GE1713

Agroecology: What it is and what it has to offer

Laura Silici

In a context of a changing climate and growing concerns for more healthy food systems, agroecology is
gaining momentum as a scientific discipline, sustainable farming approach and social movement. There is
growing anecdotal and case study evidence of its multiple benefits, from climate resilience to farm
productivity. Yet its promotion in public agricultural policies, research and extension is still limited.

This paper explores why this is. It calls for consolidating the evidence base for agroecology through multi-
dimensional tools that not only measure yields, but also its many other benefits: economic, environmental
and social. Mainstreaming agroecology will require a fundamental cultural and philosophical shift in how
we as a society define ‘productive’ and ‘efficient’ agriculture.

Summary
Agroecological farming is coming of age. Once the exclusive domain of food sovereignty and ecology
movements, it has begun to be promoted enthusiastically in both developed and developing countries by
non-government organisations, international development organisations and others seeking more
sustainable food production and consumption systems. Though difficult to quantify, a growing body of
anecdotal evidence and small-scale studies highlights the environmental and social benefits that these
practices can bring. For example, a review of 40 initiatives employing different agroecological practices
showed an average crop yield increase of 113%, in addition to environmental benefits such as carbon
sequestration, reduction in pesticide use and soil restoration. Yet despite the fact that agroecological
practices can bring resilience and broad-based productivity to rural communities and provide important
ecosystem services across the landscape, they are still not being widely promoted in agricultural policies
or by agricultural research organisations in developed nor developing countries, nor scaled-up at a
significant level. This paper asks why, tracing the multiple interpretations of agroecology: what it means to
different people and how it is used. It lists the benefits and challenges of agroecological practices and how
they compare with input-intensive, large-scale farming. Finally, it asks what more needs to be done to
mainstream agroecology more widely in agricultural policies and practices?

What is agroecology?

Agroecology – ‘the application of ecological concepts and principles to the design and management of
sustainable agro-ecosystems’1 – has three facets. It is:
1. a scientific discipline involving the holistic study of agro-ecosystems, including human and
environmental elements
2. a set of principles and practices to enhance the resilience and ecological, socio-economic and
cultural sustainability of farming systems
3. a movement seeking a new way of considering agriculture and its relationships with society.

What can agroecology offer?

A growing body of evidence reveals agroecology’s multiple advantages over conventional high-external
input farming:
• a multi-functional approach to farming, capable of meeting environmental, economic and social
needs
• greater environmental sustainability and resilience, especially in marginal areas subject to
environmental degradation and extreme climatic events, and higher agrobiodiversity
• the ability to support farmers’ food sovereignty, reducing their dependence on costly and

08 Readings 3 *Property of STI

Page 1 of 20
 GE1713

sometimes difficult-to-access chemical inputs

• higher overall productivity (at farm rather than crop level) achieved through a diverse range of
agricultural products and environmental services, which reduce risks of crop failure in the long term.

What are the barriers to agroecological practices becoming more widespread?

• Agroecology is knowledge- and management- intensive. A common deterrent to its adoption is the
large amount of ‘soft’ inputs (such as knowledge and skills) and labor that some practices require
in the initial seasons. Poorer and more marginal farmers, in particular, may decide not to adopt
these practices if they do not have enough time and resources to invest in learning and
experimentation.
• Policies and market signals are stacked against agroecology. The prices of conventional
agricultural products are distorted by heavy subsidies – both direct (such as farm and input
subsides) and indirect (the health and environmental consequences of unsustainable practices that
are paid for by taxpayers).
• Insecure land tenure and lack of access to natural resources can also inhibit the spread of
agroecology by discouraging farmers from adopting practices that require long-term investment in
land and other assets.
• Agroecology is viewed as ‘alternative’ and sometimes in direct opposition to conventional farming.
Yet the differences are often blurred. Emphasizing the two approaches as mutually-exclusive may
undermine the constructive search for more common ground.

What needs to be done?

• Consolidate the evidence base to support agroecology through multi-dimensional analyses that
provide comparable measures not just of crop yields, but also non-commodity outputs, such as
feed available for livestock, mulching crops, provision of ecosystem services and contributions to
the incomes and resilience of farming households.
• Promote a fundamental cultural and philosophical shift in the evaluation of what is regarded as
‘productive’ and ‘efficient’, not just by farmers, but by society as a whole. The emphasis should be
on optimizing rather than maximizing production (and profits). This is probably the most challenging
step required to mainstream agroecological principles into agricultural policies and practices.
• Assess the constraints to the adoption of agroecological practices and the policy options to
overcome them. These may include innovative tools and approaches such as participatory
innovation systems, economic incentives for early adopters, payments for environmental services
and rewards for landscape conservation. Relevant policy changes may also concern land tenure,
natural resources management as well as support to farmer organizations, local business
development and markets for agroecological products.
• Reduce the polarization between agroecology and external input-intensive agriculture.
Encouraging the adoption of aspects of agroecology by the latter could help reduce the negative
environmental and social impacts of this production model, and the first step towards greater
sustainability. On the other hand, selected ‘modern’ technologies such as precision farming and
new breeding techniques can help agroecological farmers to respond to new challenges posed by
the changing climate, water stress, land degradation and fast cultural and socio-economic
transformations.

1 What is agroecology?

The concept of agroecology has evolved as a scientific discipline, a set of practices and a social movement.

08 Readings 3 *Property of STI

Page 2 of 20
 GE1713

As a science, it studies how different components of the agro-ecosystem interact. As a set of practices, it
seeks sustainable farming systems that optimize and stabilize yields. As a movement, it pursues food
sovereignty and new, multifunctional roles for agriculture.

The most commonly used definition of agroecology is ‘the application of ecological concepts and principles
to the design and management of sustainable agro- ecosystems’.2 This definition best illustrates the
concept of agroecology today: it captures its evolution both as a conceptual framework based on a set of
principles and as a range of practices that can be used in different combinations to enhance the resilience
and sustainability of farming systems.

