Connect with us


Business as Usual is Not an Option: The Making of a Paradigm Shift: Food and Agriculture



Transformation of our food systems: the making of a paradigm shift

Key messages

Authored by Marcia Ishii-Eiteman,Lim Li Ching and Ivette Perfecto and approved by the IAASTD+10 Advisory Group.

Eleven years ago, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) provided a powerful evidence-based call to shift from dominant, resource-extractive and input-intensive approaches to agriculture (referred to as “business as usual”) and significantly transform our agriculture and food systems. The IAASTD was authored by over 400 scientists and development experts from more than 80 countries, sponsored by five United Nations agencies and the World Bank, approved by governments in 2008 and published in 2009. It provided an extensive array of policy options to shift course away from business as usual, towards biodiversified agroecological practices that place small farmers – who produce the majority of the world’s food – and their knowledge systems at the center [1]. The IAASTD also identified actions to address power imbalances embedded in global and national political, economic, research and trade systems and institutions that were found to entrench the inequities responsible for persistent poverty and hunger in the world.

A new collection of essays — Transformation of our food systems: the making of a paradigm shift — synthesizes the results of over a dozen international assessments that have been published in the intervening decade and provides critical updates on emerging trends in climate change, biodiversity, health, human rights, corporate concentration, resource grabbing and equity that affect the future integrity and viability of the world’s agri-food systems. Integrating insights provided by peasant and Indigenous communities and findings of UN and other multi-stakeholder analyses, the authors have articulated the following current and emerging trends and key messages.

Trends in agriculture and food systems

Climate change

The climate emergency is getting worse, risking damaging the natural resource base on which agriculture depends, with grave consequences for food security. The agri-food system, largely in its industrial manifestations from production to consumption, is responsible for 21-37% of total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, with 14-28% of the total corresponding to agriculture and land use [26]. Climate change adversely affects biodiversity, while biodiversity loss (deforestation) exacerbates climate change [11, 17, 26]. Agriculture remains one of the main contributors to climate change, through, for example, nitrous oxide and methane emissions associated with agrochemical and industrial livestock production [26]. In contrast, agroecological and Indigenous methods of farming and sustainable grazing practices that regenerate soil biology, sequester carbon and provide critical food and habitat for wild species, offer promising pathways towards both climate change mitigation and adaptation [11, 17, 21, 24, 26].


Threats to biodiversity have intensified, driven in large part by industrial agriculture and unsustainable extraction of natural resources, resulting in dramatic declines in species abundance and richness [9,11, 17]. These losses have resulted in reduction of essential ecosystem services such as water and climate regulation, pollination and pest control [17]. The diversity of domesticated and wild varieties of crops and animals has also declined, reducing system resilience to perturbations and stresses. The loss of some forms of biodiversity (for example, phylogenetic and functional diversity) can permanently eliminate future options [11]. In contrast, highly diversified, well-managed systems that initiate an agroecological succession support greater species diversity, while meeting communities’ food and livelihood needs [11, 17].


Recently emerged infectious diseases can be tied directly or indirectly to changes in agriculture or land use associated with industrial agriculture [12]. Logging, mining and intensive plantation agriculture allow wild pathogens that would normally die off in natural forests to propagate more widely across susceptible populations of people or livestock. These spillovers are exacerbated by poverty and austerity programs affecting environmental sanitation and public health, and can easily spread worldwide through the global food chain [12]. Pandemics also present a serious threat to Indigenous peoples’ lives and cultures, with subsequent loss of knowledge systems and technologies. Intensive livestock operations near city centers also provide fertile locations for the evolution and spread of pathogens that jump from wild to domesticated species.

Health, nutrition and diets

New research has provided a deeper, more complex understanding of what constitutes health, with increased recognition of the interconnected impacts on human health of nutrition, diet, environment, exposure to pesticides and emergence of new pathogens, as well as sociopolitical and economic factors such as inequality, migration, conflict, weak regulatory environments and policy inertia [12, 19, 22, 23]. The positive interlinkages between healthier diets, as a result of food and nutritional diversity, and holistic and diversified sustainable production systems such as agroecology and agroforestry, have meanwhile become clearer [19, 22]. Considerable evidence indicates that ultra-processed food products that have replaced nutrient-dense foods are core drivers of obesity, which has doubled since the publication of the original IAASTD report, while non-communicable diseases now form a greater proportion of disease burden. Additionally, industrialized meat production systems and overconsumption in industrialized nations have brought negative consequences for health, the environment and climate change. Globally, undernutrition has increased over the past five years and has not been reduced substantially since IAASTD.

Corporate concentration

Trends in industry consolidation identified by the IAASTD have not only continued, but intensified, with global food and agriculture-related industries becoming even more concentrated [4,14]. The market share held by the top four firms globally in 2019 is 40 percent or higher in an increasing number of sectors: agrochemicals (65.8 percent), animal pharmaceuticals (58.3 percent), commercial seeds (53.2 percent), and farm equipment (46.2 percent) [14]. Vertical integration is accelerating, including through digital capture of entire agri-food systems in the form of emerging technology platforms offering tailored integrated packages consisting of (so-called) precision agriculture and decision-making tools that make autonomous decisions about chemical inputs and seeds, cultivation measures and harvesting, transport and marketing of commodities. Further, asset management firms that act as dominant players investing in food and agricultural industries, and persistent power asymmetries in international food and commodity supply chains, have further reduced competition and inhibited policymakers’ ability and will to protect farmers and rural communities from loss of political, economic and market space [4, 5, 6,14]. As these transnational corporations become increasingly powerful, they exert greater influence over public policy and the research sector, while remaining largely unregulated as they set prices to their advantage [6] (e.g. determining prices that farmers pay for inputs and receive for their outputs, as well as retail prices that consumers pay). Meanwhile, “dumping” agricultural goods at below-cost of production continues, in the absence of policies to protect farmers’ food and livelihood security, and little use of market mechanisms to valorize agricultural ecosystem services and reflect the social and environmental costs of production [5, 6].

