Agroecology
Carolina Yacamán Ochoa
Agroecology constitutes a political and epistemic response to the historical expansion of the capitalist agro-industrial regime. Its earliest formulations in the early twentieth century focused on reducing chemical inputs and understanding the biological regulation of agroecosystems (Gliessman, 2018). From the second half of the twentieth century onward—particularly since the 1980s—agroecology underwent a significant conceptual expansion. Criticism of the socio-environmental impacts of the Green Revolution and the emergence of international peasant movements contributed to broadening its scope beyond the farm plot or agroecosystem. Agroecology thus began to address not only the ecological dynamics of agroecosystems but also the power structures that organize the production, distribution, and consumption of food on a global scale.
From this perspective, the agroecosystem is not merely a biophysical unit managed to produce food and ecosystem services more efficiently; rather, it is a socio-ecological space shaped by unequal relations of class, gender, and coloniality. Consequently, the development of agroecology has been closely intertwined with social struggles that challenge the power structures governing food production and access (Wezel et al., 2009).
The expansion of agroecology toward the food system as a whole (van der Ploeg, 2009) represented not only a shift in analytical scale but also an explicit politicization of the field. This shift incorporated the dynamics of accumulation, dispossession, and commodification that characterize the dominant agri-food system. In this sense, agroecology has consolidated itself as a transdisciplinary project that engages critically with political ecology, ecological economics, and ethnoecology (Francis et al., 2003), while also intersecting with perspectives such as ecofeminism, which highlight the connections between the exploitation of nature and the subordination of bodies and territories. Agroecology therefore, emerges not merely as a technical alternative but as a counter-hegemonic horizon that challenges corporate control of food systems and advocates food sovereignty, socio-environmental justice, and the democratization of the production and reproduction of life.
Peasant roots and situated knowledge
Although the term agroecology is relatively recent, its principles and practices are deeply rooted in the knowledge and accumulated experience of peasant and Indigenous agricultural systems around the world, even though these communities historically did not use the term (Rosset and Altieri, 2017). Andean terraces, Mesoamerican chinampas, tropical agroforestry systems, and Mediterranean polycultures represent historical examples of integrated management of biodiversity, soils, water, and food production.
Contemporary agroecology recognizes these experiences as legitimate sources of knowledge and resilient agricultural practices. Rather than framing agricultural modernization as the replacement of local knowledge with external technologies, agroecology promotes a dialogue of knowledges that brings together scientific knowledge and situated, local experience. This approach challenges epistemic hierarchies inherited from colonialism and questions the universalization of production models based on intensive monocultures.
Although Latin America and Europe share general agroecological principles, their trajectories have been shaped by distinct socio-economic contexts. In Latin America, agroecology developed in settings characterized by deep structural inequalities, land conflicts, and resistance to extractivist development models. One of the early processes that consolidated a key methodological approach within agroecology emerged in Guatemala through the horizontal Campesino-to-Campesino methodology, which later spread across Mesoamerica from the 1970s onward (Holt-Giménez, 2006). Similarly, peasant schools and “agroecological lighthouses” helped consolidate horizontal forms of collective knowledge production and exchange among rural communities (Guzmán et al., 2000). In this context, agroecology in Latin America has focused strongly on reducing dependence on external inputs while securing access to land, seeds, and water, thereby strengthening peasant autonomy and collective capacities.
In Europe, by contrast, agroecology emerged in a context characterized by highly intensified agriculture, mechanization, monocultural specialization, and extensive subsidy systems (González de Molina, 2011). Its development has been largely driven by urban actors, alternative food networks, and environmental movements, with a stronger emphasis on responsible consumption and on reducing the socio-ecological impacts of the industrial agri-food model.
At the global level, agroecology is commonly understood as encompassing three closely interconnected dimensions: a scientific discipline, a set of agricultural practices, and a social and political movement (Wezel et al., 2009). These dimensions should not be viewed as separate spheres but rather as mutually reinforcing processes whose relative prominence varies across geographical and political contexts. For instance, in Latin America the practical and socio-political dimensions tend to dominate, whereas in Europe and the United States agroecology has developed more prominently as a scientific field.