The term agroecology first appeared in the scientific literature in the 1930s, when it referred primarily to the
scientific study of the biological interactions between single crops and different components of the agro-
ecosystem. Since the 1960s, however, the science of agroecology has progressively widened its scale of
analysis (from the plot or farm level to the whole agro-ecosystem and to the wider food system) and scope
(from ecological and agronomic analysis to an inter-disciplinary approach including socio-economic and
political considerations). Since the1980s, it has provided a conceptual framework for the increasing
promotion of agroecological practices both in developed and developing countries, especially in Central
and South America. These practices in turn have inspired a number of agroecological movements that
emerged and consolidated during the 1990s. The evolution of agroecology as a scientific discipline, practice
and movement is charted in Figure 1.

08 Readings 3 *Property of STI

Page 3 of 20
 GE1713

Figure 1: Agroecology: An Evolving Concept

Source: (Silici, 2014)

The first agroecological studies (between the 1930s and 1960s) were rooted in the biological sciences –
zoology, agronomy and crop physiology – and sought to observe the biological interactions between
elements of the ecosystem and agriculture as part of agronomic research. During the 1960s and 1970s,
thanks to the emergence of ecologist movements – and partially in response to the negative impacts of the
Green Revolution – the ecological analysis of agriculture within the agro-ecosystem gained momentum.

From the end of the 1970s and throughout the 1980s, the agroecology work stream began to be strongly
influenced by a social component in the agronomic literature and by the new interest in traditional farming
systems as important natural resource management systems. ‘By the 1990s, agroecology had emerged
as a scientific discipline with a conceptual framework and defined methodology for the holistic study of agro-
ecosystems, including human and environmental elements’. According to this holistic view, an area used
for agricultural production is seen as a complex system in which ecological processes occur along with
human activities (economic but also social and cultural activities): agroecology focuses on the dynamics of
their interrelationships. As a result of this new approach, the ‘ecological foundations of agriculture’ – a series
of principles that help achieve environmental sustainability and environmental services from agriculture –

08 Readings 3 *Property of STI

Page 4 of 20
 GE1713

emerged and were consolidated. These principles – summarized in Figure 2 – constitute the foundations
of the conceptual framework that inspires agroecological farming today.

Figure 2. Core Principles of Agroecology

Source: (Silici, 2014)

Agroecology as a scientific discipline studies the interactions between the ecosystem and a set of human
activities without necessarily judging the resulting outcomes according to their degree of sustainability.
Nonetheless, the ‘ecological foundations of agriculture’ and the agroecological principles listed in Box 1 go
beyond the neutrality of a scientific discipline to provide a practical analytical framework to assess what
biological and ecological phenomena can be used or strengthened in order to produce an agroecosystem
that is environmentally more sustainable.

In recent years, agroecology as a scientific discipline has evolved from being a subcomponent of agronomic
research to a science in its own right, focused on environmental sustainability. It has broadened its scope
to include the whole food system and has become more interdisciplinary in the process. Along the way, the
science has become progressively less ‘neutral’ and agroecology has metamorphosed into a collective term
for a more ‘virtuous’ sustainable food production and consumption approach, in contrast with food systems
that are increasingly perceived as unsustainable. Indeed, agroecological farming can contribute to
sustainable food systems both directly (by enhancing the sustainability and the resilience of agricultural
production) and indirectly (encouraging the reduction and recycling of food waste and the re-localization of
food production and consumption). However, this comprehensive definition is not widely accepted. Some
practitioners prefer a more restricted definition because of the particular evolution of the concept in their
country or in their specific field of expertise. Others question the assumptions and the methodological
implications of an overly broad approach, given that we lack commonly agreed operational tools and
analysis models that can combine the many dimensions covered by such a multi- disciplinary approach.

08 Readings 3 *Property of STI

Page 5 of 20
 GE1713

An overly broad definition of agroecology could also expose the concept to multiple interpretations, with the
subsequent risk that the term is misused in order to pursue specific interests not necessarily coherent with
the principles and the original purposes of the discipline. For instance, in 2010 the fast food corporation
McDonald’s launched an ‘agroecology strategy’ to reduce its environmental footprint in France and
promoted it as extremely ambitious. However, the report does not explicitly define agroecology and includes
only a few – and often vague – examples of ‘agroecological practices’. These include precision farming,
testing and mixing new crop varieties, the rational use of synthetic fertilizer and crop protection products,
farmer training, innovative irrigation systems, and developing mathematical models to predict pest trends.
These practices can all potentially reduce the environmental impacts of agricultural production, but they
have little to do with the complex management of biological interactions evoked by agroecological
principles. The lack of a commonly agreed definition of agroecology may have allowed the corporation to
misinterpret or interpret very broadly the concept, with the intention of gaining good publicity from an
increasingly popular term.

A set of practices
While recognizing that agroecology as an alternative agriculture production paradigm is an important
component of sustainable food systems, most advocates continue to maintain a narrower focus on the
production benefits of agroecology, treating food systems and policy issues separately.

Since the 1980s, in fact, the scientific discipline has become progressively more prescriptive and practically-
oriented. ‘Implicit in agroecological research is [now] the idea that, by understanding […] ecological
relationships and processes, agroecosystems can be manipulated to improve production and to produce
more sustainably, with fewer external inputs and lower negative environmental or social costs’.
Agroecological practices thus aim to enhance farming systems by mimicking natural processes and by
emphasizing the multifunctional role of agriculture. They are highly knowledge-intensive, based on the
conceptual framework developed by the scientific discipline while also increasingly drawing on farmers’
own knowledge and experimentation.

Generally speaking, agroecological practices consist of farming approaches that are inspired by some or
all the principles outlined in Box 1: The core principles of agroecology, and have the immediate objectives
of:
• building soil structure, improving soil health, recycling nutrients and ensuring local sourcing
• conserving and using water efficiently
• sustaining and improving functional diversity (both on a spatial and a temporal scale).

Box 2 illustrates some farming methods that fall under the definition of agroecological practices. Most of
these methods pre-date the development of agroecology as a concept – in fact they are part of most
traditional farming systems. What ‘agroecology’ as a science and movement has done is to provide a
coherent framework that conceptualizes the effects of these practices (and their mutual reinforcement).

Agroecological farming is based on homeostasis, self-regulation and biodiversity. As such, it differs

substantially from the paradigm of industrial agricultural production: artificial control of natural processes,
extensive use of synthetic inputs and genetic uniformity. Agroecology shows greater resilience and
environmental sustainability because of its complexity, diversity and adaptive capacity and because it
does not deplete the natural resource base. Other important environmental features include the recycling
and replenishing of inputs, the emphasis on multi-functional agriculture and the capability to mitigate climate
change – as opposed to waste and depletion of natural resources, profit-only oriented models, pollution

08 Readings 3 *Property of STI

Page 6 of 20
 GE1713

and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Table 1 compares agroecological and high-external input
production systems in relation to environmental sustainability and resilience.

