viable markets and cash crops
(Tripp, 2006). Some agro-ecological practices require substitution of labour
and knowledge for external inputs (upfront labor investment, time for
maintenance and ongoing monitoring). The opportunity cost of labour will be
influenced by off-farm opportunities, as well as by aspirations. Agro-ecological technologies are not
inherently pro-poor; a supportive policy environment that provides some kind of
incentive for farmer experimentation is needed (Tripp, 2006). A major challenge is to implement systems thinking
into agro-ecology and livelihoods, especially among farmers. For example,
Röling (2009) found that adoption of innovations among farmers are challenged
by the practical changes required. In fact, the transition towards
agro-ecological food systems might be slowed if little attention is paid to
sociology and politics of the stakeholders (Tittonell, 2014).
Conclusions and Recommendations
Systems thinking
offers multiple potentially competing and complementary points for
intervention. Livelihoods are a contested, evolving, multi-dimensional
construct, including multiple strands of traditional disciplines such as
agriculture and ecology, as well as social economic concerns including
availability, physical access, economic access (affordability), consumption,
and utilisation. Of course, all of these are supported by agro-ecosystem
sustainability and resilience that have received more recent acceptance in
policy agendas (FAO, 2012b).
In the context of a
developing country such as Uganda, there is still a chance to re-examine all
factors that are debilitating livelihoods. The re-examination might call for
deconstructing the education systems right from primary to higher education,
and envisioning a new approach where subjects are taught much more in an
integrated and outcomes-based approach. Education has to address people’s
livelihoods in a holistic way. Therefore, there should be investments into
developing new curricula, and in higher education, to include a systems
thinking approach in such a way that every research output directly innovates
ways that address agro-ecological concerns and supports livelihoods. The usual
divergent conceptual perspectives would be abandoned in favour of pluralist,
interdisciplinary inquiry on the meanings of, and possibilities for improved
livelihoods. This is indeed the approach UMU’s ACALISE project has adopted.
However, at a national level, these are matters of policy, possibly to be
initiated at parliamentary debates, since the Ugandan National Council of
Higher Education might have to approve drastic curriculum change.
Lessons can be
borrowed from successes abroad. The following suggestions could be tried out.
·
Involve more
women in agriculture (Quisumbing & Pandolfelli, 2010). This would improve
women incomes, which could improve family lives.;
·
Start
production of inorganic fertilisers at a large scale to the extent that they
are affordable to local people;
·
Reform
agricultural product markets. It might be beneficial to re-introduce
cooperative unions, through which agro-based industries could be built in rural
areas. These would make agricultural products more marketable and more
profitable;
·
Improve water
collection and storage. Droughts would not have affected Uganda if people in
much of the country had built water reservoirs or dams in a fashion seen in
South Africa. The measure includes active prevention of people damaging water
catchment areas and forests;
·
Improve
resource efficiency, participation, and accountability in water and energy
systems (Hoff, 2011; Molle et al., 2009);
·
Strengthen common
property regimes that provide high quality wild foods (Friend et al., 2009);
·
Help
smallholders gain a better position in global food supply chains dominated by
agro-food corporations; reduce food losses (FAO, 2012b); and
·
Invest in
nutrition and health (Bhutta et al., 2008; Micronutrient Initiative,
2013).
The above
recommendations support the reality that Uganda has to invest in rural nonfarm
economies (Akram-Lodhi, 2013); invest in transport; support labour to organize
for better employment conditions (FAO, 2012a); and provide social security to
its citizens (FAO, 2012b). However, as stated earlier, complexity over the
future of livelihoods in the context of multi-level, and increasingly globalised
food systems, invokes further debate about what food is produced, by whom, and
what poor people must do to access it. Systems thinking offers us diverse and
divergent conceptual perspectives to undertake a pluralist, interdisciplinary
approach towards improved agro-ecological practices and livelihoods, and UMU
will continue to take the lead in developing and supporting capacity building
to fuel the system.
