Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect

Ecological intensification of agriculture — sustainable

by nature
Pablo Tittonell

Strategies towards agricultural intensification differ on the research agendas for agricultural science. More recently,
definitions of sustainability and the variables included in its Bommarco et al. [3] explored synergies between ecological
evaluation. Different notions of the qualifiers of intensification intensification and the provision of bundles of ecosystem
(ecological, sustainable, durable, etc.) need to be unpacked. services and stated, as several others did (e.g. [4–11]), that
This paper examines conceptual differences between making use of the regulating functions of nature requires
sustainable and ecological intensification as used in research, landscape-level agroecosystem design. A few other authors
development, policy and the industry, particularly with respect adopted the term agro-ecological intensification (e.g. [12]),
to the balance between agriculture and nature. The study with no discernible difference with respect to the other
compares different discourses on models of intensification that two. These definitions tend to differ from agroecology,
differ in the role nature plays in the actual design of the systems. which describes not only a scientific discipline but also a
While sustainable intensification is generally loosely defined, so social movement [13].
that almost any model or technology can be labeled under it,
ecological intensification proposes landscape approaches that Sustainable intensification, as a concept, as a guiding
make smart use of the natural functionalities that ecosystems principle, has been widely adopted by international
offer. The aim is to design multifunctional agroecosystems that research and policy organisations such as the Consultative
are both sustained by nature and sustainable in their nature. Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR),
Addresses
the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United
Farming Systems Ecology, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 563, Nations (FAO), the World Economic Forum (Davos,
Wageningen 6700 AN, The Netherlands 2012), the Montpellier Panel (2013) or the Sustainable
Development Solutions Network (SDSN, 2013), and by
Corresponding author: Tittonell, Pablo ([email protected],
national policies such as the ‘Feed the Future’ program of
[email protected])
the US Government. The term is now also widely
employed in the agribusiness world or by large inter-
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2014, 8:53–61 national donor organisations. Another term that is closely
associated with these ideas is eco-efficiency, or producing
This review comes from a themed issue on Sustainability governance
and transformation more value with less impact, which was first coined
around the time of the Earth Summit of Rio in 1992
Edited by Paul C Struik and Thom W Kuyper
by the World Business Council for Sustainable Devel-
For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial opment (WBCSD). More recently, Keating et al. [14] re-
Received 14 November 2013; Accepted 11 August 2014 introduced the concept when analysing input elasticity
Available online 29th August 2014 (water and nitrogen) in agriculture in a paper presented at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.08.006 the 2009 Science Forum of the CGIAR. Eco-efficiency
became also part of our current jargon in agriculture.
1877-3435/# 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Are there fundamental differences among all these terms?

Is ecological intensification always sustainable? Can
intensification be sustainable without being ‘ecological’
or ‘eco-efficient’? These are rhetorical questions; the right
answer will always be context specific, and trying to find
sufficiently balanced responses would take several journal
Introduction
pages. It is not the objective here to compare technologies1
The search for paradigms to underpin new agricultural
intensification models able to feed the world now and in
the future, while maintaining and enhancing ecosystem 1
By ‘technology’ I mean ‘‘the application of scientific knowledge for
functions, has led to the emergence of different qualifiers practical purposes’’ (The Oxford Dictionary), and this broad definition
to the term intensification. Two of them in particular have may include very diverse forms of knowledge-into-practice depending
gained momentum in the scientific and development on the model of intensification considered; examples of agricultural
literature, namely sustainable intensification [1] and technologies range from crop rotation to irrigation techniques, geneti-
cally modified germplasm, composting, mechanisation, agrochemicals,
ecological intensification [2]. These were by no means biological control, greenhouses, GPS-controlled transit or nanotechnol-
the first publications to employ these terms, but perhaps ogy sensors for early detection of plant diseases for use in organic
the first ones that attempted to translate them into agriculture.

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2014, 8:53–61

54 Sustainability governance and transformation

or means of agricultural intensification with respect to be excluded.4 Re-investment in agricultural develop-

