Search

A critical question is whether agroecology can promote climate change mitigation and adaptation outcomes without compromising food security. We assessed the outcomes of smallholder agricultural systems and practices in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) against 35 mitigation, adaptation, and yield indicators by reviewing 50 articles with 77 cases of agroecological treatments relative to a baseline of conventional practices. Crop yields were higher for 63% of cases reporting yields. Crop diversity, income diversity, net income, reduced income variability, nutrient regulation, and reduced pest infestation, indicators of adaptative capacity, were associated with 70% or more of cases. Limited information on climate change mitigation, such as greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration impacts, was available. Overall, the evidence indicates that use of organic nutrient sources, diversifying systems with legumes and integrated pest management lead to climate change adaptation in multiple contexts. Landscape mosaics, biological control (e.g., enhancement of beneficial organisms) and field sanitation measures do not yet have sufficient evidence based on this review. Widespread adoption of agroecological practices and system transformations shows promise to contribute to climate change services and food security in LMICs. Gaps in adaptation and mitigation strategies and areas for policy and research interventions are finally discussed.

This chapter reviews evidence of the impacts of agroecological farming practices on climate adaptation and mitigation. Farm diversification has the strongest evidence for its impacts on climate change adaptation. The evidence for agroecology’s impact on mitigation in LMICs is modest and emphasises carbon sequestration in soil and biomass. Agroforestry has the strongest body of evidence for impacts on mitigation. Locally relevant solutions produced through participatory processes and the co-creation of knowledge with farmers has improved climate change adaptation and mitigation. Knowledge gaps were found in regard to agricultural climate change mitigation, resilience to extreme weather, and agroecology approaches involving livestock, landscape redesign and multi-scalar analysis. There is a need to assess the performance of agricultural development using an outcome-based approach based on agroecological principles and climate change adaptation and mitigation indicators in order to guide donor and national investment. Moreover, direct investment and the scaling of practices for which the current evidence is strongest are needed. These include: (1) agricultural diversification, agroforestry and local adaptation; (2) increase action around resilience to extreme weather and climate change mitigation outcomes in LMICs and build the capacity of policymakers, scientists and institutions from the global South to work on these issues; and (3) compare the cost-effectiveness and outcomes of agroecology approaches with other agricultural development interventions at multiple scales, including the valuation of environmental and social benefits to better evaluate alternative approaches to sustainable agriculture.