Uganda Martyrs University’s Contributions to
Agro-Ecology
Born only recently in
1993 and now maturing from teen-hood to reach 25 years of existence, UMU’s
motto ‘to make a difference’ and the slogan of ‘where it is good to be’ are
recipes of the ‘cape of good hope’ that UMU had to breathe into the stale
atmosphere of the time. Now 25 years old, UMU is supported by its core values
including Transparency, Accountability, Reliability, Action based on
Institutional Ethos and Quality. Teachers and students have continued to live
up to its expected vision ‘To provide quality higher education, training and
research for the betterment of society guided by ethical values’. Through the
Faculty of Agriculture which is only 17 years old, UMU humbly started
constructing the road to agricultural sustainability and environmental care by
pioneering training in organic agriculture in 2006. A short course in organic agriculture
at that time supported by National Organic Agricultural Movement of Uganda
(NOGAMU) and Export Promotion of Organic Products from Africa (EPOPA) became a reality.
Hence, between 2002 and 2007, the number of certified organic farmers increased
by over 300 percent and the acreage converted to organic farming increased by
60 percent (NOGAMU, 2015). The same report notes that certified organic exports
increased from US$3.7 million in 2003 to US$22.8 million in 2007. These
developments required adequate capacity building in the sector to train experts
to take care of the organic value chains that were slowly but steadily
developing.
Since its inception,
the Faculty of Agriculture at UMU has carried the torch of capacity building in
agricultural sustainability in the region through three programmes:
a)
Bachelors in Organic Agriculture
In 2010, as a result
of increase in demand for services especially extension in the organic sector,
UMU pioneered the teaching of organic agriculture at a Bachelor’s degree level.
This programme, because of its uniqueness, has attracted students from all
parts of Africa and beyond. For example, the class of 2008 was composed of 6
Kenyans, 2 Tanzanians, 1 Rwandese, 1 Zambian, 1 research student from Sweden
and several Ugandans. The popularity of
this programme and its alumni has made UMU a call center and reference point
for agricultural knowledge and expertise. No wonder UMU was chosen to
coordinate Pillar one – Research, Training and Extension – in the ongoing
multinational Ecological Organic Initiative (EOAI) 2014 – 2021.
b)
Masters in Agro-ecology
In 2004 UMU together
with Mekelle University and the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
(SLU) with the support of Sida started academic programs in the area of
agro-ecology. This started as short courses targeting people with need of
knowledge for holism of agroecological interventions but also policy makers,
farmers, environmentalists and others. Hundreds of agriculturists and farmers
have benefited from these programs in countries of the three partner
universities and beyond. In 2005, a Master’s programme in Agro-ecology was
started in the 3 partner Universities. At UMU alone about 10-20 students have
been graduating each year with Masters Degrees in Agro-ecology since 2008. Key
in this programme is to underscore the functions and architecture of systems
and how they affect or are affected by natural functions and livelihoods. The
programme has become a pillar of understanding current issues like effects of
climate change, catastrophes in nature and the philosophy of livelihoods among
other important systems-related intricacies. Graduates of this programme spun
different disciplines and contribute to a range of system related businesses
including banks, social services, farms as well as academic institutions and
policy making bodies like parliaments. A volume of successful research results
has appeared in several journals and other forms of publications.
