From sustainable agriculture to sustainable agrifood systems: A comparative review of alternative models

• Main Author: ZHANG, Qian Forrest
• Format: text
• Language: English
• Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2024
• Subjects: sustainability; industrial agriculture; agroecology; climate-smart agriculture; alternative food networks; organic farming; Agribusiness; Agricultural and Resource Economics
• Online Access: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soss_research/4075; https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/soss_research/article/5333/viewcontent/2024_Sustainability.pdf
• Institution: Singapore Management University

This paper reviews, compares, and critically evaluates two broad groups of sustainable agriculture models: “sustainable agriculture” and “sustainable agrifood systems”. The “sustainable agriculture” models—comprising organic farming, regenerative agriculture, climate-smart agriculture, carbon-capture agriculture, and nature-based solutions—focus primarily on improving ecological sustainability through farm-level practices. These models emphasize reducing external, industrial inputs, enhancing biodiversity, and promoting climate resilience, relying on technological and market-based solutions to address environmental concerns. On the other hand, the “sustainable agrifood systems” models—agroecology, alternative food networks, and permaculture—offer more ambitious visions of systemic transformation. These approaches not only seek to implement environmentally sound practices but also aim to reconfigure the broader food system by challenging corporate power, promoting local governance, fostering food sovereignty, and prioritizing social justice. Grounded in grassroots movements, these models emphasize social justice and economic viability in addition to ecological sustainability. This paper’s contribution lies in its comparative analysis of the wide array of sustainable alternatives, highlighting both their strengths and limitations. Adopting an agrarian political economy perspective, it critiques the former camp for limited engagement with structural issues inherent in capitalist agriculture and the latter camp for underplaying the importance of industrial agriculture for national development in the Global South.