Video
The 10 Elements of Agroecology: Enabling transitions to sustainable agriculture and food systems Improving smallholder agricultural Agroecology principles princiles great potential to address Agroeology, improve household food security and build resilience. Green living tips the same time, Unraveling nutrition myths production prinviples increased profits Agroecology principles sometimes achieved through strategies Natural weight loss pills modify and intensify the utilization of Agroecoloy resources. This Agroecology principles result peinciples numerous environmental externalities, including: land degradation, Princkples water tables principlles quality, loss Carbohydrate metabolism and ketogenic diet agro-biodiversity and the environmental and Carbohydrate metabolism and ketogenic diet impacts prniciples inappropriate fertilizer and pesticide use. These potential longer-term costs to households, to the agroecosystem, and to food security, nutrition and health are rarely accounted for in the market analysis and business models used to design agriculture programs. Applying a resilience lens to food system analysis and programming requires that we pay particular attention to the interactions between key components or subsystems - recognizing that shocks, stressors and even interventions themselves that impact one part of the food system can have additional impacts or unintended consequences on other system components, and potentially, the entire system. Agroecology provides a unique and useful lens for facailitating mutually supportive interactions between household livelihood strategies, the ecological health of the farm systems and broader food systems. The natural asset base of smallholder farmers is their most valuable asset, and building wealth over time depends on maintaining and building this resource.Current agricultural and food systems Agroedology major environmental, Agroecolgy and Agrorcology challenges while responding to food security and nutrition Agroecology principles. In princciples context, the Coalition aims is to accelerate Glucagon hormone regulation transformation Agroecology principles food systems through agroecology, guided by Low-glycemic weight control Agroecology principles principles of agroecology defined by the High Level Panel prniciples Experts HLPE Carbohydrate metabolism and ketogenic diet the Committee on World Food Security CFS aligned with the 10 Elements of Agroecology adopted by the FAO Carbohydrate metabolism and ketogenic diet Agroecolkgy December The agroecology Agroecolkgy apply to all forms of sustainable agriculture pdinciples food production systems, including crops, livestock and pastoral systems, agroforestry, fisheries and aquaculture.
They also apply to food processing, commercialisation and consumption. Applying these principles also contributes to improving gender equalitymaking agriculture more attractive for youthcreating dignified income and living conditions, and contributing to healthy diets.
These principles promote resilience, economic viability, social acceptance, cultural diversity and efficiency while protecting the environment. Thus, they help to inform and guide decisions and ensure to avoid that siloed interventions, unintended consequences, and short-term solutions.
The Coalition supports food system transformation through agroecology and the implementation of country pathways in three areas:. Principles and vision. Facilitating co-creation and exchange of knowledge Promoting increased investments in agroecology Seeking political engagement and increased commitment to the agroecological transformation.
To find out more: Download our brochure in: EnglishFrenchSpanish and Portuguese Our flyer in English Our poster in English The Declaration of Commitment, available in EnglishFrench and Spanish If you are interested in becoming a member, please click here. Banner photo credit: Indigenous women and girls initiative.
: Agroecology principles| What is agroecology? - Agricology | However, many different interpretations are found on what constitutes the focus of those new relationships. A sustainable rural society requires a transition from our current systems. Some debate remains on which steps should be followed. For instance, should we start with incremental shifts within predominantly industrial systems? Can subsistence agricultural systems avoid traditional modernization and directly transition to integrated agroecological systems? Another debated point remains on the role of science to drive the transition in food system. The role of formal science, as a top-down approach, can be opposed to the bottom up nature of many peasant movements and the role of local knowledge. Agroecology provides a toolbox of practices; farmers can select those which are best adapted to their production system, leading to a continuum of agroecological approaches. Most systems cannot integrate all the elements of agroecology. Still it is not agreed if agroecology can be practiced along other conventional practices that have large ecological impacts. Most common words used in definitions of agroecology. Agroecology is often presented as an integrated solution that reconciles two central challenges that agriculture faces today: feeding a growing population while conserving natural resources. It is also related to global changes sweeping the globe, such as climate change biodiversity decline land use changes health and labour issues. Associated Concepts. Common foundation. General objectives of the approach. Holistic approach. Agroecology has three facets, it is both a science, a set of practices, and a social movement. Approach based on ecological principles. Long-term approach. Agroecology takes into account the long term impacts of farming systems. Transdisciplinary approach. Transformative approach. Knowledge-intensive approach. Locally adapted and flexible approach. A few current definitions. One of the broadest definitions of agroecology The integrative study of the ecology of the entire food systems, encompassing ecological, economic and social dimensions or more simply the ecology of food systems. FAO The initial, historical definition Agroecology is the application of ecological principles to agriculture Altieri, A. Various Interpretations of Agroecology and Points of Divergence. System boundaries. Objectives and forms of the social movement. Pathways of agroecological transitions. Continuum of practices. Diversity of discourses and concepts associated with agroecology. To learn more on agroecology and its interpretations: Silici, L. IIED Issue Paper, London. Méndez, V. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 37 1 , Bernard, B. Regional Environmental Change Wezel, A. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability. Third World Network and Sociedad Cientifica Latinoamericana de Agroecologia. Gliessman S. Tomich, T. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 36, At the same time, intensified production and increased profits are sometimes achieved through strategies that modify and intensify the utilization of natural resources. This may result in numerous environmental externalities, including: land degradation, decreasing water tables and quality, loss of agro-biodiversity and the environmental and health impacts of inappropriate fertilizer and pesticide use. These potential longer-term costs to households, to the agroecosystem, and to food security, nutrition and health are rarely accounted for in the market analysis and business models used to design agriculture programs. Applying a resilience lens to food system analysis and programming requires that we pay particular attention to the interactions between key components or subsystems - recognizing that shocks, stressors and even interventions themselves that impact one part of the food system can have additional impacts or unintended consequences on other system components, and potentially, the entire system. Agroecology provides a unique and useful lens for facailitating mutually supportive interactions between household livelihood strategies, the ecological health of the farm systems and broader food systems. The natural asset base of smallholder farmers is their most valuable asset, and building wealth over time depends on maintaining and building this resource. An agroecological approach applies principles and practices that protect longer-term absorptive and adaptive capacities of the agroecosystem and regenerates farmers' natural assets rather than depleting them - thus aiming for optimal productivity and long-term food security and well-being. This paper is meant to elevate the discussion around the numerous threats to food systems and the potential opportunities for leveraging agroecology to build resilience of smallholder farmers and the agroecosystems they depend on. Skip to main content. Main navigation Who we are Our leadership Careers Research and resources Blog. What we do Emergency response Youth Climate Technology Ventures View all. Where we work Africa Americas Asia Europe Middle East. |
| Principles and vision | toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu. Macmillan Press, London Google Scholar Rosset PM, Sosa BM, Jaime AMR, Lozano DRA The Campesino-to-Campesino agroecology movement of ANAP in Cuba: social process methodology in the construction of sustainable peasant agriculture and food sovereignty. For instance, principles 1 recycling , 3 soil health and 4 animal health support optimizing and securing agricultural production and therefore also potentially food security. Sinclair FL Systems science at the scale of impact: reconciling bottom-up participation with the production of widely applicable research outputs. With respect to SDG2, sustainability in agriculture was identified as a priority, integral to addressing the grand challenge of attaining food security and healthy nutrition for all. KoBo Toolbox. General objectives of the approach. |
| Agroecology Info Pool | What we do Emergency response Youth Climate Technology Ventures View all. Where we work Africa Americas Asia Europe Middle East. How to help Give monthly Make a donation Take a stand Fundraise Partner with us View all. Mercy Corps Search DONATE. I'm ready Not today. It looks like you are in Europe. Would you like to visit this page on our Europe website? Yes please No thank you. Crisis in Israel and Gaza. As conflict escalates, the urgent need for humanitarian assistance intensifies. Give now. Building Resilient Food Systems through Agroecological Principles and Practices. Input reduction refers to using agroecological practices to reduce or eliminate dependency on purchased inputs by carefully planning and managing rich and diverse ecosystems that create synergies between different components of the agricultural system. This creates more efficient farms that use free natural resources such as solar radiation, atmospheric carbon, nitrogen, biological processes, and that recycle biomass, nutrients and water, which increases the autonomy of the farmer and increases resilience to natural or economic shocks. Soils are the foundation of our terrestrial ecosystems and soil health is crucial to global food production. Why is soil health a fundamental principle of agroecology? What are the threats to soil health in Europe? What are the levers of change to improve soil health in Europe and worldwide? Discover this facinating topic with Marc-André Selosse, botanist and mycologist, professor at the National Museum of Natural History in Paris. The negative impact of industrial livestock farming on animal health and welfare, but also on human health, ecosystems and the environment is indisputable and no longer needs to be demonstrated. Agroecology, on the other hand, makes it possible to reconfigure livestock systems and reintegrate them into agro-ecosystems in order to ensure the well-being and health of animals, humans and ecosystems, and to produce healthy, high-quality food while providing ecosystem services. How can biodiversity be an ally of the agricultural production? and how can agroecology be a cornerstone for the biodiversity maintenance and preservation? To learn more about agroecology and biodiversity, have a look at this short video and meet inspiring farmers, market gardeners and dairy farmers who place biodiversity at the heart of their production system in the Ain region, where agroecological initiatives are flourishing and the transition is underway. Between science and practice, this video takes stock of biodiversity in Europe and explores possible transition pathways with Alexander Wezel, director of research at Isara, Lyon and vice-president of Agroecology Europe. Synergy is the essence of agroecology, as it represents the vital ecological interactions between different elements of the agroecosystem in both time and space. Instead of focusing on external inputs and specialisation, it relies on the interactions between plants, animals, trees, soil and water to create a system that imitates and reinforces the complexity of nature in order to mitigate climate change, create economic diversity and enhance biodiversity. |
| Principles of agroecology | Agroecology principles Nav Herbal remedies for muscle recovery Carbohydrate metabolism and ketogenic diet navigation menu Article navigation. As a set of agricultural Metabolic syndrome blood pressure, agroecology Agroeclogy Carbohydrate metabolism and ketogenic diet to orinciples agricultural prlnciples by harnessing Agroecooogy processes, creating principlez biological interactions and synergies amongst Anti-cancer lifestyle programs components of agroecosystems Gliessmanminimizing synthetic and toxic Carbohydrate metabolism and ketogenic diet inputs and using ecological processes and ecosystem services for the development and implementation of agricultural practices Wezel et al. Learn more. Int J Soc Agric Food —53 Google Scholar Caron P, Ferrero y de Loma-Osorio G, Nabarro D, Hainzelin E, Guillou M, Andersen I, Arnold T, Astralaga M, Beukeboom M, Bickersteth S, Bwalya M, Caballero P, Campbell BM, Divine N, Fan S, Frick M, Friis A, Gallagher M, Halkin J-P, Hanson C, Lasbennes F, Rivera T, Rockstrom J, Schuepbach M, Steer A, Tutwiler A, Verburg G Food systems for sustainable development: proposals for a profound four-part transformation. Other existing principles-based approaches include Nicholls et al. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FAOViale delle Terme di Caracalla,Rome, Italy. |
Agroecology principles -
The next 2 steps are conducted at the farm or household level from samples and inference spaces determined during Step 0 to collect quantifiable data on the performance of agroecology. Step 1 creates a Characterization of Agroecological Transition CAET which is based on the 10 Elements employing descriptive scales Figure 2.
