Agroecology at a crossroads: Reflections from the Second Eastern Africa Agroecology Conference

The second Eastern Africa Agroecology Conference (EAAC25), held in March 2025 in Nairobi under the theme “Harnessing the Potential of Agroecology in Transforming and Sustaining Resilient Agri-Food Systems,” brought together policymakers, experts, and advocates from across the region and beyond. For three vibrant days, the conference served as a dynamic platform for knowledge exchanges, exhibitions, scientific presentations, and side events. Yet, beneath the enlightening discourse, certain gaps and contradictions emerged, raising critical questions about the future trajectory of agroecology in the region. 

The nostalgia trap: agroecology as “moving backward?” 

A troubling theme that arose was the characterisation of agroecology as a return to “traditional” or “ancestral” farming. One high-ranking government official even asserted, “the agroecological transition... means we are moving backward [to what our ancestors did],” prompting enthusiastic applause from the audience.  

While the wisdom of our forefathers and foremothers is doubtlessly still invaluable, reducing agroecology to a romanticised past fundamentally misrepresents its highly scientific and innovative nature. This narrative even risks alienating many in the younger generations who are already in the midst of disengaging from agriculture. Agroecology must not be framed as a return to the past, but rather a paradigm shift in modern agriculture – one that centres ecological principles, cutting-edge science, biodiversity conservation, local communities, and systemic equity. To advance the movement, proponents must emphasise this forward-looking vision – not obscure agroecology’s foundations by framing it as a regression into the past. 

The limits of evidence in advocacy: confronting the structural barriers 

EAAC25 overwhelmingly focused on presenting evidence to validate and defend agroecology, showcasing research advancements and success stories. While empirical evidence is important, the conference neglected to address the true motivations of the opposition.  

“At its core, agroecology strives towards three primary goals,” says Professor Alex Awiti of the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry. “First, enhancing nutrient use efficiency optimising nutrient cycling and agronomic efficiency of nitrogen and phosphorous. Second, strengthening resilience of social and ecological systems, which includes diversifying crops diversity and livelihoods. Third, securing social equity to advance economic participation and fairness through stronger connectivity to markets and value chains. These are outcomes which no one would disagree with and are critical to addressing the current challenges associated with maintaining the status quo.”  

Yet opposition against agroecology persists, not due to ignorance or lack of evidence, but because agroecology threatens those who benefit from the status quo – particularly industries with a vested interest in industrial agriculture’s dominance. They have seen the evidence. They simply resist change that threatens their power and profit.  

The fundamental hurdle to be overcome is not proving that agroecology works but dismantling the structural barriers that hinder its full adoption both regionally and globally. Continuing to focus on evidence at the detriment of the political economy risks catering to those who oppose agroecology not out of ignorance, but self-interest. To gain more meaningful support in both the public and private sectors, future dialogues must shift focus: from trying to prove agroecology works to those who won’t listen, to prioritising meaningful policy change and confronting outdated narratives perpetuated by beneficiaries of the status quo.  

The unaddressed threat of GMOs 

A striking omission from the conference was the lack of engagement with the rapid advancement of genetically modified (GMO) crops in Eastern Africa. Countries across the region are actively pursuing or adopting GMOs. Kenya has lifted its GMO ban – rollout now hinges on the outcome of a pending count appeal. Uganda is conducting research. Ethiopia is investing in biotechnology initiatives, and Rwanda has enacted biosafety legislation – a decisive step toward welcoming GMOs. Although proponents argue that GMOs will enhance food security and address climate challenges, their expansion directly undermines the core tenets of agroecology – biodiversity, sound governance of natural resources, and reduced reliance on external inputs.  

David Otieno of the Kenya Peasants League, the leading petitioner challenging Kenya’s decision to lift the GMO ban, expressed his frustration: “The introduction of GMOs poses a grave threat to the fragile space for agroecology, yet these developments are largely ignored. Even if some suggest that agroecology and GMOs could coexist, no mechanisms exist to facilitate this.”  

In overlooking these critical developments, the conference missed an essential opportunity to address the existential challenges facing agroecology in the region. If we are to forge a sustainable and just food system, agroecology advocates must confront, not ignore, the developments surrounding GMOs – an issue which threatens the very space for agroecology. 

Whose voice truly matters?  

Co-creation of knowledge, the fundamental principle at the heart of agroecology, demands equitable participation for local communities and regard for Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge. Yet the genuine embodiment of this principle is not yet within our grasp. Farmers and grassroots practitioners, although present at the conference, struggled to engage with the highly technical and scientific discourse and terminology.  

During one of the parallel sessions, Dr. Frank Tchuwa of Lilongwe University highlighted how power dynamics can distort policymaking. He presented Malawi as a case study, explaining how farmers who had previously expressed their interest in growing a range of indigenous crops pivoted to more commercially favored crops, like cabbage and spinach, after being warned that government officials would only fund the latter. What made this presentation particularly interesting was its rigor in tracing influence pathways across multi-stakeholder settings, ultimately revealing how structural power imbalances systematically silence producer voices.  

We must comprehend and confront unequal power dynamics as we collectively work to elevate awareness, adoption, and support for agroecology. Meaningful inclusion of producers in agroecology spaces such as EAAC25 will require deliberate efforts to restructure with equity at the centre – simplifying technical jargon, providing translations and recorded videos, and creating dedicated sessions that prioritise producers' expertise. Their insights are crucial for our collective journey toward sustainable agricultural practices, and without them, advocates for agroecology risk perpetuating the very top-down approaches they seek to challenge. 

Nourishing the movement: the missing political strategy 

While the conference excelled in showcasing innovation and science, it fell short in addressing how to cultivate a powerful grassroots agroecological movement. As Million Belay, General Coordinator of the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA) aptly stated, “Change grows in solidarity. Without a social movement, agroecology is merely a technical solution within an unjust system.” 

It is the grassroots movement that will truly drive dialogue across all levels of governance and decision-making. The conference missed an essential opportunity to strategise collective action to mobilise key stakeholders, form regional alliances, and exert pressure on decision-makers.  

Because convenings like EAAC25 play a crucial role in building the agroecological movement, we must pay close attention to ensure that each element of the convening reflects the core values and aspirations of agroecology. Future convenings must move beyond boardroom discussions and scientific presentations and instead dedicate space to movement-building – creating narratives that are accessible and relatable to everyone, empowering communities, and turning knowledge into action for a just food system. 

Toward a more strategic future for agroecology 

EAAC25 showcased both the vitality and shortcomings of the current state of agroecology in Eastern Africa. Although the science was robust, key gaps – regressive appeals to tradition, failure to address glaring threats like GMOs, perpetuation of unequal power dynamics, and inadequate efforts to develop grassroots mobilisation strategies – persisted. Future platforms for agroecology in the region must pay close attention to these gaps. 

A more strategic and principled approach to agroecology would confront challenges facing the movement head-on, rather than sweeping them under the rug. Agroecology advocates must be bold in their vision and remain true to their principles, knowledge and narratives. Misleading narratives about agroecology are not mere slips of the tongue – they reflect deep-seated opposition, particularly in spaces of power and influence, aimed at eroding its true value. The stakes of the agroecological movement’s success could not be higher.  The ecological integrity and resilience of our planet, our food security, our ability to adapt to climate change, and the socio-economic equity of our communities depend on it.