Agricultures

et défis du monde
Collection Cirad-AFD

The agroecological
transition
of agricultural systems
in the Global South
F.-X. Côte, E. Poirier-Magona,
S. Perret, P. Roudier,
B. Rapidel,
p M.-C. Thirion,
éditors
 Chapter 13

Agroecology and climate change:

close links which give cause for hope
Emmanuel Torquebiau, Philippe Roudier, Julien Demenois, Stéphane Saj,
Étienne Hainzelin, Florent Maraux

Agriculture is undoubtedly one of the most climate-dependent human activities.

Every farmer watches the sky and takes weather conditions (rainfall, temperature,
wind, etc.) into account in his agricultural activities. Agriculture’s industrial version,
which is almost the only form now found in developed countries, has however tried
to overcome this dependence. Instead of adapting to environmental and climatic
constraints and their variability, this form of agriculture, based on economies of scale,
often seeks to modify the environment, for example by irrigating, standardizing the
topography, increasing plot size and reducing landscape heterogeneity. The aim is to
ensure that high-yield varieties selected for a standard environment find optimum
growth conditions at all costs. This approach, which is based on the assumption that
it is always possible to control cultivation conditions, finds itself confronting a new
factor that has emerged in recent years: climate change.

The relationship between agriculture and climate change

There are several examples of the impact of climate change on agriculture: irregular
seasonality, precipitation that is shifted in time or distributed differently, extreme
events, temperature changes that advance or delay harvest dates, more active pests,
etc. The impacts are varied and also affect yields (Roudier et al., 2011) as well as
the nutritional quality of harvested products. Indeed, Myers et al. (2014) predict a
significant reduction in protein, zinc and iron content in wheat and rice due to an
increase in the concentration of atmospheric carbon. In countries of the Global South,
climate change impacts the agricultural sector particularly severely because of the
high dependence of agriculture on the environment (for example, the vast majority of
African agricultural land is unirrigated), which makes it more vulnerable, and because
economic conditions do not allow intensive farming to be adopted. In their Nation-
ally Determined Contributions (NDCs), presented by the world’s countries in the
Paris Agreement of 2015 (COP 21), all sub-Saharan African countries mentioned
the agricultural sector among the options selected for adaptation to climate change.

239
The agroecological transition of agricultural systems in the Global South

However, the agricultural sector does not just suffer from the impacts of climate
change; it is also partially answerable for it. This sector is a massive emitter of green-
house gases, responsible for about 12% of anthropogenic emissions of these gases, and
up to 24% if emissions from land-use changes are included, i.e. essentially tropical
deforestation (IPCC, 2014). But there is now a serious effort to understand how
agriculture (and more broadly land use, including forestry) can be one of the solu-
tions to climate change because of the potential for carbon sequestration in soils and
vegetation and because of the possible reduction of agricultural emissions through the
modification of a number of practices such as the large-scale use of synthetic fertilizers.
However, it is important to distinguish the increase in the stock of organic carbon in
the soil from its sequestration; only the latter corresponds to a withdrawal of carbon
dioxide from the atmosphere (Chenu et al., 2018). The concept of ‘climate-smart agri-
culture’ tries to take into account the fact that agriculture can be an aggravating factor
of climate change, but which at the same time suffers strongly from its consequences.
Climate-smart agriculture attempts to respond simultaneously to three issues:
–– adapting to climate change (a function sometimes equated – wrongly – to resil-
ience, which is a broader concept that also includes risk reduction);
–– mitigating climate change;
–– ensuring food security in a sustainable way.
Recent analyses have shown the complementarity that exists between agroecology
and climate-smart agriculture, and in particular that the latter would have everything
to gain by integrating concepts of the former (Saj et al., 2017 ).

