Agroecology: Can it inform disaster risk management in fragile settings?

Introduction

In efforts to guide transitions to sustainable agriculture, the High-Level Panel of Experts at the Committee on World Food Security introduced 13 agroecology principles to United Nations Member States (HLPE, 2019). In essence, these principles aim for improved resource efficiency, strengthened resilience and secured social equity and responsibility. There is a growing body of literature on how these principles shall support food system transitions in regions with functioning institutions and governance. In fragile and conflict-affected contexts with reoccurring disasters, less evidence exists. Apart from hints of how agroecology potentially mitigates climate-driven social and ecological disasters (McGreevy et al., 2022; McAllister and Wright, 2019; Altieri et al., 2015), the literature at the interface of agroecology and disaster risk management is relatively thin.

One reason for striving for a better understanding of the benefits of agroecology principles in fragile regions is that food system vulnerabilities have increased, as has food assistance for tackling malnutrition and saving lives (Bernard de Raymond et al., 2021). Since 2018, the number of undernourished populations worldwide has grown to 828 million (FAO, 2022). Because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, supply chain disruptions, impacts from climate change and soaring food prices, the number of malnourished populations will likely rise. About 89% of all humanitarian funding worldwide responds to immediate humanitarian needs ¹ . The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reports that humanitarian appeals are needed for an average of seven years, and these appeals have increased in volume by 400% in the last decade (OCHA, 2018a; OCHA, 2018b). Against this background, the question of whether agroecology principles can reduce the need for humanitarian aid is quite legitimate. Yet, the answers are more complex than the question.

Food system vulnerabilities are exacerbated by pandemics (e.g., COVID-19), natural disasters (earthquakes, landslides, droughts, floods, collapse of soil health) or inter-state conflicts. In complex, fragile systems, disturbances unfold in combinations. Although scales and intensities vary, disturbances impair production, supply chains and access to food. Preparing already vulnerable food systems for complex disasters and stabilising them after significant disturbances are challenging tasks for humanitarian actors (Puma et al., 2015; Zurayk et al., 2022). Considering humanitarian funding gaps, the focus of aid is on alleviating the immediate suffering of affected populations. Understandably, there are fewer capacities for investing in long-term sustainability that render food systems more resilient to future shocks.

Against this backdrop, there is growing consensus within the humanitarian community that short-term, life-saving responses and long-term efforts to build resilience must be more tightly connected. One option is to program humanitarian aid with a long-term perspective in mind, and invest into rebuilding food systems early in the process. Another option is tighter partnerships between aid and development actors. Many refer to this as ‘The New Way of Working’ (OCHA, 2017), aimed at mitigating risks and vulnerabilities of communities, thus reducing the need for aid in future.

As with any other sector, disaster risk management that focuses on food systems passes through the typical stages of preparedness, relief, recovery and reconstruction. Together with disaster risk reduction strategies and policies, they aim to prevent disaster risk, reduce disaster impacts and prepare for future risks through building resilience. At national and inter-state levels, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015–2030) was adopted during the World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction and aims to reduce disaster risks and impacted livelihoods in future. Humanitarian actors have further developed the framework into strategies and manuals to manage disaster risks at the farm-level. On behalf of the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR, 2015), Gauppa (2022) applied the framework to food systems. Although guidelines for humanitarian aid at the project level are available, agroecology principles are hardly acknowledged.

A question is whether the 13 agroecology principles help manage disaster risks in food systems in fragile and conflict-affected regions. There are two contrasting answers to that question. One argues that emergencies require fast responses with little room for experiments. Short-term responses to the impact of hazards such as droughts or floods must provide instant humanitarian relief. These include life-saving measures, health support, shelter and food assistance. The second perspective suggests that emergencies are the right moment to change systems partially responsible for emergencies. This perspective links long-term assistance to social change to tackle systemic inequalities that cause vulnerability of people in the first place. Before disturbances and during early recovery, agroecology principles could support populations in building resilience. The argument is that protracted crises require a triple-track approach promoting synergies between humanitarian, development and peacebuilding efforts (Howe, 2019).