any particular indicator, or to provide recipes to solve the ment and the sustainable intensification discourse
world food problem.2 Yet one thing is known for certain: emerged in response to that. Since then, the industry
the current model of agricultural intensification is not was quick in coming up with statements that employed
sustainable (socially and thermodynamically), it is the terms ‘world’, ‘food’, ‘population’, ‘hunger’ and ‘sus-
neither ecological nor eco-efficient, it is ineffective at tainability’ in their commercial campaigns. The state-
feeding the world, it is harmful for the environment ments blogged recently by the Chief Technology Officer
and contributes to biodiversity loss [15–21,22,23,24]. of Monsanto, the 2013 World Food Prize laureate Mr.
These are incontestable signals from reality. They point Robert Fraley, are a good example of that (URL: http://
to an urgent need for alternative forms of agricultural monsantoblog.com/2013/10/07). Recent statements by
intensification. the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation — a shareholder
of Monsanto — in their sponsored blog point in the same
I will review the uses and definitions of the terms direction (URL: http://www.theguardian.com/global-
sustainable3 and ecological intensification in recent development/poverty-matters/2010/sep/29). Through the
scientific, press and policy papers, and their implica- sustainable intensification discourse, biotechnology found
tions for the balance between agriculture and nature in a new avenue to promote itself as a cure to world hunger.
our scientific practice. Because the concept of ecologi- They managed to engrave in part of the collective con-
cal intensification is somewhat newer and has been sciousness the idea that the world will not be able to feed
shown to have functional links with ecosystem services itself without genetically modifies crop cultivars, a primary
in recent scientific literature, I will more specifically commercial product line from this industry.
review current alternative models for ecological intensi-
fication and propose a conceptual framework for por- The fertiliser industry followed a different but comparable
traying the transition towards more sustainable food path. Back in June 2006, a summit of Agricultural Ministers
systems. of the African Union Member States that took place in
Abuja, Nigeria, in the presence of representatives of the
Definitions versus discourses fertiliser industry resolved ‘‘...to increase the level of use of
Pretty et al. [1] defined sustainable intensification — fertilizer from the current average of 8 kilograms per hectare to an
with special reference to Africa — as ‘(. . .) producing average of at least 50 kilograms per hectare by 2015’’, in order to
more output from the same area of land while reducing achieve the African Green Revolution (AGRA, URL:
the negative environmental impacts and at the same www.agra-alliance.org). The scientific backstopping that
time increasing contributions to natural capital and the led this summit to decide on such target rates of fertiliser
flow of environmental services’. This does not differ use was never revealed. More recently, the director of
much from the ideas expressed by Doré et al. [2] the International Fertiliser Industry Association (IFA), said
around ecological intensification, which imply produ- in their last annual report to be ‘‘...pleased that the new and
cing more but producing differently, and producing new aptly coined term ‘‘sustainable intensification’’ has been gaining
things (i.e. services, bio-energy). In essence, the differ- traction throughout the year 2012’’ (IFA, URL: http://www.
ence is not really in the definitions as much as in the fertilizer.org/ifa). Although they portray fertilisers as the
interpretation and/or in the way in which such defi- natural link between intensification and sustainability, the
nitions are used, and by whom. Grass-root organisations connection between this discourse and the original defi-
and environmental movements around the world are nition by Pretty et al. [1], or producing more with less,
weary of the term sustainable intensification which they remains unclear.
often see as a window-dressing, green-washing strategy
to justify any form of intensification (e.g. ‘A wolf in What does science say? Here, the field is also polarised.
sheep’s clothing’ — Friends of the Earth International Yet, the discourse that characterised the green revolu-
[25]). tion, one in which all hopes are placed in a few new
technologies that aim to address single problems at a
In 2008, the FAO stated that world food production time, has not really changed much in essence (cf.
must be doubled to feed a population of 9 billion people example in Box 1). An important implication of this
by 2050, and that to do so no technology should discourse is that technologies are developed elsewhere
and that farmers have to ‘adopt’ them [26,27]. Although
2
This would require examining the various dimensions of food secur-
4
ity (availability, access, utilisation and stability) and the contribution of Although this paved the road to a neo-productivist discourse, later on
different intensification models to each of them, as well as solutions to however the FAO clarified that waste reduction and improved access to
reduce food waste, to improve food nutritional quality and to influence food should be also addressed in parallel in order to achieve food
changes in current diets. security, as our current agricultural productivity would suffice to feed
3
The concept of sustainability is not being questioned here; just the the world now and in 2050 (Graziano da Silva, J., Keynote address at the
use of the term ‘sustainable intensification’ in the discourses of science, Economist Conference, ‘Feeding the World in 2050’, Geneva,
development, policy and the industry. Switzerland, 8 Feb. 2012).

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2014, 8:53–61 www.sciencedirect.com