Agroecology, an integrated solution combining climate

change adaptation and mitigation
The principles of agroecology
In its biophysical dimension, agroecology is based on the principles of diver-
sity, efficient use of natural resources, nutrient recycling, natural regulation of and
synergy between the different components of agroecosystems, which are most often
multi-specific. These principles make it possible to help implement agricultural prac-
tices adapted and resilient to climate change. While the concept of resilience has
several definitions, we understand it here as the ability of a system to cope with a
series of shocks and stresses, in a dynamic and uncertain context.
Resilience is characterized by three capabilities of a system:
–– absorption and recovery;
–– preparation;
–– transformation.
The diversity of agroecological practices helps strengthen each of these three capabil-
ities and thus improves the system’s resilience to future climate change. For example,
water conservation techniques allow crops to cope better with an unexpected rain-
fall deficit (absorption); the varietal diversity available to the farmer allows him to
choose, before the cultivation season, the optimal varieties to plant (by anticipating
medium-term variations); the diversity of varieties and crops and their coupling with

240
 Agroecology and climate change: close links which give cause for hope

livestock husbandry equips an agrosystem with a transformative capacity that allows

it to survive long-term major changes such as those modelled by climate change
scenarios. Figure 13.1 shows how traditional varieties of millet and sorghum will
be less impacted by a +4°C temperature increase scenario than some improved vari-
eties (Roudier, 2012). Agroecology is a viable option to improve the adaptation and
resilience of agriculture to climate change because of its inherent characteristics: the
diversification of crops and plots, landscape heterogeneity, the use of biodiversity and
agrobiodiversity (diversity of useful plants and animals), reduction in use of green-
house gas emitting inputs, biological pest control, symbioses and various interactions
(rhizobia, mycorrhizae, push-pull1), etc.

Figure 13.1. Mean yield variations of millet and sorghum in West Africa (35 stations)
for local varieties and improved varieties under three scenarios of future climate change
(taking the 1961-1990 period as reference). These results are simulations derived
from the Sarra-H model (for the methodology, see Roudier, 2012).

Climate risk
Climate risk results from a combination of hazards and vulnerabilities (Gilard, 2015).
Vulnerability to climate change depends on exposure to hazards whose probability
may vary, as well as the sensitivity and adaptability of the societies concerned. While
adaptation can reduce sensitivity to climate change, it is mitigation that can reduce
hazards, i.e. exposure to these changes. However, adaptation is localized, while miti-
gation only works on a global scale, with its effects acting on the atmosphere shared
by all. Thanks to its proven properties of enhancing capacities of adaptation, agro-
ecology can have a moderating effect on climate risk and vulnerability. Reducing
vulnerability through individual or collective agroecological innovations will often
prove to be more effective and no doubt less expensive than reducing hazards through
complex technical interventions. In the face of an expected rainfall vulnerability, the
spatial and temporal diversification of crops at the landscape scale can, for example,
be more effective than the construction of large irrigation structures.

1. See chapter 11.

241
The agroecological transition of agricultural systems in the Global South

Mitigating climate change

Mitigation of climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions or by carbon
sequestration is not an explicit goal of agroecology. Although it can be assumed that
in many cases agroecology allows for increased sequestration and lower emissions due
to reduced use of synthetic inputs, the precise quantitative comparison in this domain
between conventional agriculture and agroecology remains to be done. While there
are no regulatory requirements or formal certifications for agroecology, its character-
istics nevertheless contribute to mitigating climate change, for example by increasing
the total biomass of cultivated plots or by providing soil coverage throughout the
year through increased accumulation of organic matter (and therefore of carbon) in
the soil. Several cases highlighting the simultaneous potentials of agroecology for
climate change adaptation and mitigation have been described in the literature (for
example, Altieri et al., 2015; 2017; Paustian et al., 1998) for instance in agroforestry
(Photo 13.1), intercropping practices (Photo 13.2), or large-scale heterogeneity
maintained in multifunctional landscapes (Photo 13.3). This observation has made it
possible to say that while climate-smart agriculture is not necessarily agroecological,
agroecology is necessarily climate-smart (Tittonell, 2015).
Agroecology contributes most to mitigating climate change through soil carbon
sequestration. This function has been formalized by a recent initiative called ‘4 per
1000: Soils for food security and climate’ (4 per 1000, 2018; Soussana et al., 2018),
whose threefold objective is:
–– mitigating climate change;
–– adapting agriculture to climate change;
–– advancing food security.
Agricultural and forest soils contain two to three times more carbon than does the
atmosphere, especially in the form of organic matter. Thus, it is estimated that an
increase in the organic carbon stock of upper soil horizons at an annual rate of 4 per
1000 could be able to offset annual anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases,
provided greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation are
reduced at the same time. This objective is technically feasible (Soussana et al., 2018)
and is a ‘no regret’ option because an increase in the organic carbon content of soils
also increases their fertility, decreases their sensitivity to erosion and increases their
water retention capacity. Cases of carbon sequestration in tropical areas at rates equal
to or greater than 4 per 1000 per year have been described, for example, through
the use of compost or of incorporation of crop residues into the soil (Kenne et al.,
2016), in agroforestry (D’Andouss Kissi et al., 2013) and in conservation agriculture
(Corbeels et al., 2018).