Resource grabbing

Throughout the past decade, national and transnational  corporations in the agri-food sectors have conducted highly successful campaigns to acquire land (e.g. through large-scale “land-grabbing”), obtain control of seeds and genetic resources, capture digital data and control institutional and public narratives about agriculture, food systems and “development” [4, 8, 10, 14, 27]. The extension of conventional “resource-grabbing” into intellectual, digital and social domains, paired with the increasing political influence that has accompanied corporate consolidation, has enabled industry players to shape agri-food systems to their benefit [4]. Transnational agribusinesses position themselves, their technologies and products as offering ideal solutions to global concerns, oppose regulations that might constrain product sales and frequently co-opt the language of deeper systemic change put forward by others, often with active support from states but to the detriment of local communities [27]

Human rights, equity and food sovereignty

Adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and other people working in Rural Areas (UNDROP) in 2018 was an important milestone. It vests peasants and other groups working in rural areas with rights that need to be respected, protected and fulfilled, and recognizes their contribution to conserving and improving biodiversity as well as food security [15]. UNDROP reaffirms the universality of all human rights, in particular the 2007 UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The rights, vision and agency of peasants, pastoralists, fishers, small-scale livestock keepers, women, Indigenous and forest peoples are therefore at its foundation and are central to the transformative change that is required in agriculture and food systems [15, 19, 24, 27]. Nevertheless, entrenched socio-economic and political inequities persist, undermining the health, diets, livelihoods, cultures, intergenerational transmission of local and Indigenous knowledge, and secure access to food and control over resources required by both rural and urban communities to ensure their food sovereignty and well-being [10, 17, 26, 28].


Since IAASTD, numerous transdisciplinary studies, UN and intergovernmental processes have recognized the transformative potential of agroecology to promote food and livelihood security, sustainable diets, environmental health, social, economic, ecological and climate resilience, and social equity [17, 19, 24, 28, 29]. It is now generally agreed that agroecology is critical to address deepening food systems-related crises. Growing evidence indicates that agroecology provides a paradigm for and multiple pathways towards a more just and sustainable food system [29]. Its positive contribution to climate mitigation and adaptation and biodiversity conservation has been established [24]. For agroecology to now reach its full potential, it must honor the principles and practices of interculturality, transdisciplinarity and Indigeneity [1, 24, 27].

These trends and updates indicate that the systemic flaws and vested interests that continue to prop up a failing industrial agriculture and food system have not been adequately or successfully addressed. As a result, too little progress has been made over the past decade, while crises have worsened. In the absence of serious commitment to changing course, multiple biophysical, ecological and socio-economic crises have accelerated. Human activities continue to degrade the natural resource base and — driven to a great extent by multinational corporations and governments lacking the political will to adequately regulate these corporations — are now pushing us past planetary boundaries. As industrial agriculture expands into remote natural areas, new pathogens jump species and, as with COVID-19, can lead to devastating global pandemics [12]. On the other hand, there are beacons of hope, based on agroecological principles, Indigenous approaches and co-creation of knowledges, emerging from the grassroots that are showing multiple paths forward towards a true transformation of the food system [15, 27, 28, 29].

Key Messages

Key message 1

Business as usual” is (still) not an option. A radical transformation of food systems is necessary. In many respects, the IAASTD got it right. Significant institutional, political and structural changes must be undertaken at local, meso (territorial) and global scales if we are to escape the deadly consequences of today’s accelerating and converging climate and biodiversity crises and succeed in radically transforming the systems that have pushed us to breach planetary boundaries and undermine the natural systems on which human survival depends [3, 13, 17, 26].

Key message 2

Failure to make progress at national and global levels is due primarily to lack of political will, power imbalances and system lock-ins. These lock-ins include: path dependency, export orientation, expectation of cheap food, compartmentalized, short-term or linear thinking, “feed the world” or technological fix narratives, inappropriate measures of success (focusing for example on simple economic metrics such as GDP or single crop yield that fail to value social and natural capital and neglect to quantify true costs), opposing agendas from corporate actors, limited donor vision, fear of failure and concentration of power [11, 13, 14, 17, 22, 28].

Key message 3

We cannot solve today’s multiple, converging and accelerating crises with uni-dimensional, linear, reductionist or mechanistic responses. We need, rather, to embrace a food systems approach with solutions that have multiple, converging and positively reinforcing outcomes that bring beneficial synergistic effects across multiple domains [2, 9, 11, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29]. Transformative agroecology, for example, is not only productive, resilient, adaptable and profitable, but also focuses on agency, democracy, equity, rights and ecological renewal [24, 25, 29]. Indigenous approaches such as Buen Vivir, sumak kawsay, Ubuntu and swaraj, provide ways of knowing and being (epistemologies and ontologies, respectively) that offer holistic, multi-dimensional pathways towards a viable future, including, often, recognition of the rights of Mother Earth [1, 27]. Bringing agroecological and Indigenous approaches together in conversation offers a powerful way forward, rooted in interculturality and respect [1, 22]. These and other holistic and multifunctional systemic approaches also support progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and stand in sharp contrast to the limited benefits offered by narrow technological fixes such as genetically modified crops and new genetic technologies that do not address underlying agronomic deficiencies, inequitable power dynamics or the dominant social and environmental constraints to sustainable production [8, 9, 18, 25].

