The Contested Discourse of Sustainable Agriculture 1,2 Desmond McNeill University of Oslo Abstract The article critically analyses how the transformative ambition of the SDGs may be threatened in the process of moving from vision, through goals and targets to indicators. This is exemplified by a case study concerning sustainable agriculture, and most specifically indicator 2.4.1, where two contrasting approaches – industrial agriculture and agro-ecology – stand in opposi- tion, each with its associated discourse and interests. The process is analysed in great detail, noting the complex interplay of political and technical considerations. FAO has played a central role in establishing a compromise with regard to the wording of indicator 2.4.1 which papers over the disagreements and does not explicitly promote either of the two competing approaches. And the organisation has facilitated a technical process which, instead of one simple indicator, has led to a com- posite, multidimensional version with nine sub-indicators, as a result of which it has been relegated to ‘Tier III’ status, implying that it will not be used for global monitoring purposes. The article concludes that – owing to a combination of political and technical factors – the transformative potential of the SDGs may, in this instance, be lost. The simplicity of the MDG indicator and monitoring framework is one of the main reasons why the monitoring exercise was effective (UN, 2015a). The primary tension, if not conflict, in seeking to achieve sustainable development is between maximising economic growth and protecting the environment. And one of the sectors in which this is most evident is agriculture, where the ‘battle-lines’ are rather clearly drawn. In brief, two major approaches may be distinguished – which I will, for simplic- ity, refer to as ‘industrial agriculture’ and ‘agro-ecology’. The former, also known as ‘productionist’ (Lang and Barling, 2013), tends to promote large-scale farming and place emphasis on increasing productivity through, for example, greater use of fertilisers and pesticides. The latter argues that such methods have serious negative environmental consequences and are ultimately unsustainable. This article traces the fate of these competing approaches as mani- fested in the process of moving from the sustainable devel- opment goals and targets through to the selection of indicators; and more precisely indicator 2.4.1: ‘Proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agricul- ture’. At the time of writing, this indicator is classified as Tier III, implying that it will not be used for global monitoring purposes. A request to reclassify it as Tier II was submitted to the meeting of the Inter-agency and Expert Group on SDG Indicators (IAEG-SDGs) on 11–14 November 2017, in their capacity as Indicator Custodian Agency, but this was rejected. As a result – owing to a combination of political and technical factors – the transformative potential of the SDGs may, in this instance, be lost. The ambition of those promoting agro-ecology is to replace the dominant productionist food regime promoted by industrial agriculture by one that is very different. In this, they confront not only vested interests but also certain taken-for-granted claims about the merits, even inevitability, of industrial agriculture. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development sets out a vision for the future, in which con- cern for the environment occupies a central role. This vision then becomes translated into concrete terms: into goals, tar- gets and indicators. And here the issue of how to define sustainable agriculture becomes crucial. The fact that the term is explicitly used might seem to indicate support for agro-ecology. But advocates of industrial agriculture claim that their approach is sustainable, so that conflict between the two approaches is simply papered over. Industrial agriculture is currently the dominant international approach and, I suggest, the SDG process will not serve as an effective challenge so long as the relevant indicator can be interpreted to support both competing approaches. And there is little evidence to suggest that this situation is chang- ing; rather the reverse, as I shall seek to show. In this article I trace in some detail the SDG process from vision, through goals and targets, to indicators – drawing mainly on the huge volume of information available on UN websites, which include not only minutes of meetings, documents submitted, etc. but also the results of numerous consultations. This infor- mation is supplemented by meetings and email contact with a few well-informed individuals, some within FAO. The situation in mid-2018 is that instead of only one, or maximum two, indicators, a multidimensional indicator has been proposed, as shown in Table 1. But this proposal has not been accepted by the international body with the authority to approve the indicators, the IAEG-SDGs. It remains in the category ‘Tier III’, meaning that it ‘does not yet have an internationally recognized methodology nor © 2019 University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Global Policy (2019) 10:Suppl.1 doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12603 Global Policy Volume 10 . Supplement 1 . January 2019 16 Special Issue Article