Agriculture is critical to maintaining global food production, the economy, and food security for the growing population (McKenzie and Williams, 2015). Globally, agriculture uses approximately 40–50% of the land area; most of this use has resulted from clearing one-third of the forest land and two-thirds of the wild grassland (Ritchie, 2021). Human pressures to develop land for agriculture have continued to date, with an average of 5 million hectares cleared per annum (between 2000 and 2020). Notably, 95% of this clearing has occurred in the tropics, and 70–75% of total clearing has been primarily for agricultural purposes (Ritchie, 2021). In the past, most agricultural expansion occurred through the large-scale clearing of grasslands, savannas, and forest systems in tropical and temperate regions (Goldewijk, 2001; Foley et al., 2011; Gibbs et al., 2010), whereas recent development is largely limited to the tropics. To achieve food security for the projected 10 billion people by 2050, there is a need for a 35–56% increase in food production while halting any further land clearing and land use change; thus, requiring the development of efficient food systems to meet the increased demand (van Dijk et al., 2021). In this pursuit, any future agricultural expansion has constraints, not least but mainly due to limited and available arable/fertile areas for cultivation and land degradation associated with soil erosion, lack of fertility, salinization, waterlogging, and climate change variability, suggesting the need for new sustainable ways of farming. One such important pathway is to learn from and adapt millennia-old, diverse, and sustainable food systems and practices developed and practised by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) across the globe.

Since the 1950s, with the onset of the Industrial Revolution, modern agriculture has undergone rapid evolution, driven by the Green Revolution, which aimed to increase yields of cereal crops using chemical inputs and improved varieties (Pingali, 2012). The genetic improvement of crop germplasm characterized with short-maturity time/harvesting enhanced the productivity of wheat, rice, maize, potatoes and cassava in developing countries during 1960–2000 (e.g., an increase of 208% for wheat, 109% rice, 157% maize, 78% potatoes, and 36% for cassava production in developing countries) (Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), 2004). These rapid increases in agricultural yields per hectare have been made possible through intensive cropping, the use of chemicals and the over-exploitation of land and water resources. On the one hand, the adoption of modern varieties and the intensification of agricultural systems have increased the global food supply, thereby preventing the conversion of thousands of hectares of land into agricultural land. On the other hand, this intensive cropping practice predominantly relies on the availability of high-yielding varieties of seeds, chemical fertilizers, irrigation, and pesticides, among others, contributing to serious environmental and human health problems (Figure 1; Gamage et al., 2023; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2023; Poore and Nemecek, 2018; Foley et al., 2011; Gibbs et al., 2010). For example, globally, 26% of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions come from food systems (Poore and Nemecek, 2018; Figure 1), occurring mainly due to tenfold increases in fertilization and groundwater use, as well as more than a doubling of mechanized and irrigated areas (Abdo et al., 2024; Ritchie et al., 2022). Similarly, the health impacts of heavy use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides are now well documented on vector-borne diseases, overweight and malnutrition, neurological disorders, respiratory and reproductive disorders (especially due to pesticide toxicity), in addition to leading to inequity in development (Zhou et al., 2025; Sarkar et al., 2012).

The mainstream/modern cropping system focuses on a narrow range of crop species (e.g., rice, wheat, maize) and genetic diversity, while transforming the whole ecosystems to simpler and highly intensive forms of land use (Koohafkan and Altieri, 2011). Such simplification of the agroecosystem has been criticized for reducing the complexity and diversity of agroecosystems, thereby disrupting the natural balance of water, nutrient, and energy flows. The ecological impacts of abandoning traditional practices have led to a serious decline in agrobiodiversity and nutritional values, resulting in increased susceptibility to plant pests and disease problems in many modern agroecosystems, as well as a lower ecological buffer against changing climatic conditions, further adding to social and health issues (Abdo et al., 2024; Puneeth et al., 2024; Zimmerer and de Haan, 2017). Socially, modernization of agriculture has led to disruptions of traditional food systems, practices, knowledge, socio-cultural fabric of farming communities, land scarcity, and insecurity of ownership rights, particularly for millions of smallholder farmers across the globe who could not maintain productivity at the farm scale in the marginal environment (Asai and Antón, 2024). Even though today the agricultural productivity has increased for major crops, mainly rice, wheat, and maize;, smallscale farmers, including IPLCs, face serious problems of access, security, and decline in diverse and nutritious foods (Zimmerer and de Haan, 2017; Asai and Antón, 2024; FAO, 2021).

