What we call “Landscapes for People, Food and Nature”

“A rose by any other name would smell as sweet…” (William Shakespeare)

During a tea break in the EcoAgriculture Partners office a couple of weeks ago, a familiar conversation broke out about the proliferation of words that describe various aspects of ecoagriculture. Usually this conversation ends with a collective shrug once our teacups are empty, but this time was different. We have always struggled to some extent with the issue of terminology, but now the challenge of organizing the Landscapes for People Food and Nature Initiative has highlighted the proliferation of terms as a potential barrier to collaboration.  Someone asked, “How many different words can we come up with that overlap in meaning with ecoagriculture?” So we started counting….and now we are up to 78 (and that is just in English)! Find the full list at the end of the post.

A bit of history

The word ecoagriculture was coined by Jeff McNeely and Sara J. Scherr in 2002. They used it as the title of their 2003 book laying out the foundations for an integrated approach to agricultural landscape management that seeks simultaneously to enhance human livelihoods and well-being, improve agricultural production, and conserve biodiversity and ecosystem health. A table in the book clarifies the meaning of ecoagriculture relative to the closest related terms at the time. Most of these terms referred either to sustainable approaches to farm management or to ecosystem or forest management practices for non-farmed lands. By distinction, ecoagriculture approaches focus specifically on landscape-scale sustainable management in rural landscapes where agriculture is an important land use or economic activity. Ecoagriculture involves collaboration among different groups of farmers and other land managers and stakeholders in the landscape to solve shared problems or capitalize on new opportunities. This is achieved through technical, ecological, market, or social means that reduce trade-offs and strengthen synergies among different landscape objectives. This was by no means a new concept in practice—many diverse examples were highlighted in the 2003 book. But at that time, there was relatively little policy, investment, or research focused on such systems. EcoAgriculture Partners was established to study and promote such integrated landscape approaches– “landscapes for people, food and nature.”

Confusion around terminology began almost immediately. In some European countries, the preface eco, when applied to agriculture, was widely understood to connote organic agriculture. The term agroecology sounded similar, though at the time referred mainly to farm- and local community-scale sustainable farming practices. Meanwhile, the landscape approach and ecosystem approach were attracting new interest, but mainly in the international forest and biodiversity conservation communities as a strategy to restore large deforested areas. Initially, these strategies did not give much attention to agricultural development.

Rather than mere semantics, the debates on terminology reflected substantive conversations about how best to link action at field, farm, community, and landscape scales, among diverse stakeholders. Indeed, over the past decade, integrated approaches to rural livelihood development, agricultural production and ecosystem management have proliferated across sectors and communities of practice. Groups coined new vocabulary that reflected their varying points of departure. Thus, water-oriented efforts called their work participatory watershed management while biodiversity-led efforts were biological corridors. Territorial development emphasized governance process and economic development, while food sovereignty movements sought to secure local food security through better management of farm and non-farm resources.  Proponents of technological innovation around agroforestry, agroecology, permaculture and organic agriculture began advancing their work at a landscape scale. Growing appreciation of the sustainability of many indigenous land management systems, with their embedded ecological knowledge, led to the rise of indigenous territorial development, while farmer-led collaborative action to restore degraded lands and waters prompted the Landcare movement. Concepts such as climate-smart agriculture and the green agricultural economy arose more recently to incorporate climate change resilience and mitigation goals.

Photo credit: IFAD/Masy Andriantsoa

As these different communities of practice gain experience implementing action on the ground, most are building on their original concepts to embrace more integrated approaches to landscape management. This is not simply a matter of language; it is borne of complex realities on the ground and of unanticipated positive synergies discovered and created. All of the approaches in our “list of 78” have much to teach, and to learn from, one another.

Indeed, the good news is that the proliferation of approaches and language reflects the enormous innovation and creativity underway to integrate the management of food systems and ecosystems to meet the full range of growing demands on the world’s land. But the down side of these independent steps forward is fragmentation of knowledge, re-invention of ideas and practices, and inability to mobilize action at scale. For policymakers, this rich diversity is simply overwhelming; they have received no clear message as to what an enabling policy environment would look like to address the full set of landscape values.

The Landscapes for People, Food and Nature Initiative provides a unique opportunity for those of us interested in these issues to discuss and better understand one another’s diverse perspectives and approaches. It is neither likely nor desirable that we will all agree on a single ‘best’ approach. Collectively, we are still early in the process of re-inventing more productive, sustainable, resilient, and equitable food and land management systems for the 21^st century, and there is much to be gained by diverse innovation driven by local needs and priorities. But far more unites than separates us.  Hopefully over the next few years we can consider how we as a larger community seeking to promote “landscapes for people, food and nature” can most clearly communicate our ideas and enthusiasm to others as that process unfolds.

Follow along on the blog over the coming week, as thought leaders meet in Nairobi to discuss these very issues. And please let us know if you have any terms to add to our list!

The List

1. A permanent agriculture
2. Agricultural landscape mosaics
3. Agricultural watershed management
4. Agroecology
5. Agroforestry landscapes
6. Agroecological landscapes
7. Biocultural landscapes
8. Biodiverse agricultural landscapes
9. Biological corridors
10. Bioregional planning
11. Climate-smart agricultural landscapes
12. Community-based agriculture and natural resource management
13. Conservation agriculture
14. Diversified farming systems
15. Doubly green revolution
16. Ecoagriculture
17. Eco-agriculture
18. Ecoagriculture landscapes
19. Ecological agriculture
20. Eco-farming
21. Ecofunctional intensification in agriculture
22. Econutrition
23. Ecoregional planning
24. Ecosystem approach to agriculture
25. Eco-territorial development
26. Evergreen agriculture
27. Evergreen revolution
28. Farming with nature
29. Food sovereignty/food security
30. Forest farming
31. Forest management for food security
32. Forest landscape restoration
33. Green agricultural growth
34. Green infrastructure
35. Greening agro-industrial corridors
36. Holistic land management
37. Indigenous territorial development
38. Integrated agricultural landscapes
39. Integrated management of territories
40. Integrated natural resource management
41. Integrated rural development
42. Integrated sustainable solutions from the land
43. Integrated territorial development
44. Integrated water resource management
45. Integrated watershed management
46. Intelligent landscapes
47. Joined-together landscapes
48. Landcare
49. Landscape restoration
50. Living landscapes
51. Model forest development
52. Multifunctional agriculture
53. Multifunctional agroecological landscapes
54. Multifunctional agroecosystems
55. Multifunctional landscapes
56. Organic agriculture
57. Permaculture landscapes
58. Resilient biocultural landscapes
59. Satoyama landscapes
60. Smart landscapes
61. Socioecological landscapes
62. Sustainable agricultural land management
63. Sustainable agriculture
64. Sustainable agri-culture
65. Sustainable agriculture landscapes
66. Sustainable farming systems
67. Sustainable intensification
68. Sustainable production landscapes
69. Sustainable urban landscapes
70. Sustainable working landscapes
71. Systems approach to rural development
72. Territorial development
73. Territorial management planning
74. Terroire
75. Transboundary landscape approach
76. Transboundary ecosystem management approach
77. Urban eco-foodsheds
78. Whole landscape approach