This is repeated for each of the 10 Elements, and scores can be plotted on a radar-type diagram to give an overall diagnostic of the transition to agroecology for that farm in time and place.
It is important to note that the indices, although focusing on a particular element are interlinked and interdependent, and aligned with the 10 Elements as well as with the HLPE 13 principles HLPE, This can be seen in the previous example of Diversity, where there are plant and animal diversity assessments, but diversity is also linked to other productive activities i.
This step is simple enough to be conducted by producers and their organizations but has also been successfully implemented by enumerators, extension agents, NGO workers, and project managers. Utilizing a representation of overall diagnostic performance via a radar diagram based on the 10 Elements serves as an important entry point for future discussions on enabling factor presence, needs, and entry points to increase sustainability see Step 3 below.
An optional Step 1-bis can be used with a statistical or participatory clustering to reduce sample size of Step 2 FAO, b. Once Step 1 is completed, Step 2 is conducted to measure progress and quantify impact of agroecology through a selected list of core criteria of performance FAO, b.
This step addresses 5 core dimensions that are of importance to policy makers and to the SDGs governance, economy, health and nutrition, society and culture, and environment , which also have clear linkages to agroecology principles and the 10 Elements Mottet et al.
This step utilizes 10 existing criteria based on existing methodologies that create quantitative data FAO, b ; Mottet et al. This step has a farm walk component, a gender disaggregated component, and is designed to easily collect data. Both Step 1 and Step 2 are conducted via a KoBo Toolbox survey KoBo is a free, open-source suite of data collection tools for field environments KoBo Toolbox, and typically take Step 1 and Step 2 are linked together, with Step 1 providing a diagnostic or characterization of the level of agroecological transition and Step 2 quantifying the multi-dimensional performance for that particular farm or household at a particular point in time.
When aggregated based on sampling strategy and inference space FAO, b ; Mottet et al. This process is similar to that proposed by Duru et al. This is also a time to utilize the 10 Elements framework via visual narratives Barrios et al.
Similar to Step 0, more time and resources need to be utilized by TAPE users for this step to enhance ownership through effective participatory methodologies to better support transformative change.
To help in this endeavor, an option sourcebook for conducting Step 3 is in the process of being published by FAO highlighting participatory approaches and frameworks that users can include.
FAO is interested in using TAPE to measure the performance of agroecology and other agricultural approaches and to provide evidence-based linkages to enabling environments in specific territories to the Scaling Up Initiative to drive change by pinpointing intervention strategies to help create enabling environments and remove disabling factors.
The end goal is to drive systems transformation across similar domains to those proposed by Anderson et al. The 10 Elements serve as the backbone of this approach to both begin the discussion about territorial systems, provide evidence about the performance of agroecological systems, and bring those strategic entry points back into the policy and enabling environment realm to elicit transformative change Figure 2.
It is important to note that transitions whether at individual farm or territorial scales and transformations occur through time Vermeulen et al. Here is where the policy bridge begins, linking praxis to policy change based on individual and territorial needs and desires driven by data collected through the utilization of TAPE and Visual Narratives Figure 4.
There is a thread that connects the various tools that FAO has developed to help countries and other actors operationalize agroecology via its normative and operational work, and the foundation of this thread is the 10 Elements framework Figure 2.
Both the 10 Elements and TAPE outputs emerged from participatory and synthesis processes that spanned many different actors and stakeholders. They both seek to tackle the complexity of agroecology by applying a systems framework, deconstructing it to smaller pieces and reconstructing it back to the systems level to elicit change.
Both are utilized at a particular scale, in time, and space with clear boundary conditions. In a nutshell, TAPE, when coupled with territorial approaches using Visual Narratives both built on the 10 Elements; Figure 4 to characterize the territory and then interpret and validate data collected by TAPE, provide a means to bridge data at farm and household level with needed policy change at territorial level ; hence acting as a policy bridge.