c)
Doctor of Philosophy in Agro-ecology and Food Systems
In 2013, Agro-ecology
stakeholders from different continents gathered at Malmo in Sweden to plan for
a PhD programme in Agro-ecology. This was premised by the demand from a pool of
MSc Agroecologists trained at the 3 partner institutions. Although the need was
evident and the good will was not limited, little was achieved by the Malmo
meeting. The resulting recommendations had to be shelved for two years due to
lack of funds, limited buy-in and commitment of the participants, and too many
competing responsibilities. UMU Faculty of Agriculture, again responding to the
demands of the MSc alumni, and courtesy of the Regional University Forum for
Capacity Building in Agriculture (RUFORUM), took up the mantle of developing a
PhD Programme in Agro-ecology and Food Systems which was accredited by the
National Council of Higher Education (NCHE) in 2015. The authors of this paper
were the key architects of the programme. The programme is a clear recipe of
principles and applied practices of systems thinking philosophy, which
dominates the course. Deliberate modules connoting the philosophy, its origins
and visions, as well as tools and overtones related to systems and
sustainability spice up the programme. In its first call for applications, the
programme attracted 62 applicants from 5 countries, demonstrating its
importance and potential. The programme targets candidates from all
sustainability demanding disciplines and focusses on research areas of
development, economy, science as well as pedagogy. Due to its virility, the
programme has attracted World Bank funding through the Africa Centres of
Excellence (ACE II) which aims at training a critical mass of high class well
motivated agroecologists that will help to promote agro-ecological
interventions leading to improved production and productivity, environmental
health as well as improved livelihoods in the region. As a regional project,
the Africa Center of Excellence in Agro-ecology and Livelihood Systems
(ACALISE) will train 32 PhDs, 240 Masters as well as offering over 1000
skill-building short courses. These seemingly ambitious targets will be made
possible by the fund from World Bank courtesy of a Uganda Government loan, but
also through cooperation with carefully chosen partners that will participate
in teaching and research in the Center. To date, 10 students have been
recruited into the PhD programme and over 60 MScs are being supported. As an
early bird research contribution to the system thinking philosophy, the authors
of this paper who also double as the principal investigators of the Center have
put across a systems thinking model (see Figure 1) for scrutiny and testing.
More and greater contributions to the systems thinking philosophy through
research at PhD and MSc levels are foreseen over the 5-year period of the 1st
phase of the ACE and beyond.
References
Akram-Lodhi, A. H., 2008.
World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development. Development and
Change, 39, pp. 1145–1161
Akram-Lodhi, A. H., 2013.
Hungry for Change: Farmers, Food Justice, and the Agrarian Question. Fernwood
Publishing, Halifax, Canada
Altieri M.A., 1995.
Agro-ecology: The Science of Sustainable Agriculture (2nd Ed.). Westview Press,
Boulder, Colorado.
Altieri M.A., Funes-Monzote
F.R., Petersen P., 2012. Agro-ecologically Efficient Agricultural Systems for
Smallholder Farmers: Contributions to Food Sovereignty. Agronomy for
Sustainable Development, p. 32
Anderson K., 2010.
Globalization’s Effects on World Agricultural Trade, 1960–2050. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365, pp. 3007–3021
Bertalanffy, L., von. 1968. General
System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications, Rev. Ed.
New York, NY, USA: Braziller.
Best, A., Hiatt, R.A. and Nor man, C.D. (2008)
‘Knowledge integration: conceptualizing communications in cancer control
systems’, Patient Education and Counseling. Vol. 71. pp. 319–27.
Best, A. and Holmes, B.
(2010). Systems thinking, knowledge and action:
towards better models and methods. The Policy Press. 2010 ISSN 1744
2648. pp. 145 – 159.
Bhutta Z.A., Ahmed T.,
Black R.E., Cousens S., Dewey K., Giugliani E., et al. 2008. What Works?
Interventions for Maternal and Child Under nutrition and Survival. The Lancet,
371, pp. 417–440
Blackman, A. & Rivera,
J. E., 2010. The Evidence Base for Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts of
‘Sustainable’ Certification. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1579083.
Cooperative
for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE). https://www.careinternational.org.uk/who-we-are
(Accessed 31st August 2018).
De Schutter, O., 2010.
Agro-ecology and the right to food, report presented at the 16th session of the
United Nations Human Rights Council [A/HRC/16/49].
Department for International Development (DFID) https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-international-development (Accessed 31st August 2018).
Emas, R. (2015. Brief for
GSDR 2015. The Concept of Sustainable Development: Definition and Defining
Principles. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5839GSDR%202015_SD_concept_definiton_rev.pdf
(Accessed 30th August 2018).
FAO, 2012a. Decent Rural
Employment for Food Security. A Case for Action Food and Agriculture
Organization, Rome http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2750e/i2750e00.pdf
(Accessed 14 September 2017).
FAO, 2012b. The state of
food insecurity in the World Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome
FAO, 2013. “Global hunger
down, but millions still chronically hungry”, http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/198105/ic
(Accessed 14 September 2017).
