Addressing the Conceptual Controversy of Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture: A Combined Perspective from Environmental Philosophy and Agri-Environmental Sciences

During the last 20 years, agronomists, environmentalists and related researchers have conveyed the need of producing enough food to satisfy the growing population demand, with minimum environmental footprint. Under this framework, the need for a “sustainable intensification” (SI) of agriculture has arisen, being a concept deeply contested the last several years. We aim to shed some light on the matter from the point of view of both environmental philosophy and agri-environmental sciences. We found that the lack of clarity exposes the conceptual limits of SI, since its attributions are far from being extrapolated, for example, to animal production. Agricultural science should ensure that stakeholders understand the facts and implications of SI before implementing them. In addition, if understood only as either a set of practices or a sort of panacea, SI will be closer to fail for stakeholders’ expectations. Then, a key concern we have highlighted is one which should compel agri-environmental scientists and environmental philosophers alike to hold such conceptual frameworks accountable. Ensuring communities and public actors make informed choices about food security requires that shared goals between our disciplines are enacted in research, with community well-being as a core consideration of any debate regarding sustainability.

Related papers:

title: Solutions for a cultivated planet
abstract: Increasing population and consumption are placing unprecedented demands on agriculture and natural resources. Today, approximately a billion people are chronically malnourished while our agricultural systems are concurrently degrading land, water, biodiversity and climate on a global scale. To meet the world’s future food security and sustainability needs, food production must grow substantially while, at the same time, agriculture’s environmental footprint must shrink dramatically. Here we analyse solutions to this dilemma, showing that tremendous progress could be made by halting agricultural expansion, closing ‘yield gaps’ on underperforming lands, increasing cropping efficiency, shifting diets and reducing waste. Together, these strategies could double food production while greatly reducing the environmental impacts of agriculture.

title: Climate-smart agriculture for food security
abstract: Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) is an approach to the development of agricultural systems intended to help support food security under climate change. This Perspective outlines a set of CSA actions needed from public, private and civil society stakeholders: building evidence; increasing local institutional effectiveness; fostering coherence between climate and agricultural policies; and linking climate and agricultural financing.

title: Sustainable intensification in agricultural systems.
abstract: Agricultural systems are amended ecosystems with a variety of properties. Modern agroecosystems have tended towards high through-flow systems, with energy supplied by fossil fuels directed out of the system (either deliberately for harvests or accidentally through side effects). In the coming decades, resource constraints over water, soil, biodiversity and land will affect agricultural systems. Sustainable agroecosystems are those tending to have a positive impact on natural, social and human capital, while unsustainable systems feed back to deplete these assets, leaving fewer for the future. Sustainable intensification (SI) is defined as a process or system where agricultural yields are increased without adverse environmental impact and without the conversion of additional non-agricultural land. The concept does not articulate or privilege any particular vision or method of agricultural production. Rather, it emphasizes ends rather than means, and does not pre-determine technologies, species mix or particular design components. The combination of the terms 'sustainable' and 'intensification' is an attempt to indicate that desirable outcomes around both more food and improved environmental goods and services could be achieved by a variety of means. Nonetheless, it remains controversial to some.



This review analyses recent evidence of the impacts of SI in both developing and industrialized countries, and demonstrates that both yield and natural capital dividends can occur. The review begins with analysis of the emergence of combined agricultural-environmental systems, the environmental and social outcomes of recent agricultural revolutions, and analyses the challenges for food production this century as populations grow and consumption patterns change. Emergent criticisms are highlighted, and the positive impacts of SI on food outputs and renewable capital assets detailed. It concludes with observations on policies and incentives necessary for the wider adoption of SI, and indicates how SI could both promote transitions towards greener economies as well as benefit from progress in other sectors.

title: Agroforestry pathways for the intensification of shifting cultivation
abstract: As a system of land use which entails the deliberate association of trees with herbaceous field crops in time, shifting cultivation is one of the most ancient, widespread and, until recently, ecologically stable forms of agroforestry. However, under pressure of population and competing uses for land and labour, traditional swidden systems have been observed historically to undergo more or less predictable processes of intensification. Since shifting cultivation is an indigenous form of agroforestry, scientific agroforestry is not, strictly speaking, an ‘alternative’ to shifting cultivation, but rather a systematic approach to the recombination of its basic elements into more intensive, sustainable and politically viable forms of land use, whenever pressures signal the need for change in traditional swidden systems.Different agroforestry options open up from different stages of intensification in swidden systems. A review of evolutionary typologies of shifting cultivation gives rise to a framework for the identification of agroforestry interventions and development pathways appropriate to specific systems. technological proposals are limited to a short list of the most promising agroforestry interventions in ‘main sequence’ swidden systems. These include ‘integral taungya’, economically and biologically enriched fallows, variations on the “alley cropping” theme, and various tree crop alternatives to annual cropping systems. Examples and quantitative data are cited to substantiate the main hypotheses behind the proposals.

