This document summarizes a study on the social and economic impacts of agroecological practices. The study used a sustainable livelihoods framework to analyze 37 papers measuring indicators like yield, profitability, labor productivity for practices including crop diversification, nutrient management and water harvesting. Results showed agroecological practices increased yields in 59% of cases and increased both yields and profitability without trade-offs in most cases. However, more research is still needed, as few studies addressed indicators like income stability. In conclusion, evidence suggests agroecology can improve financial capital and human capital for farmers, though more data is needed to reduce uncertainties in the results.

1. Social and economic
performance of
Agroecology
Introduction
Numerous recent reviews have emphasized that future
needs for food and nutrition security will have to be
addressed by transitioning to regenerative systems of
food production based on an effective and enhanced use
of ecosystem services that minimize negative impacts
while improving or at least stabilizing yields (The Royal
Society 2009; Foley et al. 2011). The International
Symposium on Agroecology for Food Security and
Nutrition, held at FAO headquarters in September 2014
underlined that agroecological approaches may offer
such an alternate path to agricultural development as
they integrate ecological principles as well as social
and economic concerns into agricultural production
and the wider food system (FAO, 2015).
Although broad reviews of Agroecology already exist
(Wezel et al. 2009), a systematic overview of the
effects of agroecological practices on socio-economic
indicators reflecting impacts on farmers’ sustainable
livelihoods is currently lacking.
Methodology
This study has been developed using the Sustainable
Livelihood (SL) framework, allowing for an improved
understanding of social and economic relations at the
farmer level. The SL framework uses five kinds of assets
(human, natural, financial, physical and social) to
structure the analysis of the sustainability of livelihoods.
The agroecological systems selected for inclusion in
this study represented a spectrum of agroecological
approaches and included a range of practices that are
suited to the management of large- as well as small-
scale agriculture (see Table 1).
Agroecological practices
Quantitative
data
Qualitative
data
Minimal tillage X
Direct seeding X
Crop diversification X
Integrated nutrient management X
Water harvesting X
Water use efficiency X
Use of compost or organic matter X
Integrated aquaculture X
Permanent soil cover X
Biological N fixation X
Optimal plant spacing X
Small scale irrigation X
Community governance/
Participation in forest
management
X
Raffaele D’Annolfo1
, Barbara Gemmill-Herren1
, Benjamin E. Graeub1
, Lucas A. Garibaldi2
1
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy
2
Sede Andina, Universidad Nacional de Río Negro, San Carlos de Bariloche, Argentina
GEF/UNEP/FAO
Global Pollination Project2nd
International Conference on Global Food Security www.globalfoodsecurityconference.com
Selected social and economic indicators
Ten indicators of social and economic impact were
selected to measure the effects of the agroecological
practices with respect to the SL framework. Note that
Natural Capital and Physical Capital were not considered
in this study though widely studied otherwise with
respect to Agroecology.
The selected scientific literature examined for this
study includes articles identified within the Scopus
database using a defined set of keywords. 84 papers
were made available by the authors and reviewed, out
of 99 identified within Scopus.
Data/information was extracted from 37 of these papers
that met the following criteria:
• Theabstractreferstoatleastoneoftheagroecological
practices listed above;
• The study provides meaningful information on the
socio-economic indicators selected for this exercise.
A vote count technique was used to analyse the available
quantitative data. The number of positive studies (showing
benefit) were compared with the number of negative
studies (showing harm or costs); allowing the absolute,
relative and cumulative frequency to be computed to
compare and integrate the results of multiple studies and
to see the general trends between adopting agroecological
practices and socio-economic indicators.
Results
The studies provided 154 comparisons among the socio-
economic indicators selected, most of them concerning
farm profitability and crop yield (Figure 2). Generally,
adopting agroecological practices increases farm
profitability and crop yield compared to conventional
practices (Figure 2).
The number of comparisons for the other socio-economic
indicators was too low to create solid conclusions,
showing an important knowledge gap.Focusing on
those studies that measured both farm profitability
and crop yield, we found that agroecological practices
increased the two indicators simultaneously for 59
percent of the comparisons (win-win scenario, upper
right corner of Figure 3).
Importantly, we found no trade-offs between farm
profitability and crop yield (upper left or lower right
corners of Figure 3), whereas simultaneous decreases in
both indicators (lose-lose scenario, lower left corner of
Figure 3) was found in 18 percent of the comparisons.