Francis C., Lieblein G.,
Gliessman S., Breland T. A., Creamer N., Harwood R., Salomonsson L., Helenius
J., Rickerl D., Salvador R., Wiedenhoeft M., Simmons S., Allen P., Altieri M.,
Flora C., & Poincelot R., 2003. Agro-ecology: The Ecology of Food Systems. Journal
of Sustainable Agriculture Vol. 22, Iss. 3
Friend R., Arthur R. &
Keskinen M., 2009. Songs of the Doomed: The Continuing Neglect of Capture
Fisheries in Hydropower Development in the Mekong.
Frost, A., 2013. Final
Report. Research into Use Programme, July 2006–December 2012. Edinburgh:
Research into Results Ltd, University of Edinburgh.
Fouracre, P. 2001. Transport and Sustainable Rural Livelihoods. https://www.ssatp.org/sites/ssatp/files/publications/HTML/rural_transport/knowledge_base/English/Module%205/5_3a%20Sustainable%20Livelihoods.pdf
(Accessed 30th August 2018).
Graham, I.D. and Tetroe, J. (2007) ‘Some
theoretical underpinnings of knowledge translation’, Academy of Emergency
Medicine , vol 14, pp. 936–41.
Graham, I.D., Logan, J., Harrison, M. B., Straus,
S.E., Tetroe, J., Caswell, W. and Robinson, N. (2006) ‘Lost in translation:
time for a map?’ Journal of Continuing Education for Health Professionals,
vol 26: 13–24.
Guyver P. & MacCarthy
M., 2011. The Ghana Grains Partnership. International Journal of Agricultural
Sustainability, 9, pp. 35–41.
Harary, F. and Batell, M.
1981. Hoff H., 2011. Understanding the nexus: Background paper for the Bonn
2011 Nexus Conference. SEI, Stockholm
Holt-Giménez E., 2011. Food
Movements Unite! Strategies to Transform Our Food Systems. Food First
Books, New York
Horlings L.G. & Marsden
T.K., 2011. Towards The Real Green Revolution? Exploring the Conceptual
Dimensions of a New Ecological Modernisation of Agriculture That Could ‘Feed
The World’. Global Environmental Change – Human and Policy Dimensions, pp. 441–452.
Khan Z., Midega C.,
Pittchar J., Pickett J., Bruce T., 2011. Push—Pull Technology: A Conservation
Agriculture Approach for Integrated Management of Insect Pests, Weeds and Soil
Health in Africa. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability,
pp. 162–170.
Kiara J.K., 2011. Focal
area approach: a participatory community planning approach to agricultural
extension and market development in Kenya. International Journal of
Agricultural Sustainability, pp.
248–257.
Makonese E. & Sukalac
K., 2011. Achieving an African Green Revolution: A Perspective from an
Agri-Input Supplier.
Malezieux E., 2012.
Designing Cropping Systems from Nature Agronomy for Sustainable Development, Agronomy
for Sustainable Development. Vol. 32, pp. 15–29.
Micronutrient Initiative.,
2013. Working For A World Free Of Hidden Hunger. Strategic Plan 2013-2018.
Ottawa: Micronutrient Initiative. http://www.micronutrient.org/CMFiles/MI%20Strategic%20Plan%202013-18.pdf (Accessed 2nd September 2017).
Miguel A., Altieri and
Victor Manuel Toledo., 2011. The Agro-ecological Revolution In Latin America:
Rescuing Nature, Ensuring Food Sovereignty And Empowering Peasants. The
Journal of Peasant Studies Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 587–612.
Mollison B.C., 1990. Permaculture:
A Practical Guide for a Sustainable Future. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Nicholson P., 2011. Food
sovereignty: Alliances and transformation.
Noe E., Alrøe H. F.,
Thorsøe M. H., Olesen J. E., Sørensen P., Melander B., Fog E., 2015. Knowledge
asymmetries between research and practice: A social systems approach to
implementation barriers in organic arable farming. Sociologia Ruralis, Vol.
55(4), pp. 460–482.
OXFAM, April, 2014. Building
a new agricultural future. Supporting agro-ecology for people and the planet.
https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/ib-building-new-agricultural-future-agroecology-280414-en.pdf
(Accessed 31st May 2017).