As a scientific discipline, agroecology studies food systems from an integrated ecological perspective. It examines energy and nutrient flows, trophic interactions, functional biodiversity, and socio-ecological resilience. Unlike conventional agronomic approaches, agroecology does not primarily aim to maximize yields; instead, it prioritizes ecological stability, biological diversity, and the efficient use of resources. It also recognizes local knowledge and practices as valid sources of knowledge, promoting participatory research processes and the co-production of knowledge that link scientific inquiry with territorial experience. Knowledge, from this perspective, is not conceived as a closed or purely expert domain but as a dynamic and situated process constructed through dialogue between local actors and researchers.
In its practical dimension, agroecology is expressed through a range of productive strategies designed to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and enhance the circularity of agrarian metabolism by minimizing external inputs. These practices include polycultures, agroforestry systems, crop–livestock integration, nutrient recycling, the conservation of local varieties, ecological soil management, and improved animal welfare. Agroecology also contributes to reducing the ecological footprint associated with food production and consumption by promoting the territorialization of agri-food systems and strengthening the resilience of agroecosystems in the face of climate change.
At the political level, agroecology represents a project aimed at transforming the dominant agri-food regime through a holistic and territorially grounded approach, closely linked to peasant and Indigenous organizations as well as alternative food networks. Within this process, La Vía Campesina—founded in 1993 through the convergence of Indigenous, peasant, and popular struggles—has played a central role in formulating and disseminating the paradigm of food sovereignty, understood as the right of peoples to define their own food and agricultural systems.
From this perspective, agroecology is not politically neutral and cannot be reduced to a purely technical or productive approach. Rather, it constitutes a practical, scientific, and political strategy for advancing food sovereignty by strengthening peasant autonomy, valuing traditional knowledge, and promoting community control over productive resources. As a political project, agroecology seeks to challenge the concentration of corporate power in the agri-food system, defend rights to land and seeds, preserve biocultural diversity, and promote forms of eco-social justice (Altieri and Toledo, 2011; Rosset et al., 2011).
Ecofeminist perspectives have further enriched this critical approach by highlighting the interconnections between the exploitation of nature and the subordination of women (Shiva, 2016). Both processes, from this perspective, are embedded within the same patriarchal-capitalist system that externalizes social and ecological costs in order to sustain economic accumulation (Mies & Shiva, 1993). Postcolonial analyses similarly emphasize how the agro-industrial regime reproduces gender hierarchies and extractivist dynamics that render reproductive labor and traditional knowledge invisible. Within this framework, the defense of local seeds, traditional ecological knowledge, and reproductive labor—often sustained by networks of organized peasant women—becomes a central pillar for the reproduction of life and the ecological stability of the planet.
Agroecology, planetary boundaries and discursive disputes
The growing prominence of agroecology in global environmental policy is closely linked to the convergence of multiple and interrelated crises. The dominant agri-food system is characterized by increasing pressure on renewable resources, persistent food insecurity, rural depopulation, and the erosion of family farming, as well as negative impacts on animal welfare. At the same time, it contributes significantly to the transgression of several planetary boundaries, including greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change, the disruption of biogeochemical cycles associated with excessive nitrogen fertilizer use, and the accelerated loss of biodiversity (IPBES, 2019; IPCC, 2019). From the perspective of planetary boundaries, agroecology can therefore be understood as a strategy for reconfiguring the metabolic relations between society and nature, reintegrating food production within safe ecological limits. In this sense, agroecology provides a framework for socio-ecological transition that combines climate mitigation and adaptation with social justice.
In response to the major social, economic, and environmental challenges facing agri-food systems in the twenty-first century, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) articulated the Ten Elements of Agroecology as a framework to guide its institutionalization through policy and operational guidelines. This framework systematizes agroecology into a set of interrelated and interdependent dimensions that structure its implementation in both public policies and territorial practices. The ten elements revolve around key principles such as diversity, synergies, efficiency, resilience, and recycling, while also incorporating the co-creation and sharing of knowledge, human and social values, food cultures and traditions, circular and solidarity economies, and responsible governance (FAO, 2018).