With increasing concerns about global biodiversity loss and climate change, a shift in the agricultural paradigm is necessary to preserve biodiversity, water resources, and soil fertility while meeting the nutritional needs of a growing human population (Gomiero et al., 2011; Hummer and Hancock, 2015; FAO, 2024). Modern agricultural systems must integrate biological and ecological processes into the food production process to minimize the use of agrochemicals that harm the environment, protect the agrodiversity in the Vavilonian centres for resilient, nutritious and sustainable crops in the future, and the health of farmers and consumers. Moreover, modern mechanized systems have disrupted the socio-cultural network and local knowledge that have existed over millennia in many farming communities across the globe (Cairns, 2007). Substituting human capital for costly external inputs and machinery in highly populated, agriculture-dominant countries such as India, China, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, while contributing to health, social, and environmental problems, seems a deplorable and irrational economic option. Instead, making productive use of people’s collective capacities to work together to solve common agricultural and natural resource problems (e.g., monoculture of food systems, heavy use and pollution of water and land), while producing nutritious and sufficient food, can help deliver multiple benefits (Sangha, 2014; Cairns, 2007; Pretty, 2008; FAO, 2021). In response to those challenges, traditional farming practices can help shift modern agriculture from over-reliance on mechanical and external inputs to food systems with diverse and nutritious crop varieties. The fundamentals of traditional farming system encompass local-scale, fine knowledge of crop and animal varieties, and native forms of sociocultural organisation, which offer promising models for diversified agro-ecological and sustainable food systems requiring little/no agrochemicals (Denevan, 1995; FAO, 2021; FAO, 2024).

The IPLCs’ agroecological systems can help advance agricultural innovations as their cultural, ecological, and agricultural diversity is still evident in many parts of the world. Nearly 5 million hectares of traditional agroecosystems (e.g., raised fields, terraces, polycultures, and agroforestry systems) exist worldwide, contributing to sustain year-round yields, cultural heritage, and ecosystem services on local to global scales (Altieri, 2004). Many such farming systems are recognized under the FAO initiative on Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS; https://www.fao.org/giahs/en), where intricate relationships between people and land have continued to date. Traditional agroecosystems of IPLCs evolved in tandem with biological evolution and ecosystem function, characterized by genetic diversity that occurred without external inputs, capital, or scientific knowledge. IPLCs utilize their experiential knowledge to sustain yields and maintain diverse food sources with readily available micronutrient-rich foods. IPLCs knowledge over generations helps them to learn and adapt to local/place-specific environmental, climatic, and physiographic conditions (Armstrong et al., 2021; FAO, 2021).

We use the terms ‘Indigenous’ and ‘traditional’ to describe farming systems that have been developed and practised by both Indigenous peoples, and local communities, utilising their knowledge, cultural values, norms, practices, transmission modes, and belief systems. Our rationale is that many local communities across Asia and Africa (both host important Vavilonian centres of agrodiversity) have been practising sustainable, traditional farming for millennia; however, a majority of them are not formally recognized as Indigenous (Ahammad et al., 2026). Leaving them out means leaving a significant proportion of practitioners who have practised traditional farming for millennia. Therefore, we use the terms Indigenous, traditional, and IPLC farming systems interchangeably in this paper.