Pfirman, S., and the AC-ERE, 2003. Complex
Environmental Systems: Synthesis for Earth, Life, and Society in the 21st
Century. A report summarizing a 10-year outlook in environmental research
and education for the National Science Foundation, 68 pp.
Pretty J. Ed., 2005. The
Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Agriculture, Earthscan, London
Pretty J., 2008.
Agricultural Sustainability: Concepts, Principles and Evidence. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B – Biological Sciences, p. 363
Pretty J., Hine R.E.,
Morison J.I.L., Noble A.D., Bossio D., Dixon J., et al., 2007. Response to
Comment On “Resource-Conserving Agriculture Increases Yields In Developing
Countries”. Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 41, pp. 1056–1057
Quisumbing, A.R. &
Pandolfelli L., 2010. Promising Approaches to Address the Needs of Poor Female
Farmers: Resources, Constraints, and Interventions. World Development, Vol.
38, pp. 581–592
Reij C.P. & Smale M.,
2009. “Agroenvironmental Transformation in the Sahel: Another Kind of “Green
Revolution”. IFPRI Discussion Paper, International Food Policy
Research Institute, Washington, D.C.
Rockström J., Karlberg L.,
Wani S.P., Barron J., Hatibu N., Oweis T. 2010. Managing Water in Rainfed
Agriculture—the Need for a Paradigm Shift Agricultural Water Management. Agricultural
Water Management. Vol. 97, pp. 543–550
Röling N., 2009. Pathways
for impact: scientists' different perspectives on agricultural innovation. International
Journal of Agricultural Sustainability. Vol. 7(2), pp. 83–94.
Scoones, I., 2000. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework
for Analysis. IDS Working Paper 72. https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/123456789/3390/Wp72.pdf?sequence=1
(Accessed 23rd April 2018).
Senge, P., Kleiner, A.,
Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G. and Smith, B., 1999. The Dance of Change:
The Challenges of Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organizations, New York:
Doubleday/Currency.
Stoop W.A., 2011. The
Scientific Case for System of Rice Intensification and Its Relevance for
Sustainable Crop Intensification. International Journal of Agricultural
Sustainability. Vol. 9, pp. 443–455
Tittonell P., 2014. Ecological intensification of
agriculture—sustainable by nature. Current Opinion. Environmental Sustainability. Vol. 8. pp.53–61.
Tripp R., 2006. Self-Sufficient
Agriculture: Labour and Knowledge in Small-Scale Farming. Routledge.
Tomekpe K., Kwa M., Dzomeku
B.M., Ganry J., 2011. CARBAP and Innovation on the Plantain Banana in Western
and Central Africa. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability.
Vol. 9, pp. 264–273
Twomlow S., Rohrbach D.,
Dimes J., Rusike J., Mupangwa W., Ncube B. 2011. Micro-Dosing as a Pathway
to Africa’s Green Revolution: Evidence from Broad-Scale On-Farm Trials.
UNDESA/ DSD, 2000 “The
contribution of sustainable agriculture and land management to sustainable
development”, Sustainable Development Innovation Briefs: Issue 7, May
2009. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs,
Division for Sustainable Development.
UNDP 2018. Sustainable
Development Goals. http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals.html
(Accessed 31st August 2018).
UNDP, 2015. The GEF Small Grants Programme Technical
Guidance Note on the SGP Innovative Agro-Ecology Practices. http://www.mv.undp.org/content/dam/maldives/docs/Environment%20and%20Energy/OP6%20Technical%20Guidance%20Note%20on%20Agroecology%20revised%207-31-2015.pdf
(Accessed 6th June 2017).
UNESCO UNITWIN Complex
Systems Digital Campus. https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/systems-thinking-complexity/0/steps/20374
(Accessed 28th July 2017).
Wezel A., Bellon S., Dore T., Francis C., Vallod D.,
and David C., 2009. Agroecology as a science, a movement or a practice. Agronomy for Sustainable Development Vol.
29(4). Pp. 503-516.
World Bank,, 2007. World
Development Report: Agriculture for Development. Washington, D.C.: World
Bank.
World Bank., 2012. Agricultural
Innovation Systems: An Investment Sourcebook. Washington, D.C.: The World
Bank.
No comments:
Post a Comment