The use of the term agroecology originates in the 20th century but the method of agroecology dates as far back to the origins of agriculture (Hecht, 2018). The re-emergence of agroecology occurred through scientists deciding to “study what farmers had already learned how to do” (Hecht, 2018). Agroecology isn’t anything new, despite it being an increasing topic of discussion. Indigenous people and different farmers around the world historically and currently practice what is considered agroecology. For example, the Aztec empire used Chinampas, which are productive farm plots surrounded by canals (Coe, 1964), farmers in the Uttarakhand hills use pest management practices such as controlled fires (Chandola, Rathore & Kumar, 2011) and cocoa agroforestry, a method of integrating forest components and crops is and was used in West Africa (Singh & Singh, 2017). That means agroecology has been practiced far longer than it has been discussed or thought about by researchers. Methods of agroecology are engrained in traditional and local knowledge used in food production globally. Therefore, in the following paragraphs I will not discuss the origin of agroecology because it goes as far back as the origin of agriculture. Instead, below is an overview of agroecology’s revitalization in research by American and European scientists, environmentalists and anthropologists and the recent development of agroecology as a practice and social movement in Latin America. Through understanding the recent history of agroecology, we can better understand its vast uses and definitions in order to create an agroecological framework in Canada.

In the 20th century agroecology was ‘revitalized’ to a larger audience through ideas and methods of American and European academics (Hecht, 2018). I say ‘revitalized’ because agroecological methods never truly disappeared. Yes, agroecological practices declined and reduced globally due to colonization, the Green Revolution and neoliberal policies, but many Indigenous people, rural people and small scale farmers continued practicing ecological farming methods. The term and practice of agroecology was and continues to be revitalized by academics through literature and research that exposes it to a broader audience. Scientific research in agricultural sciences, ecology and the development of agronomy from the late 1920s to 1970s is credited for the initial development of agroecology in the formal sciences (Hecht, 2018). As far back as 1928, Klages has aided in developing agricultural ecology through the study of crop ecology which is when farmers seek to understand plant behavior, use crop management strategies based in systems thinking and consider environmental issues (Connor, Loomis & Cassman, 2011). Klages also considered the study and production of crops in a social environment, to better understand complex relationships between agriculture and its social and physical environment (Klages, 1928).

Discussion from the late 1950s into the 70s, turned to looking at ecosystem approaches to agriculture. In particular Italian scientist Azzi and German ecologist Tischler contributed extensive writing on agricultural ecology and the term agroecology can be traced back to them (Altieri & Nicholls, 2017; Azzi, 1956; Tischler, 1965). Azzi and Tischler, analyzed and connected different interactions and elements within agricultural ecosystems, in addition to managing agriculture based on interactions within systems and relating other disciplines such as meteorology and entomology to agriculture (Azzi, 1956; Tischler, 1965).

Environmental movements in the 1960s and 1970s were also a major contributor to the revitalization of agroecology. Work like Goldsmith & Allen’s A Blueprint for Survival demonstrated an urgency to restructure society into smaller communities, including the scale of agriculture to support small local communities in order to prevent irreversible damage to the environment (1972). Carson’s Silent Spring brought into question the toxicity of agrochemicals on people, animals and the environment, influencing development into alternative, ecological approaches to pest management (1962). Goldsmith & Allen and Carson, demonstrated concern of agricultural practices that are destructive to the environment and the need for practices that have less environmental strain, such as agroecology through alternative pest management.

A third contributor to the re-emergence of agroecology comes from growing research of anthropologists and geographers on Indigenous and peasant studies (Hecht, 2018). Anthropologists, Richards and Conklin analyzed local knowledge and Indigenous agriculture, resulting in questioning of derogatory colonial perceptions of traditional agriculture (Conklin, 1956; Richards, 1995). Richards studied citamene swidden of the Bemba people in Zambia which involved using tree litter as compost for growing crops and Conklin studied shifting cultivation practices of the Hanunoo people in the Philippines discovering the importance of crop rotation and multi-cropping (Hecht, 2018). Both anthropologists were discovering agroecological methods that were once misunderstood as ineffective, wrong, inferior or primitive and realized that these indigenous methods are effective and could be used as production systems alternative to modern agriculture.