Figure 3. Examples of Agroecological Practices

Source: (Silici, 2014)

Figure 4. Agroecological Vs High External Input Agriculture

Source: (Silici, 2014)

08 Readings 3 *Property of STI

Page 7 of 20
 GE1713

The practices listed in Figure 3 can be used in different combinations; farmers may apply only a few or else
may adopt them all. For example, farming methods such as permaculture or biodynamic agriculture largely
apply all the agroecological principles; others – such as the system of rice intensification (Figure 3),
organic and conservation farming – may apply some but not all the agroecological principles (e.g.
conservation farmers may use chemical herbicides, but in no-till fields). In some cases, the same farmer
may choose to use different farming methods in different plots (e.g. high external input agriculture for
commercial crops and agroecological practices for food crops) or to apply individual agroecological
practices along more conventional lines. For example, integrated pest management (Figure 3) might be
used in monocultures, or integrated soil fertility management might be combined with reduced amounts of
inorganic fertilizer. Agroecological practices tend thus to be considered as a sort of toolkit from which
farmers can choose, depending on their environment, socio- economic conditions and cultural preferences.

A movement
Since the 1990s, the term agroecology has been used by some to explicitly describe a movement and to
express a new way of considering agriculture and its relationships with society. Ecologists, agronomists
and ethno-botanists started to support indigenous farming practices and agroecological principles to
overcome the socio-economic and environmental costs of capital-intensive, large-scale agriculture and to
pursue alternative agricultural production models. Agroecological practices became the practical basis for
different agroecological movements, many of which were created with the main purpose of introducing and
up-scaling specific technologies or sets of practices.

In industrialized countries, agroecological movements usually take the form of farmers’ groups that seek to
better respond to ecological and environmental challenges through social partnerships. This is the case for
soil conservation associations in the USA or permaculture and organic movements in Europe. Often these
movements respond to shifts in consumer behavior, with an increasing demand for ‘organic’ and ‘local’ food
by a growing segment of the population. In developing countries, agroecological movements have been
traditionally concerned with rural development and food security. Examples include the Asociacion Nacional
de Agricultores Pequenos in Cuba or the Campesino a Campesino (farmer-to-farmer) movement in Latin
America. Several NGOs and church-based groups have also promoted agroecology as a component of
rural development projects. Specific sets of agroecological practices have been promoted through inter-
organization collaboration, such as the Farmer Field Schools led by the United Nations Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in collaboration with local NGOs and farmers’ groups.

Agroecological movements in developing countries have become progressively more concerned with food
sovereignty, advocating ‘for a more radical transformation of agriculture, one guided by the notion that
ecological change in agriculture cannot be promoted without comparable changes in the social, political,
cultural and economic arenas’. Indeed, the agroecosystem is a semi-domesticated environment, where
ecological functions coexist with human activities. If one accepts that sustainable agroecological systems
encompass not only environmental, but also socio-economic sustainability, agroecological approaches
should be concerned with issues such as equity, the preservation of indigenous knowledge, food
sovereignty and the sustainability of local food systems. Undeniably, indigenous knowledge provides the
basis for many agroecological practices and the agroecological movement has been particularly
strengthened by peasants’ movements that integrate agroecology in their programmatic agenda on food
sovereignty. Notable examples are o Movimento dos Sem Terra in Brazil, and La Via Campesina, the
international peasant network of 164 organizations across 79 countries.

In the last few years, a number of reports released by influential international organizations such as the
United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), the UN Conference on Trade and Development
(UNCTAD) and the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), has further raised

08 Readings 3 *Property of STI

Page 8 of 20
 GE1713

the public profile of agroecology as a holistic approach to the stewardship of rural landscapes. The
underlying message of all these reports is that in order to preserve the ecological foundations of food
security, a paradigm shift is needed towards multi-functional agriculture. Under this new paradigm, the ‘non-
commodity’ outputs of agriculture – agrobiodiversity, healthy ecosystem services, resilience to climate
change, landscape amenities and cultural heritage, to name a few – are valued as much as the commodity
outputs. The paradigm shift being evoked by these organizations is deeply concerned with the role of policy
in shaping alternative, more sustainable food systems both at national and international levels. Agroecology
is thus conceived as a means to re-orient rather than to intensify agricultural production.

2 What can agroecology offer?

Agroecological practices support food sovereignty by enabling farmers to boost and diversify their
production, stabilize yields and decrease dependency on expensive and often hard-to-access inputs. The
benefits of scaling up agroecology across the landscape include greater agro-biodiversity, lower
environmental impact, improved landscape stewardship and increased climate resilience.

Since the mid-2000s, the number of scientific studies on agroecology has steadily increased: according to
the bibliographic database Scopus, more than 780 journal articles related to agroecology were published
between 2010 and the first half of 2014, compared to less than 300 published in the previous five years
(from 2005 to 2009). Most of these articles take a scientific approach to analyzing agronomic and ecological
benefits of practices such as agroforestry, integrated pest management, no-tillage, grassland management
and other practices (Figure 3). In addition to the academic literature, several international development
organizations and scientific committees have recently released reports that demonstrate the benefits of
agroecology. These include reports by the UN Secretary-General (2013), UNCTAD (2013), UNEP (2012),
the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food (2010), the scientific panel of the International Assessment
of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (2009), the International Food
Security Network (2012) and the CGIAR (2013).

Environmental sustainability, climate resilience and higher agrobiodiversity

The results of these studies show that agroecological farming systems are resilient to climatic changes,
resistant to pests in the long term and adaptable to changing conditions. This is because they are often
rooted in local traditional knowledge, crop and livestock diversification and a high degree of
agrobiodiversity, which together reduce risk and provide options for future adaptation. Agroecological
practices also offer several other environmental advantages, such as climate change mitigation (fewer
greenhouse gas emissions due to greater carbon sequestration by the soil and less reliance on fossil fuel-
based inputs and machinery); the use of few or no polluting inputs; enhanced agrobiodiversity; and the
provision of ecosystem services.

