When crises and democracy open the door: What Peru and Kenya reveal about the politics of agroecology
When crises and democracy open the door: What Peru and Kenya reveal about the politics of agroecologyResearchers examined agroecology policies in Peru and Kenya over the past two decades, finding that crises,. . .
When crises and democracy open the door: What Peru and Kenya reveal about the politics of agroecologyResearchers examined agroecology policies in Peru and Kenya over the past two decades, finding that crises, advocacy, and democratic reforms helped agroecology gain policy support. The study shows that lasting food system transformation depends on political change, not just farming practices. Agroecology is often discussed as a way to produce food more sustainably: healthier soils, more resilient farms, stronger local food systems, and better opportunities for small-scale producers. A new study on agroecological policy landscapes in Peru and Kenya shows that the future of agroecology may depend as much on politics as on practices in the field. The paper,Of crises, advocates, and framings. The formation of agroecology policy landscapes in Peru and Kenya, recently published in World Development Sustainability, asks a timely question: how do supportive policy environments for agroecology actually emerge? The answer is not simple. Policies are not born in isolation, nor do they follow a neat sequence from evidence to adoption. They are shaped over time by crises, institutions, advocacy coalitions, and the stories policymakers tell about agriculture, development, food security, and rural livelihoods. By comparing Peru and Kenya, the study finds that both countries have moved toward more favorable policy landscapes for agroecology over the past two decades. Yet this shift remains incomplete. In both cases, agroecology has gained visibility, but it still competes with deeply rooted policy models that favor industrial agriculture, market liberalization, productivity-driven intensification, and corporate interests. This is the central finding worth communicating:agroecology is entering policy spaces, but it has not yet transformed the rules of the game. The researchers analyze policy change through four interacting drivers: focusing events, such as crises or social unrest; changes in institutions; advocacy processes; and cognitive frames, meaning the ideas and narratives that define what the problem is and what solutions are considered legitimate. This framework helps explain why agroecology advances in some moments and stalls in others. View original article