Key message 4

Progress towards a livable and viable future requires deeply participatory democratic processes and cannot be attained without attention to basic rights – in particular the rights of farmers, women, Indigenous peoples and other people working in rural areas [1, 3, 10, 15, 19, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29]. Implementing a rights-based approach requires enacting legislation and measures to promote and protect these rights, strong policy commitment to the obligations established in human rights law such as UNDROP and UNDRIP, and addressing the power asymmetries and inequities that impede these rights [15].  Fulfilling human rights requires replacing corporate and elite control over land, seeds, water and other productive and natural resources with cooperative ownership and other democratic models such as those based on principles of circular and solidarity economies. It also requires centering the leadership, vision and experience of women, peasants, fishers, pastoralists, small-scale livestock keepers, farmworkers, Indigenous peoples and others working in rural and urban areas [1, 7, 9, 15, 16, 20, 22, 25, 27, 28]. Deep changes in governance are needed to foster their inclusion, participation, empowerment and agency, including recognition of territorial systems of communal, collective and customary self-governance [3, 15, 16, 19, 23, 24].

Key message 5

Stabilizing climate and reversing trends in biodiversity losses requires transforming agri-food systems toward agroecological systems, reducing food waste and loss as well as meat consumption in most regions, and  prioritizing and valuing natural, social and human capital [9, 11, 13,17, 19, 23]. Societies must work within the realities of ecological limits and planetary boundaries, while economic systems—as one among many aspects of socio-cultural organization—must be adapted to serve rather than drive society [3, 13, 27]. Governments and civil society will need to redirect and shape policies, research, extension and market incentives away from dominant models of input-intensive industrial agriculture and towards diversified, knowledge-intensive systems that mitigate climate change and regenerate and conserve the natural resource base [5, 9, 11, 18]. An intercultural “dialogue of knowledges” between Indigenous and agroecological pathways and local practices can support the political, social, ecological and cultural shifts necessary to promote resilience, social equity and planetary health [1, 27].

Key message 6

Promotion of healthy, diversified and sustainable diets can both reduce the major forms of malnutrition and offer multiple reinforcing co-benefits to human and ecological health. A holistic and transdisciplinary approach to health-protective food systems will enable communities to grow culturally acceptable, accessible, affordable, safe and healthy food, protect farmers and food system workers’ well-being, conserve natural resources, and protect biodiversity and the critical ecosystem functions on which society depends [19, 22, 23]. Today’s expanded understanding of health and “food safety” necessitates a bold and comprehensive regulatory approach that tackles longer-term threats to human, ecosystem and environmental health posed by current production systems. This approach requires overcoming funders’ and policymakers’ resistance to change that arises from conflicts of interests, attachment to familiar but overly simplistic interventions, aversion to battling vested commercial interests, and attraction to false promises of easy solutions [22].

Key message 7

Rebalancing power in the agri-food system requires action to both curtail the power of dominant corporations and large businesses that underpin the industrial food system and to provide space for different trade and marketing systems that empower and allow small-scale and peasant farmers, Indigenous peoples, women, and rural and urban communities to flourish. Governments should utilize measures, including competition and anti-trust regulations, to reverse trends in corporate concentration [4, 14]; redirect subsidies and incentives away from unsustainable practices and towards agroecological practices [5, 24]; support short supply chains, territorial markets and distribution infrastructures and locally-managed interactive rural-urban linkages [11, 20]; use public procurement of agroecological produce and artisanal foods to build or rebuild these markets and infrastructures [11]; and revise institutions, policies and regulations shaping ownership and control over resources, ensuring farmers’ secure access to and control over land, water, genetic, intellectual property and other resources [15, 24]. Valuable approaches include participatory and territorial management planning processes that center Indigenous peoples, women and youth [15, 16, 23, 27, 29], and that ensure seed sovereignty through, for example, farmer-to-farmer seed exchange [1, 24, 26, 28].

Key message 8

Systems transformation requires a re-visioning and re-centering of values of equity, reciprocity and solidarity; principles of democracy, justice and collectivity; and the recognition that humans exist within, not outside of, nature. The process of transformation also implies re-valorizing the local, socio-cultural, biodiverse and resilient [11, 17, 23, 25].

Over a decade ago, the IAASTD presented “options for action.” Today, decisive action is no longer “an option;” it’s an imperative. The COVID-19 pandemic has moreover laid bare the inequities, system failures and dangers of today’s dominant, globalized and increasingly corporatized food and agriculture systems that have concentrated profits in the hands of a few, while simultaneously driving global climate, biodiversity and health crises towards their tipping points. What is inarguable is that today’s multiple accelerating crises demand transformative change. Ample evidence now exists that such change is not only possible but is already happening on the ground in communities and countries around the world.

Transformation of our food systems offers evidence that our most promising ways forward lie in a pluriverse of cultures and solutions; the respectful co-creation of diverse knowledges; and the collective visioning, re-imagining and implementing of systems of fair and democratic governance that rebalance power, restore ecological integrity and prioritize social justice and human and ecosystem health within planetary boundaries.