title: Précis of Knowledge and Its Place in Nature
abstract: What is the proper subject matter of epistemology, and what is the proper way to investigate that subject matter? Epistemologists are, of course, interested in knowledge,1 and there is surprisingly wide agreement that a proper understanding of knowledge must at least begin with an examination of our concept of knowledge. Notice, however, that this idea that an examination of knowledge must begin with an examination of our concept of it should not be uncontroversial. Consider, for example, an early chemist interested in investigating the nature of gold. It would not be a good idea to begin such an investigation with an examination of one's concept of gold. An agent's concept of gold may be defective in two different ways: first, it may be incomplete, leaving out features that are essential properties of the substance; and second, it may build in mistakes, by including features which gold does not actually have. Early on in a scientific investigation, one's concept of the subject matter (in this case, gold) is typically defective in both of these ways. Proper scientific procedure here suggests that we should look at gold itself, rather than our concept of gold. We need to try to understand what it is that all, or most, of the samples of (the stuff we take to be) gold have in common if we are properly to understand the nature of gold. By doing this, we may correct any misconceptions which are built in to our current concepts, as well as fill out any gaps in our concepts so that they may better reflect the actual features of the world. One of the goals of science is to develop concepts which adequately reflect the real causal structure of the world. We do not serve this goal by reflecting on our pre-existing, and possibly ill-informed, concepts. Could it be that the proper way to proceed in epistemology is much the same? That is, could it be that we ought to put aside all exploration of our

title: Buying into conservation: intrinsic versus instrumental value.
abstract: Many conservation biologists believe the best ethical basis for conserving natural entities is their claimed intrinsic value, not their instrumental value for humans. But there is significant confusion about what intrinsic value is and how it could govern conservation decision making. After examining what intrinsic value is supposed to be, we argue that it cannot guide the decision making conservation requires. An adequate ethical basis for conservation must do this, and instrumental value does it best.

title: What Is Biodiversity
abstract: In the life sciences, there is wide-ranging debate about biodiversity. While nearly everyone is in favor of biodiversity and its conservation, methods for its assessment vary enormously. So what exactly is biodiversity? Most theoretical work on the subject assumes it has something to do with species richness - the number of species in a particular region - but in reality, it is much more than that. Arguing that we can not make rational decisions about what it is to be protected without knowing what biodiversity is, James Maclaurin and Kim Sterelny offer in "What Is Biodiversity?" a theoretical and conceptual exploration of the biological world and how diversity is valued.Here, Maclaurin and Sterelny investigate not only the origins of the concept of biodiversity, but also how that concept has been shaped by ecology and more recently by conservation biology. They explain the different types of biodiversity important in evolutionary theory, developmental biology, ecology, morphology, and taxonomy and conclude that biological heritage is rich in not just one biodiversity but many. Maclaurin and Sterelny also explore the case for the conservation of these biodiversities using option value theory, a tool borrowed from economics.An erudite, provocative, timely, and creative attempt to answer a fundamental question, " will become a foundational text in the life sciences and studies thereof.

title: Sustainable Intensification in Agriculture: Premises and Policies
abstract: Clearer understanding is needed of the premises underlying SI and how it relates to food-system priorities. Food security is high on the global policy agenda. Demand for food is increasing as populations grow and gain wealth to purchase more varied and resource-intensive diets. There is increased competition for land, water, energy, and other inputs into food production. Climate change poses challenges to agriculture, particularly in developing countries (1), and many current farming practices damage the environment and are a major source of greenhouse gases (GHG). In an increasingly globalized world, food insecurity in one region can have widespread political and economic ramifications (2).

