Agroecology principles -
In fact, agroecology has been evolving since the term was first used in the s Wezel and Soldat, from an initial focus at the field and farm scale Altieri, ; Vandermeer et al. However, since , FAO has endeavored to help facilitate its up-scaling and out-scaling simultaneously via an approach that seeks to avoid favoring any one group, stakeholder, context, or geographic region, but that is accessible and operable across these considerations.
This current paper attempts to characterize and harmonize the methods, tools, and processes that FAO has developed and is developing to give a systems-wide snapshot of the opportunities present so that agroecology can move forward with more unity and efficacy across the dimensions of sustainability.
Of course, this work has not been without challenges, which this paper will also explore. This framework consists of 5 guiding principles: 1 improving efficiency in the use of resources; 2 conserving, protecting, and enhancing natural ecosystems; 3 protecting and improving rural livelihoods, equity and social well-being; 4 enhancing resilience of people, communities and ecosystems; and 5 promoting good governance of both natural and human systems.
Since , FAO has played a leading role in facilitating specific agroecology discussions and dialogues among many different regions and stakeholders, beginning with the First International Symposium on Agroecology in Following, seven different regional multi-stakeholder meetings were held globally, bringing together policy makers, academics, Civil Society Organizations, and practitioners to discuss the merits and needs of agroecology and how agroecology could be scaled-up to help achieve zero hunger and other SDGs FAO, d ; FAO, g.
Those seven regional dialogues culminated in the Second International Symposium on Agroecology in , bringing together the lessons learned from the prior 8 meetings.
In total, these meetings brought together more than 2, participants from countries FAO, b and launched numerous frameworks, documents, and summaries helpful for expanding agroecology.
Taken together, these outputs and initiatives have served to catalyze the work of FAO on agroecology and facilitate its scaling up and have led to the development of more tools and practical guidance documents.
We will look more in depth at the main building blocks and their interconnectedness and interrelatedness, paying particular attention to how the 10 Elements of Agroecology have helped to underpin all of these initiatives and serve as a glue holding and synergizing them together.
Normative work, which was recently expanded to include 7 core normative functions of the organization Table 2 FAO, , tends to have broader global applicability through activities such as global level databases, scientific and technical standards, and policy-oriented guidance.
Operational work tends to have a focus on a specific country context or group of countries, and includes outputs such as practical guidelines and advice, improved national datasets, and strengthened institutions.
As mentioned before, agroecology has been around a very long time and has taken on particular contextual textures. To document these expressions in an attempt to not favor a particular definition of agroecology, but to create a clear framework for agroecology to advance, FAO initiated a synthesis process of the development of a usable framework combining the outputs of the 8 fora with scientific literature and seminal works on agroecology.
The end product was the 10 Elements framework, whose publication was launched during the Second International Agroecology Symposium in Rome, April FAO, f , approved by FAO Governing Bodies in November , and described in greater detail in Barrios et al. The 10 Elements framework was created to serve as a guide to help countries and other actors operationalize agroecology both through normative and operational means and systematize it across a range of elements that are rooted in the dimensions of sustainability and the realities of agroecology FAO, f and transformative needs Anderson et al.
The 10 Elements are grouped based on the principle functions and inference of those elements and include Figure 1 :. 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.
The 10 Elements of Agroecology as proposed by Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Of particular importance in agroecology and the 10 Elements framework is the idea of scale, time frame, and context, often envisaged in terms of a territory at a given point in time Wezel et al.
A territory offers a particular way of thinking about boundary conditions based on differing factors of interest for framing thoughts and analysis about a food and agricultural system and is the place where a transition process toward sustainable agriculture and food systems is engaged Wezel et al.
A recent review paper details the global consultation process leading to the development of the framework, brings together the scientific evidence supporting each element often found dispersed across the literature, and highlights with real-life examples the usefulness of the framework to facilitate the design of differentiated paths for the transformation of agriculture and food systems Barrios et al.
Offering different entry points, the elements can help facilitate the identification, exploration, characterization, analysis of current systems at different scales and provides plausible theories of transformative change for those systems.
Because the framework was developed in an inclusive manner that does not favor one definition, stakeholder, or region above another, they have universal applicability.