[1] Looking Back: IAASTD, agroecology and new ways forward. Marcia Ishii-Eitemann
[2] EU-SCAR: Two narratives in a world of scarcities. Erik Mathijs
[3] Update: Innovation for whom? Molly Anderson
[4] Update: Corporate multilateralism at the UN. Pat Mooney
[5] UNCTAD: How to cope with largely dysfunctional market signals for sustainable agriculture? Ulrich Hofmann
[6] Update: Trade and market policy. Steve Suppan
[7] UN: How the IAASTD helped shape the SDGs. Michael Bergöö & Mayumi Ridenhour
[8] Update: The emerging issue of “digitalization” of agriculture. Angelika Hilbeck & Eugenio Tisselli
[9] UNEP: Recasting agriculture in a resource-smart food systems landscape. Jacqueline McGlade
[10] Update: Access to land and the emergence of internationally operating farm enterprises. Ward Anseeuw
[11] IPES-Food: From uniformity to diversity. Emile A. Frison
[12] Update: Agriculture, capital, and infectious diseases. Rob Wallace
[13] TEEB AgriFood: “It’s the economy, stupid!” Alexander Müller & Nadine Azzu
[14] Update: The state of concentration global food and agriculture industries. Phil H. Howard & Mary K. Hendrickson
[15] UNDROP: The UN declaration on the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas. María E Fernandez
[16] Update: Changing demographies and smallholder futures. Ben White & Jan Douwe van der Ploeg
[17] IPBES: Agriculture and biodiversity. Kate Brauman & Bob Watson
[18] Update: Assessment of modern biotechnologies. Jack Heinemann
[19] Agrimonde-Terra: Land use and food security in 2050. A narrow road. Marie de Lattre-Gasquet
[20] Update: Urbanization and the effects on agriculture and food security. Frédéric Lançon
[21] Update: The vast potential of sustainable grazing. Anita Idel
[22] Lancet Commission: The agriculture and health nexus: a decade of paradigm progress but patchy policy actions. Boyd Swinburn
[23] Update: Food systems in relation to nutrition and health. Marie Josèphe Amiot
[24] FAO Report on Agroecology: Agroecological approaches and other innovations. Alexander Wezel
[25] Update: The need for a conceptual paradigm shift. Bernard Hubert
[26] IPCC Climate and Land: The contribution of the IPCC to a change of paradigm in agriculture and food systems. Marta G. Rivera-Ferre
[27] Update: Indigenous autonomy and indigenous community-based research. Tirso Gonzales
[28] Global Alliance for the Future of Food & and Biovision: Beacons of hope. Lauren Baker, Barbara Gemmill-Herren, Fabio Leippert
[29] Looking Forward: Resources to inspire a transformative agroecology: a curated guide. Colin R. Anderson, Molly D. Anderson

Benedikt Haerlin

Benedikt Haerlin heads the Berlin office of the Foundation on Future Farming (Zukunftsstiftung Landwirtschaft). He co-ordinates the European initiative “Save our Seeds“, runs a “global field” of 2000 m² and co-chairs the thinktank ARC2020 on European agricultural policies. He represented northern NGOs in the board of the IAASTD. Before, he was an author and journalist, a Member of the European Parliament and worked for Greenpeace International.

“Business as usual is not an option” has become a widely-used maxim since appearing in the press release on the final report of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) in April 2008. One decade later, the majority of the academics, policy makers and institutions involved seem to agree on the fundamental need for a transformation of food systems at both local and global levels. In addition, the spirit of change has accelerated over this period, emerging from a groundswell of innovative grassroots initiatives, old and new, from field to fork.

More than a decade ago, the IAASTD identified a number of major shifts and policy options that would contribute to the reduction of hunger and poverty, the improvement of rural livelihoods and human health, and facilitating equitable, socially, environmentally and economically sustainable development (1) . These included:

  • Favourable and just conditions for small farmers, especially women, in terms of their access to land, resources, seed, knowledge and markets;
  • Support for and investment in agroecological practices, innovation and research;
  • Complementing the concept of food security with that of food sovereignty as the right of peoples and sovereign states to democratically determine their own agricultural and food policies;
  • Fair and equitable terms of trade, designed to overcome the ‘global treadmill’ and foster local and regional value chains, offering greater protection from financial speculation, international corporate domination and corruption;
  • The revalorization of indigenous, traditional and local knowledge and a participatory approach to knowledge production and sharing that is solution oriented instead of technology driven.

The complexity of food system and ecosystem approaches is being addressed today by an emerging discipline, or rather trans-discipline, of agricultural, ecological, economic and health knowledge. Pathways to holistic and multifactorial approaches have been increasingly conceptualized and elaborated. As a result, a new food system narrative has been firmly established over the past decade. This new narrative is distinctly different from the post-war industrial and chemical narrative whose fame and glory culminated in the Green Revolution and which still dominates mainstream farming. It also goes well beyond concepts of sustainable intensification merely trying to improve the resource efficiency of productivism.

Narratives and fashions come and go. However, what has developed over the past decade is more than this. A real paradigm shift for agriculture, nutrition and food systems has emerged. Such a paradigm shift entails the change of prevailing questions and priorities to be answered within a conceptual framework accepted by a majority of the scientific and expert community and those following their knowledge system. Thomas S. Kuhn defined paradigms in 1962 as “universally recognized scientific achievements that for a time provide model problems and solutions to a community of practitioners” (2) . Paradigms are questions, methods, patterns and models, not answers. They provide room for lively discussion and competing concepts as well as different approaches, including a pluriversity of knowledge systems well beyond classical western natural sciences. However, they do exclude answers to questions not asked. A good example of such a paradigm shift is the role that Climate Change considerations have in global priority setting.