Significantly, these benefits are more evident in marginal environments and under adverse climatic
conditions, where agroecological practices are often more productive than conventional farming. Several
cases in the last two decades have been reported from Central America (Nicaragua, Honduras and
Guatemala), Mexico (Chiapas) and Cuba in which farmers using more diversified farming systems suffered
significant less damage after extreme climatic events than those with monocultures. The lower extent of
land degradation and the higher agrobiodiversity on their fields helped them to minimize their crop losses
and ensured greater resilience. Case studies in Bolivia, Kenya and China also found that local crop diversity
has been key in enabling farmers to adapt to worsening pests, drought and increased variability, and that
farmers have reverted to planting diverse local crops to cope with climate change.

08 Readings 3 *Property of STI

Page 9 of 20
 GE1713

Greater overall productivity, optimization of yields and ‘intensified sustainability’

Whereas the yields of individual crops in agroecological fields are not necessarily higher than those
obtained through input-intensive farming, the total agricultural output is larger because farmers rely on a
diversified pool of crops and livestock. In addition, greater resilience to extreme climatic events and
resistance to pests and other environmental stresses make yields less volatile over time. Accounting for
ecosystem service provision would increase the overall productivity of agroecological farming even further.

Agroecological approaches look at the entire agroecosystem and at the multiple relationships within it,
rather than addressing each component separately as with most conventional agricultural research.
Agroecological farmers thus pursue multi-functionality and yields that are optimized rather than maximized.
Optimization of the system is reached when farmers realize the greatest degree of ‘agroecological
integration’, i.e. the extent to which agroecological principles are employed in the management of different
resources. Instead of focusing exclusively on crop yields, agroecological farmers thus measure productivity
by looking at the degree of agrobiodiversity of the farming system as well as its capacity to provide
ecosystem services. In Bourgeois’ words, such approach seeks to achieve ‘intensified sustainability’ in
agriculture, rather than ‘sustainable intensification’.

The efficiency in the use of inputs and other resources, along with a diversified pool of agricultural products
and ‘by-products’ (such as animal feed), should in principle guarantee the financial viability of
agroecological practices. However, this assumption is rarely verified by accurate comprehensive economic
and financial analyses that take into account the returns to labor and other inputs, the opportunity costs of
excluding alternative methods, the commercial viability of the amounts produced, and so on. Similarly, while
the ecosystem services offered by agroecological farms surely represent a positive externality, there is still
little agreement on how to evaluate them correctly – especially in view of creating markets for environmental
services – and little understanding of how farmers internalize them in their own cost-benefit considerations.
Exploring this area will require innovative investigation tools capable of bringing together environmental,
financial and economic considerations, as will be discussed further below.

Livelihoods and food sovereignty

Advocates of agroecology also highlight the potential positive impacts on farmers’ livelihoods. As the former
UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food – Olivier De Schutter – has often stressed, agroecology is ‘a
mode of agricultural development which shows strong conceptual connections with the right to food’.
Agroecological practices in fact contribute to food security by encouraging diversity in production (and
thereby in diet) and by enhancing crops’ nutritional value. But they also contribute to food sovereignty by
placing the farmer and the household at the center of decisions on food production, while at the same time
avoiding dependence on external input and top-down technological transfers. The reliance on self-produced
and locally-sourced inputs (including seeds) also reduces farmers’ dependency on expensive and often
hard-to-access products, their vulnerability to price volatility and consequent risk of indebtedness.

One of the most important advantages of agroecology is indeed its multi-functionality. This enables farmers
to achieve a range of different objectives that, according to the UN Secretary General, ‘are necessary to
enhance sustainable productivity in the medium- and long-run and address existing inequalities amongst
farming households’.

A flexible toolkit

While at a first glance the differences between conventional and agroecological farming are striking (see

08 Readings 3 *Property of STI

Page 10 of 20
 GE1713

Table 1 above), in practice the boundaries are somewhat blurred. The degree to which agroecological
methods are adopted can vary from one farmer to the next. While farmers practicing permaculture or
biodynamic agriculture largely apply agroecological principles and take a holistic approach to the agro-
ecosystem, organic or no-till farmers may apply only some agroecological principles (Figure 3). For
instance, large industrial organic farms that rely on monocultures and do not recycle inputs and resources
have only small positive impacts on agrobiodiversity and soil biota. Small-scale organic farmers who supply
international value chains are as vulnerable as their ‘conventional’ peers because they depend on the
purchase of inputs sold by ‘approved’ suppliers in order to adhere to certification standards and because
they are subject to international price volatility.

On the other hand, many ‘conventional’ farms use some agroecological practices such as crop rotations,
no or minimum-tillage, combinations of organic and inorganic nutrients, and a mix of fossil and renewable
energy sources. In addition, precision farming techniques allow farmers to use chemical inputs more
efficiently and to minimize the impacts of mechanical operations.

Some advocates of agroecology see this blurring as a strength, because it allows farmers with different
socio-economic conditions to access certain ‘modern’ technologies such as high-yielding crop varieties
(HYVs). Some agriculture institutions, such as the CGIAR (formerly the Consultative Group on International
Agricultural Research), FAO and the Montpellier Panel. support this position. Others take a more radical
view. Altieri and Nicholls, for instance, criticize those who ‘have tried to co-opt agroecology by stating that
it is an option that can be practiced along with other approaches such as transgenic crops, conservation
farming, micro-dosing of fertilizers and herbicides, and integrated pest management’, and conclude that ‘in
this way the term agroecology would be rendered meaningless’.

Providing conclusive evidence to inform this debate is impossible. There are many competing visions on
how to achieve new models of agriculture which are at the same time resilient, productive and resource-
efficient. Agroecology provides a toolbox of practices; farmers can select those which are best adapted to
their production system. The adoption of agroecological practices by large-scale, high-external input
farmers is unlikely to reduce these farms’ environmental impacts significantly but would nevertheless
represent a step towards greater sustainability.

08 Readings 3 *Property of STI

Page 11 of 20
 GE1713

Figure 5. A Continuum of Agroecological Approaches

Source: (Silici, 2014)

3 How can agroecological practices be more widely adopted?

In order to mainstream agroecology, we must first understand the diverse factors influencing farmers’
decisions for adopting it. It also means addressing several policy constraints: inadequate research and
extension support, lack of incentives (including payment for ecosystem services), insecure land tenure, and
agricultural and trade policies biased towards the interests of the agro-food industry.