Results for yield and farm profitability provided by
vote-counting and an additional linear mixed-effects
models carried out, follow similar patterns but with
some differences. Yields were 16 percent greater for
agroecological practices with respect to conventional
practices. However, results for farm profitability show
that despite the slight increase in farm profitability
when adopting agroecological practices, this is not
statistically significant.
Conclusions
Our research provides evidence of the positive economic
effects of agroecological practices regarding farm
profitability. At the same time, it highlights the need for
additional research in this area, due to a lack of studies
identified regarding a number of key indicators (e.g.
income stability, labour demand, access to markets).
Based on the reviewed papers, evidence suggests that
Agroecology enhances (or at least does not affect
negatively) the financial capital and human capital,
at farm level.
Although the final result for farm profitability is not
statistically significant by using linear mixed effect
model, the confidence interval for farm profitability
covers more positive than negative values. This means
that there is a slight positive effect when adopting
agroecological practices. However, in this regard, we
emphasize that the uncertainty and variability of the
results require further investigation (e.g. review of
additional papers and further collection of data); in
addition, we recognize that other co-variables (e.g.
rainfall levels) need to be considered in any future
development of the analysis.
Literature cited
DFID. 1999. Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets.
London: DFID. (Available at www.eldis.org/vfile/upload/1/
document/0901/section2.pdf).
FAO, 2015. Final Report of the International Symposium on
Agroecology for Food Security and Nutrition.
Rome: FAO. (Available at: www.fao.org/3/a-i4327e.pdf)
Foley, J.A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K.A., Cassidy, E.S.,
Gerber, J. et al. 2011. Solutions for a cultivated planet.
Nature 478 (Available at: dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature10452M3)
Royal Society. 2009. Reaping the benefits: science and the
sustainable intensification of global agriculture.
RS Policy document 11/09. London: Royal Society 86.
Wezel, A., and Soldat, V., 2009. A quantitative and qualitative
historical analysis of the scientific discipline of agroecology,
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainablity 7(1), 2.
Design:studio@bartoleschi.com–header-illustrationsbyguidajoseph
Forms of Capital/Assets
(based on DFID, 1999)
Indicators
Human Capital:
represents the skills,
knowledge, ability to work
and good health that together
enable farmers to pursue
different livelihood strategies
and achieve their livelihood
objectives
1. Labour Productivity
2. Labour Demand
3. Percentage of farmers (gender-
disaggregated), who have
participated in training and decided
to incorporate Agroecology in their
farming practices
Financial Capital:
denotes the financial
resources that farmers use
to achieve their livelihood
objectives
4. Yield
5. Farm Profitability
6. Income Stability
7. Recognition/assessment of
transition costs
social Capital:
in the context of the
sustainable livelihoods
framework, it refers to the
social resources upon
which farmers draw in
pursuit of their livelihood
objectives. These are
developed through:
> networks and
connectedness
> membership of formalized
groups
> relationships of trust and
reciprocity
8. Access to the market developed for
the products of Agroecology
9. Number and quality of registered
groups (gender disaggregated),
in a certain community
10. Influencing decision-making
processes which indicates the
presence of formal procedures/
rules for allowing stakeholders to
influence decision-making
Figure 1. Geographic scope of papers analyzed in this study
This figure shows the worldwide distribution of papers which provided
evidence on social and economic impacts of the agroecological practices
listed. Many of the studies reviewed are related to Asia (74%), many
focusing on India, followed by Americas (6%), Europe and Africa
(3%); and 14% of the studies take a global view.
Table 1: Agroecological practices analyzed
Table 2: Social and Economic Indicators within Forms of Capital
Figure 2. Socio-economic indicators (Relative Frequencies)
100%
25% 75%
66% 23%11%
61% 20%19%
Labour
Productivity (n3)
Labour
Demand (n4)
Farm
Profitability (n73)
Yield (n74)
Americas 6%
Europe 3%
Global 14%
Africa 3%
Asia 74%
Figure 3. Synergies and trade-offs between farm profitability and yield
adopting agroecological practices
>50% of
comparisons
Farm Profitability
YIELD
10 – 50% of
comparisons
<10% of
comparisons
59%
7%
3%
1%
18%
12%