Amongst the key elements of the new paradigm for food and farming systems is the recognition of planetary boundaries and natural scarcities, including rapid climate change and biodiversity loss as well as the scarcity of time left for addressing these issues. The drama of the predictions of the IPCC (see here) as well as the IPBES (see here) becoming true and visible in even less time than expected is defining the global modus operandi under which we have to address the questions of the new paradigm.

Integrating previously segregated sectors of production, processing, trade, consumption, environmental assessment and health, as well as knowledge systems into the concept of food systems substantially extends the scope and complexity of the approaches that are needed. Together with the recognition of social inclusion and human rights as critical systemic factors in any sustainability equation this systems approach has gained weight enormously over the past decade. The new paradigm of agri-food systems also integrates the implementation and cost of public and personal health as part of the economy of food and agricultural production. Lifestyle, mass communication and its manipulation, and socio-demographic developments have all been acknowledged as drivers of our food systems. As to whether the archaic and modern myth of “more food is needed – production must increase!” has already been overcome by a differentiated “only produce or take what is needed” as a part of the emerging paradigm shift is still too close to call.

The level of complexity that emerges from this new paradigm is higher and more challenging than its green revolution predecessor. This leads some scholars to believe that only computed modelling, big data and artificial intelligence will be able to solve the riddle. De-humanisation by means of digitization has become a conceptual approach to managing this complexity. Resorting to tools and technologies instead of values to answer what are basically political and social questions is not new. However, this ideological mistake is at the root of many of the disasters that must now be urgently managed and healed. Re-humanising, reconnecting, rebuilding and restoring the resilience of our food systems is a distinctively different response to the same set of undeniable challenges.

The past decade saw the formation of agroecology as a uniting conceptual frame work for addressing the new paradigmatic questions. At the same time, evidence has emerged of the importance of myriads of diverse local forms of implementation; traditional and new. Agroecology both as a social and cultural concept and as a set of agricultural and food system practices is certainly one of the most holistic and convincing approaches to the challenges of the new paradigm. While diversity is the mantra of agroecology at every level from local practices to global understanding, the beauty of the approach is that it provides plain and simple answers. These are based on human values and compassion to many uncomputably complex questions. The IAASTD has contributed substantially to the adoption of agroecology over the past decade.

The emerging food and agriculture paradigm shift contrasts with the insufficient and sometimes counterproductive political and economic approaches of governments and global corporations and their national and international value chains. This is not an entirely new illustration of practise not following knowledge. Threats to the resilience of ecosystems and sustainable use of natural resources and critical material cycles have increased over the past decade. All planetary boundaries, except the ozone layer, are being stressed harder today than ten years ago. Loss of biodiversity, mounting greenhouse gas emissions, degradation of soil fertility, deforestation, and detrimental nutrient and chemical emissions continue to rise at unacceptable levels. In many regions of the world ‘mainstream’ chemical agriculture continues on a pathway of self-destruction. Despite progress on the part of some countries, chronic undernourishment and hidden hunger, as well as obesity and other food related diseases have actually increased over the past decade. The destructive impact of industrial food systems and agricultural practices on our ecosystems and the social and cultural wellbeing of communities and nations has probably never been higher than today.

When looking back to the last decade we must acknowledge that, however intellectually and technologically productive and exciting it has been, it was by and large a lost decade for the practical resilience and ecological adaptation as suggested by the IAASTD report. While this is the statistically quantifiable evidence, the qualitative balance may not look as grim. This decade has seen bottom-up movements across the globe, not only demanding but realizing radical change, inspiring new approaches and practices in fields, kitchens and markets. A groundswell of highly innovative, yet conserving and healing agricultural and community practices may prove to have laid the ground for a “revolution of the niches” in industrialized as well as less industrialized societies.

Many scientists and other experts believe that the present decade will be the last chance to keep global warming and global biodiversity loss at an acceptable level for the survival of humankind. Likewise, bio-culturalism is threatened with irreversible collapse. The food and agricultural system has become the single most important factor that can deliver fast and sustained results in relation to these challenges. It is the one sector that directly affects, and can directly be influenced by, all those who eat and who produce food, i.e. all 7.7 billion humans on this planet.

Most societies and individuals now know exactly what needs to be changed, what really works and how it works. The financial and technical means to accomplish these changes are at hand. All that is needed is the political and economic will to do the right things at the right time. And there is clearly no time to lose.

Hopefully this collection of essays and topical papers will contribute to the debate, convincing and motivating colleagues, decision makers and all those involved in the food and agricultural sector to deliver the changes we all need to see. May it serve as a useful resource for those engaged in converting this paradigm shift into a real-life transformation of our food systems.


1 IAASTD, Global Summary for decision makers, p. 3 ↑ back to the text

2 Kuhn, Thomas S., 1962,.The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd edition 1970, p. 8 ↑ back to the text

Source Global Agriculture

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download [5.48 MB]

Get Mobilized and Make Love Go Viral!
Continue Reading


Right to Repair Bill Introduced in Congress



Hot on the heels of last week’s victory in the New York state senate, the fight for Right to Repair comes to the US Congress. Today, Congressman Joe Morelle (D-NY) introduced the first broad federal Right to Repair bill: the Fair Repair Act.