title: Sustainable intensification – “oxymoron” or “third-way”? A systematic review
abstract: Sustainable Intensification (SI) is a term that has been advanced to capture a concept that some consider as the ‘third paradigm’ for global agricultural development. However, the term has become subject to intense debates as well as scepticism and confusion regarding its meaning and the characteristics of production systems that could indicate SI (defined as “indicators”). This has resulted in a proliferation of literature. We have conducted a systematic review of a sample of this literature analysing the most commonly suggested indicators of SI in order to investigate the extent to which the critiques of SI are valid in their viewpoints that SI is an oxymoron, underpinned by a productivist agenda, and to identify the critical issues in the development of a comprehensive and unambiguous set of SI indicators. From 633 articles identified by a search of relevant databases, a sample of 75 articles were selected and analysed using the NVIVO™ software. The results were organised according to a Socio-Ecological Systems (SES) framework comprising seven sub-systems or components − resource system, resource units, governance system, resource users, interactions, outcomes, and environment. A total of 218 indicators (both positive and negative) were identified. Most of these indicators focused on the ‘outcomes’ of agricultural systems with the majority being related to agricultural production. Few indicators were identified as relating to the economic and societal dimensions of food systems. Whilst this potentially suggested a productivist bias in the current interpretation of SI it was difficult to draw a black and white conclusion, since for the other system components, the majority of the indicators suggested appeared to take a more holistic point-of-view and emphasised both productivity and sustainability of agricultural systems. Our analysis suggests that a key reason why SI may be viewed with scepticism is a lack of specificity and elucidation of the rationale, scale, and farm type for which SI is proposed. Moreover, a number of the indicators were so loosely defined that the interventions they imply could be enacted without due consideration of the social impacts of their adoption. We conclude that there is need to develop SI indicators according to specific farming types and scales and also with more consideration of the social and political dimensions of food systems in order to promote a constructive dialogue around the concept of SI to take place. Unless the concept of SI is described and measured in such a holistic and inclusive manner, it is unlikely to be accepted as a valid descriptor of sought-after agricultural practices by players in the Third Sector.

title: Deconstructing and unpacking scientific controversies in intensification and sustainability: why the tensions in concepts and values?
abstract: Assuming ‘ceteris paribus’ in terms of the viability of the planet during the coming half-century or so, the rising needs of a burgeoning, but also increasingly rich and demanding world population will drastically change agriculture. Crop yields and animal productivity will have to increase substantially, with the risk of further depleting the resource base and degrading the environment, making food production both the culprit and the victim. Future food security therefore depends on development of technologies that increase the efficiency of resource use and prevent externalization of costs. The current trend is towards intensification, especially more output per production unit so as to increase input efficiency. Whether that trend is sustainable is a matter of strong debate among scientists and policy-makers alike. The big question is how to produce more food with much fewer resources. Sustainable intensification (i.e., increasing agricultural output while keeping the ecological footprint as small as possible) for some is an oxymoron, unless real progress can be made in ecological intensification, that is, increasing agricultural output by capitalizing on ecological processes in agro-ecosystems. Definitions of intensification and sustainability vary greatly. The way these concepts are being used in different disciplines causes tensions and hides trade-offs instead of making them explicit. Inter-disciplinarity and boundary-crossing in terminology and concepts are needed. Implicitly, the operationalization of intensification and sustainability implies appreciation of and choices for values, an issue that is often overlooked and sometimes even denied in the natural sciences. The multidimensional nature of intensification needs to be linked to the various notions of sustainability, acknowledging a hierarchy of considerations underlying decision-making on trade-offs, thus allowing political and moral arguments to play a proper role in the strategy towards sustainable intensification. We make a plea to create clarity in assumptions, norms and values in that decision-making process. Acknowledging that win-win situations are rare and that (some) choices have to be made on non-scientific grounds makes the debate more transparent and its outcome more acceptable both to the scientific community and society at large.

title: Capably Communicating Science
abstract: There is no shortage of topics where policy-makers or other members of the public seem to persistently misunderstand, misrepresent, or disregard the underlying science: climate change, genetically modified foods, vaccines, or evolution, among others. Consequently, the call for scientists to do a better job of communicating both the meaning and the nature of their work is getting louder. Public understanding of science not only affects people's ability to appreciate and make full use of the products of science, it also contributes to the extent of support for scientific research. Yet far too many scientists are reluctant to engage with people outside their own community. The reasons range from a belief that this responsibility lies outside a scientist's “job description” to an expressed ignorance about how to go about it. In an attempt to find better solutions to this problem, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences convened a meeting of over 450 scientists, policy-makers, journalists, and other professional communicators to examine the underlying dynamics of science communication. The good news is that empirical studies across many disciplines, particularly in the behavioral and social sciences, are providing very useful baseline information about public attitudes and knowledge about science, as well as some fundamental principles that can help guide scientists to engage more effectively with both the public and policy-makers.†