 Ecological intensification Tittonell 55

Box 1 What is, and what is not ecosystem services (cf. references in the first paragraph).
The report published by the Thematic Group on Sustainable The role of local resources and indigenous knowledge is
Agriculture and Food Systems of the Sustainable Development also recognised, so that farmers are not mere adopters of
Solutions Network (SDSN, 2013) starts off with a series of 20 technologies; they generate locally adapted knowledge
questions that this group of agricultural scientists9 qualifies as and technologies [28,29].
‘tough’ questions that need to be addressed. Amongst them, these
two are quite illustrative:
The difference between both qualifiers of intensification
1. ‘‘How can biotechnology best contribute to future food and is thus not merely semantic, and it is reminiscent of the
nutritional security and serve the needs of the poor?’’ old dichotomy between input technologies versus process
2. ‘‘How much can organic agriculture contribute to feeding the technologies [30]. In practice, however, ecological
world? Where and at what cost?’’
intensification does not exhibit a consolidated set of
The controversy does not reside in the questions, which are management techniques but rather alternative models
important, but in the way they are formulated. The first question that take different shapes around the globe and that
assumes that biotechnology can contribute to food and nutritional integrate culture and nature to a variable extent.
security for the poor; the real question – to them – is how best? The
second question presupposes that organic agriculture can only offer
a partial solution to feeding the world (how much?), only in certain
places (where?) and with associated costs that need to be Models of ecological intensification
quantified. In linguistics, a discourse is a body of text that There is no single generalizable model of ecological
communicates specific information and knowledge, which is not intensification. Any generalization would be contrary to
isolated from other discourses (inter-discourse). Within a field of
intellectual inquiry, practitioners discuss ‘what is’ and ‘what is not’
the context-specific, ecosystem-based principles of eco-
discourses (Foucault M, The Order of Things. Pantheon, 1970). The logical intensification5 [2]. Models of ecological intensi-
two questions quoted above provide a good example of that. Why is fication may include, non-exhaustively, the practice of
it that the Where-and-at-what-cost part of the question only applies agroecology [31–34], organic agriculture (IFOAM, URL:
to organic farming? Are there no costs, restrictions or risks www.infohub.ifoam.org), diversified farming systems
associated with biotechnology that need to be investigated? I do not
mean to discuss this here. I just mean to illustrate to what extent the
(e.g. [35]), nature mimicry (e.g. [36]), and some forms
faith-in-new-technology discourse that marked the generation of of conservation agriculture (e.g. [37]) and of agroforestry
scientists from the green revolution remains influential, preventing (e.g. evergreen agriculture) (e.g. [38]). Traditional farm-
out-of-the-box thinking. The report I refer to is part of the process ing systems around the world may also offer valuable
leading to the Sustainable Development Goals that will succeed the
knowledge to inspire ecological intensification (e.g.
Millennium Development Goals in 2015. While we know that there is
not such a thing as unbiased, ‘value-free’ science, and that we have [39,40]). Indeed, the term Intensification ecologique was
to cope with that, there is still room to wonder whether we might not first used by francophone researchers to describe practices
be trying to solve today’s problems with the same mind-set that by pastoralists in the tropics [41]. Even permaculture may
created them.10 be seen as a source of knowledge for ecological intensi-
fication, especially for the restoration of degraded land-
9
In actuality, not all authors of this report are practicing scientists; scapes in tropical drylands, although the scientific
this work is also co-signed by representatives of the FAO, the industry underpinning of permaculture principles is still incipient
and the donor community. [42]. These systems differ especially in the way they
10
Statement attributed to Albert Einstein (1879–1955).
regard the impact of the surrounding natural environment
on agriculture, the impact of agriculture on the surround-
ing natural environment and the way natural elements are
the sustainable intensification discourse has been embedded in agricultural systems.
embraced by most international research organisations
as an aspiration, it has seldom been translated into Agroecology sensu SOCLA (Spanish acronym for the
strategies for its realisation that would exhibit discernible Latin American Society for Agroecology, URL: http://
differences from any of their previous actions. The term www.agroeco.org/socla) is in my opinion the most con-
remains loosely defined. For as long as different parties spicuous example of ecological intensification for family
disagree on how they define sustainability, or on the agriculture in terms of both technological and institu-
indicators and boundary conditions for its evaluation, tional development [13]. The movement counts thou-
perceptions on ‘sustainable’ intensification are likely sands of followers — researchers and practitioners —
to divert considerably. There are also examples in which and more than 20 years of existence in Latin America.
the term ecological intensification is used in a similarly Agroecology has inspired successful development
ambiguous way, although by contrast, this concept has policies in countries such as Brazil (Fome Zero Program,
brought in new keywords to the agricultural research
5
for development jargon such as ‘landscape’ or ‘ecosys- It must be noticed that these ideas differ from the sense in which
tems’ approaches, ‘functional biodiversity’, ‘regulation’, Cassman [43] employed the term ecological intensification earlier on, a
synonym with yield potential, soil quality and precision agriculture.
‘stability’, ‘pest-suppressive landscapes’ or the notion of Tittonell and Giller [44] explored critically the validity of this particular
‘trade-offs and synergies’ between rural livelihoods and definition in the context of Africa smallholder agriculture.

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2014, 8:53–61

56 Sustainability governance and transformation

URL: http://www.fomezero.org, or the National Program Figure 1

on Agroecology and Organic Production, URL: http://
portal.mda. gov.br/portal/institucional/planapo), where 16
even a Governmental Ministry for Agrarian Develop- 0.84 0.77 0.75 0.79
ment was created that promotes this form of agriculture 14

through territorial development [45]. Agroecology does 12

Yield organic (t ha–1)

not work through any standard or certification system,
save participatory community guaranty systems in cer- 10
tain cases (e.g. [41]). Other models of ecological intensi-
fication such as eco-agriculture [9] or diversified systems 8