According to the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), 80% of the food consumed in Sub-
Saharan Africa and Asia is produced by 500 million smallholders. These regions have the highest incidence
of food insecurity – mostly among those living in rural areas and relying on agriculture. This is why boosting
the productivity of small-scale farmers in these regions would critically help increase both the supply and
access to food. Agroecological practices are especially productive at a small scale and at the same time
help reduce farmers’ vulnerability to climate change, resource degradation and volatile agricultural prices.
In marginal environments and for resource-poor farmers with no or weak links to markets, agroecological
practices may actually represent the only available option for producing food. Nonetheless, common beliefs
about the need to ‘modernize’ the agricultural sector and pressure of corporate interests on agricultural

08 Readings 3 *Property of STI

Page 12 of 20
 GE1713

markets drive agricultural policies that support intensive use of inputs and mechanization even in rather
fragile agroecological conditions.

It is thus extremely important to understand the constraints to the wider adoption and diffusion of
agroecological practices, especially among smallholders living in marginal areas, and the technical and
institutional solutions to overcome them.

Agroecological systems also offer potential to supply the increasing urban and peri-urban markets in
developing countries. But realizing this potential depends on addressing both technical and political issues,
as well as the way different patterns of agrarian transitions affect access to land, availability of labor, the
localization of agro-food systems, and so on. This is why discussions on mainstreaming agroecology should
be framed within a wider policy scope and take a long- term perspective.

Understand what drives farmers’ choices

Agroecological practices are often defined as ‘low external input’ because farmers are expected to minimize
the use of external inputs and rely on internally produced or recycled inputs. However, the appropriate
management of complex energy flows and internal resources requires large amounts of ‘soft’ inputs such
as labor, management skills and knowledge. Managing complex and synergistic systems is easier in small
farms because they are labor intensive and because labor is very productive, i.e. has a high return per unit
of input. In addition, when social capital is present, control and management of shared local resources by
many smallholders is more efficient and appropriate than centralized control by a few, larger actors.

Labor intensity and lack of community cohesion and institutional support for the management of local
natural resources such as forests and water catchments are sometimes reported as major deterrents to the
adoption of agroecological practices by smallholder farmers. However, this is likely to only be an issue in
the short term if farmers need to acquire new management skills and dedicate more time to learning and
experimentation.

Still, in some situations farm labor may be truly deficient (especially where HIV/AIDS and out-migration
reduce both labor availability and productivity). And even when labor is available, small-scale farmers may
not be willing to invest their assets and resources in new crops and methods if the results are not
immediately visible and they do not quickly reduce risks. Poorer households, in particular, may not be able
to shift to new farming practices if the additional time required for learning and experimentation diverts labor
from other income-generating activities, even in the short term.

Agroecological farmers also need a high degree of social skills. For instance, while some conservation work
can be done on individual farms, the holistic management of the landscape requires farmers to often work
co-operatively, for instance in order to plant trees in the upper parts of a watershed, to agree on grazing
rules in crop-livestock integrated systems, and so on. In fast-changing rural societies, relying on trust and
social capital founded on tradition and local institutions may be increasingly challenging; these challenges
could undermine agroecological farmers’ full potential for providing environmental services. Policies and
statutory laws can certainly play a role by providing the right incentives, although they more usually erode
rather than strengthen the conservation values embedded in indigenous cultures.

Several immediate trade-offs thus influence farmers’ choices about whether and what degree of
agroecological practices to adopt. For instance, farmers need to balance short-term with long-term
objectives – i.e. immediate production (and profits, which may be initially affected by low returns to labor)
versus the achievement of long-term resilience and the provision of wider benefits such as food sovereignty

08 Readings 3 *Property of STI

Page 13 of 20
 GE1713

and environmental protection. In highly degraded environments, farmers may also have different
environmental objectives and priorities for ecosystem conservation depending on their valuation of
environmental services (which are based on economic as well as cultural values). However, these trade-
offs may be less of an issue for indigenous and traditional farmers who still maintain agroecological
practices, see environmental and production objectives as inter- dependent and whose beliefs include
conserving all forms of life.

The way farmers balance these trade-offs ultimately depends on their current livelihood strategies and
farming practices, the incentives provided by the agricultural, trade and tenure policies in place, their
individual and cultural values, as well as the wisdom they share with community members, technical
advisors and policymakers. These are in turn influenced by the changing circumstances that affect access
to resources and to economic opportunities. As a result, it is difficult to evaluate farmers’ agroecological
choices and the compromises they opt for, especially considering that agroecological solutions (as well as
the problems they seek to address) are by definition context-specific. Locally specific parameters (such as
measuring overall on-farm productivity according to the traditional use of both commodity and non-
commodity agricultural outputs) and flexible evaluation frameworks (in order to take into account, the
aspects of sustainability that local communities value most) may be the only means of doing so.

An appropriate analysis of farmers’ choices and their drivers is necessary in order to understand the hurdles
to agroecology’s acceptance and mainstreaming in agricultural policies and practices. Such analysis should
be supported by stronger evidence of the financial viability of agroecological practices and their returns to
labor, especially in a context of rapid rural transformations and economic diversification. An agroecological
practice that has been proven successful in certain circumstances is likely to be easily up-scaled in contexts
with similar ecological and social characteristics. However, some degree of adaptation to local socio-
cultural, environmental and technological conditions will always be needed. To this end, the analysis should
be flexible and recognize that the factors that influence farmers’ choices and priorities change from place
to place. It should also be able to evaluate farmers’ capability to innovate, rather than just adopt others’
innovations; and to identify underlying drivers and limitations.

Provide supportive policies and institutions

Farmers’ choices and priorities are largely influenced by the technological options available and the
incentives and the opportunities provided by prevailing policies and institutions. Identifying the exogenous
barriers to the widespread adoption and dissemination of agroecology, as well as the policy options to
overcome them, is thus another essential step for mainstreaming agroecology. Table 2 offers an analytical
framework to understand the major challenges to the adoption and the dissemination of agroecology and
lists a number of policy options to overcome them. Such analysis is important because it can help expose
current, biased policies (and the vested interests behind them) and ultimately help ‘unlock the ideological
barriers to the political recognition’ of agroecology. Indeed, beyond a deeper understanding of all these
issues, mainstreaming and scaling-up agroecological practices also require addressing the pitfalls and
inefficiencies of our current food systems; and many of the issues related to the governance of the agro-
food system are indeed highly politically sensitive. Indeed, the powerful economic and institutional interests
that back research and development for the conventional agro-industrial approach have been one of the
major constraints to the spread of agroecology to date.