Positive agroecological feedback

The most promising approach of using agroecology to combat climate change is
to look for systems that favour adaptation and mitigation at the same time. This is
sometimes referred to as mitigation-adaptation co-benefits or synergy but can be
best described as positive feedback between adaptation and mitigation. Adaptation
can lead to positive feedback on mitigation, for example, when innovative practices

242
 Agroecology and climate change: close links which give cause for hope

Photo 13.1. Cocoa trees and fruit trees in an agroforest, Ghana. © E. Torquebiau/CIRAD.

Photo 13.2. Intercropping (maize and beans), Kenya. © E. Torquebiau/CIRAD.

Photo 13.3. Multifunctional landscape (land sharing) with rivers, hedges, fruit trees, human habitation
and agroforest, Sumatra, Indonesia. © E. Torquebiau/CIRAD.

243
The agroecological transition of agricultural systems in the Global South

designed to improve soil fertility lead to an increase in soil organic matter and thus a
reduction in nitrous oxide emissions (N2O) due to reduced use of synthetic fertilizers.
This effect is proven, for example, in the case of agroforestry coffee plantations: even
if there is more nitrogen in an agroforestry coffee plantation than in a full-sun one
(and therefore potentially more N2O emissions), its total carbon footprint is lower
(Hergoualc’h et al., 2012). In a similar way, mitigation can lead to a positive feed-
back on adaptation when an objective of increasing soil carbon sequestration results
in benefits in terms of soil properties and improved stress resilience, with positive
­consequences for agricultural production.
Agroforestry provides many examples of positive agroecological feedbacks, such as
the one known as ‘the regreening of the Sahel’ in Niger (Photo 13.4). The practice is
based on the assisted natural regeneration of trees in cultivated fields, an old method
which was slowly dying out but which innovative public policies (the transfer from the
State to farmers of property rights over trees) helped revive (Sendzimir et al., 2011).
Tree density has increased dramatically, improving soil fertility and the microclimate
(adaptation), favouring aboveground and underground biomass and hence carbon
storage (mitigation), all of which is having a positive impact on farmer incomes and
food security. Another agroforestry example is the shading of cocoa trees or coffee
plants by ‘shade’ trees, a practice that helps offset losses due to possible increases in
temperatures. Agriculture in the Global South provides compelling examples that can
be extended to the entire planet.

Photo 13.4. Agroforestry intercropping of maize and Faidherbia albida, Dolekaha, Côte d’Ivoire.
© Dominique Louppe/CIRAD.

Many other agroecological options can promote adaptation-mitigation synergies:

conservation agriculture, intercropping, organic fertilizers, improved pasture manage-

244
 Agroecology and climate change: close links which give cause for hope

ment, water management, no-till practices, permanent soil cover, etc. Even livestock
husbandry, often blamed for the emission of large amounts of greenhouse gases, can,
depending on how pastures are managed and used, contribute to this balance between
adaptation and mitigation. In Senegal, a study of extensive livestock farming at the
territorial level, a practice that is especially adapted to local conditions, shows that,
over annual time steps, greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration balance
each other out (Vayssières et al., 2017).
It is indeed only on a scale exceeding the plot, or even the farm, that many approaches
can claim to promote the synergy between adaptation and mitigation. In multifunctional
landscapes (Torquebiau, 2015; Denier et al., 2015), it is possible to combine objectives of
agricultural or forestry production with objectives of nature and biodiversity protection.
This concept, known as ‘land sharing’ (Grau et al., 2013), assigns adaptation or miti-
gation objectives to neighbouring and often interacting landscape units. It is in direct
opposition to the concept of ‘land sparing’ in which agricultural production and nature
protection are spatially separated. Land sparing is a corollary of the Green Revolution
and the well-known ‘Borlaug hypothesis’: maximizing production in agricultural areas
with productive varieties, irrigation and inputs in order to protect nature elsewhere. The
continued expansion of agricultural lands at the expense of natural environments has
proven this hypothesis false. In contrast, land sharing is essentially agroecological and
promotes ‘climate-smart’ landscapes (Harvey et al., 2014; Torquebiau, 2017).

