Global Environmental Change 21 (2011) 441–452

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Global Environmental Change

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gloenvcha

Towards the real green revolution? Exploring the conceptual dimensions of

a new ecological modernisation of agriculture that could ‘feed the world’
L.G. Horlings a,*, T.K. Marsden b,1
a
Rural Sociology Group, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands
b
Sustainable Places Research Institute, Cardiff University, Glamorgan Building, King Edward VII Avenue, Cardiff CF10 3WA, United Kingdom

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: The challenge to produce enough food is more urgent than ever. We argue that the dominant food regime
Received 15 February 2010 has responded to this challenge by a ‘narrow’ ecological modernisation process within agriculture which
Received in revised form 20 December 2010 may decrease environmental effects to a certain extent, but also causes new negative side-effects and
Accepted 9 January 2011
exposes some important missing links. In this paper we explore what might be a ‘real’ ecological
Available online 5 February 2011
modernisation process, including social, cultural, spatial and political aspects. The central question
concerns: is there evidence in practice that agro-ecological approaches can contribute to the future
Keywords:
demand for food production, especially in developing countries? We illustrate this by describing
Ecological modernisation
examples from Africa, Brazil and China, showing a rich variety of such approaches in agricultural
Food production
Sustainability practices.
Agro-ecology Our conclusion is that agro-ecological approaches could significantly contribute to ‘feeding the
Eco-economy world’, and thereby contribute to a ‘real green revolution’; but that this requires a more radical move
Food regime towards a new type of regionally embedded agri-food eco-economy. This is one which includes re-
thinking market mechanisms and organisations, an altered institutional context, and is interwoven with
active farmers and consumers’ participation. It also requires a re-direction of science investments to take
account of translating often isolated cases of good practice into mainstream agri-food movements.
ß 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction: the new race for resources and production
spaces
This paper starts with the challenge to critically consider and
re-position agro-ecological perspectives in food production in a
period of what might now be regarded as a new era of agri-food
‘productionism’. How can we ‘feed the world’ in a really
sustainable way? Can sustainable farming systems and practices
contribute to an efficient, productive and profitable agriculture,
meeting the demands of a growing world population and adapting
to climate change? Or will this new neo-Malthusian premise be
met by a re-invigorated reliance upon the conventional agri-food
paradigm and its associated packages of technologies?
The challenge to increase food production has become more
urgent than ever. The world population will increase up to at least
the mid-21st century, and absolute demand for food will rise.
Estimates of population increases over the coming decades vary,
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 317 485969; fax: +31 317 485475.
E-mail addresses: lummina.horlings@wur.nl (L.G. Horlings),
MarsdenTK@cardiff.ac.uk (T.K. Marsden).
1
Tel.: +44 29 20874308; fax: +44 29 20874845.
for example, depending on the expected average number of
children per woman (IAASTD, 2009a); but the emerging consensus
is that the world will have approximately 9 billion people by about
2050 (UN, 2008). Predictions of future food demand also differ, but
even the most optimistic scenarios require increases in food
production of at least 50% (The Royal Society, 2009). Food demands
will both grow and shift in the coming decades not only as a result
of population growth but also because uneven economic growth
increases consumer purchasing power, especially for meats; the
growing urbanization encourages people to adopt new diets; and
climate change variations and events threaten both land and water
resources (Pretty et al., 2006, p. 1114).
The successes and limitations of the first ‘green revolution’ in
the 1960s have led to many calls for renewed investment and
collaboration. There have been calls for a ‘greener revolution’, a
‘double-green revolution’ (Conway, 1997), an ‘evergreen revolu-
tion’ (Swaminathan, 2000), a ‘blue revolution’ (Annan, 2000), and
an ‘African green revolution’ (Sanchez et al., 2009). A variety of
influential international reports on agriculture and food have been
published (see for example World Bank, 2008; IAASTD, 2009a).
These reports express some optimism that the necessary increases
in food production can be achieved. Opinions vary, however, about
the best way to address these challenges.

0959-3780/$ – see front matter ß 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.004
442 L.G. Horlings, T.K. Marsden / Global Environmental Change 21 (2011) 441–452
The conventional approach to increase food supply, and given
its perceived ‘success’ in the recent past, is to suggest a vibrant
rejuvenation of the agri-industrial model. The agro-industrial
model, which emerged in the 1960s is informed by a neo-liberal
logic of scale and specialization that ties farms and agri-food into
an industrial/bio-science dynamic (Van der Ploeg and Marsden,
2008, p. 30). It results in expanding the area of agricultural
production, and continuing to increase production per hectare,
especially in exporting countries, through continued generic
technological advances. In national policy circles support for this
‘new-productivism’ can be witnessed in pleas that countries need
to regain the former post-war priority of intensive productivism as
a way of ‘feeding the 9 billion by 2050’ (see for example Evans,
2009, Chatham House, 2009, Royal Society, 2009). With the
renewed framing of a future food shortage/population growth
scenario, this is giving added impetus and justification for such a
renewed intensive productivist model. This is also being expressed
in new injections of both sovereign and private capital into super-
intensive systems of livestock production in both the North and the
South.
Others (Evans, 2009; Ambler-Edwards et al., 2009) indicate,
there is a stronger need to invest in what Parrot and Marsden
(2002), somewhat earlier, called a ‘real green revolution’. Evans
(2009, p. 8) argues, for instance, for a knowledge-intensive
approach based on ecologically integrated approaches that put
more power in the hands of farmers rather than seed companies.
Agro-ecologists also argue that the agro-industrial model does not
consider its effects on soils and water sources, nor the agro-
ecosystem’s capacity for future production (Fernandez et al.,
2002). These scholars have discussed the principles and practices
of a wide variety of more sustainable and organic forms of
agriculture as an alternative to the agro-industrial model. The
agro-ecological literature describes a wide variety of agro-
ecological practices, labelled by different terms such as low-input
farming, agro-forestry systems, multi- and intercropping farming,
poly-cultures, natural systems agriculture, organic production and
so on (see for example Mäder et al., 2002; Altieri et al., 2001;
Altieri, 2002; Jackson, 2002).
In many ways we can see these debates as critical battlegrounds
of rival paradigms, with each attempting to claim the ground of
sustainable forms of ecological modernisation (see Lang and
Heasman, 2004; Sonnino and Marsden, 2005). Under current
conditions of food crisis in many parts of the world, and what now
seems to be continued food inflation and speculation, the challenge
remains whether the heterogeneous diversity of sustainable and
often small-scale agri-ecological practices can offer a viable
alternative against both the market and scientific dominance of
the current agri-industrial food paradigm. Given these debates, a
central and critical question addressed here is: what are the
potential dimensions and parameters of an ecologically modernising
and sustainable agriculture that can contribute to the future demand
for food production?
This is a theoretical question as well as an empirical one.
Theoretically, we frame these arguments by using and applying
some of the theories of ecological modernisation. Empirically, the
question is raised as to whether there is viable evidence of a new
and real ecological modernisation paradigm which can be
witnessed in agricultural and agri-food practices and policies.
Our analysis is based on an extensive critical review of available
literature on farm practices.
First, we describe some aspects of the new food challenge
(Section 2), critically elaborating on the concept of ecological
modernisation; and how this has become recently far too aligned
with the dominant agri-food paradigm (Section 3). We then
explore the social, cultural and spatial side-effects of this
modernisation project in recent decades (Section 4), and elaborate
on EM as a scholarly and policy programme, influencing the
position, freedom and power of farmers (Section 5).
Second, as an alternative paradigm we can see in outline the rise
of a new form of ecological modernisation that is re-embedded in
space and place, leading to more autonomy for food producers and
processors as a countervailing power to the global forces of agri-
food corporatisation (Section 6). We will illustrate this with
empirical case-studies from different continents which express a
rich empirical variety of locally embedded and innovative farm
practices (Section 7). In order to offer a real alternative, it is argued
that sustainable agri-food networks have to be scaled-up and
aggregated, disseminated and supported by a series of new and
quite novel institutional and market arrangements (Section 8). This
requires the need to critically examine the main constraining
factors of this alternative paradigm, and the conditions for policy
arrangements and partnerships that can support the scaling up and
growth of sustainable agri-food networks.
2. The new food challenge: the increasingly distorted anatomy
of the global food regime
The food challenge can be understood in the context of the
global food regime. The concept of food regime was first
introduced by Friedmann (1987) followed by a systematic
formulation by Friedmann and McMichael (1989). Friedmann’s
basic notion of the food regime is of a ‘rule-governed structure of
production and consumption of food on a world scale’ (Friedman,
1993, 30–1). The ‘food regime’ concept has historicised the global
food system: problematising linear representations of agricultural
modernisation, underlining the pivotal role of food in global
political-economy, and conceptualising key historical contradic-
tions in particular food regimes that produce crisis, transformation
and transition (McMichael, 2009a).
Later on the concept evolved (see for an overview McMichael,
2009a). Araghi (2003) addressed the food regime as a ‘political
regime of global value relations’. This approach not only
politicises the world food order, but also focuses on food as a
commodity. We have seen commodification of crop development
and its relationship to corporate strategies of ‘substitutionism’,
whereby tropical products (sugar, palm oil) are displaced by
agro-industrial by-products (high-fructose corn syrup, marga-
rine), and cereals are rendered functionally equivalent, such as in
feedstuffs and biotechnology feedstocks (Goodman et al., 1987).
We are now seeing it in the current ‘agrofuels project’
(McMichael, 2009b).
The global food regime has created economic complexities,
particularly in developing countries. The creation of intellectual
property rights has become an increasingly important source of
competitive advantage and accumulation in the production and
trade of agricultural goods (Tansey and Rajotte, 2008). The
progressive expansion of corporate industrial relations in agricul-
ture has put further strain on many small-scale farmers in
developing countries. These must also contend with direct
competition from production systems that are highly subsidized
and capital intensive, and thus able to produce commodities that
can be sold more cheaply. Newly industrialized countries like India
have increasingly subsidized inputs in agriculture since the early
1980s (IFPRI, 2005).