08 Readings 3 *Property of STI

Page 14 of 20
 GE1713

Table 2. Mainstreaming Agroecology: Challenges and Policy Options

Source: (Silici, 2014)

08 Readings 3 *Property of STI

Page 15 of 20
 GE1713

As we saw above, one obstacle to the adoption of agroecological practices is farmers’ perceptions that they
are complex and management-intensive. Another is the ability of farmers to use and share their knowledge
in innovative ways in order to adapt techniques to local conditions. Indeed, agroecology ‘is by definition an
innovative, creative process of interactions among small- scale producers and their natural environments’.
More funds are therefore needed – not only to incorporate ecological and agroecological principles into
agricultural science curricula and research, but also to pursue a new approach to generating and
disseminating knowledge through local and participatory innovation processes in which farmers are at the
center of the agricultural innovation system and actively participate in setting the agenda for research and
extension services.

Beyond the lack of supportive research and extension, the limited uptake of agroecological approaches is
also due to biased agricultural and trade policies. Agroecological farming is often regarded as less
competitive than ‘conventional’ practices. This is partly due to the fact that the prices of agricultural products
under current agro-food systems are distorted by heavy subsidies – both direct (such as farm and input
subsides) and indirect (the health and environmental consequences of unsustainable practices that are
paid for by taxpayers) – whereas the positive externalities of agroecology are not taken into account by
public policies. Agricultural and trade policies should be re-oriented in order to correct these distortions,
take into greater account the multi-functionality of agriculture and the associated positive externalities and
create appropriate incentives, including markets for ecosystem services. A related problem is that food
security is generally perceived by policymakers as requiring increased production, whereas for marginal
farmers, minimizing risk (e.g. of crop failure) and hence resilience, is likely to be as or more important.

Insecure land tenure and lack of access to natural resources can also inhibit the uptake of agroecology by
discouraging farmers from adopting practices – such as agroforestry and soil conservation – that require
investment in land and other assets. Sound land and natural resource policies can help overcome these
challenges by supporting small-scale farmers, and in particular by securing their rights of access to and
use of natural resources.

Large agri-business and food companies show no interest in agroecological practices because inputs and
technologies cannot be easily standardized and patented. Due to the strong influence of the corporate
sector on agricultural research governance and on food policies, farmers – and especially those in
developing countries where lack of funds and expertise in public research institutions are additional
constraints – lack access to agroecological inputs, tools and technical advice. Promoting a local
agroecological business model for the production and commercialization of appropriate inputs and
technologies (such as light no- till planting machineries, organic fertilizers, biological pesticides, seeds for
cover crops and so on) could encourage more farmers to engage with agroecology. In addition, if
agroecological production systems become more widespread, local demand for environmental services
and agroecological inputs could increase the number of rural employment opportunities, and these are
likely to be safer and less seasonal than those offered by industrial agriculture.

On the other hand, it is also critical to protect the knowledge and rights of farmers and pastoralists in order
to secure their continued access to traditional crop varieties and livestock breeds and provide appropriate
rules and incentives to make sure that any benefit from the commercial use of this knowledge (e.g. for plant
breeding) will be shared with them.

These policy changes are particularly challenging because they require an underlying cultural and
philosophical shift in the perception and the valuation of what is commonly regarded as ‘efficient’. The ‘more
is better’ mantra characterizes our current production and consumption systems; challenging it may not be
easy as its assumptions influence all sectors of the economy and society. In agriculture, for instance,

08 Readings 3 *Property of STI

Page 16 of 20
 GE1713

productivity has been traditionally measured through crop yields and returns to labor, with little or no
attention to overall resource efficiency, risk reduction and non-commodity outputs. Nonetheless, recently a
number of local actors and international organizations have been questioning this model and recognizing
the multi-functional roles of agriculture. Some initiatives, such as the UK-based Ecosystem Services for
Poverty Alleviation (ESPA) and UNEP’s Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), indicate the
willingness to turn this recognition into operational metrics.

Build constructive complementarities between agroecological and conventional farming

Farming systems based on large-scale units and intensive use of chemical inputs are unlikely to be
abandoned, especially in countries where agricultural commodities contribute to large shares of GDP and
international exports. In these circumstances, the possibility to adopt aspects of agroecology at one or more
stages of the farming process could help reduce the negative environmental and social impacts of this
production model. Although such reduction might not be significant, it would still represent a step towards
greater sustainability. However, the biases that some agroecological movements have against
‘conventional’ agriculture (see above) often deter them from engaging more effectively with conventional
farmers. Such biases can also mean they overlook opportunities for reaching farmers who are less radical,
are willing to reduce expenses for purchasing inputs, want to employ different approaches on different parts
of their farm or mix agroecological practices with other practices.

The capacity to understand and engage with such ‘hybrid’ farming systems is important, especially as the
rapid pace of urbanization and rural-urban migrations are currently transforming rural landscapes. The
diversification of the rural economy, changes in land tenure systems (including possibly an increasing
concentration of arable land into larger holdings) and the reduced availability of agricultural labor are likely
to deeply affect prevailing agricultural production models. The impacts of climate change make the task of
addressing these dynamics, and the way they affect agriculture, even harder.

At the same time, these transformations open up opportunities for innovative policies, unexplored research
streams and new technological solutions. In a context of new challenges and opportunities, these
innovations may well consist of the adoption of environmentally sound practices, such as agroecology.
However, new opportunities will also stem from mixing different approaches and technologies. In order to
provide realistic solutions to the challenges facing food and the agricultural systems, the long-standing
debate between ‘conventional’ and ‘alternative’ may need to be reframed and become less polarized. If
policymakers and practitioners can stop perceiving agroecological practices as alternative they might be
more likely to mainstream them in agricultural policies and practices.