Box 13.1. Agrobiodiversity: a common good for increasing resilience

to climate change
E. Torquebiau, P. Roudier, J. Demenois, S. Saj, É. Hainzelin, F. Maraux
The biodiversity of cultivated ecosystems – especially when it is useful for people,
including in natural environments – is what is called agrobiodiversity. It forms the
foundation of our agriculture but we have forgotten it over time; our agriculture
today is based on too few species and a limited number of varieties within these
species. Yet agrobiodiversity is an essential lever of agroecology (Hainzelin, 2013)
because it is on the basis of this genetic, specific and landscape diversity that it is
possible to design new farming systems that are more resilient to environmental
and climatic hazards. It is through innovative breeding approaches and diversified
farming practices, based on a wide range of species and species interactions, that it will
be possible to respond to shifts in climatic and agroecological zones, the emergence
of new pests and diseases, and increasingly frequent extreme climatic events. The
agricultural and forestry systems that will contribute to mitigating climate change
through carbon sequestration are those that are rich in biodiversity and biomass. It
is ‘perennial’ farming (Perfecto et al., 2009) that must be encouraged, based on the
use of woody plants, cover crops, roots and tubers, or perennial grasses. The more
widespread adoption of these practices, which have historically been used to respond
to existing climatic hazards (choosing the variety depending on weather forecasts,
for example), is being prevented today in several regions due to the reduced diversity
of varieties available to farmers (Maikhuri et al., 1997) as well as the emergence of
patents for seeds, which were previously managed as a public good (Brush, 2005).

245
The agroecological transition of agricultural systems in the Global South

Prospects and limitations

Although agroecology is a concept that has existed for several decades (Wezel and
Soldat, 2009), it is currently used only in the case of traditional agriculture and has
not yet been widely disseminated. Even though the constraints imposed by climate
change are certainly unwelcome, they can provide an opportunity to accelerate the
spread of agroecology. A lack of support from official educational and research institu-
tions may also partly explain this delay. In the past, agroecology has not been included
– and often is not so even today – in agricultural education. The lack of reference to
agroecology in the majority of public policies must also be blamed. Will the (delayed)
inclusion of agriculture by the official bodies of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) after COP 23 (November 2017) lead
to changes in orientations? Given that agroecology has also been the focus of some
development policies for some time (for example, at the FAO with its Symposium on
Agroecology for Food Security and Nutrition; FAO, 2015; FAO Symposium, 2018),
one can expect the agroecology and climate change themes to build one on the other.
The ‘scaling up’ of these potentially close links between agroecology and climate change
remains a challenge. There is a great need to raise the awareness of farmers in the Global
North as in the Global South to the fact that agroecology can represent a solution to
the constraints of climate change. But how can we effectively go beyond successful
experiments in a few locations to spread this scientific message to the greatest number
of farmers when national public policies ignore agroecology or even contradict it with
subsidies or various incentives for industrial agriculture? How to raise awareness of these
innovative techniques when the staff of services providing technical support to farmers
is itself trained in conventional agriculture? While we can now, especially because of
the recent work on soil carbon (Soussana et al., 2018), consider using agriculture as a
contributory solution to climate change, it is only the forms of agriculture that embrace
principles of agroecology that can really play this role.
It is also worth noting that agroecology runs counter to the interests of powerful
actors (e.g. inputs suppliers) and therefore the mobilization of political will cannot
be taken for granted. While the transition to agroecology can involve all types of
agricultural structures, it is particularly well suited to small farms. Indeed, since they
are based on the diversification of production and on the ecosystem’s biological regu-
latory mechanisms, agroecological farming systems are inherently less demanding in
terms of capital, and enjoy a high agri-environmental and socio-economic sustain-
ability. Such analyses can inform future advocacy efforts essential to the formulation
of public policies in the Global North as in the Global South. Finally, agroecology is
fundamentally tied to the local context and its large-scale application depends on the
dynamism of local innovation systems, not only at the level of agricultural practices
but also at the level of commodity chains, and in relation to new links between urban
and rural areas. This poses a huge challenge in terms of training and development of
skills and redefines the role that the research community must play.
Thanks to its twofold action on climate change, agroecology can help nations meet
their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) presented by all the countries
of the world at the time of the Paris Agreement in 2015 (COP 21) and which must