[35] rely on similar principles as those that form the

6
pillars of agroecology — diversity, efficiency, recycling,
regulation — and deal mostly with large scale farming 4
systems. Unlike Agroecology, these models are not
necessarily linked to social movements and do not always 2
Org. Yield = 0.81 * Conv. Yield – 0.15
have unanimous positions on polemic technologies such R2 = 0.81
0
as genetically modified crops, which are not used in 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
agroecological farming due to their implications for food Yield conventional (t ha–1)
sovereignty and bio-safety [46,47]. Towards the end of
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
the 1990s a new model emerged in Europe that was
termed integrated agriculture, which applied largely to
A comparison of cereal yields (wheat, maize, rice, barley, rye and oats)
mixed farming system [48]. The model was presented as
under conventional vs. organic management as published in the
a go-between that brought in practices of organic farming scientific literature and compiled by de Ponti et al. [52]. The dash-dotted
such as crop rotation, pure grazing or planting of flower line indicates a 1:1 ratio. Vertical dotted lines correspond to quartiles in
strips to conventional farms. the distribution of conventional yields, and the figures in grey on top of
the chart are the average relative yield (organic/conventional) within each
quartile. In 50% of the cases conventional yields ranged between 1.2
One of the largest existing models of ecological intensi- and 5 t ha 1. Organic yields were greater than conventional in 10% of
fication worldwide in terms of surface area is organic the cases.
agriculture (37.2 million ha in 2011 [49]), although not all
forms of organic farming can be considered to be ecolo-
gically intensive or necessarily sustainable [50,51]. Yet,
organic agriculture may be seen as a laboratory for eco- the totality of the investment in research by the private
logical innovations, which are also applicable to large- sector.7
scale commercial farming in the North. Individual
organic farmers who constantly try, fail, learn and retry,
are largely responsible for most of such innovations, Biodiversity, regulation and ecosystem
assuming all the associated risks and costs. This services
farmer-driven process of knowledge and technology Research on ecological intensification requires a shift in
generation has led to crop yield levels that are worldwide disciplinary principles. Most of the progress made in
barely 20% lower on average than those attained under agronomy over the last half century was supported by
conventional farming6 (Figure 1), as concluded recently studying the ecology of mono-specific populations (crops)
by two independent studies conducted in parallel or autoecology, which refers to the study of individual
[52,53]. While the attainable yield gap between organic species in relation to their environment. This has been
and conventional agriculture is in the order of 20%, largely the approach followed by the strongly positivist
according to these studies, the gap in terms of invest- school of Theoretical Production Ecology funded by C.T.
ments in research for both models of agriculture is much de Wit in The Netherlands since the end of the 1960s,
wider. Conventional agriculture receives not only the which has influenced to a large extent the way in which
majority of the governmental funding but also almost we have analysed agricultural systems worldwide [54].
These principles are less applicable in the realm of
6 7
Such comparisons are only partial. In the first place, because they For example, The Netherlands has been pioneering in terms of
consider yield instead of productivity over time. Secondly, because the investment in organic agriculture research over the last decade. The
boundary conditions from where resources are drawn differ. In the case Dutch government committed to invest s20 million over the period
of nitrogen, for example, organic farming often draws resources from 2012-2016 in organic farming research, provided that the private sector
animal production (adjacent or not) or from symbiotic fixation, whereas matches this investment (http://topsectoren.nl/). A company like Mon-
conventional farming draws (non-renewable) resources largely from the santo invested in research (in conventional agriculture) as much as US$
Persian Gulf, the Niger delta or the Gulf of Mexico in the form of fossil 980 million or 10% of their sales only in 2012, and part of it was used to
energy to fuel the production of synthetic fertiliser. The rates of nitro- finance research done by public universities (http://www.monsanto.com/
gen used also differ widely between both systems. investors).

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2014, 8:53–61 www.sciencedirect.com

 Ecological intensification Tittonell 57

Table 1

Key criteria to illustrate differences in the approach taken in ‘classical’ agronomy and in agroecology, the disciplines that underpin
respectively the sustainable and ecological intensification discourses, with particular reference to quantitative systems analysis

Criterion Classical agronomy Agroecology

Discipline Auto-ecology (populations) Synecology (communities)
Dynamics Predictable outcomes (risk probabilities), Complex feedbacks, randomness, hysteresis (non-linearity,
feedbacks formalised, continuity irreversibility, discontinuity)
Diversity A burden (e.g. weeds, heterogeneity, asynchrony) An attribute (e.g. synergies, natural antagonisms, risk spreading)
Theory of control (best practices) Theory of regulation (let nature do its job)
Up-scaling Aggregation (nested systems from field to world). Emerging properties and interactions (the whole is more than the
Production at scale S (Ps) is calculated as: sum of its parts).
Ps = Ye  Ae + . . . + Yn  An Production at scale S (Ps) could be calculated, for example, as:
Ye,n: yield in production environments e, n Pe = (Y1e + Y2e + Yie + Y1e  Y2e  Yie)  Ae. . .
Ae,n: area of production environments e, n Pn = (Y1n + Y2n + Yin + Y1n  Y2n  Yin)  An
Ps = Pe + . . . + Pn + Pe  . . .  Pn
Y1,2,ie,n: yield of activities 1, 2, i in production environments e, n
Ae,n: area of production environments e, n
Diagnosis (examples) Land use efficiency (yield) Land equivalent ratios
Yield gap/yield potential or water-limited potential Farm or landscape productivity gap/possibility frontier
Nutrient flows and balances Nutrient networks, cycling and ascendency a
Efficiency as a ratio (output per unit input) Efficiency as an emerging property (matrix)
Calories per unit area per unit time Nutritional diversity over time
a
Sensu Ulanowicz RE, 2001. Information theory in ecology. Comp Chem 25: 393–399.

community ecology or synecology, the study of groups of ability of ecologically intensive farming to provide eco-
organisms in relation to their environment. Ecological system services of support and regulation by managing
intensification through agroecology relies largely on spa- both in-field and off-field diversity, and pointed to the
tio-temporal diversification (of species, of functional existence of major knowledge gaps in this realm (notably
traits) and on the emergent patterns and processes that in the area of above-belowground interactions).
result from that [5,55]. As a consequence, ‘classical’
agronomy and agroecology differ not only in their core Towards sustainable food systems
scientific discipline but also in the way they deal with Irrespective of the qualifier of intensification of choice,
principles such as diversity, dynamics and scaling, with whether sustainable or ecological, transitioning towards
unpredictability and risks (from control to regulation), or sustainable food systems supported by multi-functional
in the indicators used to assess systems performance landscapes requires both technological and institutional
(Table 1). In particular, the differences in the criteria innovation (Figure 2). Optimisation of current practices,
used for diagnosis lead to endless discussions between the as advocated in the eco-efficiency literature (e.g. [64]) will
proponents of both approaches. Although both parties only result in limited — though necessary — progress,
attempt to argue which model is best, the problem is that because the inherent structures and functions in the
they often use different definitions of what ‘best’ means. system that render it inefficient — for example, their
dependence on fossil fuels and subsidies — are not being
The ability of ecologically intensive systems to contribute contested. Increased demand for organic food or any other
to ecosystem service provision and to system regulation in form of production perceived as sustainable by consu-
the face of external shocks such as climate change has mers, in combination with regulations (restrictive
been recently reviewed, usually in comparison with con- policies, tax mechanisms or certification standards) can
ventional systems [11,56–61]. Rossing et al. [62] made a provoke progressive shifts towards input substitution
comparative analysis of the data presented in these models. These systems are often found among those
reviews and concluded that organic and agro-ecological certified as organic. In input-substitution models the
farming systems performed better in providing climate principles of industrial agriculture are not necessarily
change relevant ecosystem services, such as carbon abandoned (e.g. monocultures); only the inputs that are
sequestration up to 30 cm depth, energy use efficiency, used are of a different nature [65]. These systems are
soil water holding capacity, resilience to drought and sometimes motivated by commercial opportunities, for
resilience to hurricanes and heavy rainfall. No differences instance, by surplus prices for organic food. In other cases,
between systems were found for global warming potential these are systems that are in transition towards more
and for carbon sequestration up to 1 m due to lack of data. ecologically intensive models [66]. Because they are
Crowder et al. [63] and Bommarco et al. [3] showed the subject to a number of restrictions, they may be even