“As electronics become integrated into more and more products in our lives, Right to Repair is increasingly important to all Americans,” said Kyle Wiens, iFixit CEO. Lawmakers everywhere are realizing the need to protect our Right to Repair—along with progress in the EU and Australia, 27 US states introduced Right to Repair legislation this year, a record number.

“Every year I’ve worked on Right to Repair, it’s gotten bigger, as more and more people want to see independent repair protected,” said Gay Gordon-Byrne, Executive Director of Rep. Joe Morelle has been a champion for much of that journey, sponsoring legislation while in the Statehouse in Albany starting in 2015. Everywhere you go, people just want to be able to choose for themselves how to fix their stuff. You’d think manufacturers would wise up.”

Congressman Joe Morelle’s federal bill would require manufacturers to provide device owners and independent repair businesses with access to the parts, tools, and information they need to fix electronic devices.

“For too long, large corporations have hindered the progress of small business owners and everyday Americans by preventing them from the right to repair their own equipment,” said Congressman Morelle. “It’s long past time to level the playing field, which is why I’m so proud to introduce the Fair Repair Act and put the power back in the hands of consumers. This common-sense legislation will help make technology repairs more accessible and affordable for items from cell phones to laptops to farm equipment, finally giving individuals the autonomy they deserve.”

“Right to Repair just makes sense,” said Nathan Proctor, U.S. PIRG Senior Right to Repair Campaign Director. “It saves money and it keeps electronics in use and off the scrap heap. It helps farmers keep equipment in the field and out of the dealership. No matter how many lobbyists Apple, Microsoft or John Deere and the rest of the manufacturers throw at us, Right to Repair keeps pushing ahead, thanks to champions like Rep. Joe Morelle.”

“At iFixit, we believe that big tech companies shouldn’t get to dictate how we use the things we own or keep us from fixing our stuff.” said iFixit’s US Policy Lead, Kerry Maeve Sheehan. “We applaud Congressman Morelle for taking the fight for Right to Repair to Congress and standing up for farmers, independent repair shops, and consumers nationwide.”

We’re pleased to see Congress taking these problems seriously. In addition to supporting Congressman Morelle’s Fair Repair Act, we urge Congress to pass much-needed reforms to Section 1201 of the Copyright Act, to clarify that circumventing software locks to repair devices is always legal, and to expressly support the Federal Trade Commission’s authority to tackle unfair, deceptive, and anti-competitive repair restrictions.

Get Mobilized and Make Love Go Viral!
Continue Reading


For a healthier planet, management must change



Our environment sustains all life. Both human and wildlife. When habitat degrades, the lives of all that depend on it also deteriorate: poor land = poor people and social breakdown.By Sarah Savory, Zimbabwe

In Zimbabwe (like many other countries in arid areas with seasonal rainfall) we are facing the many symptoms and signs of our country’s advancing desertification: ever-increasing droughts, floods, wildfires, poverty, poaching, social breakdown, violence, mass emigration to cities, biodiversity loss and climate change. No economy can survive if we destroy our soil – the only economy that can ultimately sustain any community, or nation, is based on the photosynthetic process — green plants growing on regenerating soil.

So, if we wanted to find out the optimum way to manage our wildlife, people and economy, logically, shouldn’t we be looking at our National Parks for the best examples of what we can do for our environment? Because in national parks, we not only have the best management the world knows, we don’t have any of the issues that are normally blamed for causing desertification: ignorance, greed, corruption, corporations, livestock, coal, oil, etc. Let’s do that now…the following are all photos taken in our national parks (the first 3 were taken in May right after the rainy season when they should still be looking their best!)

As you can see from those photos, some of the worst biodiversity loss and land degradation we have in Zimbabwe is occurring IN our National Parks. But, as I pointed out, those have been run using the best management known to us and have been protected and conserved for decades. We’ve clearly been missing something…

The above 8 pictures are a mixture of National Parks and Communal Land…can you tell which is which?

We are seeing this land degradation both inside and out of our Parks because there is an over-arching and common cause of desertification that nobody has understood, or been able to successfully address, until recently.

We spend our lives blaming resources for causing the damage (coal, oil, livestock, elephants, etc) but resources are natural, so how could they possibly be to blame? Only our management of them can be causing the problem.

ALL tool using animals (including humans) automatically use a genetically embedded management framework…and every single management decision made is in order to meet an objective, a need, or to address a problem. And those decisions are made with exactly the same framework, or thought process and for exactly the same reasons, whether it is an animal or a human.

For example, a hungry otter has an objective: he wants to break open a clamshell because he needs to eat. He uses a simple tool (technology, in the form of a stone) to do so. He does this based on past experience or what he learned from his mother.

Or, the president of the United States has an objective: to put a man on the moon within a decade. He and his team use the same tool (technology, but various and more sophisticated forms of it) and base their choices on past experience, research, expert advice, and so on. It’s the same process, or framework, in both cases, only the degree of sophistication has varied.

A screen shot taken from a short video clip we took with a film crew last month, of 4 different areas, all near to each other: you will clearly see the terrible desertification in both National Parks and nearby Communal Land. In comparison, you will see a vast difference on Dibangombe, the Africa Centre For Holistic Management (our learning centre, which is only 30km from Victoria Falls.) This habitat is being regenerated for all life by simply managing holistically. Every year on this land, despite the worsening droughts, the biodiversity increases and the land and wildlife flourish.
All this footage was taken in the same area, at the same time, with the same climate, the same soils, the same wildlife and the same humans.
But different management.