Besides population growth, several international trends have
influenced the distortion of land use and production patterns, with
negative effects, particularly in developing countries. The 2008
commodity boom and price hikes dramatically increased interna-
tional interest in agricultural land as a potential investment.
According to press reports, investors expressed interest in 42
million ha of agricultural land globally in less than a year. Of these,
more than 75% (32 million ha) were in Sub-Saharan Africa. The
 L.G. Horlings, T.K. Marsden / Global Environmental Change 21 (2011) 441–452
transfer of land to countries like China and Korea can lead to
violation of local rights (World Bank, 2010).
Land competition has also increased as a result of the
production of crops for biofuels (Mol, 2007). China, to give just
one example, has successfully acquired the rights to grow palm oil
on 2.8 million ha of Congolese land (The Economist, 2009). Nilsson
et al. (2009) show how decisions on how to fuel cars have effects
on the livelihoods of poor people in other parts of the world.
Switching to energy crops even on existing arable land can cause
displacement effects with similar but indirect effects on emissions.
Without proper safeguards the expansion of biofuels may
negatively affect biodiversity and water resources (Nilsson et
al., 2009, p. 22). Clearing land for producing energy crops can
increase greenhouse gas emissions relative to the continuous use
of petroleum-derived fuels (Börjesson, 2009). Expansion of energy
crop production would lead to a large increase in evapotranspira-
tion appropriation for human uses; potentially as large as the
present evapotranspiration from global cropland. In some coun-
tries this could lead to further enhancement of an already stressed
water situation (Berndes, 2002). Rising competition for feedstocks,
or land, causes food prices to increase (RFA, 2008), which in turn
fosters higher levels of volatile financial speculation.
The increasing meat production and consumption on a global
scale also influences land use. Competition at the world level is
rising for the supply of protein-rich animal feeds. Meat production
is not only one of the causes for greenhouse gases, it requires 80% of
the amount of agricultural land, while it accounts of only 15% of the
total food consumption (Van Vuuren and Faber, 2009). Some
suggest that demand for livestock products will double by 2050.
Already more than one-third of the world’s grain is fed to domestic
livestock, rising to nearly 70% in industrialized countries (The
Royal Society, 2009).
These macro production and consumption trends are now
embedded in wider concerns about resource depletion, on the one
hand, and related climate change effects on the other. Food
production is now grown on 40% of the total land area; yet 90% of
farms worldwide have a size of less than 2 hectares (IAASTD, 2009a).
Most small farms with a size of less than two hectares are in Asia
(87%), followed by Africa (8%), Europe (4%) and America (1%)
(Nagayets, 2005). Agriculture still includes a large variety of ways of
production like crop-, animal-, forestry- and fishery-based systems
or mixed farming, including new emerging systems such as organic,
precision and peri-urban agriculture. Although agricultural inputs
and outputs constitute the bulk of world trade, most food is still
consumed domestically and locally, i.e., near to where it is produced.
Agricultural production has shown a spectacular conventional
growth since the start of the first ‘Green Revolution’ in the 1960s. In
per capita terms, it has outpaced population growth, and resulted
in an extension of irrigated area. Compared to food consumption in
1961, each person today has (pro-rata) 25% more food. However,
these aggregate figures hide important differences between
regions. The growth has differed across continents: in Africa it
rose by 140%, in Latin America by almost 200%, and in Asia by 280%.
The greatest increases have been in China, where a 5-fold increase
of production occurred, mostly during the 1980s and 1990s (FAO,
2009).
The total cultivated area has increased much less than output in
recent decades, i.e., from 1.4 to 1.5 million ha between 1950 and
2005, although fallow systems were greatly reduced (Wood et al.,
2000). Though in the past 40 years, per capita world food
production has grown by 17%, with average per capita food
consumption in 2003 of 2780 kcal per day; consumption, on the
other hand, in 33 of the poorest countries is still less than 2200 kcal
per day (Pretty et al., 2006).
It has been argued that agriculture could meet the growing
demand to some extent, because production capacity (both in
443
volume and area) is expected to increase in the future. FAO
projections for the period of 1999–2030, estimate an increase of
global agricultural production by 56%, with arable land expansion
accounting for 21% of production growth in developing countries.
However, such an increase requires high inputs of resources (such
as water), which are likely to become scarcer. The share of irrigated
production in developing countries, for instance, is projected to
increase from 40 to 47% in the period of 1999–2030 (FAO, 2006a).
Food supply will also be pressurized as a result of the burgeoning
demand for agricultural feedstocks and biofuels, which has already
pushed up world food prices (Rosegrant et al., 2007). Cereal
production is now 2.7 times the amount that was being produced
50 years ago, but a large proportion of this plant material is
removed for livestock feed and a growing amount for biofuel
production. Since a peak in grain production of around 250 kg per
person worldwide in 1995, per capita availability of cereal and
roots has dropped back to near 1960s levels of around 220 kg
person of grain available for direct food use (FAOSTAT, 2009). As
food productivity as tended to plateau, food security – getting the
food to the right people in the right place at the right time – has
been exacerbated.
The expectation is that the World Food Summit (WFS, 1996)
target to reduce the number of undernourished between 1990/
1992 and 2015 by half will not be met (FAO, 2006b). More than one
billion people are now hungry and undernourished worldwide
(FAO, 2009). Although the number of undernourished people will
decline according to the FAO (from more than 850 million at
present to about 300 million by 2050), higher rates of poverty and
food insecurity are expected to continue under the present models
of food production and consumption, along with further natural
resource degradation (Scialabba, 2007, p. 2).
In recent decades many scholars have discussed the side-effects
of the dominant food paradigm model and its myths of efficiency
(Morgan et al., 2006). We have, of course, known for a long time that
the current agri-food system has also caused serious environmental
negative side-effects, which can have a ‘boomerang effect’ on food
production in the future. Intensive production methods have left a
huge environmental footprint (Rosegrant et al., 2007). High-energy
crop production has involved sharp increases in fertilizer, pesticide
and water use, leading to increased emissions of nitrates and
pesticides into the environment and depletion of groundwater
aquifers (Moss, 2008). More than half of all the synthetic nitrogen
fertilizer ever applied on the planet has been used since 1985; and
phosphorus use (another increasingly scarce resource), tripled
between 1960 and 1990 (Millennium Assessment, 2005). Water use
in agriculture is expected to double by 2050, mainly due to the need
to increase irrigated production (CA, 2007).
About 30% of global emissions are attributed to agricultural
activities, including land use changes such as deforestation
(IAASTD, 2009a). Rising temperatures, altered rainfall patterns
and more frequent extreme events will increasingly affect crop
production, often in those places that are already most vulnerable
(Morton, 2007). The effects of climate change on world agriculture
are uncertain. Working Group 2 of the Intergovernmental Panel of
Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated that global crop production
will be threatened by global temperature increases of 1 8C and
begin to decline significantly at 3 8C (Easterling et al., 2007). But
this global picture flattens out regional variations that might bring
catastrophic impacts on, for example, the drier tropical areas
(Schmidhuber and Tubiello, 2007). A scenario study suggests that
further liberalisation of agricultural trade could lead to an increase
in gas emissions (6% compared to the reference scenario) caused by
vegetation clearance; mainly in South America and Southeast Asia
(Verburg et al., 2009).
The capacity of ecosystems to deliver essential services to
society is already under stress and the additional effects of climate
444 L.G. Horlings, T.K. Marsden / Global Environmental Change 21 (2011) 441–452
change will require more profound forms of adaptation. Species
behaviours are altering and disrupting ecological mutualisms.
Extinctions occur within vulnerable habitats and under conditions
where migrations are necessary for survival but where there are
often no pathways available for successful movement (Mooney et
al., 2009). A study of 23 climate models in Science (Battisti and
Naylor, 2009) predicts that by 2090, elevated temperature will not
only cause excess evaporation but also speed up plant growth with
consequent reductions in crop yields in many regions. The authors
predict future production reductions of 20–40%, while the
population in tropical regions is expected to double to 6 billion.
Further extreme events such as floods and droughts are likely to
become more severe and frequent over the next century under all
scenarios and for most land areas (Battisti and Naylor, 2009).
The agro-industrial model has not only caused environmental
but also social effects. The achievements of the green revolution
since the 1960s have led to increased production, but the benefits
of increased yields have been distorted. The complexities of African
agricultural landscapes, with mixed crops and poor access to credit
markets, seeds and fertilizers, did not suit green revolution crop
varieties (Paarlberg, 2006). Other social side effects included
mechanization replacing manual labour and worsening poverty in
some rural areas (Conway, 1997). The imperative of cost/prices
‘squeezes’ through continued adoption of technological advance-
ments and continued scale-enlargement has locked large areas of
rural space into the ‘treadmill’ of production and profit max-
imalisation (Ward, 1993). Many farmers are unable to compete in
this ‘race to the bottom’ (Marsden et al., 2001, p. 77; Van der Ploeg
and Renting, 2000, p. 529).
3. Reassessing the value of an eco-economical approach
Under these more volatile and vulnerable conditions, a key
question concerns how can new ways be found for making
sustainable agriculture work as a viable alternative to the
prevailing food system? The challenge here, we argue, is to give
more attention and potential value to the evolution of a place-
based economy, and to critically explore new eco-economical
perspectives (Kitchen and Marsden, 2009). Drawing on various
strands of literature, including ecological economics, ecological
goods and services, and ecological modernisation, we can conceive
of the eco-economy as an alternative and diverse arena for the
development of new production and consumption chains and
networks. It consists of complex networks or webs of viable
businesses and economic activities that utilise the varied and
differentiated forms of ecological resources in more sustainable
and ecologically efficient ways. Importantly, these do not result in
a net depletion of resources, but instead provide cumulative net
benefits that add value to rural and regional spaces in both
ecological and economic ways (Kitchen and Marsden, 2009;
Marsden et al., 2010).
