Proposal of a principle cum scale analytical framework for analyzing agroecological development projects

Abstract

Because agroecology has different meanings, it may be used in an arbitrary and potentially abusive way when deployed by development cooperation actors conceiving "agroecologybased" development projects. To make the appropriation of agroecology more transparent, we first review the recent attempts in academia to clarify the concept and identify two main trends: a principle-based agroecology and a series of different agroecologies. Based on a critical assessment of these attempts, we then propose a new framework to program, implement and analyze agroecological development projects: it distinguishes different agroecologies with their corresponding categories of principles and their scales of intervention. Further, we argue in favor of a specific category of methodological principles.

Opening the organisational black box to grasp the difficulties of agroecological transition. An empirical analysis of tensions in agroecological production cooperatives

“…With such cooperatives, farmers have organised their relations with the markets, but they have remained independent of each other, as family farmers in most cases (Bélières et al, 2013;Hervieu and Purseigle, 2013;van der Ploeg, 2009). At the stage of agricultural production itself -growing plants and raising animals -farmers have developed for long various forms of mutual aid according to the peculiarities of each regional agriculture (Lanneau, 1975). But, agricultural production cooperatives have not developed much.…”

“…For some, such a political project goes as far as to question established power relations and to seek forms of emancipation for themselves and for other actors in their communities (Anderson et al, 2019;Ferguson et al, 2019;Giraldo and Rosset, 2018). Between these two poles, there is a whole variety of conceptions of agroecology, which diversely combine ecological, socio-economic, political and, in some cases, methodological principles (Kapgen and Roudart, 2020). Therefore, depending on the stakeholders involved in agroecological initiatives, disagreements may arise on the choice and precise definition of objectives (Dumont et al, 2016;van der Ploeg et al, 2019;Wezel et al, 2009Wezel et al, , 2020.…”

“…The ecological dimension of farming systems has been widely investigated and numerous publications highlight the necessity, in this context, for deploying and evaluating their capacity for integrating greater energy efficiency (Duru et al, 2015). However, the ecological dimension cannot be considered separately from social and economic dimensions (Aubron et al, 2016;Bacon et al, 2012;Dumont et al, 2016;Kapgen and Roudart, 2020) and the changes necessary for an agroecological transition extend well beyond the farm level (Francis et al, 2003;Wezel et al, 2016Wezel et al, , 2020. Transformations in the agricultural sector must be considered in their interactions with more extensive levels of social organisation (Gonzalez de Molina, 2013;Guzmán and Woodgate, 2013;Mazoyer and Roudart, 2006).…”

Assessing the agroecological status of a farm:a principle-based assessment tool for farmers

“…Similarly, although a biodynamic or organic farm may closely follow the precepts of their founders and certification standards, many rely on monocultures using an input substitution approach and therefore are not based on agroecology (Rosset and Altieri, 1997). On the other hand, development cooperation actors such as NGOs, UN-FAO, government agencies and academic institutions which have adopted, and often co-opted, the concept of agroecology, are using it interchangeably with sustainable intensification, regenerative agriculture, climate smart agriculture, without explaining their particular perspective on agroecology (Kapgen and Roudart, 2020) thus adding to the confusion on the various competing narratives about agroecology (Rivera-Ferre, 2018; Giraldo and Rosset, 2018).…”

“…While we recognize that agroecology has necessarily grown to integrate social and economic dimensions of the entire food system, as initially elaborated by Francis et al (2003), our methodology is geared to specifically assess if the design and management of a farm matches agroecological principles. The framework presented by Kapgen and Roudart (2020) is useful to add clarity and avoid misuse of the term agroecology among people in academia and development circles, but it does not offer a practical tool for farmers and practitioners involved at the field level to assess if the target production systems are agroecologically based or not. Furthermore, developing practical tools to assess farming systems is key to determine if farmers in transition are on a path based on agroecological principles.…”