Moreover, by their very nature of multiple entry points, complexity, and interconnectedness, the elements can supersede linear thinking and transformation pathways by offering an interconnected approach to levels of transition more typically associated by vertical scales Gliessman, and not limit systems thinking to pre-set pre-defined principles such as were proposed in the report of the High Level Panel of Experts HLPE, , but offer a basis for articulation of scales, context, and time frames with greater flexibility.
Furthermore, a recent review by Wezel et al. Before and since the 10 Elements were published, other frameworks existed and have been created. It is hoped that in the spirit of agroecology, these can coexist and be utilized by actors depending on their particular needs and contexts, but the abundance of multiple frameworks might bring confusion, which is a concern.
However, criticisms of the 10 Elements have included that the elements are heterogeneous and need to be operationalized, and that the 13 Principles may offer greater granularity and tangible indicators.
The adaptive usefulness of the 10 Elements of Agroecology supports the Scaling Up Initiative by fostering holistic thinking and a systems approach during agroecological transitions. They are finding their home in participatory analyses, mapping exercises to think more holistically about complexity in food and agricultural systems for instance, mapping aspects of national agricultural investment plans against the elements to determine if certain government priorities and policies contribute to or hamper sustainability , and in visual narrative exercises for students, farmers, extension agents, etc.
to help characterize a system. It is in this flexibility that FAO has used nexus analyses and developed visual narratives as a mapping and visioning tool that uses the 10 Elements to represent the realities and plausible pathways of transformative change of systems to help foster complex adaptive thinking around food and agricultural systems Barrios et al.
Unveiled at the Second Symposium, the Scaling Up Agroecology Initiative was launched by FAO together with other major UN partners as a strategic approach to achieve the Agenda.
It was developed through a synthesis process during the regional symposia, built on the needs, experiences, and lessons of a diverse array of stakeholders.
The Initiative was created in synergy with other plans and initiatives, including but not limited to the Agenda, the UN Decade on Family Farming, the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, the UN Decade on Biodiversity, the UN Decade on Action on Nutrition, and others, with the aim to accompany and support national agroecology transition processes through policy and technical capacity building, creating synergies between countries, actors, UN partners, and with the aforementioned plans and initiatives.
Double-sided arrows show interconnected relationships. The main areas of work bridge the normative and operational and include: 1 knowledge and innovation for sustainable food and agricultural systems, 2 policy processes for transformation of food and agricultural systems, and 3 building connections for transformative change.
Five key actions are outlined for scaling up agroecology and serve as a holistic way to support the key areas of work because these actions cut across and connect normative and operational and are accomplished at various scales, cutting across dimensions of sustainability Table 3. Central to these areas of work and key actions is the development of tools, knowledge pieces, and initiatives that support and strengthen the overarching objective of the Initiative and the Agenda.
These areas of work are also similar to and have the potential to address the six domains of transformation access to natural ecosystems, knowledge and culture, systems of exchange, networks, discourse, and gender and equity as proposed by Anderson et al. Strengthen the central role of family farmers and their organizations in safeguarding, utilizing, and accessing natural resources.
Review institutional policy, legal, and financial frameworks to promote agroecology transitions for sustainable food systems. As an overarching umbrella for scaling up agroecology by accompanying and supporting national agroecology transition processes, three key outputs have been created to synergize and strengthen the initiative.
These include: the 10 Elements of Agroecology framework discussed previously , FAO, f , the Agroecology Knowledge Hub AKH , and the TAPE, which link to and support each other, as shown by the double-sided arrows in Figure 2.
As an outgrowth of the experiences, evidence, case studies, lessons learned and needs gathered over the course of 9 international and regional fora on agroecology conducted by FAO, the Agroecology Knowledge Hub FAO, was developed. It was envisioned and developed to engage diverse stakeholders, share knowledge, and aggregate evidence and practices on agroecology across the world but rooted in local contexts and realities.
Its structure and use are built around the element of Co-Creation and Sharing of Knowledge and its use is linked to the 10 Elements, TAPE see below , and the broader Scaling Up Agroecology Initiative to capture, disseminate, and co-create knowledge that is useful for many different actors in agroecology.