We describe the IPLCs’ agricultural practices, benefits, challenges and threats by reviewing 49 studies that cover all geographical regions, with a dominant representation from Asia, followed by Latin America and Africa. We highlight the key characteristics of IPLCs’ farming systems and outline their role in informing modern agriculture. We anticipate that collating IPLCs’ farming systems-related knowledge and practices can help inform current agricultural practices to create sustainable, diverse, and healthy food farming systems. In doing so, the IPLCs, along with their systems, can also be respected, preserved, advanced, and supported for the benefit of both present and future generations.

In April 2025, we conducted a comprehensive literature search focusing on Indigenous farming systems. To capture a wide range of relevant studies, we developed a set of structured search queries and retrieved publications from the Scopus database. The search incorporated combinations of keywords such as “Indigenous community” OR “Indigenous people” AND “agriculture”; “indigenous practices” OR “traditional ecological knowledge” AND “agriculture”; “indigenous agricultural systems”; “traditional agriculture” AND “agrobiodiversity” OR “indigenous knowledge” “traditional knowledge”; and “traditional farming.” The search was restricted to peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, yielding a total of 49 documents that met our inclusion criteria, specifically: (i) the type of traditional/indigenous farming practices; (ii) the value of produce (both monetary and non-monetary), and (iii) Related challenges.

Our review was guided by the PRISMA 2020 framework following Page et al. (2021). Before screening the literature, we established three guiding scopes that shaped our analysis: the types of Indigenous farming practices documented; the key benefits reported, including contributions to food security, nutrition, and livelihoods; and the primary drivers and motivations underlying these practices, whether market-based, cultural, or ecological. We also recorded the dominant crops or species highlighted across the studies to identify overarching patterns within Indigenous agricultural knowledge.

We systematically screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts of the retrieved publications to identify studies relevant to Indigenous farming systems (Figure 2). The screening process followed three sequential stages: title screening, abstract screening, and full-text review. Only studies published in English between 2018 and 2025 were selected. To ensure comprehensive coverage, we also conducted a supplementary Google search to capture relevant articles not identified through the Scopus database, which resulted in the addition of 22 publications. In total, 49 studies met our inclusion criteria (Figure 2). Eligible studies examined traditional or Indigenous knowledge and practices in farming systems, referenced Indigenous peoples and/or local communities (IPLCs), explored the market and non-market values of agricultural products, or discussed the challenges and barriers associated with practising Indigenous or traditional farming. From each selected study, we extracted key information, including the year of publication, the Indigenous or local groups involved, the types of farming practices documented, the primary benefits reported (e.g., food, nutrition, or livelihood support), the main drivers and motivations (market-based, cultural, or ecological), and the dominant crops or species highlighted.

In addition, our research drew on some seminal global publications on IPLCs’ food and farming systems, such as those from the FAO, as well as others that highlight the issues associated with modern agriculture.

This review synthesised findings from 49 peer-reviewed studies published between 2018 and 2025 that documented the Indigenous and traditional farming systems, practices, and knowledge across diverse geographic regions and ecological contexts. The reviewed literature represents a growing body of research attention to these agricultural systems, with a notable increase in publications in recent years: six studies were published in 2018–2019, 10 in 2020–2021, 22 in 2022–2023, and 11 in 2024–2025. This temporal pattern reflects increasing scientific and policy interest in understanding how traditional knowledge and practices can inform mainstream agriculture and help address contemporary challenges, including climate change, biodiversity loss, and food security.

This paper highlights the importance of IPLCs’ farming systems for applying ecologically sustainable, fine-scale knowledge and practices to grow diverse, nutritious, and climate-adaptive crops, befitting different geographical regions, which can help inform modern, mainstream farming systems (FAO, 2021; Ritchie et al., 2022; Abdo et al., 2024). The IPLCs’ agro-ecological systems are typically community-based, involving fine-scale management of both crops and livestock, intertwined with socio-cultural values to support the livelihoods and wellbeing of people.