4 Looking forward: consolidating the evidence for agroecology

The existing evidence for the benefits of agroecology is highly context specific. Studies are difficult to
compare or aggregate as they use different parameters and analytical tools, and they rarely assess
economic viability. Some comprehensive studies are available, but they date back to the 1990s or before;
while this does not affect the validity of their conclusions, the factors influencing farmers’ choices may be
very different nowadays, especially considering the socio-economic transformations that characterize
peasants and rural societies in Asia and Africa. New, consolidated evidence that supports agroecology is
needed.

New studies should rely on multi-dimensional analyses that measure not just crop yields, but also other
outputs, such as feed available for livestock, mulching crops, provision of ecosystem services, and so on.
While this has been attempted in the past, the challenge today is to find common metrics to evaluate and

08 Readings 3 *Property of STI

Page 17 of 20
 GE1713

compare environmental services, agricultural by-products and other externalities along with more classic
measures of agricultural productivity. New studies should also assess more consistently how
agroecological farming contributes to farmers’ incomes and compare it with alternative on and off-farm
livelihood opportunities.

The way farmers balance constraints and potential benefits, and the incentives needed to overcome these
tensions, have not been adequately addressed. New evidence is thus needed on profits, returns to labor
and resource efficiency of agroecological practices, as well as on the motivations and the drivers of choices
that induce (or prevent) farmers’ adoption.

The extent to which different combinations of agroecological practices contribute to resilience and
sustainability of farming depends on how farmers balance a number of trade-offs – between production and
environmental objectives and among different environmental objectives. This in turn depends on their
values and priorities, but also on the technical advice and the institutional support they receive. For
indigenous farmers, it may not be so much a question of trade-offs but of strengthening cultural values and
local institutions that promote traditional practices.

Analyzing the drivers of farmers’ choices thus requires a flexible analytical framework, context-specific
indicators and a focus on farmers’ capacity to innovate, rather than uptake innovations. It should also be
framed on a longer-term perspective, considering the socio- economic dynamics that are changing rural
landscapes, such as land tenure security, availability of agricultural labor, economic diversification and so
on. To take such variability into account, the debate between agroecology and conventional farming should
be reframed in a more constructive way, in order to assess potential complementarities among different,
even though less sustainable, farming systems.

A better understanding of the drivers of farmers’ agroecological choices, as well as of the underlying
incentives and obstacles, is the first step towards the mainstreaming of agroecological principles in
agricultural policies and practices. Another important step is to assess whether tensions exist between
farmers’ objectives and the social benefits that policymakers increasingly expect from the agricultural sector
(e.g. urban food security, landscape conservation, soil protection, etc.), and how to balance them. To this
end, it is important to analyze the exogenous constraints to the adoption of agroecological practices and
the policy options to overcome them (Table 2). Overcoming these constraints may imply innovative tools
and approaches such as participatory innovation systems, economic incentives for early adopters,
payments for environmental services and rewards for landscape conservation. Relevant policy changes
may also concern land tenure, natural resources management as well as support to farmer organizations,
local business development and markets for agroecological products.

While obtaining high and stable yields is important to all farmers, agroecological practices seek to optimize,
rather than maximize, production (and profits). Measuring achievements in terms of yield optimization and
environmental benefits may prove complex in practice. Not only does it require new measurement tools, it
also requires a fundamental cultural and philosophical shift – not just by farmers but by society as a whole
– in what we mean by ‘productive’ and ‘efficient’. The type of policy analysis and the measurement needs
outlined here seek to contribute towards this evaluation shift and could provide a useful starting point for
refining an analytical framework and more detailed, context-specific tools that can better inform farmers
and policymakers about the many benefits of agroecology. This would ultimately help mainstream
agroecology as a means to support sustainable livelihoods, promote food sovereignty and strengthen
climate resilience.

08 Readings 3 *Property of STI

Page 18 of 20
 GE1713

Related Readings
Cohn, A., Cook, J., Fernández, M., Reider,R. and C. Steward (eds.) 2006. Agroecology and the Struggle
for Food Sovereignty in the Americas, IIED, CEESP and Yale F&ES.
Jones, A., Pimbert, M. and J. Jiggins, 2012. Virtuous Circles: Values, Systems, Sustainability. IIED and
IUCN CEESP, London
Swiderska K. et al. 2011. The Role of Traditional Knowledge and Crop Varieties in Adaptation to Climate
Change and Food Security in SW China, Bolivian Andes and coastal Kenya. IIED London
Swiderska K, 2013. Biocultural innovations: a holistic approach. Knowledge exchange provokes
developments in practice and lays groundwork for shifts in agriculture policy. IIED London.
Salas M., London and Wise Andean People’s Network, 2013. Voices and Flavours from the Earth:
Visualising Food Sovereignty in the Andes. IIED, London.
Vorley B., Cotula L., Chan M-K., 2012.Tipping the Balance: Policies to shape agricultural investments and
markets in favour of small-scale farmers. Oxfam and IIED, London.
Murphy S., 2012. Changing perspectives: Small-scale farmers, markets and globalisation. IIED, London.