The search for ecological modernisation in rural areas is an
empirical as well as theoretical endeavour. It requires a more
ecologically modernising agenda based upon a more diverse
theoretical base (see Buttel, 2000; Gibbs, 2000; Mol, 2000;
Murphy, 2000). A central theoretical question is then: ‘to what
extent are we seeing the arrival of a more autonomous and
countervailing ecologically modernising process operating in
advanced societies, and as part of this, through rural development
and agri-food trends specifically? Second, if we believe that this is a
viable question, then what conceptual development and empirical
realities does it suggest with respect to the rural sphere?’
(Marsden, 2004, p. 130).
So the challenge is not to accept the growing vulnerabilities of
the prevailing system but to search for empirical examples and
agricultural practices which can function as viable alternatives. We
will argue that in order to function as a potential countervailing
power these initiatives have to be up-scaled within a broadened
ecological modernisation agenda. We will, in the foregoing
sections, use empirical evidence in the sphere of agri-food to
address this agenda. First it is necessary to critically examine the
roots of ecological modernisation in order to explain how a narrow
interpretation of ecological modernisation has become aligned to
and adopted by the current dominant food paradigm.
4. Principles of ecological modernisation: some missing
dimensions
Ecological modernisation has become a popular theory in both
policy and politics. Its popularity derives in part from the
suggestive and normative power of its combined notions of
development and modernity and to ecological critique (Christoff,
1996, p. 476). Based on our analysis of the ‘godfathers’ of ecological
modernisation such as Jänicke (1984), Huber (1982, 1985) and
Toffler (1981), the main characteristics of ecological modernisation
can be described as:
(1) Qualitative, economical growth;
(2) realisation of ecological goals;
(3) modern technologies which can have an enormous potential
for stretching the ecological boundaries and reduce negative
environmental effects, for example in energy-production, agri-
business, biological and chemical sector and ICT;
(4) a steering governmental role as Huber stated, market and
governance need each other, compensate and limit each other
(Huber, 1985);
(5) a further ‘scientification’ of society.
Ecological modernisation theory emerged from attempts to
address the perceived problems associated with early environ-
mental policy-making and implementation. In the 1980s, for
example end-of-pipe practices that only shifted industrial-related
problems between environmental media (Mol, 2000; Mol and
Sonnenfeld, 2000). The theory of ecological modernisation has
developed since then (see Hajer, 1995; Mol and Sonnenfeld, 2000;
Murphy, 2000; Murphy and Gouldson, 2000). Some countries such
as China developed their own interpretation of EM (Zhang et al.,
2007).
Distinctions can be made between weak and strong, or narrow
and broad versions of EM (Christoff, 1996; Dryzek, 1997). Dryzek
conceives of weak versions as EM, addressing environmental
problems by technocratic and corporatist modes of policy-making.
A strong EM should therefore be concerned with restructuring the
capitalist political economy. In this sense Dryzek’s strong EM can
be seen as a radical vision on sustainability (Hermans et al., 2010).
We can argue that over recent decades a prevalent but weak form
of ecological modernisation has been influencing the dominant food
regime. This ‘bio-economic’ model focuses on agricultural develop-
ment in the form of integrated farm techniques, ICT-applications,
technical crop improvement, genetic modification and the design of
sustainable ‘agro-parks’ for intensive production. On the other hand,
we can also propose the outline of a more place-based ‘eco-economy’
based on a broad variety of local practices, NGO projects and farmers
initiatives, illustrating a more locally embedded agriculture, adapted
to natural assets and based on a diversity of agro-ecological
approaches.
Weak forms of ecological modernisation may have led to a
decrease in environmental problems, but negative side-effects
have also occurred. These effects illustrate the exclusion or at best
underestimation of the wider and much more diverse social,
cultural, political and spatial dimensions of agriculture within the
 L.G. Horlings, T.K. Marsden / Global Environmental Change 21 (2011) 441–452
weak ecological modernisation project. We can outline at least four
missing dimensions.
Socially, we have seen a large decrease of agricultural
employment and a loss of farmers’ freedom, with more depen-
dency upon privately regulated global markets, retailers, research
and policy-measures (Van der Ploeg, 1991; Horlings, 1996).
Primary producers at the end of the chain bear the responsibility
for the quality of products but are excluded from the often more
lucrative, value-added retailer-led food markets. For those that do
gain entry, the degree of informal control over their operations
severely constrains their ‘room to manoeuvre’ (Marsden, 2004, p.
137). Weak ecological modernisation in this sense can lead to loss
of autonomy at the local scale.
Culturally, ‘the environment’ is reduced to a series of
fragmented or ‘closed box’ concerns about resource inputs, waste
and pollution emissions. As cultural needs and non-anthropocen-
tric values cannot be reduced to monetary terms, they tend to be
marginalised or excluded from consideration (Christoff, 1996). The
culture of agri-‘culture’ itself, expressed in craftsmanship and a
large variety of locally embedded farming styles, has become
marginalised as the influence of external institutes such as
extension services and scientific research became more dominant
(Horlings, 1996).
Politically, in agriculture a ‘hygienic mode of regulation’ has
become dominant in agri-food in the form of the proliferation of
arms-length bureaucratic forms of environmental safeguards and
instruments. Private and public forms of regulation have led to a
schematisation which creates new regulatory barriers to market
entry for many smaller producers and processors. Farms (and
farmers) have taken the brunt of this scientific risk management
strategy (see Marsden et al., 2010).
Spatially, intensive agricultural production has been decoupled
and fragmented from space and place, visible in the form of
footloose production, international food transport and the
deconstruction of food into different value-added food compo-
nents. This gives the industrial producer and processor the power
to exchange resources worldwide, making farmers more vulnera-
ble to global markets (Van der Ploeg, 1992).
5. Towards ‘real’ ecological modernisation as a scholarly and
policy programme?
Ecological modernisation seeks to find ways to work from
within the prevailing capitalist and carbon-based economy to
bring about both ecological balance and economic development. It
sees, to varying degrees, the role of the multi-level state as a critical
actor in intervening between the production and consumption of
environmental goods and services (Kitchen and Marsden, 2009, p.
277).
To understand some of the consequences of a (weak or narrow)
EM as a policy programme, insight from an historical perspective is
helpful. This shows how the role of the state has stimulated general
bureaucratic procedures leading to a standardisation, schematisa-
tion and juridical regulation of society. Frissen (2007), for instance,
describes how the positive values of equality and justice, have led
to institutional arrangements in western societies that stimulate
uniformity. Since the ‘caring state’ has fallen into crisis, the state is
trying to deal with financial shortages, but these attempts mainly
contribute to the problems; because the main measurements are a
refining of bureaucracy, fixation on cost limitation, general
interventions and a further bureaucratisation. The political
outcome and receipt is a combination of the discourse of
entrenched liberal market orientation and of an intensified
bureaucratic control.
In the agri-food sector this leads to, among other effects,
constraining market conditions for developing countries to export
445
their products to Europe. This has expressed itself in a global
proliferation of standards setting, both by the state and particularly
by the global retailers (Busch and Bingen, 2006), and led to more
constraints in markets and the imposition of supply chain
regulations. These are less transparent than more traditional food
markets and they tend to restrict entry to many producers. As a
new panacea, ‘transparency’ is now expressed, for instance
through the process of ‘traceability’. What indeed may be labelled
liberal market orientation can really be seen as hyper-hygienic
bureaucratisation. Although NGO’s have tried to develop their own
certification schemes and regulation in order to favour agro-
ecological initiatives in developing countries, this has sometimes
disadvantaged these countries, because of lack of expertise or
institutional capacity (Parrot and Marsden, 2002).
Several scholars have described how the role of the state has
influenced agriculture in line with weak ecological modernisation
(e.g. Van der Ploeg, 1999). A clear example is the ‘hygienic mode of
regulation’ in agri-food. As the industrial mode of food supply has
become even more crisis-ridden, the State has attempted to
largely ‘correct’ this by setting up highly professionalised and
bureaucratic forms of environmental and food safety and quality
safeguards and instruments. Private and public forms of regula-
tion have led to a ‘regulatory treadmill’, which has, in turn, acted
to further constrain farmers ‘room for manoeuvre’; and to
discourage alternative and more spatially sensitive farming
practices (Marsden et al., 2010). Hence both in developed and
developing economies farmers in particular have faced significant
market barriers and added regulatory costs, forcing many out of
business, or fragmenting and marginalising alternative sustain-
able practices.
The question remains, however, if real or stronger forms of
ecological modernisation can be organised in ways which build
capacity and sustainable productivity, such that capacities,
resources, diversities and creativity in different regions can be
enhanced (Frouws and Mol, 1999, p. 271), see the outlines of such a
‘real’ modernisation process as offering ‘possibilities for a process
of ‘re-embedding economic practices-in view of their ecological
dimension-within the institutions of modernity’. How can such a
‘re-embedding’ process develop in the agricultural sphere?
6. Constructing the conceptual dimensions of an alternative/
real form of ecological modernisation
In order to begin to answer these questions it is important to
more rigourously distinguish weak and strong(er) forms of EM. In
Table 1 we outline potentially weak and strong frameworks for
ecological modernisation in agriculture and agri-food networks.
This begins to show some of the contours of an alternative
paradigm to the prevailing agri-industrial model. The table
addresses and summarizes the missing dimensions of weak
ecological modernisation described in Section 4, such as the
productivity-oriented approach which relies heavily upon generic
technological innovations, particular forms of scientific knowl-
edge, ecological engineering, use of external resources and state
policy. A strong ecological modernisation should ideally lead to a
value place-based eco-economy, including agro-food networks
which are more embedded in local communities, based upon a
more comprehensive science and knowledge base (see also
Horlings and Marsden, 2010).