title: Conceptualising fields of action for sustainable intensification – A systematic literature review and application to regional case studies
abstract: After two decades of research on sustainable intensification (SI), namely securing food production on less environmental cost, heterogeneous understandings and perspectives prevail in a broad and partly fragmented scientific literature. Structuring and consolidating contributions to provide practice-oriented guidelines are lacking. The objectives of this study are to (1) comprehensively explore the academic SI literature, (2) propose an implementation-oriented conceptual framework, and (3) demonstrate its applicability for region-specific problem settings. In a systematic literature review of 349 papers covering the international literature of 20 years of SI research, we identified SI practices and analysed temporal, spatial and disciplinary trends and foci. Based on key SI practices, a conceptual framework was developed differentiating four fields of action from farm to regional and landscape scale and from land use to structural optimisation. Its applicability to derive region-specific SI solutions was successfully tested through stakeholder processes in four European case studies. Disciplinary boundaries and the separation of the temporal and spatial strands in the literature prevent a holistic address of SI. This leads to the dominance of research describing SI practices in isolation, mainly on the farm scale. Coordinated actions on the regional scale and the coupling of multiple practices are comparatively underrepresented. Results from the case studies demonstrate that implementation is extremely context-sensitive and thus crucially depends on the situational knowledge of farmers and stakeholders. Although, there is no ‘one size fits all’ solution, practitioners in all regions identified the need for integrated solutions and common action to implement suitable SI strategies at the regional landscape level and in local ecosystems.

title: Putting meaning back into “sustainable intensification”
abstract: In light of human population growth, global food insecurity is an escalating concern. To meet increasing demand for food, leading scientists have called for “sustainable intensification”, defined as the process of enhancing agricultural yields with minimal environmental impact and without expanding the existing agricultural land base. We argue that this definition is inadequate to merit the term “sustainable”, because it lacks engagement with established principles that are central to sustainability. Sustainable intensification is likely to fail in improving food security if it continues to focus narrowly on food production ahead of other equally or more important variables that influence food security. Sustainable solutions for food security must be holistic and must address issues such as food accessibility. Wider consideration of issues related to equitable distribution of food and individual empowerment in the intensification decision process (distributive and procedural justice) is needed to put meaning back into the term “sustainable intensification”.

title: Food security and sustainable intensification
abstract: The coming decades are likely to see increasing pressures on the global food system, both on the demand side from increasing population and per capita consumption, and on the supply side from greater competition for inputs and from climate change. This paper argues that the magnitude of the challenge is such that action is needed throughout the food system, on moderating demand, reducing waste, improving governance and producing more food. It discusses in detail the last component, arguing that more food should be produced using sustainable intensification (SI) strategies, and explores the rationale behind, and meaning of, this term. It also investigates how SI may interact with other food policy agendas, in particular, land use and biodiversity, animal welfare and human nutrition.

title: Sustainable Intensification: What Is Its Role in Climate Smart Agriculture?
abstract: The ‘sustainable intensification’ (SI) approach and ‘climate-smart agriculture’ (CSA) are highly complementary. SI is an essential means of adapting to climate change, also resulting in lower emissions per unit of output. With its emphasis on improving risk management, information flows and local institutions to support adaptive capacity, CSA provides the foundations for incentivizing and enabling intensification. But adaptation requires going beyond a narrow intensification lens to include diversified farming systems, local adaptation planning, building responsive governance systems, enhancing leadership skills, and building asset diversity. While SI and CSA are crucial for global food and nutritional security, they are only part of a multi-pronged approach, that includes reducing consumption and waste, building social safety nets, facilitating trade, and enhancing diets.

