Search

There have been many calls for an agroecological transition to respond to food shocks and crises stemming from conventional food systems. Participatory action research and transformative epistemologies, where communities are research actors rather than objects, have been proposed as a way to enhance this transition. However, despite numerous case studies, there is presently no overview of how participatory approaches contribute to agroecological transitions. The present article therefore aims to understand the effect of applying participatory action research (PAR) in agroecology. We undertook a systematic review of articles reporting methods and results from case studies in agroecological research. On the one hand, our systematic review of 347 articles shows that the agroecological research scope is broad, with all three types—as science, a set of practices and social movement—well-represented in the corpus. However, we can see a clear focus on agroecology “as a set of practices” as the primary type of use of the concept. On the other hand, we found a few case studies (23) with a participatory approach while most studies used extractive research methods. These studies show that understanding the drivers and obstacles for achieving an agroecological transition requires long-term research and trust between researchers and farmers. Such transformative epistemologies open doors to new questions on designing long-term PAR research in agroecology when confronted with a short-term project-based society.

Global narratives around the links between deforestation and agricultural commodity production have led to the application of voluntary zero-deforestation agreements between companies, governments, and civil society. The continued tropical deforestation warrants a re-examination of this approach in order to customize its application for a particular location. Our paper contributes to this by exploring the spatial associations between deforestation and the production of cacao, coffee, and oil palm in the Amazon region in Peru. The geographical overlaps between deforestation, and the distribution of these commodity crops, indicate four types of spatial associations: (1) a high degree of deforestation and a high degree of commodity production (high-high); (2) a high degree of deforestation and a low degree of commodity production (high-low); (3) a low degree of deforestation and a high degree of commodity production (low-high); and (4) a low degree of deforestation and a low degree of commodity production (low-low). On the basis of these associations, we present four scenarios in which zero-deforestation supply chain interventions may operate in Peru and argue that broadening the perspective of such interventions by adopting a global value chain lens can improve the use of previously deforested lands, prevent unintended or future deforestation and, in turn, ensure that no forest area is left behind.

Few longitudinal studies link agricultural biodiversity, land use and food access in rural landscapes. In this paper, we test the hypothesis that, in a context of economic change, cash crop expansion is associated with deforestation, reduced agrobiodiversity and changes in food access. For this purpose, we analysed data collected from the same 53 upland and floodplain mestizo households in Ucayali, Peru, in 2000 and 2015. We found an emerging transition towards less diversified food access coupled with loss of forest cover and reduced agricultural biodiversity. In 2015, diets appeared to rely on fewer food groups, fewer food items, and on products increasingly purchased in the market compared to 2000. Wild fruits and plants were mentioned, but rarely consumed. Agricultural production systems became more specialised with a shift towards commercial crops. Peak deforestation years in the 15-year period appeared linked with incentives for agricultural expansion. Our results suggest an overall trend from diversified productive and “extractive” systems and more diverse food access, towards specialized productive systems, with less diverse food access and stronger market orientation (both in production and consumption). The assumption in the food and agricultural sciences that increased income and market-orientation is linked to improved food security, is challenged by our integrated analyses of food access, agrobiodiversity, land use and forest cover. Our results highlight the importance of longitudinal, multidimensional, systemic analyses, with major implications for land use, food and health policies. The potential risks of parallel homogenisation of diets and agricultural production systems require interdisciplinary research and policies that promote integrated landscape approaches for sustainable and inclusive food systems.

In this article, we operationalized a sustainability framing based on the Sustainable Rural Livelihood Resources Framework (SLF), which consists of five capitals—human, physical, social, financial, and natural. We proposed a sustainability index (SI) for two landscapes dominated by two agricultural systems: cattle ranching and small-scale family agriculture. Farm variables within each capital were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis. Key variables were identified and index values were calculated for each capital. These were combined through a set of simultaneous equations to estimate farm-specific capitals and SI from the observed farm variables. Principal component and cluster analyses were used to group the farms according to their index scores and to further compare their characteristics. Furthermore, with the purpose of comparing the index scoring with an independent metric, a landscape indicator, which comes from a continuous forest, was calculated. From the results, the capitals that contributed to a higher SI score the most were financial and physical. As cattle ranching was associated with higher economic returns and infrastructure investments, this livelihood was identified as the most sustainable. Yet, cattle ranching has been a deforestation driver in the region. These results are attributed to the current conceptual framework design, which gives greater weight to material and economic variables; therefore, it generates a weak sustainability measure. Although the framework allowed us to identify land-use alternatives that could improve SI scores (i.e., silvopastoral systems), corrections to the proposed framework and methodological approach will need to include additional environmental benefits currently unaccounted for. Farmers that use their farms for conservation purposes should be recognized and compensated. An improved environmentally focused SI operational framework could help to endorse and promote sustainable livelihoods and to generate a