Answers to the question are relevant to agroecology and disaster risk management communities alike. Related debates can help identify the systemic challenges that must be addressed in humanitarian aid settings. Understanding the opportunities and limitations of agroecology principles in relation to humanitarian assistance can also help design more effective interventions that consider the unique needs of fragile contexts. Additionally, evidence-based strategies can help build trust amongst stakeholders, arguably one of the most critical challenges for everyone engaged in agroecology. Finally, responses to the above questions can guide the development of new research questions and transdisciplinary approaches to address these gaps and generate new knowledge to better manage the ‘missing middle’ between aid and development (Béné et al., 2018). This would allow agroecology and agricultural research to work together during disaster risk management.

The agroecology principles

In response to multilateral dialogues, agroecology has gained global and unprecedented recognition from civil society, governments and multilateral organisations (IFAD, 2021; Loconto and Fouilleux, 2019). This recognition is due to a growing awareness of the negative impacts of agriculture on human health, the environment and society. However, it also expresses a growing desire of populations for food systems that ensure the health and well-being of people and the environment. At the same time, agroecology has emerged as a global movement with a social justice agenda. This has made it a controversial area of ideas about the future of agriculture (Anderson and Maughan, 2021; Mugwanya, 2019; Wezel et al., 2009; Timmermann and Félix, 2015). Proponents of agroecology draw on various disciplines, learn from ecological principles, apply systems thinking and take political positions. The outcome of all this is a trilogy: agroecology as research, a set of practices and a social movement, all redesigning food systems to achieve sustainability.

What agroecology constitutes is best explained through its 13 principles (HLPE, 2019; Wezel et al., 2020; FAO, 2018; Barrios et al., 2020), which can be applied to various agricultural production systems (see elsewhere in this special issue). The 13 principles define management goals in agriculture, such as recycling of nutrients, biodiversity management, biological control of plant pests and disease and circular economy principles in crop–livestock systems. They also postulate economic diversification, the co-creation of knowledge, and food systems based on the culture, identity, tradition, social and gender equity of local communities. The goal is to provide healthy, diversified, seasonally and culturally appropriate diets in a fair manner. While there are no binding agreements on how the principles are interpreted, using them shall accelerate the transition towards resilient farm and food systems. Some agroecology principles require less, and others more and deeper changes in farm management, value chains, consumption patterns and recycling strategies. Associated research shall develop the scientific basis for enabling respective transitions.

Several aspects of the agroecological principles have informed practitioners of sustainable agriculture, organic farming, permaculture or fairtrade in the past. They also have been the subject of extensive research by agricultural scientists to adapt them to various farming contexts. Examples include closing as far as possible resource cycles of nutrients and biomass, reduce dependencies on external inputs and soil organic matter management. The principles then manifest as crop rotations, intercropping cereals with legumes and crop–livestock integration and diversification of farming systems with perennial crops. They also inform regenerative grazing practices focusing on maintaining healthy soils and promoting biodiversity in rangelands, including holistic grazing management, rotational grazing, multi-species grazing and avoiding overgrazing (Tittonell et al., 2020). Many benefited from agricultural sciences and farmer participatory research, including plant breeding in partnership with farmers. To do so, researchers have employed established research methods, including field experiments, modelling and systematic literature reviews, to generate evidence-based advice about what management strategies work where and why.

The agroecology principles reflect the complexity of food systems and that they are interconnected and dynamic. Scientists seek to understand such systems by investigating the interrelations of their components (Gliessman, 2018). Some focus on the interdependencies between food production, processing, consumption and food waste recycling. Others focus on local knowledge and community participation in building sustainable and resilient food systems. Towards that end, Francis et al. (2003) define agroecology as an integrative science that studies the ecology of fields, farms, rangelands and food systems. From such integrative science and backed up by traditional agricultural research, people derive recommendations to address challenges associated with food, including externalities created by conventional food production.