7. Towards empirical ‘evidence’: a rich variety (or archipelago)
of agro-ecological initiatives
Given this further specification, we can now analytically
explore examples in the literature of endogenous sustainable
agricultures, addressing to varying degrees some of the key
446 L.G. Horlings, T.K. Marsden / Global Environmental Change 21 (2011) 441–452
Table 1
Weak and strong ecological modernisation in agriculture and agri-food networks.
Dimensions Weak ecological modernisation
Economical Corporatisation
Productivity (yield) oriented
Cost-prize squeeze on agriculture
Technological Technology development economically driven
Technological environmental solutions
Closed loops of energy, waste and minerals
Ecological Ecological and genetic engineering (industrial ecology)
Social-cultural Dependency, scientification, rational man-nature relation,
loss of farmers freedom/agricultural employment
Spatial Globalised
Export-oriented
Use of external resources
Political Top-down steering One-direction communication by extension services
Power concentrated at multinationals and large retailers
Privatized Research & Development
dimensions outlined in Table 1. We will particularly focus here on
the ecological dimension of sustainability.
The sustainability of any agricultural system is dependent upon
the specific context of space and place. Within agro-ecological
systems it is important to recognise that they utilise space and place
in ways which augment sustainability (see Morgan et al., 2006).
Indeed, they explicitly rely upon their local conditions as a means as
well as a condition of production; and, not least to maintain and
enhance diversity. The emphasis upon diversity means that it is
rarely possible to generalise or to genericise sustainable production
technologies; however much the scientific urge. Nevertheless, we
can identify some elements which are shared among agro-ecological
systems. Furthermore it is important to question the role of current
and historic institutional frameworks in nurturing, or otherwise,
place-based agricultural initiatives.
Research shows that there is a multitude of such ‘real’
sustainable agricultural systems worldwide. They range from
small subsistence farms to small-scale and large commercial
operations across a variety of ecosystems and encompassing very
diverse production patterns. In Africa alone, there are at least 20
major farming systems combining a variety of agro-ecological
approaches, small- or large-scale, irrigated or non-irrigated, crop-
or tuber-based, hoe- or plough-based, in highland or lowland
situations (Spencer et al., 2003).
Sundkvist et al. (2005) speculate that local-scale food systems
are more sustainable because they have ‘tight feedback loops’
linking consumers, producers and ecological effects. In such
systems, positive adaptive responses are more possible because
of earlier and stronger signalling of negative effects requiring a
change in behaviour in the system. In his view intensification,
specialization, distancing, concentration and homogenization are
trends that can be identified as major constraints for tightened
feedback loops (Sundkvist et al., 2005). This suggests locally
embedded food systems are more resilient. But they tend not to be
measured in this way.
(Sonnino et al., 2008, p. 35–37) have previously given an
overview of the principles of sustainable agriculture, including: the
co-evolution of society and natural factors, the use of indigenous
knowledge, endogenous potentialities, and systematic strategies
which reflect an integral farming approach, including bio-physical
factors and social actions, collective forms of actions, ecological
and cultural diversity and agricultural multi-functionality and
encompassing the social ecology component.
A key further principle in this regard is multifunctionality in
agricultural and rural practices. This has been a principle more
elaborated in the advanced economic context whereby the
Strong ecological modernisation
Agri-food networks
Integral approach of food production
Value-adding at farm level
Technological generation as a demand-driven
process and spatially sensitive
Based on agro-ecological principles, flexible and
adaptive to ecologies and places
Autonomy
Synergy between man-nature
Demand-driven research
Labour-intensive
Locally embedded in the community
Use of local resources
Enabling policy
Participatory approaches
Influence of communities in agri-food networks
Local and regional institutional actors
continued cost-price squeezes in agriculture (as well as other
land-based activities, like forestry) has stimulated alternative and
more embedded rural eco-economical development (Van der Ploeg
and Marsden, 2008). Macro-economically, rural economies seem
to be caught in the process of a continuous squeeze between the
prices and costs associated with land-based production and the
growing market and consumer expectation of high-quality or
natural rural resource-based goods and services. Faced with these
far-reaching concerns and issues farmers are being encouraged
towards more ‘value-adding’ and multifunctionality (Marsden and
Sonnino, 2008).
Under these conditions, agricultural activities are deepened,
transformed and expanded by the linkages and associations with
new actors and agencies, as farm enterprises seek to deliver new
products that entail more value-added, and serve the new
demands of urban-based society. This is referred to as the
deepening process, which is exemplified by organic farming,
high-quality food production and the creation of new short food
sully chains. Second, the interactions, with the rural environment
are broadened through the inclusion of new non-agricultural
activities that are located on the interface among society,
community, landscape and biodiversity. This constitutes the
process of broadening, which occur through activities, such as
agri-tourism, nature and landscape management, new on-farm
activities and diversification. Finally, through the process of re-
grounding, farm enterprises are grounded in new or different sets of
resources and become involved in new patterns of resources use
(Van der Ploeg et al., 2002, p. 12).
From a critical review of literature relating to the rural South,
more specifically, we can broadly distinguish the following
sustainable farming systems which, to varying degrees, espouse
the ‘strong EM’ and agri-ecological principles outlined above.
These are: (1) organic agriculture, (2) urban and peri-urban
agriculture, (3) conservation agriculture or zero-tillage, (4) low-
input agriculture; we use this as an overarching term for all kinds
of farming techniques which use less external inputs and reduce
negative environmental effects, (5) agro-forestry and multifunc-
tional agriculture and (6) aqua-culture.
In the next sections we will give some examples of the
productivity of these sustainable farming systems (for more
examples see also FAO, 2002).
7.1. Organic agriculture
During an international conference on organic agriculture and
food security in 2007 in Italy it was stated that organic agriculture
 L.G. Horlings, T.K. Marsden / Global Environmental Change 21 (2011) 441–452
could produce enough food on a global per capita basis (Halberg et
al., 2007; Scialabba, 2007), based on models of Badgley et al. (2007)
and Halberg et al. (2007). Badgley et al. compared yields of organic
versus conventional or low-intensive food production for a global
dataset of 293 examples and estimated the average yield ratio
organic: non-organic of different food categories for the developed
and the developing world. For most food categories, the average
yield ratio was slightly <1.0 for studies in the developed world and
>1.0 for studies in the developing world.
High yield ratios in the developing world are obtained when
farmers incorporate intensive agro-ecological techniques such as
crop rotation, cover cropping, agro-forestry, addition of organic
fertilizers or more efficient water management (Badgley et al.,
2007, p. 92). An FAO analysis based on more than 50 cases in the
USA and Europe, and just over a dozen studies in developing
countries, showed that organic farms are more economically
profitable, despite frequent yield decrease (Nemes, 2009). Higher
outcomes are due to premium prices and predominantly lower
production costs. These conclusions can also be drawn from
studies in developing countries, but there, higher yields combined
with high premiums are the underlying cause for higher relative
profitability.
7.2. Agro-ecological projects
Pretty and Hine (2001) undertook an extensive study of 208
agro-ecological projects in 52 countries, which showed how
farmers have improved crop productivity and at the same time
increased both water use efficiency, carbon sequestration, and
reduced pesticide use. Their dataset contains reliable data on yield
changes in 89 projects. The proportional yield increases were
generally: 50–100% for rain-fed crops (though considerably greater
in a few cases) and 5–10% for irrigated crops (through generally
starting from a higher absolute yield base). The relative yield
increases are greater at lower yields, indicating greater benefits for
poor farmers and for those missed by the recent decades of modern
agricultural development.
The team found improvements are occurring through four
different mechanisms:
- Intensification of a single component of a farm system.
- Addition of a new productive element to a farm system.
- Better use of nature to increase total farm production.
- Improvements in per hectare yield of staples through the
introduction of new regenerative elements into farm systems.
While this needs far more in-depth treatment than space in this
paper allows, it is clear that on different continents we can see
examples of farming systems that are (more) locally embedded in
communities, more resilient towards external threats and global
processes, more environmentally friendly, contributing to biodi-
versity and, not the least important, productive in terms of yields.
Some of the most path-breaking examples of sustainable
agriculture come from developing countries in Africa, Asia and
Latin America. Some of the most significant are described below by
focusing on the ecological dimension and productivity (see also
FAO, 2002).
7.3. The ‘Ensete’ agro-forestry system in South Ethiopia (Kippie, 2002)
The ‘Ensete’ agro-forestry system is a five thousand year-old
farm system, practiced by the Gedeo people in the highlands of
Southern Ethiopia. The system is able to produce a large variety of
products such as Ensete, a high quality food, coffee, honey, timber,
highland sheep and a variety of crops. The perennial cropping
447
system has a good resilience against droughts, thanks to the Ensete
plant which captures water with its fan-shapes leaves and fibrous
root-system which also prevents erosion. Since only a small
proportion of the farm area is harvested and replanted, damage to
the site by rainwater erosion or by sunburn is also minimised.
There is a biological differentiation in cropping between the three
zones in the highlands.
Key components like Ensete function as a pacemaker (i.e.
regulation of agro-ecosystem rhythm); spacemaker (i.e. provision
of biotope space for other crops) and/or placemaker (i.e. provision
of living space, or niche for other organisms). Weedy flora is used to
protect future yields, by providing physical cover and by
conserving soil nutrients in its biomass. The soil management is
organic, using crop by-products, leaves from multipurpose trees
and ‘weeds’, household wastes, rotation of dwelling sites, and
farmyard manure. High productivity of Ensete and judicious use of
accompanying crops result in a very high carrying capacity. Six
mature Ensete plants can feed an adult during a year, so a farm
household of seven persons needs an area of no more that 0.2 ha for
a sustainable yearly supply. Ensete proves to be the highest-
yielding Ethiopian food crop, the crop yields over 5.6 tons ha/year
in agro-forests.
