Thank you all for your contributions. Here are my responses and I look forward to hearing more from you and members of the EvalForward community insights and experiences.
Jillian, thanks for sharing this highly relevant paper as it analyses and summarises the development in the field of measuring agroecological transitions at farm /household and landscape /food systems level. The paper is a ‘must’ read for those working on the intersection of implementing, researching and measuring agroecology impacts. And as the paper says, “there will never be a perfect tool or framework for assessing agroecology that can meet every objective in all possible contexts”, therefore we need to discuss and debate differing perspectives and experiences around the key questions of ongoing methodological experiments /innovations in different context (including measuring agroecology at landscape /food system level which the paper found to be less prevalent) but also any demonstrative empirical evidence that prove /disprove the worth of agroecology. Will be great to hear such perspectives /experiences from EvalForward community.
Dushyant, thanks for providing this idea on possibilities of using satellite data at village /farm level to track change in agroecological transitions at farm level. I am intrigued and would be great if you can share an example where this was done at this scale (farm /village). This would be hugely beneficial for programmers /researchers /M&E professionals to understand where this has been achieved and how this approach can be applied to track agroecological transitions.
Dario, thanks for summarising utility of TAPE in understanding agroecology transitions and in creating demonstrative evidence on agroecology contribution to poverty, human health and environment. In Nutrition Research Facility project, we have taken considerable inspirations from TAPE in developing our methodology for assessment of agroecology interventions in the context of an EU programme in Madagascar. This is a quasi-experimental (difference in difference approach) research for which baseline was conducted in 2022 and we intend to carry out the endline research in 2024/5 to see the effects of agroecology interventions. Apart from a household survey (n=1695), we have deployed a qualitative approach to understand all the factors that hamper or promote agroecology at farm or food systems level. These factors in the Malagasy context are – insecure land tenure status, land fragmentation and conflicts, shifting pattern of agriculture production, low quality and high costs of agriculture inputs (seeds, agrochemicals), insecurity and theft of crop and livestock, limited collectivisation and negotiating power of producers, limited storage solutions, scarcity of manure, limited financial linkages and indebtedness of producers, low women empowerment status (agency, opportunities, and outcomes). These and many other challenges encountered by the producers limit their ability to apply agroecology principles and practices. One of our key insights from this research – for agroecology to achieve poverty, human health and environmental outcomes, constraints to its adoption would have to be resolved. This would require understanding of and finding solutions to context-specific challenges. The question is whether the agroecology programmes are designed in flexible and holistic ways to understand and address these context-specific challenges?
Ram, thanks for very useful inputs to this ongoing debate /discussions. Community scorecards is an excellent idea, which the FAO’s TAPE methodology also incorporate. In our research in Madagascar, we have used community score card methodology in focus group discussions on several elements of agroecology such as resilience, synergy, farm workers welfare and rights etc. In the household survey also, some kind of a score card is used as a 5-point scale is used to assess different aspect of agroecology. This has been useful in quantifying the status of agroecological transitions. We are expected to use community score card methodology again in 2024/5 when conducting endline research in Madagascar and therefore will be able to assess how far these agroecological transitions are taking place and more importantly, how these transitions (if underway) are contributing to poverty reduction, human health and to the enviornment. Will come back on this forum to share the results of this research.
Regarding your other points, it will be interesting to hear more from you in terms of how (and where) you have used these indicators and what are the results indicating in terms of the value or worth of agroecology related interventions as this is also one of the point under discussion.
Many thanks Expedit for sharing your experience and Abdoulaye for reinforcing the message about the value of TAPE. Interesting to know that you have used TAPE in several studies in Benin. It will be truly great if you are able to share further on these experiences, in terms of what adaptations you have carried out in TAPE to address context specificities and what empirical evidence you are getting in terms of proving /disproving worth of agroecology related interventions. These insights would provide useful lessons to this community to understand and design better methodologies to measure agroecology.