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2014, 8:53–61

58 Sustainability governance and transformation

Figure 2 farmers’ right to manage and reproduce such diversity

constitutes a central pillar of food sovereignty [72]. In the
few examples in the world where such transitions are
Institutional innovation

o-
Critical Agr ical taking place, such as in family agriculture in Brazil, they
transition c o log es &
zone
e cap
ds em
s are backstopped by a solid network of social movements
(vulnerability) lan syst
f o o d and by enabling governance mechanisms aimed to sup-
ive
tem
s
Sys sign port territorial development.8 But none of this can be
r re-d
e
mer d effective without vertical integration with subsequent
nsu
Co ts
ut ove
men links in the food chain, which requires articulation be-
ns Inp tion lm
atio s titu ocia tween responsible traders and consumers as well [74].
gul su b of s
Re tion
evolu nt
Co- me
Eco cy
- elop
ien ial dev Conclusions
effic r itor
Ter
The difference between sustainable and ecological
t
rren intensification goes beyond pure semantics. Although
n’

Cu ems
tio

t
isa

s
s y the definitions given in literature do not differ much in
im
pt

concept, sustainable intensification is currently in use to

‘O

Technological innovation justify any form of intensification, by both public and

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability private parties. Ecological intensification, on the other
hand, is defined as the means to make intensive and smart
Transition towards sustainable food systems that rely on ecologically use of the natural functionalities of the ecosystem (support,
intensive, multifunctional landscapes requires both technological and regulation) to produce food, fibre, energy and ecological
institutional innovation. The trajectory may not necessarily be services in a sustainable way. The major difference be-
rectilinear, as indicated in the diagram for the sake of simplicity. tween both concepts resides in the role nature plays in the
Optimisation of current practices without thorough reconfiguration of
the agroecosystem is just the beginning (eco-efficiency). The influence
actual design of the systems, and in the possible synergies
of drivers such as consumer preferences or increased regulations may between food security (livelihoods), global change adap-
require further technological and institutional innovation to support tation and mitigation. Since the ecological processes that
input substitution models, which are most vulnerable to both external underpin support and regulation services operate beyond
and internal factors. Further innovation may foster agroecosystem
redesign to decouple agriculture from fossil fuel energy and to make it
the boundaries of a single farm, the scales of analysis and
compatible with nature conservation. Ultimately, for such new systems design also differ. While sustainable intensification — and/
to be sustainably integrated within food systems they must co-evolve or eco-efficient — solutions are still designed by reasoning
with social mobilisation and governance mechanisms for territorial at the scale of a single crop or agricultural field, ecological
development. intensification needs to embrace the complexity of the
landscape. As a consequence, actions to support ecological
intensification may often require collective decision-mak-
less resilient, or more vulnerable to external shocks than ing, which calls also for institutional innovation. Current
conventional systems, for which choices are broader [67]. models of ecological intensification include a.o. agroecol-
Supportive policies may be necessary to overcome such ogy, organic, bio-diverse and restorative agriculture. They
critical transitions. all differ in the degree they internalise diversity, cycling,
ecosystem services, governance and social movements. A
Increasing resilience while contributing to support eco- common denominator is their reliance on biodiversity and
system functions of local and global relevance requires in natural regulation. While many of the claims made for
most cases a thorough re-design of the agroecosystem. these models are yet to be proven effective, adaptable or
This step is known as ‘agroecological articulation’ in the scalable, no form of ecological intensification is able to offer
agroecology literature, and it implies both horizontal and quick fixes: serious investment in this type of research
vertical integration within sustainable food systems [68]. requires long-term commitment. For example, nutrient
In other words, if the aim is to implement diverse agricul- management is currently a bottleneck for the expansion of
tural systems, then human diets should also be diverse. ecologically intensive agriculture, which depends largely
Because the ecological functions that underpin services of on mixed farming, and research on alternatives for the
support and regulation operate at scales wider than the future is much needed. Global assessments of productivity
agricultural field or individual farm, this transition levels show that investments in research for ecologically
requires landscape approaches to agroecosystem design
(e.g. pest-suppressive landscapes through evolutionary 8
As part of a multiyear plan to eradicate hunger, the government of
design [69], ecosystem service bundles [70]). Moving Brazil created in 2000 a Ministry of Agrarian Development that attends
from farm to landscape scale implies moving from indi- to the specific needs of the large smallholder sector in the country
(unlike the traditional and co-existing Ministry of Agriculture), support-
vidual to collective decision-making, which requires ing resettling of urban dwellers in rural areas, by providing not only land
innovative approaches to foster co-design [71]. Agro-bio- and credit but also training, infrastructure, schools, banks, access to
diversity is an essential component of the system and markets and capital assets [73].