7.4. Plantio direto; zero-tillage in Brazil
In Brazil, there are some 15 million ha under ‘plantio direto’,
also called zero-tillage, even through there is some disturbance of
the soil. In Argentina, there are more that 11 million ha under zero-
tillage, up from less than 100,000 ha in 1990, and Paraguay has
another 1 million ha of zero-tillage. Many of the Clubes Amigos da
Terra, literally ‘friends of the land clubs’, which are essentially
farmer groups, have been closely involved in this transformation.
The principles of zero-tillage include: no mechanical soil
disturbance; permanent soil cover; judicious choice of crop
rotations (Benites and Aschburner, 2001, cited in Vaneph and
Benites, 2001; see also Pieri et al., 2002). After harvest the crop
residues are left on the surface to protect against erosion. At
planting, seed is slotted into a groove cut into the soil. Weeds are
controlled with herbicides or cover crops. This means that the soil
surface is always covered, and the soil itself no longer inverted.
Although zero-tillage is a mono-cropping system including the use
of pesticides, it can be regarded as positive for both biodiversity
and sustainable agriculture.
Within a few years the approach has led to higher yields in crop
production, declines in labour costs, diversification into livestock
as well as agro-processing; resulting in improved food security for
small farmers (UNCED, 2002). Zero tillage practices in combination
with suitable crop rotations consistently reduce weed infestations
(Derpsh, 1999). According to Pretty (2003) zero-tillage has been a
major factor in changing the top-down nature of agricultural
services to farmers towards a more participatory, on-farm
approach.
7.5. Organics and agro-ecological experiments in China
Despite the onset of agricultural intensification and urbaniza-
tion as defining features of modern China, it is also recognised that
many regions display a fertile basis for agro-ecological and organic
agricultures. The interest of local state entrepreneurs in value-
added agricultural development, in combination with a growing
export market for organic food has led to the rapid expansion of
self-identified organic agricultural products in rural China (Thiers,
2002). This has benefited from the establishment of the Green Food
Development Centre (Green Food).
The certified green food can be divided into 2 groups: Grade A
(allowing use of a certain amount of chemical materials), and
448 L.G. Horlings, T.K. Marsden / Global Environmental Change 21 (2011) 441–452
Grade AA (comparable with organic food). In 2004 there were 2836
certified enterprises, producing 3142 different products on 8.94
million ha of land (Bin et al., 2006). More than 20 provinces have
formulated ‘Measures for Green Food Management’ and ‘Measures
for Administration of Green Food Labelling’. The export value (90%
under the AA grade) increased from 71 million USD in 1997 to 2140
million USD in 2007 (Lin et al., 2010).
The national and local state plays an important part, with most
organisations being developed through ‘production bases’ (sheng-
chan jidi) rather than through individual peasant farmers. County
and township institutions are established which coordinate
production, the cropping patterns and technical practices. In
China, ‘entrepreneurial state fragments’ consider organic produc-
tion as an economic development strategy for the benefits of the
local institutions and area. In many cases local government
provides scientific and technical infrastructure, the re-training of
the local extension services, donating land, labour and capital to
organic field trials, and conducting training workshops. This
represents a distinctive ‘fragmented entrepreneurial state’ model
of organic organisation, whereby the state creates the conditions
for various types of ecological entrepreneurialism (see Smith and
Marsden, 2005).
In addition to organic ‘green production’ more emphasis is
being placed on Chinese Ecological Agriculture (CEA), following
agro-ecological principles (Ye et al., 2002; Prändl-Zika, 2008;
Zhen et al., 2005). As pressure upon increasingly scarce resources
(such as water and soils) increases as a result of the intensive
model, this is attempting to create integration of the natural-
social—economic farm system. For instance, in Northern China (Li
et al., 1999; Ye et al., 2002) several food chain production models,
notably, pig-biogas-grain-fruit; pig-bio-gas-vegetable/melon/
mushroom; and beef cattle-biogas-pig-grain/grass, were exten-
sively adopted in Ankang District, Shanxi Province (Sun and
Zhang, 1993). Many of these schemes are again government led, as
with the Fushan Integrated Ecological Farm in the suburbs of
Hangzhou (Ye et al., 2002). The Hangzhou municipal government
coordinated the Fushan village experiment of 224 farm house-
holds. This has steadily derived benefits for the wider rural
economy as well as the farms themselves. Analysis of the soils has
shown improvements in the state of soil structure and nutrient
composition due to the development of applying biogas residue.
This has also led to large reductions in fertilizer applications and
increases in crop yields.
What is shared among the above examples in Africa, Brazil and
China? All the examples address ecological problems by develop-
ing agricultural practices which are embedded in the character-
istics of the local physical, economical and social context. They also
use natural resources in a sustainable way; are based on farmer’s
expertise and are more resilient by broadening and interlinking
different spheres of production and re-cycling. They follow
Sunkvist’s principle above of developing more embedded and
tighter ‘feed-back loops’.
8. Scaling up? Constraining factors and conditions for
institutional arrangements
While these examples clearly exhibit some if not all of the
‘strong’ EM principles outlined above (Table 1), one key challenge
is to understand why such agro-ecological initiatives have not
disseminated more widely, and how scale-up among these
initiatives could potentially take place so as to achieve a wider
structural and productivity impact? By scaling up we do not imply
a top-down programming of these initiatives on large-scale farms.
This would merely be a re-invention of the current problems of
weak ecological modernisation. Rather, Scaling up is defined here
as the dissemination and adoption of agro-ecological principles
over substantial areas by large numbers of farmers and technical
staff (Altieri, 2002, p. 17). Up-scaling can be conceptually
progressed by closer cooperation between farmers, communities,
NGO’s, agro-ecologically oriented scientists and altered institu-
tional arrangements (see Parrot and Marsden, 2002). We can begin
from this analysis to delineate here three key dimensions of the up-
scaling.
(i) The challenge of diversity and context dependency
One important factor limiting the spread of agro-ecological
innovations is that for the most part NGOs promoting such
initiatives have not been in a position to analyze or systemize the
level of success of local initiatives; nor have they been able to
validate specific strategies for the scaling-up of such initiatives. It is
conceptually and methodologically difficult to ‘scale up’ diversity
without giving way to generic systems approaches. A starting
point, therefore, should be in developing a more sophisticated
comparative understanding and dissemination of the agro-
ecological and socio-economic conditions under which alterna-
tives are adopted and implemented at the local level.
This involves adopting an evolutionary approach to under-
standing the development of such cases, and in particular how they
differentiate themselves, and maintain autonomy from, the
dominant (and often locally cost-reducing) agri-industrial/bio-
economic paradigm. Such an approach can shed light on the
constraints and opportunities farmers are likely to face. Altieri
(2002) suggests that scaling-up strategies must capitalize on
mechanisms for the spread of knowledge and techniques such as
strengthening of producers’ organisations, development of meth-
ods to retain promising agro-ecological technologies implemented
by experimenting farmers, training government research and
extension agencies on agro-ecology, and develop working linkages
between NGOs and farmers organisations.
Others have focused on scaling up innovations in specific
farming-systems such as agro-forestry (Cooper and Denning, 2000;
Franzel et al., 2004). From their worldwide survey of sustainable
agriculture initiatives, Pretty and Hine (2001) also raise the
question of up-scaling arguing that if sustainable agriculture is to
spread to large numbers of farmers and communities, attention
needs to be focused on altering the institutional context:
1. Enabling a more conducive policy environment.
2. Investing in infrastructure for markets, transports and commu-
nications.
3. Ensuring the support of government agencies, in particular, for
local sustainable agricultural initiatives.
4. Developing social capital within rural communities and
between agencies.
(ii) Enabling policy and building new alliances
Parrot and Marsden (2002) describe in an extensive overview
on organic and agri-ecological agriculture (OAA) some of the key
enabling and constraining policy issues. One issue is the (current)
concentration of competence in certification in industrialized
countries. The lack of certification capacity in the South raises
cost and logistical barriers for producers (especially if they wish to
export their products). This can be prohibitively expensive for
many small producer groups. The authors suggest a list of activities
governments can activate, such as: developing ‘bottom up’
capacity, reorienting the priorities of state-funded research and
educational institutes, and giving consideration to the market
potential of OAA in both local and international contexts, and in
terms of primary and value-added produce. This involves
nurturing many bottom up developments through more nuanced
and decentralised forms of governance.
 L.G. Horlings, T.K. Marsden / Global Environmental Change 21 (2011) 441–452
Such policy prescriptions have also been addressed by The
International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and
Technology for Development (IAASTD, 2009a,b). One of their
conclusions is that policies and institutional changes should be
directed primarily at those who have been served least by previous
AKST approaches, i.e. resource-poor farmers, women and ethnic
minorities. Policy options for improving livelihoods include a large
variety of measures: access to micro-credit and other financial
services; legal frameworks that ensure access, and tenure to
resource and land; recourse to fair conflict resolution; and
progressive evolution and proactive engagement in intellectual
property rights’ regimes and related instruments (see IAASTD,
2009b, p. 5).
Recently we can witness more public and private attention for
agro-ecological approaches in new structures and institutions such
as greening corporations, professional auditors and food-related
social movements. This development is described as a shift from a
‘Food from Nowhere’ to a ‘Food from Somewhere regime’
(Campbell, 2009, p. 316). The ‘food from nowhere’ concept
originated from Bové and Dufour (2001), and concerns differenti-
ating craft from industrial agriculture. McMichael refers to the
‘food from nowhere’ concept as a corporate food regime
(McMichael, 2005). An example of the new ecological politics
within global-scale supply chains is demonstrated by the Global
Gap alliance, which expanded its vision from ‘residue free’ produce
to include a range of other ecological qualities in production.