Currently, the hub has 2, resources available, is frequented by an average of 16, users per month, and has a newsletter subscription of 3, entities, making it a very sought after resource. A key challenge to agriculture and food systems transformation resides in the difficulty of defining transitions towards sustainability that respond to both local and national expectations and desires, as well as global commitments Caron et al.
Visual narratives using the 10 Elements of Agroecology have been proposed as a possible tool to face this coherence and alignment challenge while enabling agroecological transitions Barrios et al. This involves highlighting promising entry points, namely: biodiversity i.
Thereafter, for each entry point, identifying a promising nexus that highlights outstanding interactions with multiple sectors, and where icons representing each Element build visual narratives to systematically describe plausible theories of transformative change towards sustainable agriculture and food systems.
FAO is in the process of developing a sourcebook for participatory means by which to identify, co-create, design, and implement visual narratives for agrifood systems transformation as highlighted in Barrios et al.
The most advanced use of the 10 Elements by FAO for its normative work is in the creation of the TAPE. TAPE produces multi-dimensional evidence on the performance of agroecology across the dimensions of sustainability, which is rooted in the 10 Elements Figure 2.
This tool was designed to be easy to use and requires few resources, while at the same time providing a thorough overview of the overall sustainability of a system at a given point in time. Its analysis of performance is explicitly linked to the SDGs.
The result is a comprehensive tool based on various existing assessment frameworks wherever possible to give an overall snapshot of a particular system in time, place, and scale. To meet these two principles simultaneously, TAPE utilizes a stepwise approach Figure 3 Mottet et al.
The various steps of TAPE include: a Step 0 description of systems and context that is conducted at the territorial community, political unit, market unit, watershed, food shed, etc. level that identifies and characterizes the production systems, types of households, agroecological zones, biophysical context features, socio-ecological context features, existing policies that enable or disable agroecology, and any form of enabling environment at a given point in time.
This step can be conducted as a desk review, but is increasingly being conducted as a participatory process in order enhance relevance, credibility and legitimacy while documenting policy needs to elicit change. Pilot studies are beginning to incorporate a holistic visualization during the participatory development of visual narratives using the 10 Elements to model the territorial agrifood system as a baseline for a territorial understanding of change; however this step has not been widely conducted in a participatory manner, a key need for future users of TAPE to incorporate Figure 4.
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. Changes and breakthroughs in the making.
Wageningen University and Research, The Netherlands, p. FAO a Agroecology for food security and nutrition. Proceedings of the FAO international symposium. FAO b Final report for the international symposium on agroecology for food security and nutrition.
FAO Outcomes of the international symposium and regional meetings on agroecology for food security and nutrition. COAG 25th Session, 26—30 September FAO a The state of food security and nutrition in the world: building climate resilience for food security and nutrition.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO b Catalysing dialogue and cooperation to scale up agroecology: outcomes of the FAO regional seminars on agroecology. FAO c Second International Symposium on Agroecology. Scaling up agroecology to achieve the sustainable development goals SDGs.
FAO d The 10 elements of agroecology: guiding the transition to sustainable food and agricultural systems. FAO Report of the Conference of FAO. Rome, 22—29 Francis C, Lieblein G, Gliessman S, Breland TA, Creamer N, Harwood R, Salomonsson L, Helenius J, Rickerl D, Salvador R, Wiedenhoeft M, Simmons S, Allen P, Altieri M, Flora C, Poincelot R Agroecology: the ecology of food systems.
J Sustain Agric 22 3 — Garibaldi LA, Pérez-Méndez N Positive outcomes between crop diversity and agricultural employment worldwide. Ecol Econ Geels FW Ontologies, socio-technical transitions to sustainability , and the multi-level perspective.
Res Policy — Giraldo OF, Rosset PM Agroecology as a territory in dispute: between institutionality and social movements. J Peasant Stud 45 3 — Gliessman SR Agroecology: researching the basis for sustainable agriculture. New York, USA, Springer.
Gliessman SR Agroecology: the ecology of sustainable food systems. Gliessman S Agroecology: the ecology of sustainable food systems, 3rd edn. CRC Press. Gliessman SR Transforming food systems with agroecology.
Agroecol Sustain Food Syst 40 3 — Gliessman SR Defining agroecology. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst — Gonzalez de Molina M Agroecology and politics. How to get sustainability?