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2014, 8:53–61 www.sciencedirect.com

 Ecological intensification Tittonell 59

intensive farming will pay off, and the same principles that fertility management by smallholder farmers in the Andean
highlands. Adv Agron 2012, 116:125-184.
are useful in decoupling agriculture from large energy
13. Altieri MA, Funes-Monzote FR, Petersen P: Agroecologically
subsidies in the North can also inform strategies for soil  efficient agricultural systems for smallholder farmers:
rehabilitation and efficient use of minimum inputs in the contributions to food sovereignty. Agron Sustain Dev 2012,
South. Through a landscape approach, ecological intensi- 32:1-13.
Authors describe how modern agricultural science and indigenous knowl-
fication aims to design multifunctional agroecosystems that edge systems can be blended to enhance food security and conserve
are both sustained by nature and sustainable in their natural resources. They present case studies from Cuba, Brazil, Philip-
pines, and Africa to demonstrate how agroecologically efficient agricul-
nature. tural systems of smallholders can develop into robust pathways towards
productive and resilient agroecosystems
References and recommended reading 14. Keating BA, Carberry PS, Bindraban PS, Asseng S, Meinke H,
Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, Dixon J: Eco-efficient agriculture: concepts, challenges and
have been highlighted as: opportunities. Crop Sci 2010, 50:S-S109.
15. Tilman D, Cassman KG, Matson PA, Naylor R, Polasky S:
 of special interest
Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices.
 of outstanding interest Nature 2002, 418:671-677.
16. Tilman D, Balzer C, Hill J, Befort BL: Global food demand and the
1. Pretty JN, Toulmin C, Williams S: Sustainable intensification in sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc Natl Acad Sci U
 African agriculture. Int J Agr Sustain 2011, 9:5-24. S A 2011, 108:20260-20264.
This paper describes projects of sustainable intensification in Africa. The
paper shows that once it is recognised that agriculture really matters, it is 17. Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR,
possible to increase agricultural production, without harm to the envir- Stuart Chapin F, Coe MT, Daily GC, Gibbs HK et al.: Global
onment. The impact of sustainable intensification can be huge on domes- consequences of land use. Science 2005, 309:570-574.
tic food budgets, social infrastructure, business development and the
18. Grau HR, Gasparri NI, Aide TM: Agriculture expansion and
well-being of both the rural and the urban populations.
deforestation in seasonally dry forests of northwest
2. Doré T, Makowski D, Malézieux E, Munier-Jolain N, Argentina. Environ Conserv 2005, 32:140-148.
 Tchamitchian M, Tittonell P: Facing up to the paradigm of
ecological intensification in agronomy: revisiting methods, 19. Rand TA, Tylianakis JM, Tscharntke T: Spillover edge effects: the
concepts and knowledge. Eur J Agron 2011, 34:197-210. dispersal of agriculturally subsidized insect natural enemies
Authors propose five avenues for agronomic research to strengthen into adjacent natural habitats. Ecol Lett 2006, 9:603-614.
ecological intensification and to deepen knowledge of agroecosystems 20. Fischer J, Manning AD, Steffen W, Rose DB, Daniell K, Felton A,
for action. These include the use of new insight from plant sciences (e.g. Garnett S, Gilna B, Heinsohn R, Lindenmayer DB et al.: Mind the
energy conversion efficiency, nitrogen use efficiency, and defence sustainability gap. Trends Ecol Evol 2007, 22:621-624.
mechanisms against pests), the use of natural ecosystems as a source
of inspiration for cropping systems design, the use of farmers’ systems 21. Kleijn D, Kohler F, Baldi A, Batary P, Concepcion ED, Clough Y,
knowledge for scientific knowledge and innovation, the use of meta- Diaz M, Gabriel D, Holzschuh A, Knop E et al.: On the relationship
analyses, and comparative system studies. between farmland biodiversity and land-use intensity in
Europe. Proc R Soc B 2009, 276:903-909.
3. Bommarco R, Kleijn D, Potts SG: Ecological intensification:
harnessing ecosystem services for food security. Trends Ecol 22. Geiger F, Bengtsson J, Berendse F, Weisser WW, Emmerson M,
Evol 2013, 28:230-238.  Morales MB, Ceryngier P, Liira J, Tscharntke T, Winqvist C et al.:
Persistent negative effects of pesticides on biodiversity and
4. Altieri MA: Agroecology: the science of natural resource
biological control potential on European farmland. Basic Appl
management for poor farmers in marginal environments. Agr
Ecol 2010, 11:97-105.
Ecosyst Environ 2002, 93:1-24.
A comprehensive collection of data across Europe showing the impact of
5. Tscharntke T, Klein AM, Kruess A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Thies C: intensive farming on biodiversity.
Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and
biodiversity: ecosystem service management. Ecol Lett 2005, 23. Godfray HCJ, Beddington JR, Crute IR, Haddad L, Lawrence D,
8:857-874. Muir JF, Pretty J: Food security: the challenge of feeding 9
billion people. Science 2010, 327:812-818.
6. Hooper DU, Chapin FS, Ewel JJ, Hector A, Inchausti P, Lavorel S,
Lawton JH, Lodge DM, Loreau M, Naeem S et al.: Effects of 24. Barnosky AD, Matzke N, Tomiya S, Wogan GOU, Swartz B,
biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current Quental TB, Marshall C, McGuire JL, Lindsey EL, Maguire et al.:
knowledge. Ecol Monogr 2005, 75:3-35. Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature
2011, 471:51-57.
7. Bianchi FJJA, Booij CJH, Tscharntke T: Sustainable pest
regulation in agricultural landscapes: a review on landscape 25. Collins ED, Chandrasekaran K: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing? An
composition, biodiversity and natural pest control. Proc R Soc analysis of the ‘sustainable intensification’ of agriculture.
B 2006, 273:1715-1727. Amsterdam: Friends of the Earth International; 2012, .