Campbell (2009) suggests that the ‘Food from Somewhere’
regime represents a ‘breach in the fabric of the ‘Food from
Nowhere’ regime’ (i.e. a niche), rather than a new set of clothes in
itself. There are other indications that a new food regime is not yet
emerging. ‘The Royal Society’ in the UK (2009) states that the
challenge of global food security should be met by intensifying
agriculture while respecting environmental boundaries; an
approach we have described here as weak EM. The committee
promotes ‘a large-scale ‘sustainable intensification’ of global
agriculture in which yield is addressed not just per hectare, but
also per unit of non-renewable inputs and impacts upon ecosystem
services’ (The Royal Society, 2009, p. 47).
As a follow-up of the Club of Rome report of 1972, the
Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency analyzed current
environmental trends in the report ‘Growing within Limits’ (Van
Vuuren and Faber, 2009). This report states that ‘business-as-usual’
leads to an expected increase of global mean temperature of 4 8C by
2100 and a further worldwide loss of biodiversity of 15% by 2050. A
maximum increase in average global temperature of 2 8C has been
proposed as a reasonable limit to manage climate risks. In order to
achieve this, global greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced
by around 50% in 2050. One of the causes of greenhouse gases is
meat production. Meat production requires 80% of the amount of
agricultural land, while it accounts of only 15% of the total food
consumption. A change of diet could halve the need of agricultural
land and could achieve as much as 20–30% of the emissions
reduction required to realise the 2 8C target. When both crises of
food and climate are dealt with quickly, they could be solved by an
annual expenditure of 2% of GDP in 2050. Estimates on macro-
economic impacts of such policies cover a wide range; typical
values of around 0.1% reduction of economic growth are reported
for ambitious climate policy scenarios. To put this in perspective,
world GDP would increase in the 2005–2050 period not by 240%
but by 225% (Van Vuuren and Faber, 2009).
Although, this could be considered as ‘an offer we can’t refuse’,
enabling policies towards a new alternative food regime are not yet
fully emerging. Our conclusion is that, from Friedmann’s (2005)
perspective, we have not yet seen the full-scale (hegemonic)
establishment of a new food regime; with ‘implicit rules’ (framed
by social forces) imprinted in the production and consumption of
449
traded foods (which currently divide between industrial and
affluent/fresh foods). According to Friedmann (2005), a new food
regime would require new alliances: ‘A new regime seems to be
emerging not from attempts to restore elements of the past, but
from a range of cross-cutting alliances and issues linking food and
agriculture to new issues. These include quality, safety, biological
and cultural diversity, intellectual property, animal welfare,
environmental pollution, energy use, and gender and racial
inequalities. The most important of these fall under the broad
category of ‘environment’ (Friedmann, 2005, p. 249).
(iii) Building the agri-ecological paradigm through enhanced and
engaging research and development
Much of the agro-ecology literature deals, logically, with
specific cases; their agricultural outcome is, by definition, highly
dependent on space and place. Sustainable agriculture is arguably
equally dependent on manipulating natural and human resources
‘in the right place, at the right time and with the right people (and
skills)’.
A complicating factor which makes it difficult to compare, for
example, organic and non-organic agriculture is the different
framing of organic ‘systems’. Also, the negative off-farm implica-
tions of specialized conventional systems such as environmental
pollution or social effects on farmers are often not taken into
account when organic and non-organic forms of agriculture are
compared.
Furthermore, long-term experimental field studies of the effect
of organic agriculture have been mostly carried out in the USA and
in European countries. Long-term studies, especially in developing
countries, hardly exist; with only about a dozen studies comparing
both yields and net income, and mostly focusing on coffee and
cotton (Nemes, 2009).
Clearly, the second part of this paper has empirically
demonstrated that there is enough evidence at a case study level
to severely question the legitimacy of the agri-industrial/bio-
economic paradigm as the only answer to the new global
Malthusianism and the neo-productivism which it now vibrantly
articulates. However, if the debates remain at a global level
without critically confronting or transcending both the problems
of scale, diversity, context dependency and the sanctity of generic
technologies, it is unlikely that such legitimacy will be seriously
challenged.
Real ecological modernisation (as postulated in Table 1) could
indeed become up-scaled and more widespread. Yet this will rely
upon overcoming some of the three challenges identified here.
More innovative state policy and research and development –
which more sensitively examined the merits ‘place-based’ solu-
tions – could indeed begin to stimulate Frouws and Mol (1999, p.
271) process of ‘re-embedding’ economic practices and the
institutionalisation of ecology into the institutions of production
and consumption.
However, currently we should not expect the State, especially at
global level, to necessarily support real ecological modernisation.
As McMichael observes with regard to the recent World Bank’s
(2008) World development report: ‘In sum while ‘agriculture-for-
development’ is a new mantra, so long as corporate markets (value
chains) are the standard, the greater productivity (and planet-
cooling effect) of diversified small farming will be sacrificed to the
Bank’s need to renew its legitimacy, and to the depredations of the
corporate market’ (McMichael, 2009c, p. 244). This would suggest
at the very least that as the debates about ‘feeding the world’
intensify, the stakes are getting much higher for real ecological
modernisation. Nevertheless, this is indeed a challenge that critical
social and natural scientists should indeed confront (see Thomp-
son and Scoones, 2009).
450 L.G. Horlings, T.K. Marsden / Global Environmental Change 21 (2011) 441–452
9. Conclusions
Clearly, the challenge of food security is more urgent and more
complex than ever; because of growing population on the one
hand and forces that threaten food production such as climate
change, urbanization, and the decrease of agricultural resources
and erosion, on the other. Also it needs to be clearly recognised, as
we have painfully discovered over the experiences of earlier
rounds of ‘green revolutions’, that singular increases of agricul-
tural productivity (agri-ecological or otherwise) do not necessar-
ily negate the effects of wider supply chain distortions which
continue to increase the risk of food insecurity. Nevertheless, we
have argued here that the dominant food regime has responded to
this challenge by promoting a ‘weak’ ecological modernisation
process of agriculture which may mitigate environmental effects
to a certain extent, but also cause new negative side-effects and
expose some important social, cultural, political and spatial
missing links.
Examples are the standardisation and hygienic bureaucratisa-
tion of agriculture, the distancing of food production and
consumption geographically and institutionally, and the margin-
alisation and fragmentation of the role of agriculture in local
communities.
The central question posed has been whether there is evidence
in practice that agro-ecological approaches can contribute to
meeting future food demands, especially in developing countries.
The agricultural practices show a rich variety of such more multi-
functional approaches, mostly implemented by small-scale farm-
ers. On different continents we see examples of farming systems
that are locally and ecologically embedded in communities, more
resilient towards external threats and globalisation, environmen-
tally friendly, contributing to biodiversity and, not the least
important, enhance productivity.
This should not simply be interpreted as a plea for supporting
smallholder agriculture. We have also argued that agro-ecological
initiatives can contribute to food security – which is an urgent
challenge for the next decades –, and a value place-based eco-
economy. This requires, however, not only analyzing and favouring
these initiatives as alternatives to weak ecological modernisation,
but also a political reorganisation of current markets and
institutions in ways which reduce the barriers to their wider
dissemination and agglomeration outlined above.
Real ecological modernisation can be up-scaled; but this
depends on three major conditions. First, we have to turn the
‘problem’ of diversity and context dependency of agricultural
practices into a real ecological and social virtue. The second
condition is an enabling policy. The IAASTD (2009a,b) report has
especially given useful recommendations on this point. We can
also witness a new set of counter-logics for the current food regime
in for example, NGO initiatives, some FAO reports and in new
institutions like Global Gap and Fair Trade networks. The third
challenge is the re-direction of agricultural research, development
and knowledge transfer.
Agro-ecological approaches could help to ‘feed the world’
sustainably, and thereby contribute to a ‘real green revolution’; but
this requires a more radical move and debate among scientists
about fostering a new type of (multi-scalar) agri-food eco-
economy. This is one which includes re-thinking market mechan-
isms and organisations and more innovative institutional flexibili-
ty at different spatial scales, interwoven with active farmers and
consumer’s participation. This should be combined with a re-
direction of science investments to take account of translating
often isolated cases of good practice into mainstream agri-food
movements. As a matter of urgency it is timely to rethink and to
critically debate these important issues. We have to critically
question the dominance of the agri-industrial/bio-economy and its
particular scientific base as to why more and more people are likely
to go hungry while at the same time resource depletion and
climate change threaten the Earths’ growing populace.
References
Altieri, M.A., Rosset, P., Thrupp, L.A., 2001. The potential of agro-ecology to combat
hunger in the developing world. In: Pinstrup-Andersen, P., Pandya-Lorch, R.
(Eds.), The Unfinished Agenda: Perspectives on Overcoming Hunger, Poverty,
and Environmental Degradation. IFPRI, Washington, USA, pp. 123–127.
Altieri, M.A., 2002. Agro-ecology: the science of natural resource management for
poor farmers in marginal environments. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environ-
ment 93 (1–3), 1–24.
Ambler-Edwards, S., Bailey, K., Kiff, A., Lang, T., Lee, R., Marsden, T., Simons, D., Tibbs,
H., 2009. Food Futures: Rethinking UK Strategy. Chatham House Report. The
Royal Institute of International Affairs, London.
Annan, K., 2000. We the peoples: the role of the United Nations in the 21st century.
Available online at: http://w.un.org/millennium/sg/report/index.html.
Araghi, F., 2003. Food regimes and the production of value: some methodological
issues. The Journal of Peasant Studies 30 (2), 41–70.
Badgley, C., Moghtader, J., Quintero, E., Zakem, E., Chappell, M.J., Avilés-Vázquez, K.,
Samulon, A., Perfecto, I., 2007. Organic agriculture and the global food supply.
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 22 (2), 86–108.
Battisti, D.S., Naylor, R.L., 2009. Historical warnings of future food insecurity with
unprecedented seasonal heat. Science 323 (9), 240–244 no. 5911.