Agroecology is not standardised and lacks a legal basis. For this reason, it is not possible to sue for a violation of the principles. Consequently, this makes it difficult to assess the extent of land under production informed by agroecology principles (Bellamy and Ioris, 2017). Moreover, the absence of standards leads to disagreements about the technical interpretation of fundamental principles amongst those promoting it. Because agroecology principles challenge industrial agriculture, there are tensions with the agriculture community that prioritises high-input, large-scale monocropping systems and relies on external inputs such as synthetic fertilisers and pesticides. This tug-of-war tends to mask the essence of what the agroecology principles could offer to reform food systems in future.

The disaster risk management-effects of agroecology

Food systems in fragile and conflict-affected contexts are often marked by poverty, weak governance, environmental degradation and resource conflicts (Liebig et al., 2022; Johansson et al., 2023; Bond, 2014). Settings differ but typically encompass post-disaster areas, regions with internal displacement, marginalised communities and areas affected by frequent climate shocks that are of a protracted nature. Although the devil lies in the detail (Raleigh et al., 2015), food system vulnerabilities tend to compound with climate, economic and political risks.

Disrupted food distribution networks make it difficult for people to access food. Disasters damage irrigation systems, storage facilities and processing plants. For example, the ongoing conflict in Yemen has severely disrupted local and domestic food markets. In Somalia, decades of conflict, coupled with recurrent droughts and floods, have led to large-scale food insecurity and displacement. In addition to destroying crops and infrastructure, the conflict has also made it difficult for farmers to access markets and essential farm inputs such as seeds and fertilisers. The ongoing conflict and insecurity in the northeast region of Nigeria, along with flooding and desertification in the north, have led to food insecurity and displacement, making it difficult for farmers to access seeds and output markets.

How do agroecology principles relate to disaster risk management in areas affected by fragility and conflict? In short, most of the evidence is indirect or anecdotal. While agroecology principles have been studied and strengthened worldwide, most case studies have traditionally focused on temperate regions and the humid tropics (Bezner Kerr et al., 2019; Runhaar, 2021; Wittman and James, 2022). Also, cases covered in the literature are more agriculture-specific and less bound to agroecology. Nevertheless, they provide leads about how agroecology principles unfold in fragile and conflict-affected contexts. Table 1 provides a non-representative overview of cases where agroecological principles supported disaster risk management.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Cases where agroecology principles played a role during disaster risk management.

Country	Crises	Risk management strategies	Effects	Source
Afghanistan/Iraq	Conflicts and wars, resulting in destruction of infrastructure, displacement of communities, and disruption of agricultural systems	Agriculture became a response tool in post-conflict and stabilisation settings	Stabilisation, critical positive synergies between farming and stabilisation efforts.	Adam-Bradford et al. (2020)
Benin	Soil and land degradation, low and unreliable cotton yields, out-migration of young populations	Agroecological transition to stabilise cotton yields, increase land health	Potential for increasing farm revenues, providing alternatives to out-migration	(IOM and UNCCD, 2019)
Colombia	Armed conflict, resulting in widespread displacement of rural communities, destruction of infrastructure and disruption of agricultural activities	Agroecology has played a crucial role in the recovery efforts by promoting sustainable agricultural practices, ecological restoration and community empowerment.	Improved food security, enhanced ecological sustainability, increased community resilience and empowerment of rural populations	(Chavez-Miguel et al., 2022; Valencia and Courtheyn, 2023)
Cuba	Crisis occurred due to the collapse of the socialist bloc in Europe and the US trade embargo.	Recognises the importance of natural resources and ecological practices	Rebuilding the agricultural sector based on organic farming principles	(Rosset et al., 2011).
Haiti	Earthquakes destroyed agricultural infrastructure. Government of Haiti, together with international partners, launched an agroecology program to support small-scale farmers in rebuilding their livelihoods.	Improve soil fertility using compost and agroforestry, as well as promoting local seed production and the use of traditional farming practices	The program was successful in increasing food security and reducing dependency on food aid.	(Westerberg et al., 2023)
Niger	Climate change, recurrent droughts and food insecurity	Land restoration, promotion of collaboration between various communities and external stakeholders such as government agencies, international partners, NGOs and businesses	Fostering social cohesion around agroforestry practices	(Kalilou, 2021).
Palestine	Occupation and promoting social justice challenges	Sustainable agriculture practices, resisting occupation and promoting social justice.	Expand their control over their own food systems, strengthening their sense of identity and community in the process	(Heinrich Boell Stiftung, 2023)
Uganda	High levels of malnutrition because of war between 1980 and 1986, no access to external farm inputs	Sustainable agriculture movement focused on rebuilding soil health and recycling of soil nutrients	Rebuilding a collapsed agricultural sector using de facto organic farming strategies	(Hauser and Lindtner, 2016)