246
 Agroecology and climate change: close links which give cause for hope

be revised upwards by 2020. Worldwide, 89% of the countries refer in their contri-
bution to the agricultural sector and the use of land in the broad sense (LULUCF:
Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry). More specifically, 78% of countries
include agriculture in their mitigation options and 100% of sub-Saharan African
countries cite it as an adaptation option (FAO, 2016). Agroecology is unfortunately
mentioned explicitly only very rarely (Rwanda, Honduras) but some of its compo-
nents do find inclusion: conservatory water management, improved pastoralism,
agroecological fish farming, landscape approach, biological corridors, ‘low carbon’
farming practices, etc. Agroecology can therefore be a path to follow in order to
meet national climate objectives.

References
4 per 1000, 2018. The 4 per 1000 Initiative. Soils for Food Security and Climate, http://4p1000.org.
Altieri M.A., Nicholls C.I., 2017. The adaptation and mitigation potential of traditional agriculture
in a changing climate. Climatic Change, 140 (1), 33-45.
Altieri M.A., Nicholls C.I., Henao A., Lana M.A., 2015. Agroecology and the design of climate
change-resilient farming systems. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 35 (3), 869-890.
Brush S.B., 2005. Protecting traditional agricultural knowledge, 17 Wash. U. J. L. & Pol’y 59 , http://
openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy/vol17/iss1/5 (retrieved 29 December 2018).
Chenu C., Angers D.A., Barré P., Derrien D., Arrouays D., Balesdent J., 2018. Increasing organic
stocks in agricultural soils: Knowledge gaps and potential innovations. Soil and Tillage Research,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2018.04.011.
Corbeels M., Naudin K., Guibert H., Torquebiau E., Cardinael R., 2018. The 4 per 1000 goal and
soil carbon storage under agroforestry and conservation agriculture systems in sub-Saharan Africa.
Soil and Tillage Research, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2018.02.015.
D’Andous Kissi O., Guibert H., Palou Madi O., Ntoupka M., Deleporte P., Smektala G., Peltier R.,
2013. Le bois, un atout pour la diffusion des plantations d’acacias gommiers au nord du Cameroun.
Revue forestière française, 3, 241-253.
Denier L., Sherr S., Shames S., Chatterton P., Hovani L., Stam N., 2015. The Little Sustainable
Landscapes Book: Achieving sustainable development through integrated landscape management,
Global Canopy Programme, Oxford, United Kingdom, 158 p.
FAO, 2015. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Agroecology for Food Security and Nutrition,
18-19 September 2014, FAO, Rome, Italy, 426 p.
FAO, 2016. The Agriculture sectors in the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions:
Summary, Environment and Natural Resources Management, Working paper #61.
FAO Symposium, 2018. 2nd International Symposium on Agroecology: Scaling Up agroecology to
achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). http://www.fao.org/about/meetings/second-
international-agroecology-symposium/en/ (retrieved 22 January 2019).
Gilard O., 2015. Aléa, vulnérabilité et risque. In: Changement climatique et agricultures du monde
(E. Torquebiau, ed.), Quæ, 27-36.
Grau R., Kuemmerle T., Macchi L., 2013. Beyond “land sparing versus land sharing”: Environ-
mental heterogeneity, globalization and the balance between agricultural production and nature
conservation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5, 477-483.
Hainzelin E., ed., 2013. Cultivating Biodiversity to Transform Agriculture, CIRAD/Quæ/Springer
Netherlands, Dordrecht, 261 p.