To this day, this decision making process works just fine for the otter. But imagine that one day, the otter invents a machine that can crack open 1,000 clam shells a day and that all the other otters suddenly stop doing what otters are designed to do and just come to him to get their clams. They still use the decision making process but everything else has changed…that tiny advance in technology would have inadvertently set off a complex chain reaction through the whole ecosystem and there would soon be catastrophic environmental knock-on effects because the balance of the ecosystem has been upset. The ecosystem will keep trying to adjust to this change but eventually it will start to collapse. Imagine the otter started charging for the clams. Now, with every decision the otters make, in order to make sure their ecosystem didn’t collapse, they would need to be simultaneously addressing the social, environmental and economic aspects of their actions. Their management would have to evolve with the change.

This is exactly what happened to humans…As soon as our technology advanced, our management should have evolved to accommodate for it. But it didn’t.

Our natural world is rapidly collapsing all around us and we have ended up constantly chasing our tails and dealing with the symptoms and complications we’ve created. While there have been thousands of books written over the years on different types of management, if you dig a little deeper and ‘peel the onion’ the same genetically embedded framework is still inadvertently being used.

In the last 400 years, our technology has advanced faster than in all of the two hundred thousand or so years of modern human existence. Over those same few centuries, you can now see why the health of our planet has entered a breathtaking decline.  We now have the knowledge to change that…

No matter what we are managing, we cannot ever escape an inevitable web of social, economic and environmental complexity, so, in order to truly address any issue, the people and the finances have to be addressed simultaneously, not just the land itself. Isolating one particular part of the problem, or singling out a species and trying to manage it successfully, is no different from trying to isolate and manage the hydrogen in water.

With this knowledge, the Holistic Management Framework was developed. And, incredibly, it all started here in Zimbabwe, by my father, Allan Savory, an independent Zimbabwean scientist. This new decision making process ensures that no matter what we are managing, we focus on the root cause of any problem. It also makes sure that all our decisions are socially or culturally sound, economically viable and ecologically regenerative by using 7 simple filtering checks. And, it introduces us to a new, biological tool: animal impact and movement, that can be used to help us reverse desertification and regenerate our land and rivers.

This framework has received world-wide acclaim and is now being mirrored in forty three Holistic Management hubs on six continents, including the first university-led hub in the USA.

Now we can begin to understand that most of the problems we are facing in Zimbabwe today are simply symptoms of reductionist management.

Imagine that one day, someone starts to beat you really hard over the head, once a day, every day, with a cricket bat. It really hurts, and instead of trying to take the bat away from them, you just take a dispirin to deal with the headache it’s caused and carry on.

After a week, the pain will be getting much worse and the dispirin will no longer be strong enough, so you’d need a new painkiller. The stopain comes out. After a while, stopain won’t be enough, so you turn to Brufen. And so it goes on. Yet the blows continue.

Eventually, your organs will be struggling from all the medication and you’ll end up in hospital with very serious complications. The best doctors and specialists in the world are called in at great expense and they rush around treating all your worsening, and now life-threatening, symptoms. None of them can understand why you aren’t getting better – they’ve used the best medicines and procedures known. It’s because everyone is so focused on your symptoms, that nobody has looked up and seen the person standing behind you with the cricket bat.

It sounds silly when I put it like that, doesn’t it? But that is exactly what we are doing.

Our planet is in that hospital with life threatening complications, with Governments, Organisations and individuals doing their best, spending millions of dollars, often using expert advice, to find out how to treat the patient, but nobody has realised that they are only treating symptoms. Nobody has noticed the guy standing there with the bat.

The holistic management framework stops the blows to the head. As soon as we do that and the cause is being treated, all the symptoms will automatically begin to heal and fall away.

I am going to show you a screen shot taken from a short video clip we took with a film crew last month, of 4 different areas, all near to each other: you will clearly see the terrible desertification in both National Parks and nearby Communal Land. In comparison, you will see a vast difference on Dibangombe, the Africa Centre For Holistic Management (our learning centre, which is only 30km from Victoria Falls.) This habitat is being regenerated for all life by simply managing holistically. Every year on this land, despite the worsening droughts, the biodiversity increases and the land and wildlife flourish.

All this footage was taken in the same area, at the same time, with the same climate, the same soils, the same wildlife and the same humans.

But different management.

These pictures were taken on the same day on land only 30km apart in February 2018, The 2 photos on the left are Zambezi National Park and the photo on the right is Africa Centre for Holistic Management (Dibangombe)

The great news is that we can turn it all around and we don’t have the thousands of different problems we all think we do. We only have to adjust one thing. Our management.

It’s time for us to evolve from using our outdated, reductionist management framework. We need to adapt to a new way of thinking and  apply this paradigm-shifting decision  making framework so that we can all work together towards regenerating our Zimbabwe.

Culturally. Socially. Economically. Environmentally. For for our people and for our wildlife.

Let’s start by stopping the blows to the head!

Get Mobilized and Make Love Go Viral!
Continue Reading


Free to Download Fight the Fire: Green New Deals and Global Climate Jobs



Fight the Fire

Fight The Fire Book Cover


“The most compelling and concise guide to averting climate breakdown.” – Brendan Montague, editor, The Ecologist.

Download Jonathan Neale’s Fight the Fire from The Ecologist for free now.

The Ecologist has published Fight the Fire for free so that it is accessible to all.

We would like to thank our readers for donating £1,000 to cover some of the costs of publishing and promoting this book.