The list is not exhaustive.

It is important to recall that fragile and conflict-affected contexts differ from more stable and, thus, predictable environments. Social protection and crop or livestock insurance are underdeveloped, but also road infrastructure, reliable energy supply, clean water and health services barely exist (Phillips et al., 2020). All these factors increase the exposure of households to disaster risks. Generally, also the agriculture innovation systems with public and private sector actors and research collapse or operate under extreme risks. Such complex emergencies proliferate coping strategies that diminish household assets, including farm implements and livestock, with long-term consequences for domestic food production. Recovering from such shocks in the absence of assets is what McClelland et al. (2022) describe as complex processes. All these specific circumstances must be taken into account when considering agroecology in fragile and conflict-affected contexts.

Contributions to disaster risk management programming

A question ahead is how to design agroecology principles into humanitarian assistance to unlock potential benefits in relief, peace and resilience. One could take the five levels of food system change laid down by Gliessman (2016), who distinguishes changes along a gradient from transactional to transformative change. Transactional change strengthens farm efficiency and replaces external inputs with locally available inputs such as compost, nitrogen-fixing legumes and harvested water. The more transformational the changes, the more fundamental mechanisms are at work, such as redesigning farm and food systems, redistributing resources and power and eventually rebuilding structures and processes of food systems. Given the enormous challenges the agricultural sector has, this thrust is understandable and perhaps necessary. However, rebuilding food systems in fragile contexts should be approached with the specific disaster risk management stage in mind (Figure 1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

The higher the complexity of transitions, the less applicable the changes for emergency, stabilisation and recovery efforts.

Although stages in disaster risk management vary depending on the nature of the disaster, they typically encompass emergency relief (search and rescue, food, water, shelter and medical care), early recovery (temporary housing, restoring essential services such as water and sanitation, emergency seed delivery), reconstruction and development (rebuild infrastructure, promote economic development). Resilience programming spans all stages of the humanitarian life cycle and typically involves many different public, civic and private sector actors. It is helpful to distinguish between these phases because the relevance of agroecology differs. During protracted crises dominated by compounding risks, the stages of emergency response may be prolonged and overlapping, as needs persist over an extended period and new needs arise due to compounding risks (Table 2).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Potential roles of agroecology principles in disaster risk management stages.