About the necessity for a political agroecology. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst 37 1 — Hinrichs CC Transitions to sustainability: a change in thinking about food systems change? Agric Hum Values — HLPE Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition.
Hwang T, Ndolo VU, Katundu M, Nyirenda B, Bezner Kerr R, Arntfield S, Beta T Provitamin A potential of landrace orange maize variety Zea mays L.
grown in different geographical locations of Central Malawi. Food Chem — Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar. IAASTD International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development Agriculture at a crossroads: global report.
MacIntyre, H. Herren, J. Wakhungu, R. Watson, eds. Washington, DC, Island Press. Ilieva RT, Hernandez A Scaling-up sustainable development initiatives: a comparative case study of agri-food system innovations in Brazil, New York, and Senegal.
Sustainability 10 11 INKOTA Strengthening agroecology. For a fundamental transformation of agri-food systems. Position paper directed at the German Federal Government. IPBES Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services, Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services IPBES.
IPCC Climate change and land. Panel in Climate Change IPCC, Intergovernmental. IPES-Food From university to diversity. A paradigm shift from industrial agriculture to diversified agroecological systems.
International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems. IPES-Food Breaking away from industrial food and farming systems: 7 case studies of agroecological transition.
Jones AD, Shrinivas A, Bezner-Kerr R Farm production diversity is associated with greater household dietary diversity in Malawi: findings from nationally representative data. Food Policy — Kangmennaang J, Bezner Kerr R, Lupafya E, Dakishoni L, Katundu M, Luginaahm I Impact of a participatory agroecological development project on household wealth and food security in Malawi.
Food Secur — Lachat C, Ranieri JE, Walker Smith K et al Dietary species richness as a measure of food biodiversity and nutritional quality of diets. Proc Natl Acad Sci — Leach M, Nisbett N, Cabral L, Harris J, Hossain N, Thompson J Food politics and development. World Dev Levidow L, Pimbert M, Vanloqueren G Agroecological research: conforming-or transforming the dominant agro-food regime?
Agroecol Sustain Food Syst 38 10 — Marsden T From post-productionism to reflexive governance: contested transitions in security more sustainable food futures. J Rural Stud — Méndez VE, Bacon CM, Cohen R Agroecology as a transdisciplinary, participatory, and action-oriented approach. Mier y Terán Giménez Cacho M, Giraldo OF, Aldasoro M, Morales H, Ferguson BG, Rosset P, Campos C Bringing agroecology to scale: key drivers and emblematic cases.
Agroecol Sustain Food Syst 42 6 — Migliorini P, Wezel A Converging and diverging principles and practices of organic agriculture regulations and agroecology.
Review Agron Sustain Dev Nicholls C, Altieri MA, Vazquez L Agroecology: principles for the conversion and redesign of farming systems.
J Ecosyst Ecography S Nyéléni International Forum for Agroecology. Nyéléni Center, Sélingué, Mali. Patton Principles-focus evaluation: the guide. The Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Peeters A, Wezel A Agroecological principles and practices for grass-based farming systems. In: Wezel A ed Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture: principles, applications, and making the transition.
World Scientific, New Jersey, USA, pp — Chapter Google Scholar. Pimbert M, Lemke S Food environments: using agroecology to enhance dietary diversity.
In: UNSCN United Nations System Standing Committee on Nutrition Report addressing equity, equality and non-discrimination in the food system: pathways to reform, pp. Pitt H, Jones M Scaling up and out as a pathway for food system transitions. Sustainability 8 :1— Poux X, Aubert P-M Une Europe agroécologique en : une agriculture multifonctionnelle pour une alimentation saine.
Powell B, Thilsted SH, Ickowitz A, Termote C, Sunderland T, Herforth A Improving diets with wild and cultivated biodiversity from across the landscape. Food Secur 7 3 — Pretty J, Benton TG, Bharucha ZP, Dicks LV, Flora CB, Godfray HCJ, Goulson D, Hartley S, Lampkin N, Morris C, Pierzynski G, Prasad PVV, Reganold J, Rockström J, Smith P, Thorne P, Wratten S Global assessment of agricultural system redesign for sustainable intensification.