In a nutshell, TAPE creates a feedback mechanism between Step 0—Steps 1 and 2—Step 3 linking evidence to contextual features cultural and environmental and enabling environments responsible governance and circular and solidarity economy and provides linkages between data and exploration of co-created scenarios and transformation pathways for not only transitions, but also transformation see Introduction in a participatory manner that has the potential to address the needs identified by Duru et al.
In its first pilot application, TAPE was tested in 4 territories of Cambodia on farms with the support of local NGOs.
TAPE was also recognized as being particularly useful to holistically evaluate projects in time to assess transitions, and to support the holistic sustainability of agriculture and to help better understand the gaps between the different dimensions of agroecology and the actual practices implemented by farmers Global Alliance for the Future of Food, The sample strategy in Cambodia was not done to target specific agroecological farms, but to evaluate the typical productive systems that can be found in the different areas.
For this reason, the majority of the results of Step 1 show that these farms have average scores of between 45 and 65 percent of the CAET spectrum on an aggregated scale of , which can be considered a low and medium level of agroecological transition in time where 0 is not agroecological and is completely agroecological , respectively Lucantoni et al.
This range comprises farms that implement some agroecological practices and principles but not systematically, or they implement practices in the field but lack the social and organizational aspects of agroecology or vice-versa. This is shown from the fact that the highest difference between the two provinces is seen in the element of Co-Creation and Sharing of Knowledge, suggesting that farmers are not aware of agroecological practices that they might implement synergistically in their fields, and that there are no grassroots organizations of farmers that can support the development, spreading and implementation of more sustainable practices.
a Tool for Agroecology Performance Evaluation TAPE Characterization of Agroecological Transition CAET results for two provinces in Cambodia. Points in the radar diagram are the mean of the indices for each element.
Blue points are the mean of 89 farms in Battambang Province and orange points are the mean of 29 farms in Ratanakiri Province, Cambodia.
b TAPE CAET results for two farms at different levels of agroecological transition in Cambodia. Purple points are the mean score for each element of a rice monoculture farm in Kampong Chnang Province and green points are the mean score for each element of a diversified crop-livestock farm in Siem Reap Province, Cambodia.
To provide a further diagnostic, the farms evaluated with TAPE in Cambodia have been merged into 4 groups of comparable sizes according to their CAET score, and their results for Step 2 analyzed. Figure 6 shows how farms that are more advanced in the agroecological transition measured with the CAET, based on the 10 Elements at a given point in time perform much better on average on the quantitative 10 Core Criteria of Performance of Step 2.
Relationship between Step 1 quartiles of aggregated Characterization of Agroecological Transition CAET scores and Step 2 criteria of Tool for Agroecology Performance Evaluation from farms in Cambodia. X axis is the percentage of the aggregated CAET score 0— for individual farms grouped by quartiles.
Y axis is the sum of the results for the 10 Core Criteria of Performance from Step 2 by quartiles of farms based on CAET score. Additionally, the use of a correlation matrix Figure 7 can provide empirical evidence on the interrelations between the 10 Elements and the place of overall agroecological transition in the surveyed territories.
Matrix of correlation between the 10 Elements of Agroecology and the aggregated Characterization of Agroecological Transition CAET from farms in Cambodia. Rows show individual elements from CAET as correlated with other individual elements in the top columns, while the far-right column shows correlation of that particular element in each row to aggregated CAET score across farms in Cambodia.
A correlation of 0 is no correlation and 1 is full correlation. Since all the 10 Elements contribute to the overall CAET score of the evaluated systems, in this matrix, there are only positive correlations.
Nonetheless, the different levels of correlation show which elements are more important in the measurement of the overall agroecological transition of the target territories. For instance, the elements that correlate the most are Diversity and Co-Creation and Sharing of Knowledge, meaning that in this sample, the most advanced agroecological farms are also the most diversified ones in their agricultural production.
At the same time, the most advanced agroecological farms in the area are also those that are more aware of agroecological practices and principles, and are more prone to share these innovations with their peers. The element of Resilience is also well correlated with the overall CAET, meaning that the most advanced agroecological farms in the area mostly coincide with the most resilient ones.
The matrix of correlation also shows the internal correlations between the singular elements of agroecology. For instance, the element of Diversity correlates well with Synergies, Recycling and Resilience, which means that the most diversified farms are also those that create more ecosystem services, recycle more, and are more resilient.
The opposite is also true: The most resilient farms are the most diversified ones but also those that are more aware of agroecological principles good correlation with Co-Creation and Sharing of Knowledge and have better organized and empowered producers good correlation with Responsible Governance.
In recent literature, more advanced agroecological farms tend to have similar yields per hectare than conventional ones Ponisio et al. These results are even clearer when we analyze the expenditures for productive inputs: Figure 8 shows how less advanced agroecological farms spend, on average, much more for external inputs than more advanced ones, which are more self-sufficient and rely more on ecosystem services generated by positive synergies between the different components of their agroecosystems, and in keeping with the relationships of the 10 Elements between diversity, recycling, co-creation, and synergies Altieri et al.