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download [2.23 MB]

Get Mobilized and Make Love Go Viral!
Continue Reading


We are One

Mobilized TV

Mobilized TV on Free Speech TV  takes a deep look at our world, the consequences of human activity on our planet, and how we can reverse and prevent existing and future crises from occurring. Mobilized reveals life on our planet as a system of systems which all work together for the optimal health of the whole. The show delves into deep conversations with change-makers so people can clearly take concerted actions.

Produced by Steven Jay and hosted by Jeff Van Treese.

Mobilized’s TV series Mobilized TV  premieres on Free Speech TV on Friday, October 15, 2021. All episodes appear:

Fridays 9:30 PM Eastern (USA/Canada)

Saturdays:  6:30 PM (Eastern USA/Canada)

Sundays:  8:30 AM Eastern (USA/Canada)

January 7, 8, 9, 2022

Leading Environmental Justice Attorney, Thomas Linzey of the Center for Democratic and Environmental Rights is a leading force helping communities implement successful rights of nature laws. Find out how your community could take on big business to serve the health of all.


Featured6 hours ago

Truths or Consequences: Failing State or Shining Light?: The USA Role in the Twenty-first Century

Featured6 hours ago

The Undertow: The Corrosion of Corruption: Cleaning up the Chaos with Heidi Cuda

INTERVIEWS4 days ago

The time is NOW to Rethink: James Arbib of Re-Think X

INTERVIEWS4 days ago

Savor This: Allan Savory on Real World Solutions Now

INTERVIEWS4 days ago

Ecologic Economics and Steady State Economies with Brian Czech

INTERVIEWS4 days ago

The unlimited potential of space solar Power with John Mankins

INTERVIEWS4 days ago

Understanding the real transition to clean and renewable energy with Professor Chris Rhodes

INTERVIEWS4 days ago

The Father of the Environmental Justice Movement

INTERVIEWS4 days ago

Sustainable Growth on a Finite Planet is Not Possible

INTERVIEWS4 days ago

Help!!! We’re drowning in a sea of Plastic: A conversation with Dr. Julie Peller

The Web of Life1 week ago

It is time for a better relationship with our beautiful, blue planet.

Editorials1 week ago

As the Golden Globes lose their luster, can we create a better version of Hollywood?

Featured2 weeks ago

How Our Grassroots Energy Projects Are Taking Back Power From Utility Companies

Arts2 weeks ago

How The Pentagon and CIA Have Shaped Thousands of Hollywood Movies into Super Effective Propaganda

Food3 weeks ago

How Climate Change Narratives are Used Against Us

Editorials4 weeks ago

The Grinch That Stole Christmas

Editorials4 weeks ago

bell hooks on feminism, race, violence and dealing with rage

Food1 month ago

Moving beyond the Moo– A Post Cow World

A web of Life for ALL Life1 month ago

The Case for Rights of Nature in Practice

A web of Life for ALL Life1 month ago

We are One

Mobilized TV2 months ago

How we can eradicate heart Disease

Mobilized TV2 months ago

Howard Bloom: Imagination Takes You Everywhere

Featured2 months ago

From Punk to Planet: Slam Dunk the Junk with Dave Street

Uncapped2 months ago

The Hoodless Hoodie and No-Wax Floors

Editorials2 months ago

The Decisive Role of Conscience: Clues for Non Violence

Asia2 months ago

The Love for All Animals

Featured2 months ago

Community and World Health: Protecting Native Seeds

An Empowered World2 months ago

In Chile, A different and courageous alternative with new ideas and proposals for leadership

Editorials2 months ago

Celebrating Food Sovereignty | Highlights of Solidarity Actions in October

Editorials2 months ago

Food Sovereignty, a Manifesto for the Future of Our Planet | La Via Campesina

Editorials2 months ago

Good Needs Better Distribution: We Already Have the Tools We Need to Solve Climate Change

Chuck W.2 months ago

The United Nations system: What’s Gone Wrong? What’s Gone Right?

Mobilized TV2 months ago

A Moral Responsibility: Jean Su, Ctr. for Biological Diversity

Editorials2 months ago

OPINION COLUMN: No presidential program raises paradigm shift in education

Mobilized TV3 months ago

On Free Speech TV: Rethinking Humanity with James Arbib of RethinkX

International3 months ago

Anti-mining resistance repressed in El Estor

International3 months ago

Coronacrisis, neoliberalism, democracy: what’s next

Asia3 months ago

Bangladesh PM Sheikh Hasina’s recent meeting with Pakistani envoy has a message for India

Mobilized TV3 months ago

Sustainable Architecture, Design and Building for a Sustainable Planet

Mobilized TV3 months ago

A better understanding of lawn care for Climate Care featuring Dr. Rob Moir of the Ocean River Institute

Mobilized TV3 months ago

Stories from the Reservation: Davidica Little Spotted Horse

Editorials3 months ago

Understanding the global neglect of indigenous peoples

Editorials3 months ago

Diabetes And Net Zero

Editorials3 months ago

Land Workers of the World Unite: Food Sovereignty for Climate Justice Now!

Featured3 months ago

A Primer on Climate Security

Editorials3 months ago

A Finger In The Dam

Mobilized TV3 months ago

Free Speech TV: Episode 001: Davidica Little Spotted Horse

Editorials3 months ago

The Green Jobs Advantage: How Climate-friendly Investments Are Better Job Creators

Editorials3 months ago

Behind the Lofty SDGs the Reality is People Don’t Trust Governments to Act

Editorials3 months ago

Rebranding Public Service



Translate »
Skip to toolbar