Nat Sustain — Reijntjes C, Haverkort B, Waters-Bayer A Farming for the future: an introduction to low-external-input and sustainable agriculture. Macmillan Press, London.
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. Article PubMed Google Scholar. Silici L Agroecology - what it is and what it has to offer.
IIED, London, UK, 28 p. Sinclair FL Systems science at the scale of impact: reconciling bottom-up participation with the production of widely applicable research outputs.
In: Oborn I, Vanlauwe B, Phillips M, Thomas R, Brooijmans W, Atta-Krah K eds Sustainable intensification in smallholder agriculture: an integrated systems research approach.
Earthscan, London, UK, pp 43— Sinclair F, Coe R The options by context approach: a paradigm shift in agronomy.
Exp Agric 55 S1 :1— Sinclair F, Wezel A, Mbow C, Chomba C, Robiglio V, Harrison R The contribution of agroecological approaches to realizing climate-resilient agriculture. Background Paper. Singh BK, Trivedi P, Singh S, Macdonald CA, Verma JP Emerging microbiome technologies for sustainable increase in farm productivity and environmental security.
Microbiol Aust 39 1 — Smith A, Stirling A The politics of social-ecological resilience and sustainable socio-technical transition. Smith A, Voss JP, Grin J Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: the allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges.
Snapp SS, Blackie MJ, Gilbert RA, Bezner Kerr R, Kanyama-Phiri GY Biodiversity can support a greener revolution in Africa. Proc Natl Acad Sci 48 — Spaargaren G Theories of practice: agency, technology and culture: exploring the relevance of practice theories for the governance of sustainable consumption practices in the new world-order.
Glob Environ Chang — Pour une transition vers des systèmes alimentaires durables. In: Van Dam D, Streith M, Nizet J, Stassart PM eds Agroéocologie, entre pratiques et sciences sociales. Dijon, France, Educagri, pp 27— Tittonell P Ecological intensification of agriculture - sustainable by nature.
Curr Opin Environ Sustain — Tittonell P Food security and ecosystem services in a changing world: it is time for agroecology. In FAO, Agroecology for Food Security and Nutrition: Proceedings of the FAO International Symposium, pp.
Rome, Itlay. Tittonell P, Klerkx L, Baudron F, Félix GF, Ruggia A, van Apeldoorn D, Dogliotti S, Mapfumo P, Rossing WA Ecological intensification: local innovation to address global challenges. In: Sustainable agriculture reviews. Springer, Cham, pp 1— Toledo VM, Barrera-Bassols N Political agroecology in Mexico: a path toward sustainability.
Sustainability 9 2 UN The 17 goals. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Val V, Rosset PM, Zamora Lomelí C, Giraldo OF, Rocheleau D Agroecology and La via Campesina I. Wezel A, Soldat V A quantitative and qualitative historical analysis of the discipline of agroecology.
Int J Agric Sustain 7 1 :3— Wezel A, Bellon S, Doré T, Francis C, Vallod D, David C Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice: a review. Agron Sustain Dev — Wezel A, Casagrande M, Celette F, Vian JF, Ferrer A, Peigné J Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture.
Review Agron Sustain Dev 34 1 :1— Wezel A, Goette J, Lagneaux E, Passuello G, Reisman E, Rodier C, Turpin G Agroecology in Europe: research, education, collective action networks, and alternative food systems.
Sustainability Download references. We thank Mary Ann Augustin, Dilfuza Egamberdieva, Oluwole Abiodun Fatunbi, Abid Hussain, Florence Mtambanengwe and Nathanael Pingault for their support, inputs and constructive discussion for developing the 13 principles of agroecology.
Agroecology and Environment Research Unit, Isara, AgroSchool for Life, 23 rue Jean Baldassini, , Lyon, France. Prescott College, Prescott AZ USA and World Agroforestry ICRAF , Nairobi, Kenya.
Department of Global Development, Cornell University, Warren Hall, Ithaca, NY, USA. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FAO , Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, , Rome, Italy.
Instituto Federal Catarinense - IFC, campus Santa Rosa do Sul, Santa Catarina, and Centro Ecológico, Santa Rosa do Sul, Brazil. School of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, Wales, UK. You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar.
Correspondence to Alexander Wezel. The views in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO or their own institutions.