IPLC farming systems typically apply agroecological principles for cultivating diverse crops and conserving biodiversity, soil and water resources, as demonstrated in Tables 3 and 4. This aligns with the Agroecology Living Lab (ALL) approach (mainly popular in Europe; https://www.ae4eu.eu/read-more-living-lab/), where the focus is on co-creation, in-situ testing, and the implementation of sustainable farming practices to transform modern agricultural systems (Stone et al., 2025). The ALL approach promotes context-specific transition, integrating modern and traditional techniques. Effective collaborations between these two systems can help transition modern farming at a large scale, in particular, small-scale farms across the Asia-Pacific offer a great opportunity (Rastorgueva et al., 2026).

However, the role and value of IPLC farming systems are often ignored and underestimated in policy-making, primarily because many of their benefits do not translate into the market (Sangha, 2014, 2021). In contrast, the mainstream/modern agricultural systems produce is targeted at markets, with a focus on quantity (rather than quality, diversity, and nutritional values) and a heavy reliance on external inputs (Abdo et al., 2024; Ritchie et al., 2022). Several studies that we reviewed highlighted the market value of local produce, but even that value reflects only a small fraction of the total value of produce from IPLC systems, which deliver a range of health benefits and ecosystem services such as soil conservation, carbon sequestration, biodiversity protection, and water conservation. Warltier et al. (2021) estimated the economic value of Indigenous “country” food (defined as subsistence-focused provisioning based on hunting, fishing and collecting local wild animals and plants) for Nunavut communities in Canada at CA$198 million/year, just for energy and protein values (excluding cultural or social values). Most importantly, the cultural values, traditions and norms linked with sowing, harvesting, and processing local foods shape IPLCs’ identities, stories, and societies. For example, rice is known as a staple food for many Asians, with a direct market value; importantly, it is also considered a symbol of life and prosperity in many religious and cultural ceremonies—a value that can not be measured. A significant gap identified in this review is the lack of studies that highlight the true value of IPLC systems.

A lack of understanding of the importance of IPLC systems further leads to equity issues. Modern agriculture is significantly subsidised by government policies, especially for the use of fertilizers and pesticides/herbicides, while traditional farming systems are being ignored and undermined. The total value of such subsidies exceeds USD 635 billion per year (Gautam et al., 2022; Damania et al., 2023; Hayden and Hayden (2025). A detailed study by Barbier (2025) suggests repurposing current agricultural subsidies to support environmentally friendly agricultural practices. Drucker et al. (2023) proposed developing incentivised mechanisms to preserve agrodiversity and described a successful community-level case study from Malawi.

How can we assess the true value of IPLC farming systems to inform policy decision-makers and the public? The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) report (2018), led by the UNEP on agrifood systems aims to refine the metrics used to measure food systems by applying a holistic approach. Chapter 2 of the same report (by Zhang et al., 2018) proposes a holistic framework for food systems, accounting for natural, social, human, and produced capitals. The IPLCs’ agro-ecological farming systems rank highly in the first three categories for conserving nature, enhancing social cohesion and wellbeing, and human capital for uplifting people’s knowledge and skills—all non-marketable—and low for the ‘produced’ capital—marketable (mainly for sustenance purposes). In contrast, modern farming systems score highly for ‘produced’ capital, which is reflected in the market, but very low on the other three capitals that are non-marketable yet underpin the production system. Applying a metric of four capitals to measure the performance of agro-ecological systems can inform policymakers to invest in supporting IPLC systems.

Currently, IPLC farming systems are rapidly declining due to a range of external pressures and threats, exposing both IPLCs and the broader population to significant risks and challenges (Table 5). A startling dominance of existing industrial food systems, which largely operate at the economies of scale and with substantial subsidies; lack of awareness and education among the public about the importance of traditional foods; lack of government support for the IPLC food systems; and disconnect between food systems, human health and wellbeing, climate and policy actions were well highlighted by Webb et al. (2021).

