This much we know: the whole world changed in 2020. This virus has made us consider afresh our own lives and relations with other people, our own consumption patterns, our access to natural places, and above all our health. Slow trends will speed up, some for the greater good, some not. We might come to think this was a rehearsal for how economies could be shattered by a climate crisis. One thing has become very clear: when faced with existential threat, we put our value on those working for the public good. Individuals working alone or for themselves will not be able to mitigate or solve this pandemic and its ripple effects. Could this open up a space for more collective and socially-oriented action in agricultural and food systems? And might the planet and our economies come out of this better placed to produce sustainable, equitable and healthy systems for all people? For as long as people and cultures have managed natural resources, collective action has produced systems of efficient and effective offtake as well as sustaining natural capital and valued flows of ecosystem services. A wide range of different types of more sustainable agriculture have recently been developed and implemented, most centring on the notion that making more of existing land by sustainable intensification and collective action can result in synergistic coproduction of food and ecosystem services. Yet at the same time, agriculture is still contributing to biodiversity loss, nutrient loading of the biosphere, climate forcing, depletion of aquifers and surface water, and pollution of air, soil and water (Rockström et al. 2017). We undertook a 2018 global assessment of sustainable intensification (Pretty et al. 2018) to show that systems of agricultural management now require fresh redesign if they are to sustain beneficial outcomes over long periods of time across differing ecological, economic, social and political landscapes. Redesign is a social and institutional challenge, as landscape-scale changes are needed for positive contributions to biodiversity, water quantity and quality, pest management and climate change mitigation. Three non-linear stages were identified: efficiency, substitution and redesign (Hill 1985; Pretty 2018). Efficiency aims to make better use of on-farm and imported resources within existing farm configurations. Many agricultural systems are wasteful, and so on-farm efficiency gains can arise from better management to reduce use, precision targeting of fertiliser, pesticide and water to cause less damage to natural capital and human health. Substitution focuses on the replacement of technologies and practices with more sustainable forms. Forms of substitution include the release of biological control agents to substitute for agrochemical inputs, replacing the use of soil by hydroponics, and no-tillage systems that use new forms of direct seeding and weed management to replace inversion ploughing. Redesign is the stage fundamental for achieving sustainability at geographic scale. Redesign of agroecosystems and landscapes is necessary to harness ecological processes such as predation, parasitism, allelopathy, herbivory, nitrogen fixation and pollination. While efficiency and substitution tend to be incremental within current production systems, redesign should be the most transformative, often resulting in fundamental changes to system components and configurations. Yet redesign also requires protection and expansion of social capital and the capacity for continuing co-production of ecologically and socially viable technologies and practices. Social capital increases trust, reciprocity and mutual obligations, and creates norms that guide behaviours. We have recently also undertaken a global assessment of This article is part of the Topical Collection: Agriculture, Food & Covid-19.

中文翻译：

---

重新设计农业和粮食系统的新机遇

我们知道的很多：整个世界在 2020 年发生了变化。这种病毒让我们重新考虑自己的生活和与他人的关系、我们自己的消费模式、我们对自然场所的访问，尤其是我们的健康。缓慢的趋势会加速，有些是为了更大的利益，有些不是。我们可能会认为这是对经济如何因气候危机而崩溃的预演。一件事变得非常清楚：当面临生存威胁时，我们将我们的价值放在那些为公共利益而努力的人身上。单独或为自己工作的个人将无法减轻或解决这种流行病及其连锁反应。这能否为农业和粮食系统中更多的集体和面向社会的行动开辟空间？并且地球和我们的经济可能会从这个更好地生产可持续发展的环境中脱颖而出，为所有人提供公平和健康的系统？只要人们和文化管理自然资源，集体行动就产生了高效和有效的获取系统，以及维持自然资本和生态系统服务的有价值流动。最近开发和实施了各种不同类型的更具可持续性的农业，其中大部分集中在通过可持续集约化和集体行动来增加现有土地可以导致粮食和生态系统服务协同生产的概念上。然而与此同时，农业仍在导致生物多样性丧失、生物圈养分负荷、气候强迫、含水层和地表水枯竭以及空气、土壤和水的污染（Rockström 等人，2017 年）。我们对可持续集约化进行了 2018 年全球评估（Pretty 等人，2018 年），表明农业管理系统现在需要重新设计，如果它们要在不同的生态、经济、社会和政治环境中长期维持有益的结果。重新设计是一项社会和制度挑战，因为需要改变景观规模才能对生物多样性、水量和质量、害虫管理和减缓气候变化做出积极贡献。确定了三个非线性阶段：效率、替代和重新设计（Hill 1985；Pretty 2018）。效率旨在更好地利用现有农场配置中的农场和进口资源。许多农业系统是浪费的，因此农场效率的提高可以通过更好的管理来减少使用，精确定位肥料、农药和水，以减少对自然资本和人类健康的损害。替代的重点是用更可持续的形式替代技术和实践。替代形式包括释放生物控制剂以替代农用化学品投入，通过水培替代土壤的使用，以及使用新形式的直接播种和杂草管理来替代反转耕作的免耕系统。重新设计是在地理范围内实现可持续性的基础阶段。重新设计农业生态系统和景观对于利用捕食、寄生、化感作用、食草、固氮和授粉等生态过程是必要的。虽然在当前的生产系统中效率和替代往往是递增的，重新设计应该是最具变革性的，通常会导致系统组件和配置发生根本性的变化。然而，重新设计还需要保护和扩大社会资本，以及继续共同生产生态和社会可行的技术和实践的能力。社会资本增加了信任、互惠和相互义务，并创造了指导行为的规范。我们最近还对本文是专题合集的一部分进行了全球评估：农业、食品和 Covid-19。互惠和相互义务，并创建指导行为的规范。我们最近还对本文是专题合集的一部分进行了全球评估：农业、食品和 Covid-19。互惠和相互义务，并创建指导行为的规范。我们最近还对本文是专题合集的一部分进行了全球评估：农业、食品和 Covid-19。