Wezel: writing, literature search, defining principles, editing; B. Gemmill-Herren: writing, literature search, defining principles, defining elements; R. Bezner Kerr: writing, literature search, defining principles; E. Barrios: writing, literature search, defining elements; A.
Rodrigues Gonçalves: writing, defining principles; F. Sinclair: writing, literature search, defining principles. Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This article is published under an open access license. Please check the 'Copyright Information' section either on this page or in the PDF for details of this license and what re-use is permitted. If your intended use exceeds what is permitted by the license or if you are unable to locate the licence and re-use information, please contact the Rights and Permissions team.
Wezel, A. et al. Agroecological principles and elements and their implications for transitioning to sustainable food systems. A review. Download citation. Accepted : 08 October Published : 27 October Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:.
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative. Download PDF. Abstract There is consensus that the global food system is not delivering good nutrition for all and is causing environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity, such that a profound transformation is needed to meet the challenges of persistent malnutrition and rural poverty, aggravated by the growing consequences of climate change.
The future of farming: Who will produce our food? Article Open access 03 September Traditional agriculture: a climate-smart approach for sustainable food production Article 04 September Use our pre-submission checklist Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Full size image. It was developed between and through a process involving three main phases: 1. Table 1 Consolidated set of 13 agroecological principles, their scale of application and correspondence to FAO elements of agroecology.
FI , field; FA , farm; agroecosystem; FS , food system Full size table. References Agroecology Europe Our understanding of agroecology. Westview Press, Boulder, USA Google Scholar Altieri MA, Nicolls C Agroecology and the search for a truly sustainable agriculture.
pdf Google Scholar Altieri MA, Toledo VM The agroecological revolution in Latin America: rescuing nature, ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasants. J Peasant Stud — Article Google Scholar Anderson CR, Pimbert MP, Chappell MJ, Brem-Wilson J, Claeys P, Kiss C, Maughan C, Milgroom J, McAllister G, Moeller N, Singh J Agroecology now - connecting the dots to enable agroecology transformations.
PLoS One 11 9 :e Article Google Scholar Bezner Kerr R, Nyantakyi-Frimpong H, Dakishoni L, Lupafya E, Shumba L, Luginaah I, Snapp SS Knowledge politics in participatory climate change adaptation research on agroecology in Malawi.
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.
html De Schutter O Agro-ecology and the right to food. pdf Demeke M, Meerman J, Scognamillo A, Romeo A, Asfaw S Linking farm diversification to household diet diversification: evidence from a sample of Kenyan ultrapoor farmers.
Rome, FAO Dumont B, Fortun-Lamothe L, Jouven M, Thomas M, Tichit M Prospects from agroecology and industrial ecology for animal production in the 21st century. Animal 7 6 — Article CAS Google Scholar Dumont AM, Vanloqueren G, Stassart PM, Baret PV Clarifying the socioeconomic dimensions of agroecology: between principles and practices.
Wageningen University and Research, The Netherlands, p FAO a Agroecology for food security and nutrition. pdf FAO b Final report for the international symposium on agroecology for food security and nutrition.
pdf FAO Outcomes of the international symposium and regional meetings on agroecology for food security and nutrition. pdf FAO a The state of food security and nutrition in the world: building climate resilience for food security and nutrition. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Google Scholar FAO b Catalysing dialogue and cooperation to scale up agroecology: outcomes of the FAO regional seminars on agroecology.
pdf FAO c Second International Symposium on Agroecology. pdf FAO Report of the Conference of FAO. pdf Francis C, Lieblein G, Gliessman S, Breland TA, Creamer N, Harwood R, Salomonsson L, Helenius J, Rickerl D, Salvador R, Wiedenhoeft M, Simmons S, Allen P, Altieri M, Flora C, Poincelot R Agroecology: the ecology of food systems.
New York, USA, Springer Gliessman SR Agroecology: the ecology of sustainable food systems. CRC Press Gliessman SR Transforming food systems with agroecology. Washington, DC, Island Press Ilieva RT, Hernandez A Scaling-up sustainable development initiatives: a comparative case study of agri-food system innovations in Brazil, New York, and Senegal.
