Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

AE-TPP’s Community of Practice (CoP)

The GLFx platform on which Agroecology TPP’s CoP is hosted can also be accessed via a dedicated app (GLFx – Nature based action), available on Apple and Google store as well as other outlets.
There are three membership levels of the Agroecology TPP – two for institutions and one for individuals. You can find more information here.

Agroecology and differences with other approaches

Agroforestry refers to the purposeful integration of trees on farmland. Agroecology is guided by the 13 HLPE agroecological principles that encompass natural farming, social justice, and circular economy considerations. Many agroforestry practices can be described as agroecological practices, but not all agroforestry is agroecological. Agroecology can be – and to some extent is – practiced everywhere on the world. The overlaps and differences between agroecology and agroforestry were the subject of the closing plenary of the 2022 Agroforestry Congress. More information about the core similarities and differences between agroecology and agroforestry addressed in the closing plenary can be found here.

Natural farming refers to a way of farming that avoids chemical inputs, such as inorganic fertilizer, synthetic pesticides, and genetically modified seeds. Agroecology, on the other hand, promotes using organic alternatives, ideally through resource-efficient and circular integrated farm and pest management.

In short, ‘organic’ means without any chemical input. This is the rule. Agroecology, meanwhile, follows 13 principles and implements agricultural practices that support ecological processes. You can use chemical inputs, but it is key to try to limit their use. More broadly, organic principles encompass all 13 principles of agroecology. Even looking narrowly at the organic practice required for certification, there are requirements supporting a host of agroecological goals. These simplistic definitions are unhelpful – there are so many useful lessons to be shared across various movements within agroecology. We are in danger of creating a false dichotomy here – there is a lot of sharing and the organic agriculture and agroecology communities are indeed largely overlapping – we should focus on the commonalities – see, for example, the UNFSS solution cluster.

Agroecologically-conducive policies

There are many different possible obstacles, including lack of knowledge of how to implement agroecology principles compared to other conventional practices, and strong interests in maintaining current practices that benefit certain types of actors. In terms of land tenure, there have been longstanding processes on reforming land tenure policies and rules in many countries, to meet their own needs for enhancing access to land and improving tenure security. For agroecology, the growing importance of land renting is one concern; promoting longer term leases is one possible option for not putting agroecology at a disadvantage.

This very much depends on the scale of the policy process. On sub-national level, community organizations can bring the topic to the political agenda. On national level, establishing or engaging with inclusive multi-stakeholder platforms has proven successful in a number of countries. At international level, engaging with negotiators in dedicated side-events at major international events – such as the COPs of the three Rio Conventions – has resulted in some considerable success. It also depends on whether one aims at a dedicated overarching policy on agroecology or integrating the 13 CFS-HLPE principles of agroecology and the resulting policy recommendations into sectoral policies. Around the world, there are a number of good examples for all of these. Engaging in the Policy Working Group of the Agroecology Coalition is a good option for getting inspiration and ideas from experiences in different contexts. Also, the AE-TPP paper “Agroecologically-conducive policies: A review of recent advances and remaining challenges” provides a very insightful overview.

Research on agroecology

Political will is needed to integrate and give way to the insertion of agroecology in all agricultural scenarios, as well as the transformation in the models of value chains and consumers. Financing is another debatable issue – more thought about change is needed, and not only about returns.

We need both. On the one hand, we have to steer research to resolve existing problems and, in particular, respond to local problems. To do so, we have to create a new culture of collaboration between research centers and producers. On the other hand, we also need more research, and not just that which is adaptive, but also that which generates knowledge.

The scaling of agroecological practices

There remains a struggle around narratives; the word ‘agroecology’ still faces a lot of opposition from vested interests. We would suggest using the report of the CFS (Committee on World Food Security) on agroecology and other innovative approaches. It helps to convince governments because the recommendations are accepted at international level.

Agroecology builds on farmers’ traditional knowledge – farmers are at the center of agroecological transformation, and their knowledge and practices are valued, in a process of co-innovation and co-production of knowledge between producers and technicians and researchers.

Metrics, monitoring and evaluation

There are various tools to assess whether and how agroecological programs, projects or initiatives are. Those include the FAO’s TAPE tool and Biovision’s ACT tool. Tools to evaluate the agroecological status of businesses (B-ACT) and farms (F-ACT) exist as well. Beyond agroecological characterization, other frameworks and tools investigate the performance of agroecological approaches and practices. The Agroecology TPP currently works on such tools in two projects: the Metrics project, which is part of the Agroecological TRANSITIONS program and CGIAR Initiative on Agroecology.

Technology, agroecology and food systems

Digital platforms and ICT tools provide opportunities to interact with large and diverse groups of people and co-create knowledge. However, it is important to be aware of political economy of how information is used. Inclusive Digital Tools to Enable Climate-informed Agroecological Transitions (ATDT), one of the projects under the EU INTPA-funded Transitions Program, specifically looks at the role of digital tools in agroecological transitions.
ICT has a great potential for farmer-centered research and citizen science, including in data collection and providing more holistic performance evaluation of agricultural and food systems that can generate evidence needed to scale up investments and political support for agroecology. The AE-TPP Agroecological TRANSITIONS program has a specific project dedicated to this question. You may also find the following two publications on the topic insightful: – Information and communication technology (ICT) and the agroecological transition (researchgate.net) – ICTs for Agroecology | SpringerLink

Advocacy for agroecology

There are numerous resources that can be used in advocacy, as well as the websites of relevant research centers (i.e., CIFOR-ICRAF, CIRAD). Many NGOs and think tanks provide excellent resources – see for example: https://www.biovision.ch/en/projects/international/moreresearchforagroecology/ http://www.ipes-food.org/topics/ http://www.fao.org/agroecology/overview/en/