247
The agroecological transition of agricultural systems in the Global South

Harvey C.A., Chacón M., Donatti C.I., Garen E., Hannah L., Andrade A., Bede L., Brown D.,
Calle A., Chara J., Clement Ch., Gray E., Minh H.H., Minang P., Rodrıguez A.M., Seeberg-
Elverfeldt Ch., Semroc B., Shames S., Smukler S., Somarriba E., Torquebiau E., Van Etten J.,
Wollenberg E., 2014. Climate-smart landscapes: Opportunities and challenges for integrating
adaptation and mitigation in tropical agriculture. Conservation Letters, 7 (2), 77-90, https://doi.
org/10.1111/conl.12066.
Hergoualc’h K., Blanchart E., Skiba U., Hénault C., Harmand J.M., 2012. Changes in carbon stock
and greenhouse gas balance in a coffee (Coffea arabica) monoculture versus an agroforestry system
with Inga densiflora, in Costa Rica. Agriculture, Ecosystems, Environment, 148, 102-110.
IPCC, 2014. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change,
contribution of Working Group III to the 5th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth,
A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von
Stechow, T. Zwickel, J.C. Minx, eds), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New York, United
Kingdom/United States, 33 p.
Kenne Kueteyim P., Guibert H., Kouassi Bredoumy S., 2016. Organic amendments do not reverse
the decay of stock of carbon of tropical soils after setting the crops: Experiments in Ivory Coast
and Benin, Conference EcoSummit, 29 August – 1 September 2016, Montpellier, France, Elsevier,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1 p.
Maikhuri R.K., Semwal R.L., Rao K.S., Nautiyal S., Saxena K.G., 1997. Eroding traditional crop
diversity imperils the sustainability of agricultural systems in Central Himalaya. Current Science,
73 (9), 777-782.
Myers S., Zanobetti A., Kloog I., Huybers P., Leakey A.D.B., Bloom A.J., Carlisle E., D
­ ietterich L.H.,
Fitzgerald G., Hasegawa T., Holbrook N.M., Nelson R.L., Ottman M.J., Raboy V., Sakai H.,
Sartor K.A., Schwartz J., Seneweera S., Tausz M., Usui Y., 2014. Increasing CO2 threatens human
nutrition. Nature, 510, 139-142
Paustian K., Cole C.V., Sauerbeck D., Sampson N., 1998. CO2 mitigation by agriculture: An over-
view. Climatic Change, 40 (1), 135-162.
Perfecto I., Vandermeer J.H., Wright A.L., 2009. Nature’s Matrix: Linking agriculture, conservation
and food sovereignty, Earthscan, London, United Kingdom, 242 p.
Roudier P., 2012. Climat et agriculture en Afrique de l’Ouest : Quantification de l’impact du chan-
gement climatique sur les rendements et évaluation de l’utilité des prévisions saisonnières, PhD
Thesis, EHESS, Paris, 189 p.
Roudier P., Sultan B., Quirion P., Berg A., 2011. The impact of future climate change on West
African crop yields: What does the recent literature say? Global Environmental Change, 21,
1073-1083.
Saj S., Torquebiau E., Hainzelin E., Pagès J., Maraux F., 2017. The way forward: An agroecological
perspective for Climate-Smart Agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 250, 20-24,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.09.003.
Sendzimir J., Reij C.P., Magnuszewski P., 2011. Rebuilding resilience in the Sahel: Regree-
ning in the Maradi and Zinder regions of Niger. Ecol Soc, 16 (3), 1, http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/
ES-04198-160301.
Soussana J.F., Lutfalla S., Ehrhardt F., Rosenstock T., Lamanna Ch., Havlík P., Richards M.,
Wollenberg E., Chotte J.L., Torquebiau E., Ciais Ph., Smith P., Lal R., 2018. Matching policy and
science: Rationale for the ‘4 per 1000 - soils for food security and climate’ initiative. Soil & Tillage
Research, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2017.12.002.
Tittonell P., 2015. Agroecology is climate-smart… (but the opposite is not necessarily true), extract
from Global Science Conference on Climate-Smart Agriculture, Montpellier, March 2015, http://
csa2015.cirad.fr/presentations (retrieved 29 December 2018).

248
 Agroecology and climate change: close links which give cause for hope

Torquebiau E., 2015. Whither landscapes? Compiling requirements of the landscape approach. In:
Climate-smart landscapes: Multifunctionality in practice (P. Minang et al., eds), World Agroforestry
Centre (ICRAF), Nairobi, Kenya, 21-36.
Torquebiau E., 2017. Climate-smart agriculture : Pour une agriculture climato-compatible. Cahiers
agricultures, 26 (6), 66001.
Vayssières J., Assouma M.H., Lecomte Ph., Hiernaux P., Bourgoin J., Jankowski F., Corniaux C.,
Vigne M., Torquebiau E., Ickowicz A., 2017. Livestock at the heart of ‘climate-smart’ landscapes
in West Africa. In: Living Territories to Transform the World (P. Caron, T. Wassenaar, G. Coppens
d’Eeckenbrugge, V. Papazian, eds), Quæ, 111-117.
Wezel A., Soldat V., 2009. A quantitative and qualitative historical analysis of the scientific disci-
pline of agroecology. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 7, 3-18.

249