8. Barrios E: Soil biota, ecosystem services and land productivity. 26. Feder G, Umali DL: The adoption of agricultural innovations: a
Ecol Econ 2007, 64:269-285. review. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 1993, 43:215-239.

9. Scherr SJ, McNeely JA: Biodiversity conservation and 27. Dethier JJ, Effenberger A: Agriculture and development: a brief
agricultural sustainability: towards a new paradigm of review of the literature. Econ Syst 2012, 36:175-205.
‘ecoagriculture’ landscapes. Philos T R Soc B 2008, 363:477-
494. 28. Klerkx L, Aarts N, Leeuwis C: Adaptive management in
agricultural innovation systems: the interactions between
10. Lin BB: Resilience in agriculture through crop diversification: innovation networks and their environment. Agric Syst 2010,
adaptive management for environmental change. Bioscience 103:390-400.
2011, 61:183-193.
29. Vandermeer J, Perfecto I: Complex traditions: intersecting
11. Kremen C, Miles A: Ecosystem services in biologically theoretical frameworks in agroecological research. Agroecol
diversified versus conventional farming systems: benefits, Sustain Food Syst 2013, 37:76-89 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
externalities, and trade-offs. Ecol Soc 2012, 17:40. 10440046.2012.717904.
12. Fonte SJ, Vanek SJ, Oyarzun P, Parsa S, Quintero DC, Rao IM, 30. Vanloqueren G, Baret PV: How agricultural research systems
Lavelle P: Pathways to agroecological intensification of soil shape a technological regime that develops genetic