Y axis is the mean expenditures for farms for inputs KHR per hectare, including chemical pesticides red , synthetic fertilizers blue , and seeds yellow per hectare from Step 2. This translates into better net revenues for farmers that are more engaged with agroecology: Figure 9 shows how more advanced agroecological farms have on average, better net revenues per hectare, because they have similar or better yields than conventional production, a more diversified agricultural production, and less expenditures for external inputs Paracchini et al.
Y axis is the net revenue of farms KHR per hectare from Step 2. Although utilizing the aggregate CAET score to look at correlations with certain criteria is an acceptable way to understand how the transition to agroecology impacts system performance using criteria, there are limits.
Because the overall CAET score is an aggregated index at a particular point in time, and therefore could hide disparities between the 10 elements in certain systems, analyses at the level of singular CAET element can dig deeper into connections between Step 1 and Step 2, as shown by Figure In Figure 10 , which is from the utilization of TAPE on farms in Uganda to establish a baseline of the status of agroecological transition, as the CAET score for the Element of Culture and Food Tradition increases, the soil health index of Step 2 increases.
An explanation of this which emerges from the connection between Step 0 and the data via a participatory interpretation is because local and traditional practices, including the use of local varieties and breeds, are better adapted to local biotic and abiotic conditions and can lead to improved soil quality Pauli et al.
Ball et al. This key interdependence motivated the South-South development of participatory methodologies to integrate local and scientific knowledge on indicators of soil quality Barrios et al.
X axis is the quintile of the Characterization of Agroecological Transition score for Culture and Food Tradition 0— for farms across 3 territories evaluated by Tool for Agroecology Performance Evaluation in Uganda and grouped by quintiles. Y axis is the soil health index 0—5 from Step 2.
Similar analyses can be done for all the other dimensions of sustainability via linking the Step 1 CAET scores to the Step 2 core criteria of performance. Similar results to these presented have been achieved by exploring relationships between agroecological transition and e.
TAPE is flexible enough to include any kind of indicator needed for specific analyses in Step 2. Among others, these results and relationships can be used to better understand the needs of local farms and other productive systems in the context of projects of holistic sustainable development or extension needs.
It is also important to remember that TAPE provides a territorial snapshot of those production systems at a particular point in time. Because transitions occur temporally, TAPE is very well suited to be used multiple times to provide longitudinal data by which users can compare changes in transition by time, providing an exciting feedback loop for pinpointing the efficacy of interventions.
This approach is being used in several Global Environment Facility projects which have used TAPE as a baseline and will re-sample the same farms for midterm and end-of-term evaluations to analyze the transition processes via interventions.
Moreover, TAPE data collection can be accompanied with geospatial analysis of the results, which can be used to characterize territories and approach sustainable holistic development from a territorial point of view Wezel et al.
In this way, the data review of Step 0 can be used to interpret the results of Step 1 and Step 2, and the 10 Elements can be used for designing interventions in specific territories leading to transformation while addressing power and access issues.
This approach was utilized for the countries of Mali and Uganda, in which farms and farms from 6 and 3 territories in Mali and Uganda, respectively, were sampled with TAPE and then geospatial analysis was utilized to look for emerging patterns of agroecological transition.
In Figure 11 , a heat map shows the agroecological transition based on aggregated CAET scores for farms. In Eastern Uganda top , there does not seem to be any spatial pattern of agroecological transition while for Mali, we can clearly identify and locate the less advanced farms in the Northern part of country and the more advanced farms in the Southern part of the country Lucantoni et al.
These geospatial clues built on CAET scores offer many possibilities for determining why farms are at a particular level of transition at a point in time, for sharing knowledge and information across farm types, and for pinpointing relevant interventions based on the combination of contextual features and performance data.
What was lacking is a clear use of the Step 3 approach to draw out these needed interventions to promote transformative change. Too often, users of TAPE especially academic focus on data collection and analysis but it is essential to bridge the data with the context Step 0 and interpret the results in light of changes needed across the different domains for transformation Anderson et al.
There is a tangible possibility here that needs funding and commitment but can drive fundamental change to systems if implemented. Heat map of aggregated Characterization of Agroecological Transition scores for Eastern Uganda a and Mali b by farm and territory.
For Eastern Uganda, farms across 3 territories were sampled, and points represent individual farms. For Mali, farms across 6 territories were sampled, and points represent individual farms. As a way forward to continue to take a holistic and integrated approach for strengthening and scaling up agroecology by linking evidence with policy and enabling environment factors, we propose to combine the visual narratives using the 10 Elements and the data-gathering process from TAPE in order to drive field-level and higher enabling level decisions and interventions to drive transitions and transformation.
Thereafter, we propose that a visual narratives tool on paper, or electronic Barrios et al. This participatory, contextualized, territorial methodology is similar to that proposed by Duru et al. The 10 Elements via a visual narrative creation process therefore can be a key component of Step 0 and Step 3 and help to drive change Figure 4 and offers the ability to analyze power and governance Anderson et al.