References
Alonge, A. J., and R.A. Martin 1995. Assessment of the adoption of sustainable agriculture practices:
Implications for agricultural education. Journal of Agricultural Education 36(3): 34–42.
Altieri, M.A. 1995. Agroecology: The Science of Sustainable Agriculture. Boulder CO: Westview Press.
Altieri, M.A. 1999. The ecological role of biodiversity in agro-ecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment 74 (1999) 19–31.
Altieri, M.A. 2002. Agroecology: the science of natural resource management for poor farmers in marginal
environments. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 93 (2002) 1–24.
Altieri, M.A. and P. Koohafkan, 2008. Enduring Farms: Climate Change, Smallholders and Traditional
Farming Communities, Third World Network, Malaysia.
Altieri, M.A. and Nicholls, C. 2012. Agroecología: única esperanza para la soberanía alimentaria y la
resiliencia socioecológica. Contribución a las discusiones de Rio+20 sobre temas en la interface
del hambre, la agricultura, y la justicia ambiental y social, Sociedad Cientifica LatinoAmericana de
Agroecologia (SOCLA) Position Paper, June 2012.
Altieri, M.A., F. Funes and P. Petersen 2012. Agroecologically efficient agricultural systems for smallholder
farmers: contributions to food sovereignty. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, January 2012,
Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 1–13.
Bourgeois R. 2013. Constructive destruction: What has to be changed? An essay on food security and
sustainable intensification. GFAR Issue Paper presented at the “Agriculture Days of the Future” 2013
conference, Ossiach, Austria, June 17–19.
CGIAR-WLE 2013. Uniting agriculture and nature for poverty reduction: WLE annual report 2012.
International Water Management Institute (IWMI) and CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land
and Ecosystems (WLE), Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Chappell M. J and L.A. La Valle. 2009. Food security and biodiversity: can we have both? An agroecological
analysis’, Agriculture and Human Values, February 2011, Volume 28, Issue 1, pages 3–26.
Dalgaard T. et al. 2003. Agroecology, scaling and interdisciplinarity. Agriculture, Ecosystems &
Environment, Volume 100, Issue 1, November 2003: 39–51.
De Schutter, O. 2010. Report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food to the Human Rights
Council at the Sixteenth session of the UN General Assembly, 20 December 2010. United Nations,
New York.
FAO-SARD. 2007. SARD and… agroecology. Sustainable agriculture and rural development (SARD) policy
brief 11 2007, FAO, Rome.
Francis, C. et al. 2003. Agroecology: the ecology of food systems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 22,
98–118
Gliessman, S.R. 2007. Agroecology: The ecology of sustainable food systems. Boca Raton, Florida, USA,
CRC Press
Gliessman, S.R. 1998. Agroecology: ecological process in sustainable agriculture. Ann Arbor Press,
Michigan.
Gliessman, S.R. et al. (undated) ¿Qué Es La Agroecología? Lectura nº 2–1 del módulo de trabajo personal:
Master Interuniversitario “Agroecología: un enfoque sustentable de la agricultura ecológica”,
Universidad Internacional de Andalucía. Available at http://agroeco.org/socla/wp-
content/uploads/2013/11/ agroecologia_un_enfoqueGliessman-ETAL.pdf
Holt-Gimenez, E. 2001. Measuring Farmers’ Agroecological Resistance to Hurricane Mitch in Central
America, Gatekeeper Series No.SA102, IIED, London.
IATP. 2013. Scaling Up Agroecology. Toward the realization of the right to food, Institute for Agriculture and
Trade Policy, Minneapolis.

08 Readings 3 *Property of STI

Page 19 of 20
 GE1713

IFAD (undated). Viewpoint: Smallholders can feed the world. International Fund for Agricultural
Development, Rome, www.ifad.org/pub/viewpoint/smallholder.pdf.
Koohafkan, P., Altieri M.A. and Gimenez. E.H. 2012. Green agriculture: Foundations for biodiverse, resilient
and productive agricultural systems. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, Volume 10,
Issue 1, 2012.
Kremen, C. and A. Miles 2012. Ecosystem services in biologically diversified versus conventional
farming systems: benefits, externalities, and trade-offs. Ecology and Society 17(4): 40.
LaSalle, T.J. and P. Hepperly 2008. Regenerative Organic Farming: A Solution to Global Warming. The
Rodale Institute, Kutztown, Pennsylvania.
McDonald’s Corporation. 2009. McDonald’s Agricultural Roundtable Process: Respecting one another,
making progress together. McDonald’s France, Paris. Available at: www.mcdoconcertations.
com/telechargement/RoundTableProcess_ SynthesisReport2010.pdf.
Méndez, V. E. 2010. Agroecology. In: B. Warf (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Geography. Sage Publications:
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons. The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Parmentier, S. 2014. Scaling-up Agroecological Approaches: What, why and how? Oxfam Discussion
Paper, Oxfam-Solidarity, Belgium.
Pretty, J. 2006. Agroecological approaches to agricultural development. RIMISP background paper for the
World Development Report 2008 “Agriculture for Development”, November2006. RIMISP – Centro
Latinoamericano para el Desarrollo Rural, Santiago (Chile).
Pretty, J., C. Toulmin and S. Williams 2011. Sustainable intensification in African agriculture. International
Journal of Agriculture Sustainability 9: 5–24.
Reijintjes, C. et al. 1992. Farming for the Future. MacMillan Press, London.
Rosset P.M., Sosa B.M., Roque Jaime A.M.R., Ávila Lozano R.A., 2011. The Campesino-to-Campesino
agroecology movement of ANAP in Cuba: social process methodology in the construction of
sustainable peasant agriculture and food sovereignty. Journal of Peasant Studies 38(1), 161-191.
Stassart, P. M. et al. 2012. L’agroécologie: trajectoire et potential pour une transition vers des systèmes
alimentaires durables. GIRAF Position paper, FNRS – Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique,
Belgium.
Swiderska K. et al. 2011. The Role of Traditional Knowledge and Crop Varieties in Adaptation to Climate
Change and Food Security in SW China, Bolivian Andes and coastal Kenya. IIED London
UNCTAD, 2013. Trade and Environment Review 2013: Wakeup before it is too late. Make agriculture truly
sustainable now for food security in a changing climate. UNCTAD, Geneva.
UNEP, 2012. Avoiding Future Famines: Strengthening the Ecological Foundation of Food Security through
Sustainable Food Systems. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
United Nations Secretary-General, 2013. Agricultural Technology for Development. Report of the
Secretary- General to the Sixty-eighth session of the General Assembly, Item 19 of the provisional
agenda on Sustainable development.
von der Weid, J. 2000. NRM/Agroecology in the global forum on agricultural research. Synthesis paper for
presentation to the GFAR-2000 Conference“Strengthening Partnership in Agricultural Research for
Development in the Context of Globalization”, Dresden, Germany, May 21–23, 2000.
Wezel, A. et al. 2009. Agroecology as a science, a movement or a practice: A review. Agronomy for
Sustainable Development 29: 503–515.
Wibbelmann, M. et al. 2013. Mainstreaming Agroecology: Implications for Global Food and Farming
Systems. Centre for Agroecology and Food Security Discussion Paper. Coventry: Centre for
Agroecology and Food Security.
Wijeratna, A. 2012. Fed up: Now’s the time to invest in agroecology. ActionAid, London. www.actionaid.
org/sites/files/actionaid/fed_up_-_nows_the_time_to_ invest_in_agroecology.pdf

08 Readings 3 *Property of STI

Page 20 of 20