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2014, 8:53–61

60 Sustainability governance and transformation

engineering but locks out agroecological innovations. Res 51. Kirchmann H, Bergstrom L (Eds): Organic Crop Production —
Policy 2009, 38:971-983. Ambitions and Limitations. Springer; 2008 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/978-1-4020-9316-6.
31. Altieri MA, Nicholls CI: An agroecological basis for designing
diversified cropping systems in the tropics. In New Dimensions 52. de Ponti T, Rijk B, van Ittersum MK: The crop yield gap between
in Agroecology. Edited by Clements DR, Shresta A. New York: organic and conventional agriculture. Agric Syst 2012, 108:1-9.
Haworth Press; 2004.
53. Seufert V, Ramankutty N, Foley JA: Comparing the yields
32. Gliessman SR: Agroecology: Ecological Processes in Sustainable of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature 2012,
Agriculture. edn 2. Boca Raton, New York: Lewis Publisher; 2007, . 485:229-232.
33. Wezel A, Bellon S, Doré T, Francis C, Vallod D, David C: 54. Van Ittersum MK, Rabbinge R: Concepts in production ecology
Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A for analysis and quantification of agricultural input–output
review. Agron Sustain Dev 2009, 29:503-515. combinations. Field Crops Res 1997, 52:197-208.
34. Tomich TP, Brodt S, Ferris H, Galt R, Horwath WR, Kebreab E, 55. Ratnadass A, Fernandes P, Avelino J, Habib R: Plant species
Leveau JHJ, Liptzin D, Lubell M, Merel P et al.: Agroecology: a diversity for sustainable management of crop pests and
review from a global-change perspective. Annu Rev Environ diseases in agroecosystems: a review. Agron Sustain Dev 2012,
Resour 2011, 36:193-222. 32:273-303.
35. Kremen C, Iles A, Bacon C: Diversified farming systems: an 56. Gattinger A, Muller A, Haeni M, Skinner C, Fliessbach A,
agroecological, systems-based alternative to modern Buchmann N, Mäder P, Stolze M, Smith P, El-Hage Scialabba N,
industrial agriculture. Ecol Soc 2012, 17:44. Niggli U: Enhanced top soil carbon stocks under organic
farming. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2012, 109:18226-18231.
36. Malézieux E: Designing cropping systems from nature. Agron
Sustain Dev 2012, 32:15-29. 57. Goh KM: Greater mitigation of climate change by organic than
conventional agriculture: a review. Biol Agric Hortic 2012,
37. Tittonell P, Scopel E, Andrieu N, Posthumus H, Mapfumo P, 27:205-229.
Corbeels M, van Halsema GE, Lahmar R, Lugandu S,
Rakotoarisoa J et al.: Agroecology-based aggradation- 58. Tuomisto HL, Hodge ID, Riordan P, Macdonald DW: Does organic
conservation agriculture (ABACO): targeting innovations to farming reduce environmental impacts? A meta-analysis of
combat soil degradation and food insecurity in semi-arid European research. J Environ Manage 2012, 112:309-320.
Africa. Field Crops Res 2012, 132:168-174.
59. Lynch DH, MacRae R, Martin RC: The carbon and global
38. Glover JD, Reganold JP, Cox CM: Agriculture: plant perennials warming potential impacts of organic farming: does it have a
to save Africa’s soils. Nature 2012, 489:359-361. significant role in an energy constrained world? Sustainability
2011, 3:322-362.
39. Khumairoh U, Groot JCJ, Lantinga EA: Complex agro-
ecosystems for food security in a changing climate. Ecol Evol 60. Gomiero T, Pimentel D, Paoletti MG: Environmental impact of
2012, 2:1696-1704. different agricultural management practices: conventional vs.
organic agriculture. Crit Rev Plant Sci 2011, 30:95-124.
40. Lahmar R, Bationo BA, Lamso ND, Guéro Y, Tittonell P: Tailoring
conservation agriculture technologies to West Africa semi- 61. El-Hage Scialabba N, Müller-Lindenlauf M: Organic agriculture
arid zones: building on traditional local practices for soil and climate change. Ren Agric Food Syst 2010, 25:158-169.
restoration. Field Crops Res 2012, 132:158-167.
62. Rossing WAH, Modernel P, Tittonell P: Diversity in organic and
41. Egger K: Ecological intensification. Soil conservation and agro-ecological farming systems for mitigation of climate
improvement of tropical soils by pastoral agroforestry change impact, with examples from Latin America. In Climate
systems. Collect Docum Syst Agrair 1986, 6:129-135. Change Impact and Adaptation in Agricultural Systems. Edited by
Fuhrer J, Gregory PJ. CAB International; 2013:69-87.
42. Fergusson RS, Lovell ST: Permaculture for agroecology:
design, movement, practice, and worldview. A review. Agron 63. Crowder DW, Northfield TD, Strand MR, Snyder WE: Organic
Sustain Dev 2013 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0181-6. agriculture promotes evenness and natural pest control.
Nature 2010, 466:109-112.
43. Cassman KG: Ecological intensification of cereal production
systems: yield potential, soil quality, and precision agriculture. 64. Carberry PS, Liang WL, Twomlow S, Holzworth DP,
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1999, 96:5952-5959. Dimes JP, McClelland T, Huth NI, Chen F, Hochman Z, Keating BA:
Scope for improved eco-efficiency varies among diverse
44. Tittonell P, Giller KE: When yield gaps are poverty traps: the cropping systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2013, 110:8381-
paradigm of ecological intensification in African smallholder 8386.
agriculture. Field Crops Res 2013, 143:76-90.
65. Darnhofer I, Lindenthal T, Bartel-Kratochvil R, Zollitsch W:
45. Paulino ET: The agricultural, environmental and socio-political Conventionalisation of organic farming practices: from
repercussions of Brazil’s land governance system. Land Use structural criteria towards an assessment based on organic
Policy 2014, 36:134-144. principles. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 2010, 30:67-81.
46. Nelson E, Gomez Tovar L, Schwentesius Rindermann R, Gomez 66. Lamine C, Bellon S: Conversion to organic farming: a
Cruz MA: Participatory organic certification in Mexico: an multidimensional research object at the crossroads of
alternative approach to maintaining the integrity of the organic agricultural and social sciences. A review. Agron Sustain Dev
label. Agric Hum Values 2010, 27:227-237. 2009, 29:97-112.
47. Scoones I: Mobilizing against GM Crops in India, South Africa 67. Zorn A, Lippert C, Dabbert S: An analysis of the risks of non-
and Brazil. J Agrar Change 2008, 8:315-344. compliance with the European organic standard: a categorical
analysis of farm data from a German control body. Food
48. Lantinga EA, Boele E, Rabbinge R: Maximizing the nitrogen Control 2013, 30:692-699.
efficiency of a prototype mixed crop-livestock farm in The
Netherlands. NJAS Wagen J Life Sc 2013, 66:15-22. 68. Gliessman S: Agroecology and food system transformation.
Agroecol Sustain Food Syst 2013, 37:1-2.
49. Willer H, Lernoud J (Eds): Organic agriculture worldwide: key
results from the FiBL-IFOAM survey on organic agriculture 69. Groot JCJ, Rossing WAH: Model-aided learning for adaptive
worldwide 2013. Slide collection. Frick, Switzerland: Research management of natural resources: an evolutionary design
Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL); 2013. perspective. Methods Ecol Evol 2011, 2:643-650.
50. Hole DG, Perkins AJ, Wilson JD, Alexander IH, Grice PV, Evans AD: 70. Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM: Ecosystem
Does organic farming benefit biodiversity? Biol Conserv 2005, service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes.
122:113-130. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010, 107:5242-5247.

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2014, 8:53–61 www.sciencedirect.com

 Ecological intensification Tittonell 61

71. Speelman EN, Garcı́a-Barrios LE, Groot JCJ, Tittonell P: Gaming 73. Medaets JP, Kleber Pettan K, Takagi M: Family farming and food
for smallholder participation in the design of more sustainable security in Brazil. OECD Global Forum on Agriculture, Designing
agricultural landscapes. Agric Syst 2013 http://dx.doi.org/ and Implementing pro-Poor Agricultural Policies; Brasilia,
10.1016/j.agsy.2013.09.002. November 2003: 2003.
72. Holt-Giménez E, Altieri MA: Agroecology, food sovereignty, and 74. Holt-Gimenez E, Shattuck A: Food crises, food regimes, and
the new green revolution. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst 2013, food movements: rumblings of reform or tides of
37:90-102. transformation? J Peasant Stud 2011, 38:109-144.

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2014, 8:53–61