Agroecology needs services, not just science, to scale

Agroecology is increasingly seen as a route to healthier, more resilient and more sustainable food systems. But despite growing evidence of its benefits, many agroecological approaches still struggle to move beyond local success stories.

A new Perspective published in Communications Sustainability argues that the problem is not simply technical. The authors find that agroecology often stalls because today’s food systems are still shaped by incentives, institutions and narratives that favor input-intensive production, monocropping and narrow measures of success such as single-crop yield.

The paper, “Strengthening service and knowledge systems as pathways for addressing barriers to scaling agroecology,” was co-authored by Muhammad Arshad, T.S. Amjath-Babu, Sreejith Aravindakshan, Timothy J. Krupnik and Stefan Sieber. CGIAR co-authors include T.S. Amjath-Babu of CIMMYT and Timothy J. Krupnik of CGIAR’s Scaling for Impact Program. The work acknowledges support from the CGIAR Scaling for Impact Program, which focuses on helping CGIAR science move through policy, market, finance and delivery systems so innovations are used at scale.

The authors synthesize evidence from agriculture, sustainability science, public health and policy research to identify why agroecological transitions remain uneven. They point to barriers across several domains, including weak evidence systems, fragmented policy support, limited market recognition, labor constraints, insufficient advisory capacity and the lack of trained service providers.

A central message is that farmers should not be expected to carry the full burden of transition alone. Agroecology is knowledge-intensive and context-specific. It often requires tailored support on soil health, water management, biological pest control, pollination, agroforestry and habitat management. The paper argues that these functions should increasingly be delivered through specialized service ecosystems, supported by advisory networks, social enterprises, digital tools, finance and local knowledge hubs.

This framing is closely aligned with Scaling for Impact’s mandate: moving beyond the assumption that good innovations will spread on their own. Instead, scaling requires deliberate work to align science with institutions, markets, investment and delivery capacity.

The study also calls for stronger knowledge-brokering models that connect farmers, researchers, service providers and technical advisors. Decentralized demonstration hubs, open-access knowledge platforms and farmer-led research can help generate locally relevant evidence while supporting adaptation across diverse contexts.

Policy and finance also matter. The authors highlight opportunities to repurpose existing mechanisms, including public procurement, eco-labeling, carbon credits, green bonds, impact investment and blended finance, to reward agroecological performance beyond commodity yield. This includes recognizing benefits such as soil health, biodiversity, climate resilience, food safety and public health.

The paper cautions that agroecology should not be reduced to a new label for conventional practices. Without credible standards, robust knowledge systems and anti-greenwashing safeguards, its transformative potential could be diluted.

For CGIAR, the findings reinforce a wider lesson: scaling sustainable food system innovations depends not only on evidence, but on the systems that make evidence usable. Agroecology can contribute to climate resilience, biodiversity, nutrition and livelihoods—but only if countries, investors, researchers and delivery partners build the service and knowledge infrastructure needed to make it practical at scale.