The Western idea of agroecology came from American and European researchers rediscovering its use and benefit for the environment as a scientific discipline and agricultural practice in response to growing concerns of environmental impacts of industrial agriculture. Despite these academics’ new found interest in agroecology and more ecologically beneficial farming techniques, it can’t be denied that much of what they are discussing is not new but has been practiced and known by farmers since the beginning of agriculture. A large telling sign is the influence of Indigenous studies and peasant studies on agricultural thought. Through ethnographic studies of more ‘traditional’ agricultural practices, Western researchers are learning about different practices used around the world that are sustainable, constructed based on spatial knowledge and often shared from farmer to farmer through generations. In other words, researchers are learning about agroecology through Indigenous and peasant farmers. Therefore an agroecological framework should be created without exploiting the knowledge of farmers and instead should address their needs, wants and challenges. Special attention and recognition also needs to be made to cultures, communities and people who have practiced agroecology before global agricultural transformations from colonialism and before its academic recognition by European and American researchers.

The emergence of agroecology described above is centered on Western idealization and discovery of an ecological and sustainable practice of agriculture as described by American and European academics. A re-emergence of agroecology also occurred in Latin America in the late 1970s and early 1980s and during the last two decades of the 20th century, Latin America was the location where agroecology expanded and rapidly grew (Altieri & Nicholls, 2017), not just as a scientific discipline or practice but as a social movement. Similarly to work by Richards and Conklin, from the 1980s to present agroecologists in Latin America seek to understand agroecology as a form of sustainable agriculture through experiences and knowledge of local farmers (Altieri & Nicholls, 2017). For example, Efraím Hernández-Xolocotzi, a researcher from Mexico studied ethnobotany, how a culture makes use of native plants, and the ecological understanding of traditional Mexican agriculture (Altieri & Nicholls, 2017). In addition, biologist Victor Manuel Toledo and geographer Narciso Barrera-Bassols, contributed to the understanding that indigenous knowledge forms a foundation in understanding agricultural knowledge (Altieri & Nicholls, 2017). Indigenous knowledge has led to complex agricultural systems specifically adapted to local environments and conditions, helping farmers live sustainably and under changing environmental conditions without depending on technologies derived from modern agricultural science (Altieri & Nicholls, 2017). The basis of agroecology as a process in Latin America derived from understanding current and past practices as a source of agricultural knowledge. Towards the end of the 20th century, agroecology began to be adopted by hundreds of NGOs in reaction to social and environmental impacts of the Green Revolution (Altieri & Nicholls, 2017). These NGOs developed projects promoting agroecological technologies sensitive to complex peasant farming (Altieri, 1999), combating rural poverty and supporting resource poor farmers (Altieri & Nicholls, 2017). By offering an alternative to intensive agriculture reliant on local farming knowledge, land degraded by modern agricultural processes was restored and small scale farmers could sustainably intensify their production in an affordable way as assets small farmers already had were valued over purchasing machinery or seeds (Altieri, 1999). In Brazil, NGOs including the Sociedade de Agronomia do Rio Grande do Sul (SARGS) and the São Paulo Agronomist Association (AEASP) developed agroecology projects in the 1980s centered on promoting, advancing and providing education on alternative agricultural practices (da Costa et al., 2017). In Argentina the first agroecological influenced initiative took place through the creation of the Center for Studies on Organic Crops in 1985 (Sarandon & Marasas, 2017). The Center developed training workshops, publications and bulletins to educate and train people on the production of organic agriculture (Sarandon & Marasas, 2017). Several years later in 1989, the Latin American Consortium of Agroecology and Development (CLADES) was created to bring together several NGOs across Latin America with a goal to prevent the collapse of peasant agriculture and sustain the technical capacities of small scale farmers (Sarandon & Marasas, 2017). Many of these NGOs focused on promoting agroecology to aid small-scale farmers and protect the environment through educational and academic growth of agroecology (Altieri & Nicholls, 2017). In the 1990s, CLADES developed multiple educational initiatives including a training and research program on agroecology for young professors and supported graduate programs on agroecology (Altieri & Nicholls, 2017). A critical point of discussion in the development of agroecology in Latin America, is its position in social movements. Many Indigenous and peasant lead movements, part of La Via Campesina, have embraced agroecology as an action of food sovereignty (Altieri & Nicholls, 2017). There is no singular issue that social movements address through agroecology, but many are fighting against neoliberal, extractivist and capitalist policies, export oriented markets, poverty and lack of government supports for small farmers, loss of Indigenous and peasant land and culture, advancements of industrial agriculture, privatization of seeds, environmental degradation and much more. In Cuba agroecology is connected to the Campesino-a-Campesino (CAC), farmer to farmer movement (Rosset et al., 2011). There is nothing new about sharing between farmers, CAC is a contemporary movement developed to promote farmers sharing knowledge, new solutions to problems or traditional solutions, how to protect their land and more between each other (Rosset et al., 2011). Agroecology is employed by CAC movements through the sharing of agroecological practices between farmers such as sharing advice on intercropping or techniques for healthy soil in relation to local ecosystems and climate. Similar practices are also employed within both agroecology movements and CAC movements such as seed sharing, making the two movements distinctly joined. In Cuba a Campesino-to-Campesino Agroecology Movement (MACAC) was created through farmers sharing experiences and methodological tools and partaking in workshops on agroecological techniques (Rosset et al., 2011). The movement was successful in increasing peasant production that contributes to national food production, evolving farming practices and creating resilience to climate change (Rosset et al., 2011). Another example of agroecology as a social movement is through the National Rural and Indigenous Women's Association (ANAMURI) in Chile. ANAMURI is an organization that represents and protects the rights of Indigenous and Rural women against neoliberal and patriarchal policies (Mann, 2014). Through agroecology ANAMURI seeks to protect biodiversity while also providing equitable, self-sustained work for rural and Indigenous (ANAMURI, n.d.). Their work includes creating the Institute of Agroecology of Rural Women in Chile in opposition to a dominant agricultural education system in Chile which supports an agro-export model leading to peasant farmers losing land to large agribusinesses (IALA, n.d.). ANAMURI also uses the successes of agroecology to lobby and raise awareness to a lack of rights and gender inequality among seasonal & contract workers on foreign owned farms (Mann, 2014). Social movements in Latin America utilize agroecological methods but they also use it to promote and drive political change.