To mitigate the above challenges and risks, urgent action is needed to support traditional systems, including reviving knowledge, skills, and implementing culturally appropriate incentivising mechanisms and policy programs to restore IPLC farming systems (Drucker et al., 2023; Zimmerer and de Haan, 2017). Globally, recognition of IPLC food systems is beginning to emerge, for example, the FAO initiative on Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems.¹ But, the financial investment and government support are yet to follow (International Network of Mountain Indigenous People (INMIP), 2021; von Braun et al., 2021). Recently, broader investments in supporting IPLCs efforts were highlighted by the United Nations Global Biodiversity Framework Fund, ratified at the 7th Assembly of the Global Environment Facility, to invest 20% of its resources to directly support IPLC’ initiatives to protect and conserve biodiversity. Yet, strong financial support directly for the IPLC food systems is largely missing, mainly due to the prevalent and dominant corporate culture of existing industrial food systems (Canfield et al., 2021). Cognizant of the social and environmental problems of the current food systems, the UN Secretary-General organized a high-level UN Food Systems Summit (UNFSS) in Sept 2021 to emphasize transforming the current food systems that are responsible for 1/3rd of global GHG emissions and to develop equitable and sustainable food systems that offer food security and nutrition for all (Canfield et al., 2021), and the local, Indigenous and native food systems were the highlight for this change.

The IPLC farming systems can be the game-changer for global food sustainability, security, nutrition, and resilience for offering:

Some initiatives in the past have proven useful in supporting IPLC systems, such as microfinance or social finance schemes (International Fund for Agricultural Development – https://www.ifad.org/en/web/operations/-/project/1100001284), local community initiatives, and others. Community-led initiatives such as ‘seed banks’ or ‘slow food’ movements are also becoming common. Seed banks are typically aimed at saving plant diversity, seeds as genetic pools, that may be useful in future research while ‘slow food’ movements promote local, authentic, and conscientious production, preparation and consumption of food. In India, a farmer-led local organisation, Navdanya, is actively working to preserve the biological and cultural diversity of food systems in 22 states, with more than 150 community seed banks to support the production of local, authentic/culturally relevant, and chemical-free food systems.² Establishing IPLC-based, self-governed organisations and cooperatives with networks across the loca, regional and national scales can help progress the IPLCs as well as update modern farming systems at a faster rate and wider scale while equally meeting Sustainable Development Goals (1, 2, 3, 13–17) and affording equitable, sustainable, economically viable, nutritious and resilient food systems for the global populations.

This review of 49 studies on IPLC farming systems reveals that these systems are ecologically rich and culturally embedded, featuring high agrobiodiversity, integrated production, and advanced resource management. They effectively conserve soil, reduce pest damage, and maintain crop diversity, yet face serious threats including knowledge loss, economic marginalisation, youth out-migration, policy bias, and climate stress. While descriptive and functional benefits are well-supported by evidence, broader claims about sustainability and scalability lack empirical rigour. Most studies do not compare IPLC systems with modern agriculture or provide quantitative productivity data, highlighting a gap between advocacy and evidence.

This review presents the first comprehensive synthesis of IPLC farming systems. It highlights the “diversity-yield trade-off,” where high agrobiodiversity comes with 20–40% lower crop yields, a tension often overlooked in policy debates. Rather than framing IPLC and modern agriculture as opposites, the review proposes an integration approach, showing that hybrid systems—combining traditional techniques with modern practices—can deliver multiple benefits and ALL approach, as mentioned earlier, can help realize this opportunity at a large scale. The review identifies key knowledge deficits, including a lack of productivity comparisons, economic analyses, scalability studies, and failure assessments, and highlights geographic and temporal biases in the literature. Finally, it recommends applying TEEB’s agro-ecosystems framework to better understand IPLC contributions beyond conventional economic metrics.

To support IPLC farming systems, policymakers must reallocate agricultural subsidies toward agroecological and traditional practices, introduce payments for ecosystem services, and eliminate harmful subsidies that disadvantage traditional methods. Given the rapid loss of knowledge, urgent action is needed to document and transmit traditional knowledge through education, elder engagement, and youth programs. Synthesis efforts should produce meta-analyses that integrate social, ecological, and economic aspects, and decision-support tools to guide context-specific applications—recognising the urgency as IPLC systems and knowledge are disappearing faster than they can be studied.