title: Greenhouse gas emission footprints and energy use benchmarks for eight U.S. cities.
abstract: A hybrid life cycle-based trans-boundary greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions footprint is elucidated at the city-scale and evaluated for 8 US cities. The method incorporates end-uses of energy within city boundaries, plus cross-boundary demand for airline/freight transport and embodied energy of four key urban materials [food, water, energy (fuels), and shelter (cement)], essential for life in all cities. These cross-boundary activities contributed 47% on average more than the in-boundary GHG contributions traditionally reported for cities, indicating significant truncation at city boundaries of GHG emissions associated with urban activities. Incorporating cross-boundary contributions created convergence in per capita GHG emissions from the city-scale (average 23.7 mt-CO(2)e/capita) to the national-scale (24.5 mt-CO(2)e/capita), suggesting that six key cross-boundary activities may suffice to yield a holistic GHG emission footprint for cities, with important policy ramifications. Average GHG contributions from various human activity sectors include buildings/facilities energy use (47.1%), regional surface transport (20.8%), food production (14.7%), transport fuel production (6.4%), airline transport (4.8%), long-distance freight trucking (2.8%), cement production (2.2%), and water/wastewater/waste processing (1.3%). Energy-, travel-, and key materials-consumption efficiency metrics are elucidated in these sectors; these consumption metrics are observed to be largely similar across the eight U.S. cities and consistent with national/regional averages.

title: Fertilizer source and tillage effects on yield-scaled nitrous oxide emissions in a corn cropping system.
abstract: Management practices such as fertilizer or tillage regime may affect nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions and crop yields, each of which is commonly expressed with respect to area (e.g., kg N ha or Mg grain ha). Expressing N₂O emissions per unit of yield can account for both of these management impacts and might provide a useful metric for greenhouse gas inventories by relating N₂O emissions to grain production rates. The objective of this study was to examine the effects of long-term (>17 yr) tillage treatments and N fertilizer source on area- and yield-scaled N₂O emissions, soil N intensity, and nitrogen use efficiency for rainfed corn ( L.) in Minnesota over three growing seasons. Two different controlled-release fertilizers (CRFs) and conventional urea (CU) were surface-applied at 146 kg N ha(-1) several weeks after planting to conventional tillage (CT) and no-till (NT) treatments. Yield-scaled emissions across all treatments represented 0.4 to 1.1% of the N harvested in the grain. Both CRFs reduced soil nitrate intensity, but not N₂O emissions, compared with CU. One CRF, consisting of nitrification and urease inhibitors added to urea, decreased N₂O emissions compared with a polymer-coated urea (PCU). The PCU tended to have lower yields during the drier years of the study, which increased its yield-scaled N₂O emissions. The overall effectiveness of CRFs compared with CU in this study may have been reduced because they were applied several weeks after corn was planted. Across all N treatments, area-scaled N₂O emissions were not significantly affected by tillage. However, when expressed per unit yield of grain, grain N, or total aboveground N, N₂O emissions with NT were 52, 66, and 69% greater, respectively, compared with CT. Thus, in this cropping system and climate regime, production of an equivalent amount of grain using NT would generate substantially more N₂O compared with CT.

title: Producing more grain with lower environmental costs
abstract: Agriculture faces great challenges to ensure global food security by increasing yields while reducing environmental costs. Here we address this challenge by conducting a total of 153 site-year field experiments covering the main agro-ecological areas for rice, wheat and maize production in China. A set of integrated soil–crop system management practices based on a modern understanding of crop ecophysiology and soil biogeochemistry increases average yields for rice, wheat and maize from 7.2 million grams per hectare (Mg ha−1), 7.2 Mg ha−1 and 10.5 Mg ha−1 to 8.5 Mg ha−1, 8.9 Mg ha−1 and 14.2 Mg ha−1, respectively, without any increase in nitrogen fertilizer. Model simulation and life-cycle assessment show that reactive nitrogen losses and greenhouse gas emissions are reduced substantially by integrated soil–crop system management. If farmers in China could achieve average grain yields equivalent to 80% of this treatment by 2030, over the same planting area as in 2012, total production of rice, wheat and maize in China would be more than enough to meet the demand for direct human consumption and a substantially increased demand for animal feed, while decreasing the environmental costs of intensive agriculture.

title: The interaction of human population, food production, and biodiversity protection
abstract: Research suggests that the scale of human population and the current pace of its growth contribute substantially to the loss of biological diversity. Although technological change and unequal consumption inextricably mingle with demographic impacts on the environment, the needs of all human beings—especially for food—imply that projected population growth will undermine protection of the natural world. Numerous solutions have been proposed to boost food production while protecting biodiversity, but alone these proposals are unlikely to staunch biodiversity loss. An important approach to sustaining biodiversity and human well-being is through actions that can slow and eventually reverse population growth: investing in universal access to reproductive health services and contraceptive technologies, advancing women’s education, and achieving gender equality.