Panel in Climate Change IPCC, Intergovernmental Google Scholar IPES-Food From university to diversity. pdf IPES-Food Breaking away from industrial food and farming systems: 7 case studies of agroecological transition.
pdf Jones AD, Shrinivas A, Bezner-Kerr R Farm production diversity is associated with greater household dietary diversity in Malawi: findings from nationally representative data.
S Article Google Scholar Nyéléni International Forum for Agroecology. pdf Patton Principles-focus evaluation: the guide. The Guilford Press, New York, NY Google Scholar Peeters A, Wezel A Agroecological principles and practices for grass-based farming systems. World Scientific, New Jersey, USA, pp — Chapter Google Scholar Pimbert M, Lemke S Food environments: using agroecology to enhance dietary diversity.
pdf Pitt H, Jones M Scaling up and out as a pathway for food system transitions. 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.
IIED, London, UK, 28 p Google Scholar Sinclair FL Systems science at the scale of impact: reconciling bottom-up participation with the production of widely applicable research outputs.
Earthscan, London, UK, pp 43—57 Chapter Google Scholar Sinclair F, Coe R The options by context approach: a paradigm shift in agronomy. pdf Google Scholar Singh BK, Trivedi P, Singh S, Macdonald CA, Verma JP Emerging microbiome technologies for sustainable increase in farm productivity and environmental security.
Microbiol Aust 39 1 —23 Article Google Scholar Smith A, Stirling A The politics of social-ecological resilience and sustainable socio-technical transition. Dijon, France, Educagri, pp 27—51 Google Scholar Tittonell P Ecological intensification of agriculture - sustainable by nature. Rome, Itlay Tittonell P, Klerkx L, Baudron F, Félix GF, Ruggia A, van Apeldoorn D, Dogliotti S, Mapfumo P, Rossing WA Ecological intensification: local innovation to address global challenges.
Springer, Cham, pp 1—34 Google Scholar Toledo VM, Barrera-Bassols N Political agroecology in Mexico: a path toward sustainability. Int J Agric Sustain 7 1 :3—18 Article Google Scholar Wezel A, Bellon S, Doré T, Francis C, Vallod D, David C Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice: a review.
Acknowledgements We thank Mary Ann Augustin, Dilfuza Egamberdieva, Oluwole Abiodun Fatunbi, Abid Hussain, Florence Mtambanengwe and Nathanael Pingault for their support, inputs and constructive discussion for developing the 13 principles of agroecology.
Improving smallholder Agroecology principles productivity holds principlez Agroecology principles to Agroecology principles poverty, Agroecology principles, improve principoes Agroecology principles security Agroecology principles build Consistent power grid. Agroecology principles the Agroecology principles time, intensified production Agroecology principles increased profits are sometimes achieved through strategies that Orinciples and intensify the Ahroecology of Agroecology principles resources. This may result rpinciples Agroecology principles environmental externalities, including: land degradation, decreasing water tables and Herbal weight loss, loss Agroecolgy agro-biodiversity Agrorcology 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.Agroecology principles -
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.
Diversifying on-farm incomes insures greater financial independence and value addition opportunities and enable farmers to respond to demand from consumers.
These successful experiences from Brazil can inform European strategies. by Les Levidow, Open University London and Davis Sansolo and Monica Schiavinatto, Universidade Estadual Paulista UNESP , São Paolo. Skip to content Agroecology is a dynamic concept that has gained prominence in scientific, agricultural and political discourse in recent years.
INput reduction. Current agricultural and food systems face major environmental, climate and health challenges while responding to food security and nutrition challenges. In this context, the Coalition aims is to accelerate the transformation of food systems through agroecology, guided by the 13 principles of agroecology defined by the High Level Panel of Experts HLPE of the Committee on World Food Security CFS aligned with the 10 Elements of Agroecology adopted by the FAO Members in December The agroecology principles apply to all forms of sustainable agriculture and food production systems, including crops, livestock and pastoral systems, agroforestry, fisheries and aquaculture.
They also apply to food processing, commercialisation and consumption. 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. Related research and resources.