A lot can be learnt from the recent history and development of agroecology. Much of this information is foundational in integrating agroecology as a transformative movement and practice in Canada. Below is a list of agroecology’s features based on understanding its recent history and development in Latin America.

Agroecology is knowledge intensive (Altieri & Toledo, 2011; Holt-Giménez & Altieri, 2013) and largely developed through the knowledge of local farmers, Indigenous people and/or rural people. It is not a top-down process but operates through communication and sharing knowledge, practices and experiences from farmer to farmer or community to community. It interlinks with Campesino a Campesino movements. Local knowledge of ecosystem functions, climate, people and history is a foundation of agroecological practice. Much of this knowledge is passed from generation to generation or shared within communities.

Agroecological practices are not new, therefore we can learn about it through history, people currently practicing it and those that have practiced it for many generations. Agroecological practices have survived through Indigenous and peasant farmers, despite colonial efforts to destroy and replace traditional agricultural practices. Many new agroecology movements are derived from a history of displacement and exploitation of Indigenous and peasant communities. It is also a growing movement for small scale farmers impacted by global and local changes in agricultural practices centered on producing high yields, that are export-oriented or not maintaining land and resources for future use. Agroecological practice and experience is built through time and learning. New research and discussion on agroecology can create more opportunities for farmers and bring the technique, movement and science to a wider audience. Agroecology as a movement is new and can be both reformist through engaging both agroecology and western science or radical through completely reforming the structure of markets and production of food, such as what La Via Campesina is doing. Agroecology has developed as a movement in Latin America, but is still new globally.

As mentioned in the point above, agroecology is growing as a social and political movement. It is a topic of discussion by movements, NGOs, governments, and international organizations. It is a practice to scale up in order to achieve more sustainable and ethical food production in response to anger, frustration and exploitation. It is used by organizations like ANAMURI to bring rights, land and sovereignty back to Indigenous and rural women.

Whether agroecology is being analyzed as a science by researchers or practiced by a farmer in a field, it involves analyzing social and ecological elements within a system and how they interact. Agroecology requires a farmer understanding their practices and how they interact on their farm and the larger ecosystem that their farm is a part of. Agricultural land is a part of a larger ecosystem but it is also an ecosystem that is altered and changed by humans. Through agroecology, slight changes to the environment can be made to aid in the production of food while sustaining biodiversity, reducing environmental harm or providing benefit to the environment. Agroecology involves understanding environmental processes to work with the environment as opposed to against it.

Agroecology isn’t a perfect or flawless production system. It won’t solve all the world's problems. But it does highlight specific issues in the global and local food system that need changing. It is also interdisciplinary and engrained in different movements, practices and ideas. Agroecology often goes hand in hand with other movements or political changes. For example, ANAMURI in Chile while promoting agroecology are also fighting for rights of women and seasonal workers. In addition, changing the production of agriculture will not alone prevent climate change and loss of biodiversity, other changes are required. Lastly, agroecology does not provide a solution to all food issues or provide immediate support for farmers or consumers.