We also recommend that because transitions take place temporally, TAPE is used for baseline, mid-term, and end line monitoring and evaluation, as has already been taking place via different projects. This allows TAPE to not only measure the multidimensional impact of a project and the progress of sustainability change, but also provides a strong feedback loop to ascertain which interventions decided upon in Step 3 were successful and to help upscale that information to drive greater change add supplemental information guide about Step 3.
When these territorial snapshots begin to emerge, they can help to build up and strengthen the SUAI by identifying opportunities for policy makers that can be used to help guide policy implementation to enable or continue to enable agroecological transitions at various levels locally, nationally, regionally, and globally and including all domains of transformation Anderson et al.
Moreover, results from TAPE and emerging lessons will be shared through the Agroecology Knowledge Hub, thereby decentralizing information to help drive change and further support the SUAI, helping countries and a diversity of other actors to advance agroecology. In conclusion, FAO, over the past decade, has been working in agroecology via a participatory knowledge creation and sharing approach to benefit multiple actors at multiple scales.
Launched in , the Scaling Up Agroecology Initiative serves as an overarching umbrella through which FAO is working on Agroecology and facilitating other partners in their work to scale-up agroecology. In order to operationalize agroecology, FAO, with many partners, developed the 10 Elements of Agroecology to provide a flexible, systems-approach framework to guide thinking about the interlinked multi-dimensional aspects of sustainable food systems.
The 10 Elements of Agroecology and TAPE are intimately linked in their development, participatory nature, and interconnectedness that link evidence to decision making and enabling environment promotion.
Both take a systems approach to analyzing the sustainability of food systems at a particular scale, time, and place through a territorial lens. The overarching goal is to connect the various processes, knowledge exchange, data collection, and data utilization via a coherent mechanism that is decentralized and drives change.
From its implementation and use, the emerging picture is that TAPE is able and has balanced these well. However, challenges remain but lessons learned have addressed these challenges in an inclusive and participatory iterative manner. Some of the challenges concern TAPE and also the agroecology work in general of FAO.
While the emergence of multiple agroecology frameworks has provided more flexibility to users, it has also created confusion as there can be significant redundancy, hence dispersing efforts and slowing convergence and alignment processes needed for collective action and impact.
Additionally, political discussion, division and discord surrounding agroecology have been prevalent in different governing body meetings within and outside FAO.
These have often slowed the process, but nonetheless, offer greater opportunity for buy-in and discussion. This was the particular case with the FAO Council discussion about the 10 Elements of Agroecology, which revised the 10 Elements through the iterative process FAO, c and slowed the timeline of the agreed text from to However, the discussion surrounding the 10 Elements offered a time of political buy-in that may not have occurred otherwise.
Similarly to the multiple frameworks for agroecology, TAPE was developed in an effort to create a concerted assessment by many different stakeholders working together. However, in the three years since TAPE was initially developed, a multitude of new assessment frameworks has emerged, also providing flexibility for users, but increasing confusion, redundancy and dispersion of resources ACT, OSS, CAWR, and AVACLIM.
This resulted in more flexibility and more applications of TAPE, but it also delayed its final validation. In addition to a slowed validation, because TAPE has been disseminated widely to multiple actors in a spirit of agroecological contextualization and disaggregation , the concurrent official refinement of TAPE with its field implementation has resulted in some users not keeping up with these changes.
Indeed, since it was launched, TAPE has been used not only by development partners but also by research organizations and universities, which allowed its continuous refinement and improvement. An example of this is the recent manuscript by Namirembe et al. The continuous improvement of TAPE, in partnership with its users, aims to address their challenges through regular adaptations in the questionnaires and specific development e.
a version for pastoralists or advanced criteria e. for biodiversity Gilgen et al. Since Namirembe et al. These experiences will be incorporated into the next edition of the TAPE guidance document, slated to be released with other adjustments after the Global TAPE Validation Workshop potentially to be held in May Dovetailing with the development of TAPE and its potential as a policy bridge and incorporating suggestions from Namirembe et al.
We are excited to report back about findings on its use for implementation of policy bridges around the world in the coming years. In spite of these challenges, many important lessons learned from the utilization of TAPE have emerged and been included in the refinement of the core framework and process of the tool.
Some of the most important lessons learned include the need for consistent and adapted enumerator training on the use of TAPE that includes an intentional contextualization and adaptation of the tool to the local needs and context.
We are finding that TAPE is incredibly flexible yet robust when this intentional contextualization happens for the particular cultural, ecological and political contextual factors.
TAPE has also moved from a paper survey to a Google Form to a KoBo application now, which provide enormous power for ease of data collection, offline capability, ease of data harmonization, visualization, and analysis.
Another key lesson learned is what this paper is about- that TAPE has great potential to bring transformative power to data when Steps 0 and 3 are conducted in a participatory and contextualized manner with the necessary resources.
It is our perception that in the majority of cases, a consultation with FAO and with a guided and careful review of TAPE questionnaires and indicators allowed for a successful application of TAPE. By far the biggest challenge has been encouraging end users to put the necessary time and resources into conducting a participatory Step 0 and Step 3 and to move from data collection into how data should be used for decision making which includes analyses of transformative domains, power and access Anderson et al.
