AGRO and the concept sustainable intensification
Sustainable intensification is a concept that covers AGRO’s strategy and research areas quite well.
Previous articles in Biweekly, such as “Agroecology Europe – a new European association” and “Agroecology Europe and the term ’agroecology’” by Jørgen Eriksen and ”Greater focus on agroecological research is the way forward for AGRO” by Per Kudsk have dealt with how the concept agroecology is perceived and what it means in relation to AGRO’s research and strategy. In this article I will shed light on the related concept ’sustainable intensification’, which covers AGRO’s strategy, research and research framework quite well.
Sustainable intensification, agroecological intensification and ecological intensification are related concepts, with common principles about sustainability and intensification as a means to meet the global climate and food security challenges. There are, however, also significant differences.
In rough terms, agroecological intensification has a mainly systemic approach to increasing agricultural productivity with a varying degree of focus on agricultural systems, socioeconomic, organisational and cultural dimensions in agriculture.
In comparison, sustainable intensification represents a more general approach and comprises most types of agriculture as long the focus is on sustainability in one way or another. In contrast to agroecological intensification, sustainable intensification is silent on how agriculture should be structured with regard to small or large farms or types of organisation.
Finally, there is ecological intensification, which is relatively closely related to sustainable intensification. Here the focus is mainly on the role of the ecological processes in reducing the yield gap.
Sustainable intensification as a concept was articulated by Jules Pretty in the 1990s as a reaction against the environmental consequences of the green revolution’s high external input-approach to promote productivity in developing country agriculture. The idea that sustainable intensification could enable an increase in yield per area unit without harming the environment was relatively new. The idea spread to the industrialised world’s agriculture as climate appeared on the agenda up though the 2000s. Pretty’s definition is still the one that is most commonly referred to:
“Intensification using natural, social and human capital assets, combined with the use of best available technologies and inputs (best genotypes and best ecological management) that minimize or eliminate harm to the environment.” (Agricultural sustainability: concepts, principles and evidence, page 451)
Another popular definition stems from FAO:
“Producing more from the same area of land while conserving resources, reducing negative impacts on the environment and enhancing natural capital and the flow of ecosystem services.”
A review of the scientific literature in the area, carried out by Wezel et al, shows that sustainable intensification is the most dominant of the three concepts mentioned.
Internationally, not least in the EU, in policies and research agendas, the concept has increasingly in recent years been connected with the mottos ’more knowledge per hectare’ and ’more for less agriculture’.
In particular, the motto ’more for less’ has set the framework for Danish agriculture in recent decades, both with regard to political control mechanisms and research agendas. The recently published Forsk 2025 catalogue is a clear example of sustainable intensification. For most researchers there is thus nothing new in working towards promoting sustainable intensification.
In addition to the points already mentioned, it should be pointed out that sustainable intensification differs from agroecological intensification by having a focus on technology and, in particular, new technology. This is in agreement with the 2014 SCAR (EU Commission’s Standing Committee on Agricultural Research) foresight study's recognition of digital technologies as technologies that promote sustainable intensification via reduction of climate footprints, improvement of soil quality and potential promotion of diversified production systems. Note that AGRO’s strategy aligns with SCAR.
Sustainable intensification is thus also in keeping with the need of the Danish targeted regulation policy for digital technology. However, while there is demand for using technology’s possibilities, it can also be argued that targeted regulation challenges the principles of sustainable intensification regarding striving for nutrient flows that are as closed as possible – specifically when it comes to intelligent buffer zones and controlled drainage.
We must realise that sustainable intensification is a persistent and in some cases overall concept. Internationally, research agendas based on sustainable intensification approaches, from Africa to Asia and Latin America to Europe, also contain considerable elements of agroecological intensification to address specific societal conditions.
In conclusion, it should be mentioned that sustainable intensification – like the other two concepts mentioned - is debated and dynamic. It is also broader than the other two. As the concept spreads there is a need for a higher degree of common understanding of its principles and boundaries not least in relation to its practical implementation. With this aim in mind, FACCE JPI – Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change - Joint Programming Initiative has created a knowledge network for sustainable intensification, in which AGRO participates.
For more information please contact Torsten Rødel Berg.
Read also Agroecology for Food Security and Nutrition: Proceedings of the FAO International symposium, 2014.