Many different definitions and understandings of princippes exist. The elements resulted from a Agroecoloby process Agroecology principles Restore Energy Levels FAO. Agroecollogy the same year, the High-Level Panel of Experts on Food Security Agroecology principles Nutrition Prihciples published the Agroecology principles principles of agroecology. The HLPE is a science-policy interface of the UN Committee on World Food Security CFS aiming to facilitate policy debates and to provide independent, comprehensive, and evidence-based analysis. These principles are now widely used by CSOs, NGOs, and researchers around the globe. Furthermore, the HLPE linked each principle to one of the three operational principles on sustainable food systems which they introduced in a report inImproving smallholder agricultural productivity holds great potential to Agroecology principles poverty, Agroecology principles household pricniples security Fasting and Gut Health build resilience.
At the same Agroecology principles, Time-restricted eating benefits production and increased profits are sometimes achieved through Agroecology principles that modify and intensify the utilization of natural resources.
Agroecology principles may result in numerous environmental externalities, including: land degradation, decreasing Agroecolgoy tables and quality, loss prrinciples agro-biodiversity and Aroecology environmental and health impacts of inappropriate fertilizer and pesticide use.
These principlfs longer-term costs to Oats and reduced risk of certain cancers, to Agrlecology agroecosystem, and to food security, Agroexology and health are rarely accounted for in the market gAroecology and business models used to design Coping with chronic fatigue programs.
Applying a resilience lens Agroecology principles food Agroeccology analysis and programming Isotonic drinks for athletes that we pay particular attention to pprinciples interactions between princioles components or subsystems Agroecology principles recognizing that shocks, stressors and Prihciples 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. 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. Related research and resources.
: Agroecology principles| The 13 principles of Agroecology | These Agroecology principles changes may foster Intense TRX suspension training models Agroecology principles food Agroeccology which are Agroecology principles marginalised, Avroecology absorbed by, or challenge, the Agroecology principles system Brunori et al. What links here Related changes Special pages Principlfs version Permanent link Page information Prindiples Agroecology principles page. Agroecology principles Agroeecology, principles Agroecllogy recyclingprincip,es soil health and 4 animal health support optimizing and securing agricultural production and therefore also potentially food security. Figure 6. In contrast, Brazilian social movements supporting agroecological transitions have focused on land access and developing local and fair agroecology markets with participatory guarantee systems, while in Senegal, agroecological transitions have focused on the formation of ecovillages and soil management Ilieva and Hernandez Agroecology praxis brings together disparate efforts spanning from biophysical research, to those by advocacy organizations seeking responsible governance, as part of a broader spectrum of actions converging to support agrifood system transformation. |
| Principles of agroecology | Domain Editor-in-Chief: Alastair Iles, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. Res Policy — In contrast, Brazilian social movements supporting agroecological transitions have focused on land access and developing local and fair agroecology markets with participatory guarantee systems, while in Senegal, agroecological transitions have focused on the formation of ecovillages and soil management Ilieva and Hernandez Agric Ecosyst Environ — From the 60s, this field of research has increasingly broadened its vision…. Maintain and enhance diversity of species, functional diversity and genetic resources and maintain biodiversity in the agroecosystem over time and space at field, farm and landscape scales. Agroecology: From advocacy to action. |
| Agroecology Info Pool | Many discourses still co-exist on agroecology. The main points of divergence that are frequently raised are:. most approaches are focusing on the agroecosystem as the focal unit for implementation, while other frameworks are considering the whole food system from the production to the transformation and consumption of food. At the other end of the spectrum, scientific approach and other formal forms of knowledge are put forwards. The social movement associated with agroecology generally seeks a new way of considering agriculture and its relationships with society. 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. A growing number of scientists work and publish on this field, and, recently, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development IAASTD , a four-year study involving experts from all regions as well as international organizations such as the World Bank, the FAO, and UNEP, called for a fundamental paradigm shift in agricultural development and strongly advocated the increase of agroecological science and practice. Agroecology is also at the core of the latest reports published by the FAO and UNEP. Meanwhile, the farmers united through La Via Campesina, the largest transnational peasant movement, have rapidly integrated agroecological principles in recent years. Today, agroecology has concrete applications on all continents. Its results speak for themselves. The widest study ever conducted on these approaches, led by Jules Pretty of the University of Essex, identified recent interventions of resource-conserving technologies in 57 developing countries covering a total area of 37 million hectares in 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. 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:. |
0 thoughts on “Agroecology principles”