This desk review study was commissioned by the European Commission/ DG INTPA to better understand the relationships between agroecology (AE), responsible value chains and agricultural and food system transformations using the Value Chain Analysis for Development (VCA4D) studies as an evidence base.

The objectives were to: 1) Characterise the different types of value chain systems identified in the VCA4D studies; 2) Analyse to what extent applying principles of AE have contributed to the development of responsible sub-chains; 3) Analyse the way in which the markets downstream have contributed to the application of agroecological principles in these cases; 4) Identify conditions to support agroecological transitions of farming systems and value chains.

Key findings:

There is wide variance between and within the level of alignment of commodity value chains with the HLPE AE principles. Some sub-chains are more aligned with the production principles than with equity and social responsibility principles. Aligning with the latter represents a greater challenge involving a) changes to other parts of a wider system and other sectors for decision makers, b) more far-reaching shifts in economic systems and power relations.

Where agricultural systems are well aligned with the AE production principles it is easier to achieve environmental certification. But the causal link between certification and greater equity and social responsibility in value chains is mixed. For global value chains, decision makers could explore how to achieve incremental benefits by building on environmental standards to strengthen alignment with responsibility principles, but some would argue that these potentially risk blocking more fundamental transformations of food systems. For local value chains, concepts, actions and potential arrangements around AE and responsibility need further exploration beyond the niche. For example, this could include exploring expansion pathways for territorialized food systems.

The relationship between markets and AE is very contested. Market-based mechanisms such as Organic certification, can improve returns to producers, but may not meet responsibility criteria and, arguably, reinforce the status quo of the corporate food regime. Alternative systems of exchange (e.g. Participatory Guarantee Systems) offer potential for ‘AE products’, but AE products may struggle to gain market acceptance and demand/reward for sustainable production beyond local markets and there is little evidence of low-income consumers in both rural and urban areas accessing and benefiting. Place-based territorial approaches to diverse economies emphasize a) autonomy of local communities, b) principles of reciprocity and solidarity, which may or may not involve engagements with capitalist markets but involve challenges to corporate concentration. Decision makers may support markets for AE, but other enabling conditions and disabling factors such as concentrations of corporate power and wealth need to be considered.

Other conditions that influence AE transitions include discourse, policies, social organisation, research and innovation processes. AE social movement approaches have a stronger focus on democracy, economic exchange based on reciprocity, socio-cultural values.

This review has encountered challenges because of the plurality of AE interpretations; more progressive and radical AE understandings do not easily align with economic thinking of value chain concepts and growth-oriented assumptions. Many alternative economy initiatives do engage with markets to varying degrees but would still challenge corporate concentration and seek enhanced local autonomy over the food system. Some interpretations have a stronger focus on AE improvements within existing neoliberal economic systems and power relations, while other conceptualisations and practices are more transformative in scope.

It is possible to analyse from the VCA4D studies the extent to which value chains are aligned with HLPE AE principles and explore how to enhance responsibility within existing value chain and economic relations. But in contexts of AE actors and movements seeking to challenge the dominance of market values in defining food and agriculture and shaping its performance, a deeper deconstruction of the value chain concept becomes necessary, to reveal its origins and inherent assumptions.

There is scope to improve the VCA4D approach to analyse opportunities to further AE and reform existing systems by exploring the dimensions of AE outlined by the HLPE principles. For example, more in-depth analysis of context, including historical and future trends, and greater integration of gender and other social difference analysis. From an AE movement perspective more attention would be given to tackling corporate concentration and support for more autonomous, reterritorialized food and agriculture. Research aligned with the latter, would review the framing of the research on agriculture and food, and who conducts it, embrace plural forms of knowledge and question assumptions of telecoupling and economic growth. Exploring food democracy provides a potential way of enabling AE-informed transitions/ transformation in the different realities of farming and food contexts.