Agroecology principles	Preparedness	Stabilisation	Recovery	Reconstruction
	Improve anticipatory capacity	Build absorptive capacity, relief	Improve adaptive capacity	Enhance transformative capacity
Improve Resource Efficiency (recycling, input reduction)	Crop rotations, intercropping with legumes, soil moisture conservation Scaling of renewable energy at household level Composting, nutrient recycling, closing nutrient loops Reducing dependencies on risky input markets, including crop seed dependencies	Agricultural input supply to affected populations (e.g., organic fertilisers, bio-pesticides, seed kits) Emergency irrigation	Cash-for-work to rehabilitate land and ecosystems Green farm input vouchers Rehabilitating water infrastructure Rapid crop production using gardening/permaculture concepts Rapid composting	Training and capacity building on agroecological principles Developing new organic input supply chains
Strengthen Resilience (soil health, animal health, biodiversity, synergy, economic diversification)	Crop variety selection to improve nutrition, drought and flood tolerance Diversify food and cash crops Expand school feeding programs Establish livestock holding grounds Social protection Foster community-based breeding of crops and livestock Establish kitchen gardens Landslide and flash flood mitigation Horticulture and tree nursery establishment	Access to emergency livestock feeds Unconditional cash transfers	Conditional cash transfers Vocational training and livelihood assistance (cash+) Recovery kits for local seed production Restocking, veterinary supplies	Long-term advisory and mentoring services Landscape restoration and afforestation Farmer participatory research for co-developing crop and livestock integration strategies
Secure Social Equity/Responsibility (co-creation of knowledge, social values and diets, fairness, connectivity, land and natural resource governance, participation)	Expand market-based approaches in fragile contexts, develop market incentives to transition to agroecology-informed farming, link farmers to public markets Link with early warning systems and risk management Forecast-based financing Strategies for hardest-to-reach areas Address land governance contributing to resource conflicts	Diverse food aid packages, responsible sourcing Inclusive needs assessment and coordination Green procurement Nutrition vouchers	Facilitates evidence-based decision-making Strengthening social cohesion in refugee settings	Integrated peace committees Social organisation emphasising participation in decision-making decentralised governance to allow flexible and adaptive management Fora tackling land governance Sustainable reintegration of displaced persons and refugees

Although there are many different functions of agroecology principles, the following five are worth highlighting: Vulnerability analysis, early warning, prioritisation, collective action, restoration and recovery and governance.

The missing middle

Interfacing agroecology principles with disaster risk management results in known unknowns. What are the trade-offs between short and long-term benefits for each disaster risk management stage? What is the cost of employing the 13 principles in disaster risk management compared to the traditional humanitarian response in the agricultural sector? Under what conditions can the agroecology principles accelerate the transition of households from short-term relief to long-term development and resilience building? How to effectively build the capacity for agroecology-oriented innovation systems in fragile contexts, especially when conflict erodes social capital and trust? What is the impact of different combinations of the agroecology principles in complex environments with varying degrees and types of fragility? And finally, are there peace dividends agroecology principles unlock?

A flood or drought in one part of the country may generate complex ripple effects and trickle through the food system surprisingly fast. As Gauppa (2022) mentions, the impact of these shocks depends on the nature of the hazards, their route of travel through the food system, system feedback, the vulnerability of the population and ecosystems and their capacities to respond. It would be useful to understand better how agroecology principles help identify future risks and reduce the risk of hazards that emerge outside its immediate sphere of influence. Hence, there is much room for comparative analysis, impact assessments and the rigorous evaluation of transitions to the 13 agroecology principles.

Implementing agroecology principles in fragile contexts requires investments in infrastructure, knowledge and technical support, which may not be available in the immediate aftermath of a disaster. Also, the agroecology principles can be labour-intensive and require access to information, resources and services. All these resource shortages can be barriers to designing sustainable farm management strategies based on agroecology. Moreover, agroecological principles often involve labour-intensive methods, such as manual weeding or diversified crop management (Méndez et al., 2017). In areas where women and children are considered as free or cheap labour, it is important to consider investments into improving productive assets such as land, livestock or forests without becoming a source of further alienation or subjugation of women. More research is needed into trade-offs in challenging areas where labour availability is limited, and farmers have competing demands on their time.

Translating agroecology principles into management requires active engagement and participation of local communities. However, in fragile and post-conflict areas, communities may distrust outsiders or lack the capacity to participate effectively. Sometimes, there are conflicts within communities. There may be cultural and social barriers to engagements. For instance, people may resist changes to their traditional practices, or social hierarchies or power dynamics may make it difficult for certain groups to access land or resources necessary for agroecological practices. Also, as much as agroecology principles help restore land, this can also drive new conflicts. For example, in an extremely resource-poor country like Somalia, fertile land is a highly prized commodity. Even if land is reclaimed and improved, in the absence of transparent and accountable governance systems, reclaimed land can become a source of conflict. The vacuum created by a lack of civil authority results in this space being taken over by organised crime – local gangs or sophisticated syndicates like Al-Shabaab. They then operate as parallel ‘government’ with sophisticated tax systems and enforce customary law.

