Agroecology for climate-resilient and nourishing food systems: A scoping study of priorities for research and development actions in Southeast Asia
Creators: name: World Vegetable Center
Publisher: name: World Vegetable Center
Year: 2024
Subjects: subject: ECOLOGY
subject: FOOD PRODUCTION
subject: CLIMATE CHANGE
subject: RESISTANCE
subject: SUSTAINABILITY
subject: INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT
subject: DIVERSIFICATION
subject: FOOD POLICIES
subject: SOIL MANAGEMENT
subject: ENVIRONMENT
subject: Agroecology
subject: Southeast Asia
subject: Food systems
subject: Climate change adaptation
subject: Climate resilience
subject: Sustainable intensification
subject: Integrated farming systems
subject: Crop diversification
subject: Agroforestry
subject: Gender and inequality
subject: Agroecological principles
subject: Participatory guarantee systems
subject: Policy advocacy
subject: Food security and nutrition
subject: Sustainable soil management
subject: Integrated pest management
subject: Ecosystem services
subject: Greenhouse gas emissions
subject: Climate change mitigation
subject: Research gaps
subject: Knowledge exchange
subject: Multi-stakeholder collaboration
subject: Territorial approaches
subject: Landscape approaches
subject: Agroecological innovation
subject: Development priorities
subject: Social equity
subject: Resource governance
subject: Bottom-up processes
subject: Livelihood improvement
subject: Local universities
subject: Farmer field schools
subject: Agricultural transformation
subject: Regional networks

description: Background and objectives: Given the rapid pace of development in Southeast Asia, there are great environmental and climate change concerns associated with the unsustainable intensification of agri-food systems. Agroecology offers a holistic pathway to achieving resilient, equitable and nourishing food systems by addressing the gap between food production, ecosystem sustainability and social equity. However, there are large knowledge gaps on which and how agroecological approaches can be adopted to achieve positive impacts in rapidly evolving contexts in Southeast Asia. Governments and stakeholders need guidance on how agroecology can be integrated into programs, policies and initiatives, contributing to the food system transformation. In this context, World Vegetable Center (WorldVeg) conducted a scoping study to identify research gaps and development priorities for agroecological transition to climate-resilient and nourishing food systems in Southeast Asia. Methodology: A mixed-methods approach, combining a rapid review of peer-reviewed and grey literature and consultations of experts working on agroecology in Southeast Asia, was employed. In total, 406 publications were selected for the screening of title, abstract and keywords, and 60 publications were included in analysis. Over four hundred experts were identified through the literature review and snowball sampling and 47 were consulted through virtual interviews or written questionnaires. The literature review focused on selected common agroecological areas (sustainable soil management, integrated pest management and crop diversification and integrated farming systems) and assessed their impacts related to the High-Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition's 13 principles of agroecology. The expert consultations had a broader scope capturing progress, successes, and research priorities centered around 13 agroecological principles and the status of transition across Southeast Asia. General findings and impacts: In the rapid review, most included studies focused on integrated farming systems and crop diversification (n=46), with agroforestry (n=20) being the most often studied subject area. Indonesia and Vietnam featured the highest number of studies (27 and 19, respectively), followed by Thailand and Myanmar with ten and nine studies, respectively, seven studies in Laos, six in Cambodia and five in the Philippines. Staple food grains, particularly rice, were the most widely covered category of produced items in all agroecological studies. Fruits and then trees categories followed staple food grains. The review found that agroecological approaches have generally positive impacts associated with the 13 principles of agroecology. The most common positive effects of farm diversification and integration were increased household income and improved food security and nutrition. More specifically, several studies identified that crop diversification and integrated farming systems were associated with increased food security and dietary diversity in farming households. Positive impacts on ecosystem services, soils and biodiversity were also relatively commonly reported. Compared to the review by Hett et al. (2023) of agroecological initiatives in the Mekong region, we found less evidence of the effects of agroecological approaches on biodiversity, land and resource governance, likely due to the specific search strategy of our literature review. Climate change: Agroecological approaches, such as regenerative practices, conservation measures and agroforestry, can contribute to climate change adaptation and mitigation, however, only nine articles included in our review examined this relationship. A few case studies demonstrated that integrated production systems (e.g., rice-fish, crop-livestock, mixed agroforestry) can contribute to ecosystem maintenance and resilience to climate change and natural disasters. Only one study looked at greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which indicates a large knowledge gap regarding the effects of agroecology on GHG emissions. According to consulted experts, one of the major sources of GHG emissions in Southeast Asia is agriculture and land-use change. Experts further identified that all Southeast Asian countries are highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. They mentioned a growing awareness of the environmental, health, and economic costs associated with climate-related disasters, which are concerns that drive interest in agroecological alternatives. Due to the frequent typhoons, the Philippines was