title: A quantitative and qualitative historical analysis of the scientific discipline of agroecology
abstract: At present, agroecology can be interpreted as a scientific discipline, as a movement or as a practice. In this paper we analyse the historical evolution of the scientific discipline of agroecology with a quantitative bibliometric analysis of 711 publications using the term agroecology and the derived term agroecological, as well as a qualitative analysis of definitions, topics and scales, where we also include further important works on agroecology. Agroecology emerged in the 1930s and the period up until the 1960s was the initial phase of agroecology. During the 1970s and 1980s, agroecology as a science expanded, and in the 1990s became institutionalized and consolidated. Since the 2000s, broader definitions have provided the basis for new dimensions in agroecology. During the last two decades the range of topics treated within agroecology grew enormously; also the publication rate has exploded within the last 10 years. The scale and dimension of scientific research in agroecology has changed over the past 80 years from the plot or field scale to the farm or agroecosystem scale and finally to the food system. Currently, three approaches persist: (1) the plot/field scale; (2) the agroecosystem/farm scale; and (3) the food system approach. In spite of a vague utilization of the term agroecology through its different meanings and definitions, the new views and dimensions brought to agroecology as a scientific discipline will probably facilitate efforts to respond to actual important questions on sustainable agriculture, global land use and climate change, or food security, due to increasingly applied systems thinking and interdisciplinary research approaches.

title: Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture
abstract: Agricultural development is currently facing unprecedented challenges. With 800 million people already having insufficient access to food, population growth estimates project an even bleaker situation in the future. The article summarizes the major schools of thought regarding how to face the dilemma, and advocates sustainable intensification of agriculture, relying on integrated use of a wide range of technologies to manage pests, nutrients, soil and water. Local knowledge and adaptive methods are stressed rather than comprehensive packages of externally-supplied technologies. The article shows how regenerative, low-input agriculture, founded on full farmer participation in all stages of development and extension, can be highly productive. It is stressed that policy must not prescribe specific, concretely defined technologies or practices, as this would restrict future farmer options. Farmers and communities should be allowed and encouraged to adapt to changing conditions; what needs to be sustainable are local processes of innovation and adaptation. 
 
The article highlights environmental and economic benefits resulting from sustainable intensification practices, for farmers as well as communities and nations with examples are taken from Africa, Asia and Latin America. 
 
Despite the increasing success of sustainable agriculture, it is clear that the challenge remains to ‘scale up’ the process from small ‘islands of success’ to fundamental reform of both policies and policy formulation processes.

title: Redefining agricultural yields: from tonnes to people nourished per hectare
abstract: Worldwide demand for crops is increasing rapidly due to global population growth, increased biofuel production, and changing dietary preferences. Meeting these growing demands will be a substantial challenge that will tax the capability of our food system and prompt calls to dramatically boost global crop production. However, to increase food availability, we may also consider how the world’s crops are allocated to different uses and whether it is possible to feed more people with current levels of crop production. Of particular interest are the uses of crops as animal feed and as biofuel feedstocks. Currently, 36% of the calories produced by the world’s crops are being used for animal feed, and only 12% of those feed calories ultimately contribute to the human diet (as meat and other animal products). Additionally, human-edible calories used for biofuel production increased fourfold between the years 2000 and 2010, from 1% to 4%, representing a net reduction of available food globally. In this study, we re-examine agricultural productivity, going from using the standard definition of yield (in tonnes per hectare, or similar units) to using the number of people actually fed per hectare of cropland. We find that, given the current mix of crop uses, growing food exclusively for direct human consumption could, in principle, increase available food calories by as much as 70%, which could feed an additional 4 billion people (more than the projected 2‐3 billion people arriving through population growth). Even small shifts in our allocation of crops to animal feed and biofuels could significantly increase global food availability, and could be an instrumental tool in meeting the challenges of ensuring global food security.

title: Why agronomy in the developing world has become contentious
abstract: In this paper we argue that over the last 40 years the context of agronomic research in the developing world has changed significantly. Three main changes are identified: the neoliberal turn in economic and social policy and the rise to prominence of the participation and environmental agendas. These changes have opened up new spaces for contestation around the goals, priorities, methods, results and recommendations of agronomic research. We suggest that this dynamic of contestation is having important effects on how agronomic research is planned, managed, implemented, evaluated and used, and is therefore worthy of detailed study. This is particularly so at a time when food security, rising food prices and the potential impacts of climate change on agriculture are in the policy spotlight. We outline a research agenda that should help illuminate the drivers, dynamics and impacts of this new ‘political agronomy’.