Agroecology principles prioritise ecological processes and long-term sustainability over maximising short-term gains. As a result, yields may be more variable compared to conventional intensive farming. While agroecological systems can be highly productive over the long-term, short-term yield fluctuations may pose challenges for farmers dependent on consistent and predictable harvests. Understanding the impact of yield stabilising measures in fragile areas and the likely effects on stability requires more research (Ang and Gupta, 2018). For example, more investment into drought-resistant and flood-tolerant crop varieties beyond the typical commodities that can help farmers cope with changing climate conditions and extreme weather events would be useful. This includes developing and promoting low-cost, locally available inputs such as compost, biofertilisers and biological pest-control methods that work under extreme risks and asset constraints.

One constraint of agroecology principles in disaster risk management is that it requires a long-term approach that may not meet the immediate needs of affected populations. For example, transitioning to agroecological practices involves a period of reduced yields as the soil regenerates and new practices are implemented. Also, engaging with communities is time-consuming. During disaster risk management, not all stakeholders are accessible or have the resources to engage in transdisciplinary research, especially when basic human needs are at stake. Finding ways to reconcile short- and long-term goals of communities and studying how to sequence agroecology principles could be an important area of future research.

Using all 13 agroecology principles in fragile areas can be technically complex (Alba-Patiño et al., 2021). Some principles require technical expertise and competencies in areas such as soil science, hydrology and ecology. This expertise to manage complex transitions is not always available in fragile areas, or only accessible at a cost. While agroecology shows promising results to increase resilience, there are still gaps in scientific research and evidence, particularly in areas affected by climate change and conflict, and for specific crops or livestock systems. Further research is needed to understand the effectiveness and scalability of agroecology principles under different degrees of vulnerability.

The lack of ability or interest to build back better after natural disasters can be a barrier to use agroecology principles in disaster risk management (Brescia, 2020). This challenge often arises from various factors, including mental health and psychological stress during crises. People then revert to customary and traditional practices and techniques. Cultural norms, limited knowledge of alternative approaches, and the desire for quick restoration of livelihoods are all potential barriers to building back better using insights from agroecology.

Especially during fragile and conflict-prone episodes, a sense of urgency dominates. Then, people develop a desire to minimise risks and uncertainties. This risk aversion can discourage experimentation with new approaches, such as agroecology, as it may be considered less reliable or require additional time, effort and resources. The perceived need for productivity and stability may lead to a preference for conventional practices, provided their accessibility. Agroecology is then seen as ‘nice to have’ without priority.

Finally, a key challenge in fragile and conflict-affected contexts is either multiple platforms of coordination mechanism or a dearth of the same. Coordination among state and non-state actors can be superficial. Sometimes, actors compete for resources from the same donors, resulting in limited information sharing. Yet, development and peace investments should receive long-term financing, especially in conflict-affected contexts. Lack of investment into development and peace – thus into an operational strategy of the most relevant agroecology principles – will result in recurring cycles of emergency response.

Conclusion

Every disaster is different. Some offer more and others fewer opportunities for agroecology principles to inform disaster risk management. Consequently, a one-size-fits-all approach to agroecology may not be practical. Hence, the management practices resulting from its principles must allow flexibility and adaptiveness to the local contexts. This requires cooperating with crisis-affected communities to understand their immediate priorities, challenges and needs during each disaster risk management stage. Noteworthy is the ability to innovate and experiment with new approaches and the willingness to learn from failures and adapt accordingly in partnership with agricultural research. Such a transdisciplinary and co-creation approach is critical to benefiting from agroecology principles in fragile areas. Rather than pushing a particular agenda, the most important focus should be on designing more resilient and adaptive agroecosystems. If that axiom becomes the bottom line, agroecology could offer a range of future contributions to disaster risk management.