identified as the most climate-vulnerable. But the country seems to lean more towards technological and conventional intensification of agriculture, probably due to frequent disasters and the need of farmers to maximize and fasten the production between the typhoons. Gender and inequality: Gender was only addressed in 11 studies in our review, but included literature suggests positive effects of women's participation in the development and dissemination of agroecological innovations. One study concluded that women's participation can help spread innovations to a wide audience through their social networks and that participation is more likely when initiatives are complementary or an extension of existing gender roles. Women's roles and decision-making in agriculture and resource management were shown to be relatively limited, with men playing a larger role in decisions. One larger study from Indonesia, Vietnam, and the Philippines found evidence of inequality in resource access that favored men. Both literature sources and experts suggested that the rights of Indigenous women and girls are a matter of great concern because they suffer disproportionately from social, economic and political marginalization and discrimination, but also because, if given the opportunity, they are often effective agents of change within their communities. Adoption and barriers: There was limited information on the determinants of the adoption of agroecological practices, representing a future research need. A few important barriers that were identified in the literature were high initial costs of adopting agroecological practices, limited market access for small-scale farmers producing agroecological products, and the high price of third-party certification processes. Some experts mentioned unfavorable policies, lack of agroecological knowledge, time and risks associated with new practices and limited national budgets for R&amp;D support. Considering the determinants of agroecological adoption, participatory approaches linking producers and consumers and building mutual trust can facilitate successful models and technology transfer in real contexts. Experts also highlighted the urgent need to develop the capacity of local universities and to co-create solutions with them. Development solutions: Agroecological innovations such as food networks and sustainable value chains, including creating and strengthening bottom-up certification schemes (e.g. participatory guarantee systems) enabled smallholder farmers to participate and obtain certification of their products, based on active participation while building on trust, social networks and knowledge sharing. However, some experts remarked that such schemes work only in larger cities with growing demand and that they often depend on external funding. It is also important to promote agroecological principles in policy and through advocacy. This might include supporting alternative extension approaches like farmer field schools, which are recognized as a powerful extension instrument. Learning from the ALiSEA agroecological network, national foresight and vision to action workshops also appear as promising interventions for planning, stimulating and monitoring agroecology futures in individual countries. Agroecological transition: The majority of experts conveyed that only limited or moderate progress has been made in agroecological transitions in Southeast Asia. Cambodia and Vietnam were often mentioned as the countries with the highest probability of achieving agroecological goals in the next two decades. In addition, experts mentioned that the presence of financial and technical support from the UN, development banks, bilateral donors and international NGOs and agricultural research institutions strongly accelerate the transition to agroecology and related policy changes. Research gaps and priorities: Studies examining the effects of integrating multiple agroecological practices and principles are scarce, and more evidence is needed to inform effective program design. Sustainable soil management practices have a positive impact on the environment and the economy, but the cascading effect on livelihoods, food security or diets is yet to be evidenced. Further research should optimize integrated production systems to increase efficiency, resilience and circularity, while finding ways to reverse ongoing soil and water degradation in farms that have transitioned to monocropping systems. While adaptation of agriculture to a changing climate in this vulnerable region is crucial, future research should address a major knowledge gap in the greenhouse gas emissions and climate change mitigation potential of agroecology. Further efforts are needed to understand the impact of agroecological interventions on gender and social differences and inform best-practice guidelines to support inclusion and equity. A few experts mentioned a need to strengthen participatory guarantee schemes in different Southeast Asian countries and find ways to make the scheme financially independent. Overall, we found little evidence on several agroecology principles related to the agroecosystem level (synergies, animal health and recycling) and the food systems level (equity, connectivity and social values). Despite the growing interest in territorial and landscape approaches, bottom-up processes, and living labs, we found a lack of evidence on the impact and cost-effectiveness of these approaches in the region. Moreover, the focus on food system transformation through advocacy and policy change is also still missing. Agroecological innovations are often studied in a research environment and at the local level, while cross-sectoral approaches, integration at scale and multi-stakeholder collaboration between research and practice are still largely missing. National and regional networks appear highly beneficial for knowledge exchange, advocacy, and to drive change, but their sustainability is often subject to funding and external support. Finally, further research should evaluate the economic, environmental and health impacts of the previous and future agroecology-related policies and programs.