Benites, J.R., Aschburner, J.E., 2001. FAO’s role in promoting conservation agricul-
ture. Draft Paper for the First world congress on conservation agriculture: a
world-wide challenge. October 1st–5t, 2001, Madrid.
Berndes, G., 2002. Bioenergy and water—the implications of large-scale bioenergy
production for water use and supply. Global Environmental Change 12, 253–
271.
Bin, Y., Ni, X., Wentao, T., Linquing, H., Peng, D., Liaoyuan, L., Jihong, Y., 2006. Chinese
Food Industry and Market Report.
Börjesson, P., 2009. Good or bad bio-ethanol from a greenhouse gas perspective-
what determines this? Applied Energy 86, 589–594.
Bové, J., Dufour, F., 2001. The World is Not for Sale. Verso, London, United Kingdom.
Buttel, F.H., 2000. Ecological modernization as social theory. Geoforum 31 (1), 57–
65.
Busch, L., Bingen, J. (Eds.), 2006. Agricultural Standards: The Shape of the Global
Food and Fibre System. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
CA (Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture), 2007. Water
for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in
Agriculture. Earthscan/International Water Management Institute, London/
Colombo.
Campbell, H., 2009. Breaking new ground in food regime theory: corporate envi-
ronmentalism, ecological feedbacks and the ‘food from somewhere’ regime?
Agriculture and Human Values 26 (4), 309–319.
Christoff, P., 1996. Ecological modernisation, ecological modernities. Environmental
Politics 5 (3), 476–500.
Conway, G., 1997. The Double Green Revolution. Penguin Books, London, UK.
Cooper, P.J.M., Denning, G.L., 2000. Scaling Up the Impact of Agro-forestry Research.
ICRAF, Nairobi, p. 43.
Derpsh, R., 1999. Frontiers in conservation tillage and advances in conservation
practice. Paper presented at the 10th ISCO conference, 24–28 May 1999, West
Lafayette, IN, USA Proceedings.
Dryzek, J.S., 1997. The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Easterling, W., Aggarwal, P., Batima, P., Brander, K., Erda, L., Howden, M., Kirilenko,
A, Morton, J., Soussana, J.-F., Schmidhuber, S., Tubiello, F., 2007. Food, fibre and
forest products. In: Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J.,
Hanson, C.E. (Eds.), Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerabil-
ity. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge, UK, pp. 273–313.
Evans, A., 2009. Feeding the Nine Billion. Chatham House Report. Royal Institute of
International Affairs, London.
FAO, 2002. From UNCED, Rio de Janeiro 1992 to WSSD, Challenges and perspectives
for the World Summit on Sustainable Development Johannesburg 2002 Land
and agriculture, A compendium of recent sustainable development initiatives,
Rome, FAO Corporate Document Repository.
FAO, 2006a. World Agriculture: Towards 2030/2050-Interim Report. Global Per-
spective Studies Unit, FAO, Rome.
FAO, 2006b. Mid-Term Review of Achieving the World Food Summit Target. CFS:
2006/3. FAO, Rome.
FAO, 2009. The State of Food Insecurity in the World, Economic Crises-Impacts and
Lessons Learned. FAO, Rome.
FAOSTAT, 2009. Food and agricultural commodities production. Available online at:
http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/dedfault.aspx.
Fernandez, E., Pell, A., Uphoff, N., 2002. Rethinking agriculture for new opportu-
nities. In: Uphoff, N. (Ed.), Agro-ecological Innovations: Increasing Food Pro-
duction with Participatory Development. Earthscan, London.
Franzel, S., Denning, G.L., Lillesø, J.P.B., Mercado Jr., A.R., 2004. Scaling up the impact
of agroforestry: lessons from three sites in Africa and Asia. Agro-forestry
Systems 61–62 (1–3), 329–344.
 L.G. Horlings, T.K. Marsden / Global Environmental Change 21 (2011) 441–452
Friedmann, H., 1987. International regimes of food and agriculture since 1870. In:
Shanin, T. (Ed.), Peasants and Peasant Societies. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp.
258–276.
Friedman, H., 1993. The political economy of food: a global crisis. New Left Review
197, 29–57.
Friedmann, H., 2005. From colonialism to green capitalism: social movements and
the emergence of food regimes. In: Buttel, F.H., McMichael, P. (Eds.), New
Directions in the Sociology of Global Development. Research in Rural Sociology
and Development, vol. 11. Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 229–267.
Friedmann, H., McMichael, P., 1989. Agriculture and the state system: the rise and fall
of national agricultures, 1870 to the present. Sociologia Ruralis 29 (2), 93–117.
Frissen, P.H.A., 2007. De Staat van Verschil – Een Kritiek van de Gelijkheid. Van
Gennep, Amsterdam.
Frouws, J., Mol, A., 1999. Ecological modernisation theory and agricultural reform.
In: Hann, H., Long, N. (Eds.), Images and Realities of Rural Life: Wageningen
Perspectives on Rural Transformations. Van Gorcum, Assen, The Netherlands,
pp. 269–286.
Gibbs, D., 2000. Ecological modernisation, regional economic development and
regional development agencies. Geoforum 31 (1), 9–20.
Goodman, D., Sorj, B., Wilkinson, J., 1987. From Farming to Biotechnology. A Theory
of Agro-industrial Development. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Halberg, N., Alroe, H.F., Knudsen, M.T., Kristensen, E.S., 2007. Global Development of
Organic Agriculture: Challenges and Prospects. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.
Hajer, M.A., 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernisa-
tion and the Policy Process, Oxford. Oxford University Press, United Kingdom.
Hermans, F., Horlings, I., Beers, P.J., Mommaas, H., 2010. The contested redefinition
of the sustainable countryside; revisiting Frouws’ rurality discourses. Sociologia
Ruralis 50 (1), 46–63.
Huber, J., 1982. Die verlorene Unschuld der ökologie. S. Fischer Verlag, Frankfurt am
Main, Germany.
Huber, J., 1985. Die Regenbogengesellschaft. Ökologie und Socialpolitik. S. Fischer
Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Horlings, I., 1996. Duurzaam boeren met beleid; innovatiegroepen in de Neder-
landse landbouw, Dissertation, KUN, Nijmegen. Also published in Studies van
Landbouw en Platteland no 20, Landbouw Universiteit, Wageningen, The
Netherlands.
Horlings, I., Marsden, T., 2010. The new rural paradigm and redefining the rural web.
In: Milone, P., Ventura, F. (Eds.), Networking the Rural: The Future of Green
Regions in Europe. Van Gorcum, Assen, The Netherlands, pp. 213–244.
IAASTD, International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technol-
ogy for Development, 2009a. Global Report. Island Press, Washington, US.
IAASTD, International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technol-
ogy for Development, 2009b. Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report.
Island Press, Washington.
IFPRI, 2005.In: South Asia. Agricultural and Rural Development. Proc. Seminars.
New Delhi, Lahore, Chennai, Dhaka. IFPRI, Washington, US.
Jackson, W., 2002. Natural systems agriculture: a truly radical alternative. Agricul-
ture, Ecosystems and Environment 88 (2), 111–117.
Jänicke, M., 1984. Umweltpolitische Prävention als ökologische Modernisierung
industrieller Strukturpolitik, Berlin.
Kippie, T.K., 2002. Five Thousand Years of Sustainability? A Case Study on Gedeo
Land Use (Southern Ethiopia). Treemail Publishers, Heelsum.
Kitchen, L., Marsden, T., 2009. Creating sustainable rural development through
stimulating the eco-economy: beyond the eco-economic paradox? Sociologia
Ruralis 49 (3), 273–293.
Lang, T., Heasman, M., 2004. The Global Battle for Mouths, Minds and Markets.
Earthscan/Sterling, London, UK/USA.
Li, Q.S., Ye, X.J., Wang, Z.Q., 1999. Types of eco-agricultural models and their regional
distribution characteristics in central and south China. Transactions of the
Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering 15 (1), 27–32.
Lin, L., Zhou, D., Ma, C., 2010. Green food industry in China: development, problems
and policies. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 25 (1), 69–80.
Maeder, P., Fließbach, A., Dubois, D., Gunst, L., Fried, P., Niggli, U., 2002. Soil fertility
and biodiversity in organic farming. Science 296 (5573), 1694–1697.
Marsden, T., Banks, J., Renting, H., Van der Ploeg, J.-D., 2001. The road towards
sustainable rural development: issues of theory, policy and research practice.
Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 3, 75–83.
Marsden, T.K., 2004. The quest for ecological modernisation re-spacing rural
development and agro-food studies. Sociologia Ruralis 44 (2), 129–147.
Marsden, T.K., et al., 2010. The New Regulation and Governance of Food: Beyond the
Food Crisis? Routledge, London.
Marsden, T., Sonnino, R., 2008. Rural development and the regional state: denying
multifunctional agriculture in the UK. Journal of Rural Studies 24 (4), 422–
431.
McMichael, P., 2005. Global development and the corporate food regime. In: Buttel,
F.H., McMichae, l.P. (Eds.), New Directions in the Sociology of Global Develop-
ment. Elsevier Press, Oxford.
McMichael, P., 2009a. A food regime genealogy. The Journal of Peasant Studies 36
(1), 139–169.
McMichael, P., 2009b. Contemporary contradictions of the global development
project: geopolitics, global ecology and the ‘development climate’. Third World
Quarterly 30 (1), 247–262.
McMichael, P, 2009c. Banking on agriculture: an assessment of the 2008 World
Bank report. Journal of Agrarian Studies 9 (2), 235–246.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Our Human Planet: Summary for Deci-
sion Makers. Island Press, Washington.
451
Mol, A.P.J., 2000. The environmental movement in an era of ecological moderniza-
tion. Geoforum 31 (1), 45–56.