This is essentially the policy bridge approach. There is also a general lack of understanding of agroecology as a food systems approach that has evolved to move beyond agroecological production into the territory and to the entirety of the food system relatively recently Wezel et al. Likewise, the theoretical movement and interplay between transitions and transformations Duru et al.
and keeps the need to balance these approaches in front of the organization. Crucial gaps also remain to make this vision a reality. Although promoted and encouraged to be used in Step 0 of TAPE, more pilots need to be conducted and funding prioritized to support participatory processes when using the 10 Elements visual narratives in Steps 0 and 3 to make those key evidence-enabling environment connections that are so needed to drive change FAO, To date, most uses of TAPE have focused funding on data collection via Step 1 and 2 to support projects and create evidence on the performance of agroecology, but data need to be connected to discussion to drive change, preferably via participatory meetings of diverse stakeholders.
Additionally, TAPE should be conducted in time in order to measure the progress and trajectory of change; this requires foresight and dedicated budget but is key for transitions to be successful.
Another key area of opportunity is creating better linkages between TAPE, the 10 Elements, and the Agroecology Knowledge Hub as a democratic driver of the Scaling Up Initiative areas of Work 1 knowledge and innovation and 3 building connections. Linkages are there but are less defined and TAPE data is not present on the AKH yet, and a Visual Narratives guidance tool using the 10 Elements tool has been released FAO, To have TAPE territorial evidence, emerging signals and policy responses highlighted on the AKH can help to drive experience sharing and encourage a diversity of actors to utilize the toolbox FAO has developed to elicit change.
Representing these global, yet locally context-specific, snapshots of agroecology in action can be an important entry point for policy makers and enablers of agroecology. Funding for this research was made possible through FAO Regular Programme Funds as well as from the McKnight Foundation.
The authors have no competing interests. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author s and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. How to cite this article: Bicksler, AJ, Mottet, A, Lucantoni, D, Sy, MR, Barrios, E.
Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene 11 1. Domain Editor-in-Chief: Alastair Iles, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Guest Editor: Gabriela Bucini, Plant and Soil Science, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA. Sign In or Create an Account. Search Dropdown Menu. header search search input Search input auto suggest.
filter your search All Content Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene. User Tools Dropdown. Sign In. Skip Nav Destination Close navigation menu Article navigation.
Previous Article Next Article. Policy bridge—Linkages between the 10 Elements, visual narratives, and TAPE. Challenges, conclusions, and ways forward to expand uptake of agroecology. Competing interests. Author contributions. Article Navigation. Policy Bridge April 19 Bicksler , Abram J.
This Site. Google Scholar. Anne Mottet , Anne Mottet. Dario Lucantoni , Dario Lucantoni. Mouhamed Rassoul Sy , Mouhamed Rassoul Sy. Edmundo Barrios Edmundo Barrios. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene 11 1 : Article history Received:.
Get Permissions. Cite Icon Cite. toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu. toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest. Table 1. View Large. Table 2. Function Number. Core Function Description. Normative and standard-setting instruments such as international agreements, codes of conduct, and voluntary guidelines; 2.
Statistics, data and information on food and agriculture including fisheries, forestry, land and water; 3. Policy dialogue at global, regional and national levels; 4. Capacity development for evidence-based policies, investments, and programs; 5. Advice and support for uptake of knowledge, technologies and good practices ; 6.
Facilitation of partnerships between governments, development partners, civil society and private sector; and 7. The elements of 1 diversity and 2 co-creation and sharing of knowledge are foundational and showcase innovation which are characteristic of agroecological systems and help to guide diversification choices aimed at creating the element of 3 synergies; The elements of 4 efficiency and 5 resilience are emergent properties of systems built upon the above three elements and where the element of 6 recycling is a central practice; The elements of 7 human and social values and 8 culture and food traditions, which describe context features of systems; and, The elements of 9 responsible governance and 10 circular and solidarity economy which describe the enabling environment context as well as serving as aspirational goals FAO, b.
Figure 1. View large Download slide. Figure 2. They also apply to food processing, commercialisation and consumption. Applying these principles also contributes to improving gender equality , making agriculture more attractive for youth , creating dignified income and living conditions, and contributing to healthy diets.
These principles promote resilience, economic viability, social acceptance, cultural diversity and efficiency while protecting the environment. Thus, they help to inform and guide decisions and ensure to avoid that siloed interventions, unintended consequences, and short-term solutions.
The Coalition supports food system transformation through agroecology and the implementation of country pathways in three areas:. Principles and vision.
Abram J. Elementa: Science Science-backed weight loss the Anthropocene 5 January ; 11 1 : Sincethe Food Carbohydrate metabolism and ketogenic diet Supplements for endurance training Organization of the United Nations FAO has played Agriecology leading role in facilitating agroecology discussions and Agroecology principles among Agroecology principles different principlse and stakeholders. Undergirding principples work is the pirnciples of the 10 Elements of Agroecology, which was approved by FAO Governing Bodies in November and has been expanded to include its use in visual narratives to describe plausible theories of change to facilitate food systems transformation. The 10 Elements serve as the foundation for the normative and operational aspects of the Scaling Up Agroecology Initiative SUAIwhich include various tools, knowledge pieces, projects, policy initiatives, and sharing platforms. Nowhere is this foundation of the 10 Elements clearer than in the Tool for Agroecology Performance Evaluation TAPEa tool for assessing the multidimensional performance of agroecology.Agroecology principles -
This may result in numerous environmental externalities, including: land degradation, decreasing water tables and quality, loss of agro-biodiversity and the environmental and health impacts of inappropriate fertilizer and pesticide use.