Agroecology has gained increasing visibility within institutional agendas, particularly in the context of the European Green Deal and the Farm to Fork Strategy. Within these policy frameworks, however, its incorporation has often focused primarily on promoting practices aligned with so-called climate-smart agriculture aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Such interpretations—frequently associated with the biotechnological paradigm—tend to pursue the “sustainabilization” of the dominant agro-industrial model without fundamentally questioning the power relations that structure it, the logic of large-scale monocultures, the spatial delocalization of production, or the growing concentration of corporate power in the agri-food sector (Alonso-Fradejas et al., 2020; Gliessman, 2011). From this technocratic perspective, agroecology risks being reduced to a set of technical solutions oriented toward sustainable intensification (Pretty, 2010), a tendency that has generated significant debate within the scientific community, agroecological movements, and alternative food networks regarding its meaning and transformative scope.
In contrast, González de Molina (2013) argues that agroecology cannot be detached from its political dimension. Its transformative potential lies precisely in its capacity to function as an alternative to the industrial model of food production and as a catalyst for systemic change aimed at strengthening food security and food sovereignty, ensuring access to land and seeds, defending commons and peasant knowledge, and promoting ecological conservation. Ultimately, agroecology does not offer technical recipes but guiding principles. Rather than relying on external inputs, it is based on the management of ecological and social processes that emerge from the dialogue between scientific knowledge and local worldviews (Rosset and Altieri, 2017).
Bibliography:
Alonso-Fradejas, A., Forero L. F., Ortega-Espès, D., Drago, M. & Chandrasekara, K. (2020). Junk Agroecology: The corporate Capture of Agroecology for a Partial Ecological Transition without Social Justice. Friends of the Earth International, Transnational institute and Crocevia.
Altieri, M. A. & Toledo, V. M. (2011). The agroecological revolution in Latin America: rescuing nature, ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasants. Journal of peasant studies, 38(3), 587-612.
FAO. (2018). The 10 elements of Agroecology – Guiding the Transition to sustainable food and agricultural systems. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Francis, C., Lieblein, G., Gliessman, S., Breland, T. A., Creamer, N., Harwood, R., Salomosson, L., Helenius, J., Rickerl, D., Salvador, R., Wiedenhoeft, M., Simmons, S., Allen, P., Altieri, M., Flora, C. & Poincelot, R. (2003). Agroecology: The ecology of food systems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 22(3), 99-118.
Gliessman, S. R. (2011). Agroecology and food system change. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35, 345-349.
Gliessman, S.R. (2018). Defining Agroecology. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 42(6), 599-600. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2018.1432329
González de Molina, M. (2011). Agroecología y políticas públicas en Europa. Agroecología, 6, 75-88.
González de Molina, M. (2013). Agroecology and Politics. How To Get Sustainability? About the Necessity for a Political Agroecology. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 37(1), 45-59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2012.705810
Guzmán, G., González de Molina, M. & Sevilla, E. (Eds.). (2000). Introducción a la Agroecología como desarrollo rural sostenible. Mundi-Prensa.
Holt-Giménez, E. (2001). Scaling-up sustainable agriculture. Low External Input Sustainable Agriculture Magazine, 3(3), 27–29.
IPBES. (2019). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).
IPCC (2019). Climate change and land. Intergovernmental Panel in Climate Change (IPCC).
Rosset, P. M., Machín Sosa, B., Roque Jaime, A. M. & Ávila Lozano, D. R. (2011). The Campesino-to-Campesino agroecology movement of ANAP in Cuba: social process methodology in the construction of sustainable peasant agriculture and food sovereignty. J Peasant Stud, 38(1), 161–91. doi: 10.1080/03066150.2010.538584.
Rosset, P. M. & Altieri, M. A. (2017). Agroecology: science and politics. Fernwood Publishing.
Shiva, V. (2016). Staying alive: Women, ecology, and development. North Atlantic Books.
Mies, M. & Shiva, V. (1993). Ecofeminism. Zed Books.
Wezel, A., Soldat, V., Mäder, P. & Dubois, D. (2009). Scientific principles of agroecology: A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 29(1), 1-15.