Mol, A.P.J., Sonnenfeld, D.A., 2000. Ecological Modernisation Around the World:
Perspectives and Critical Debates. Frank Cass Publishers, London.
Mol, A.P.J., 2007. Boundless biofuels. Between environmental sustainability and
vulnerability. Sociologia Ruralis 47 (4), 296–315.
Mooney, H., Larigauderie, A., Cesario, M., Elmquist, T., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Lavorel,
S., Mace, G.M., Palmer, M., Scholes, R., Yahara, T., 2009. Biodiversity, climate
change, and ecosystem services. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustain-
ability 1 (1), 46–54.
Morgan, K., Marsden, T., Murdoch, J., 2006. Worlds of Food; Place, Power and
Provenance in the Food Chain. Oxford Geographical and Environmental Studies.
Oxford, UK.
Morton, J.F., 2007. The impact of climate change on smallholder and subsistence
agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104 (50), 19680–
19685.
Moss, B., 2008. Water pollution by agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society, London 363 (1491), 659–666.
Murphy, J, 2000. Ecological modernization. Geoforum 31 (1), 1–8.
Murphy, J., Gouldson, A., 2000. Environmental policy and industrial innovation:
integrating environment and economy through ecological modernisation. Geo-
forum 31 (1), 33–44.
Nagayets, O., 2005. Small farms: current status and key trends. In: Information Brief,
Future of Small Farms Research Workshop. Wye, 26–29 June. IFPRI, Washington.
Nilsson, M., Varnäs, A., Kehler, Siebert, C., Nilsson, L.J., Nykvist, B., Ericsson, K., 2009.
A European Eco-Efficient Economy, Governing Climate Energy and Competi-
tiveness; Report for the 2009 Swedish Presidency of the Council of the European
Union. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm.
Nemes, N., 2009. Natural Resources Management and Environment Department
Comparative Analysis of Organic and Non-Organic Farming Systems: A Critical
Assessment of Farm Profitability. Natural Resources Management and Environ-
ment, FAO, Rome.
Paarlberg, R., 2006. Are genetically modified (GM) crops a commercial risk for
Africa? International Journal of Technology and Globalisation 2, 81–92.
Parrot, N., Marsden, T., 2002. The Real Green Revolution; Organic and Agro-eco-
logical Farming in the South. Greenpeace Environmental Trust, London.
Prändl-Zika, V., 2008. From subsistence farming towards a multifunctional agricul-
ture: sustainability in the Chinese rural reality. Journal of Environmental
Management 87 (2), 236–248 US.
Pieri, C., Evers, G., Landers, J., O’Connell, P., Terry, E., 2002. No-till Farming for
Sustainable Rural Development. ARD Working Paper. World Bank, Washington.
Pretty, P., Hine, R., 2001. Reducing Food Poverty with Sustainable Agriculture: A
Summary of New Evidence. Primal Report from SAFE-World Research Project
(The Potential of Sustainable Agriculture to Feed the World) University of Essex,
Colchester, UK.
Pretty, J., 2003. Agro-ecology in developing countries: the promise of a sustainable
harvest. Environment 45 (9), 8–20.
Pretty, J.N., Noble, A.D., Bossio, D., Dixon, J., Hine, R.E., Penning de Vries, F.W.T.,
Morison, J.I.L., 2006. Resource-conserving agriculture increases yields in devel-
oping countries. Environmental Science & Technology 40 (4), 1114–1119.
RFA (Renewable Fuels Agency), 2008. The Gallagher Review of the Indirect Effects of
Biofuels Production. St. Leonards-On-Sea.
Rosegrant, M.W., Msangi, S., Sulser, T., Ringler, C.L., 2007. Future Scenarios for
Agriculture: Plausible Futures to 2030 and Key Trends in Agricultural Growth.
Background Paper prepared for the World Development Report 2008.
Sanchez, P.A., Ahamed, S., Carre, F., Hartemink, A.E., Hempel, J., Huising, J., Lagach-
erie, P., McBratney, A.B., McKenzie, N.G., de Ourdes Mendoca-Santos, M.,
Minasny, B., Montanarella, L., Okoth, P., Pal, C.A., Sachs, J.D., Shephard, K.D.,
Vagen, T., Vanlauwe, B., Walsh, M.G., Winowiecki, L.A., Zhang, G.L., 2009. Digital
soil map of the world. Science 325 (5941), 680–681.
Schmidhuber, J., Tubiello, F.N., 2007. Global food security under climate change.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 104 (50), 19703–19708.
Scialabba, N.E.-H., 2007. Organic agriculture and food security. In: International
Conference on Organic Agriculture and Food Security. Italy, 3–5 May 2007. Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Smith, E., Marsden, T.K., 2005. Ecological entrepreneurship: sustainable develop-
ment in local communities through quality food production and local branding.
Geoforum 36, 440–451.
Sonnino, R., Marsden, T., 2005. Beyond the divide: rethinking relationships between
alternative and conventional food networks in Europe. Journal of Economic
Geography 6 (2), 181–239.
Sonnino, R., Kanemasu, Y., Marsden, T., 2008. Sustainability and rural development.
In: Van der Ploeg, J.D., Marsden, T. (Eds.), Unfolding Webs; The Dynamics of
Regional Rural Development. Royal van Gorcum, Assen, The Netherlands, pp.
29–52.
Spencer, D.S.C., Matlon, P.J., Löffler, H., 2003. African Agricultural Production and
Productivity in Perspective. InterAcademy Council, Amsterdam.
Sun, H.L., Zhang, R.W., 1993. The Theory and Methodology of Ecological Agriculture
(in Chinese). Shandong Science and Technology Press, Jinan, China.
Sundkvist, A., Milestad, R., Jansson, A., 2005. On the importance of tightening
feedback loops for sustainable development of food systems. Food Policy 30
(2), 224–239.
Swaminathan, M.S., 2000. An evergreen revolution. Biologist 47 (2), 85–89.
Tansey G., Rajotte T., The Future Control of Food: A Guide to International Negotia-
tions and Rules on Intellectual Property, Biodiversity and Food Security,
London: Earthscan, 2008.
452 L.G. Horlings, T.K. Marsden / Global Environmental Change 21 (2011) 441–452
The Economist, 2009. Buying farmland abroad: outsourcing’s third wave. Available
online at: http://www.economist.com/world/international/displayStory.
cfm?story_id=13692889.
The Royal Society, 2009. Reaping the Benefits; Science and the Sustainable Intensi-
fication of Global Agriculture. The Royal Society, London, United Kingdom.
Thiers, P., 2002. From grassroots movement to state-coordinated market strategy:
the transformation of organic agriculture in China. Environment and Planning
C: Government and Policy 20 (3), 357–373.
Thompson, J., Scoones, I., 2009. Addressing the dynamics of agri-food systems: an
emerging agenda for social science research. Environmental Science and Policy
12 (4), 386–397.
Toffler, A., 1981. De derde golf. Veen, Utrecht.
UN, 2008. World population prospects: the 2008 revision population database.
Available online at: http://esa.un.org/unpp/index.asp?panel=1.
UNCED, 2002. World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg.
Vaneph, S., Benites, J., 2001 October. An unexpected success; from zero tillage to
conservation agriculture. LEISA Magazine 22 .
Van der Ploeg, J.-D., 1991. Landbouw als mensenwerk; arbeid en technologie in de
agrarische ontwikkeling. Coutinho, Muiderberg.
Van der Ploeg, J.-D., 1992. The reconstitution of locality: technology and labour in
modern agriculture. In: Marsden, T., et al. (Eds.), Labour and Locality; Uneven
Development and the Rural Labour Process. Critical Perspectives on Rural
Change. Series 4. David Fulton, London, pp. 19–43.
Van der Ploeg, J.-D., 1999. De virtuele boer. Van Gorcum Assen, The Netherlands.
Van der Ploeg, J.-D., Long, A., Banks, A. (Eds.), 2002. Living countrysides; Rural
development processes in Europe – The state of the art. Elsevier, Doetinchem,
the Netherlands.
Van der Ploeg, J.-D, Renting, H., 2000. Impact and potential: a comparative review
of European rural development practices. Sociologia Ruralis 40 (4), 529–543.
Van der Ploeg, J.-D., Marsden, T. (Eds.), 2008. Unfolding webs; The dynamics of
regional rural development. Van Gorcum, Assen, The Netherlands.
Van Vuuren, D.P., Faber, A., 2009. Growing within Limits. A Report to the Global
Assembly 2009 of the Club of Rome. Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL),
Bilthoven.
Verburg, R., Stehfest, E., Woltjer, G., Eickhout, B., 2009. The effect of agricultural
trade liberalisation on land-use related greenhouse gas emissions. Global
Environmental Change 19, 434–446.
Ward, N., 1993. The agricultural treadmill and the rural environment in the Post-
Productivist Era. Sociologia Ruralis 33, 348–364.
World Food Summit, 1996. World Food Summit. FAO, Rome.
Wood, S., Sebastian, K., Scherr, S.J., 2000. Pilot analysis of global ecosystems:
Agroecosystems. IFPRI and World Resource Institute, Washington DC, USA.
World Bank, 2008. World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development,
Washington. .
World Bank, 2010. Rising Global Interest in Farmland. Can it Yield Sustainable and
Equitable Benefits? Washington. .
Ye, X.J., Wang, Z.Q., Li, Q.S., 2002. The ecological agriculture movement in modern
China. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 92 (2–3), 261–281.
Zhang, L., Mol, A.P.J., Sonnenfeld, D.A., 2007. The interpretation of ecological
modernisation in China. Environmental Politics 16 (4), 659–668.
Zhen, L., Routray, J.K., Zoebisch, M.A., Chen, G., Xie, G., Cheng, S., 2005. Three
dimensions of sustainability of farming practices in the North China Plain: a
case study from Ningjin County of Shandong Province, PR China. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment 105 (3), 507–522.