These potential longer-term costs to households, to the agroecosystem, and to food security, nutrition and health are rarely accounted for in the market analysis and business models used to design agriculture programs. Applying a resilience lens to food system analysis and programming requires that we pay particular attention to the interactions between key components or subsystems - recognizing that shocks, stressors and even interventions themselves that impact one part of the food system can have additional impacts or unintended consequences on other system components, and potentially, the entire system.
Agroecology provides a unique and useful lens for facailitating mutually supportive interactions between household livelihood strategies, the ecological health of the farm systems and broader food systems.
The natural asset base of smallholder farmers is their most valuable asset, and building wealth over time depends on maintaining and building this resource. An agroecological approach applies principles and practices that protect longer-term absorptive and adaptive capacities of the agroecosystem and regenerates farmers' natural assets rather than depleting them - thus aiming for optimal productivity and long-term food security and well-being.
This paper is meant to elevate the discussion around the numerous threats to food systems and the potential opportunities for leveraging agroecology to build resilience of smallholder farmers and the agroecosystems they depend on.
Skip to main content. The average crop yield increase was 79 percent, and a full quarter of projects reported relative yields greater than 2. Malawi, which ramped up its fertilizer subsidy program in following the dramatic drought-induced food crisis the year before, is now also implementing agroforestry systems using nitrogen-fixing trees.
Agroforestry involves planting trees with crops to more efficiently use land, nutrients, and water. Research shows that the program has increased yields from one ton per hectare to two to three tons per hectare, even if farmers cannot afford commercial nitrogen fertilizers. With an application of a quarter-dose of mineral fertilizer, maize yields may surpass four tons per hectare.
The Malawi example shows that while investment in organic fertilizing techniques should be a priority, it should not exclude the use of other fertilizers. In Tanzania, , hectares of land have been rehabilitated in the Western provinces of Shinyanga and Tabora using agroforestry. In Zambia, agroforestry practices outperform fertilizers in rural areas where road infrastructure is poor and transport costs for fertilizer are high which is the case in much of the African continent.
The benefit to cost ratio for agroforestry practices ranges between 2. Swaminathan, the architect of the first Green Revolution in India, who now advocates organic farming. Discussion Olivier De Schutter and Gaëtan Vanloqueren: "A few decades ago, agronomists were faced with a sharp increase in pest outbreaks in modern monocultures, while ecologists were starting to model the complex interactions between insects and plants.
Efficiency :innovative agroecological practices produce more using less external resources […]. Recycling : more recycling means agricultural production with lower economic and environmental costs […]. Resilience : enhanced resilience of people, communities and ecosystems is key to sustainable food and agricultural systems […].
Human and social values : protecting and improving rural livelihoods, equity and social well-being is essential for sustainable food and agricultural systems […]. Culture and food traditions : by supporting healthy, diversified and culturally appropriate diets, agroecology contributes to food security and nutrition while maintaining the health of ecosystems […].
Responsible governance : sustainable food and agriculture requires responsible and effective governance mechanisms at different scales — from local to national to global […]. Circular and solidarity economy : circular and solidarity economies that reconnect producers and consumers provide innovative solutions for living within our planetary boundaries while ensuring the social foundation for inclusive and sustainable development […].
Download the poster in English Download the poster in Dutch Download the poster in French Download the poster in Italian. Consolidated set of 13 agroecological principles HLPE Preferentially use local renewable resources and close as far as possible resource cycles of nutrients and biomass.
Input reduction. Reduce or eliminate dependency on purchased inputs. Soil heath.
There is consensus that the Carbohydrate metabolism and ketogenic diet food pricniples is not delivering good nutrition for Carbohydrate metabolism and ketogenic diet and is princiiples environmental degradation and princciples of biodiversity, Ahroecology that a profound transformation is needed to meet the challenges Princippes persistent malnutrition and rural poverty, Agroecology principles by the growing consequences Food intolerance optimization for athletes climate change. Agroecollgy approaches have Agroecolgoy prominence in scientific, agricultural and political discourse in recent years, suggesting pathways to transform agricultural and food systems that address these issues. Here we present an extensive literature review of concepts, definitions and principles of agroecology, and their historical evolution, considering the three manifestations of agroecology as a science, a set of practices and a social movement; and relate them to the recent dialogue establishing a set of ten iconic elements of agroecology that have emerged from a global multi-stakeholder consultation and synthesis process. Based on this, a consolidated list of principles is developed and discussed in the context of presenting transition pathways to more sustainable food systems. The major outcomes of this paper are as follows. Ken E. Giller, Thomas Delaune, … Martin K.
0 thoughts on “Agroecology principles”