RE: Proving the value of agroecology for farmers and food systems: what methods and evidence do we have?
Dear participants,
Thank you all for your contributions. Here are my responses and I look forward to hearing more from you and members of the EvalForward community insights and experiences.
Jillian, thanks for sharing this highly relevant paper as it analyses and summarises the development in the field of measuring agroecological transitions at farm /household and landscape /food systems level. The paper is a ‘must’ read for those working on the intersection of implementing, researching and measuring agroecology impacts. And as the paper says, “there will never be a perfect tool or framework for assessing agroecology that can meet every objective in all possible contexts”, therefore we need to discuss and debate differing perspectives and experiences around the key questions of ongoing methodological experiments /innovations in different context (including measuring agroecology at landscape /food system level which the paper found to be less prevalent) but also any demonstrative empirical evidence that prove /disprove the worth of agroecology. Will be great to hear such perspectives /experiences from EvalForward community.
Dushyant, thanks for providing this idea on possibilities of using satellite data at village /farm level to track change in agroecological transitions at farm level. I am intrigued and would be great if you can share an example where this was done at this scale (farm /village). This would be hugely beneficial for programmers /researchers /M&E professionals to understand where this has been achieved and how this approach can be applied to track agroecological transitions.
Dario, thanks for summarising utility of TAPE in understanding agroecology transitions and in creating demonstrative evidence on agroecology contribution to poverty, human health and environment. In Nutrition Research Facility project, we have taken considerable inspirations from TAPE in developing our methodology for assessment of agroecology interventions in the context of an EU programme in Madagascar. This is a quasi-experimental (difference in difference approach) research for which baseline was conducted in 2022 and we intend to carry out the endline research in 2024/5 to see the effects of agroecology interventions. Apart from a household survey (n=1695), we have deployed a qualitative approach to understand all the factors that hamper or promote agroecology at farm or food systems level. These factors in the Malagasy context are – insecure land tenure status, land fragmentation and conflicts, shifting pattern of agriculture production, low quality and high costs of agriculture inputs (seeds, agrochemicals), insecurity and theft of crop and livestock, limited collectivisation and negotiating power of producers, limited storage solutions, scarcity of manure, limited financial linkages and indebtedness of producers, low women empowerment status (agency, opportunities, and outcomes). These and many other challenges encountered by the producers limit their ability to apply agroecology principles and practices. One of our key insights from this research – for agroecology to achieve poverty, human health and environmental outcomes, constraints to its adoption would have to be resolved. This would require understanding of and finding solutions to context-specific challenges. The question is whether the agroecology programmes are designed in flexible and holistic ways to understand and address these context-specific challenges?
Ram, thanks for very useful inputs to this ongoing debate /discussions. Community scorecards is an excellent idea, which the FAO’s TAPE methodology also incorporate. In our research in Madagascar, we have used community score card methodology in focus group discussions on several elements of agroecology such as resilience, synergy, farm workers welfare and rights etc. In the household survey also, some kind of a score card is used as a 5-point scale is used to assess different aspect of agroecology. This has been useful in quantifying the status of agroecological transitions. We are expected to use community score card methodology again in 2024/5 when conducting endline research in Madagascar and therefore will be able to assess how far these agroecological transitions are taking place and more importantly, how these transitions (if underway) are contributing to poverty reduction, human health and to the enviornment. Will come back on this forum to share the results of this research.
Regarding your other points, it will be interesting to hear more from you in terms of how (and where) you have used these indicators and what are the results indicating in terms of the value or worth of agroecology related interventions as this is also one of the point under discussion.
Many thanks Expedit for sharing your experience and Abdoulaye for reinforcing the message about the value of TAPE. Interesting to know that you have used TAPE in several studies in Benin. It will be truly great if you are able to share further on these experiences, in terms of what adaptations you have carried out in TAPE to address context specificities and what empirical evidence you are getting in terms of proving /disproving worth of agroecology related interventions. These insights would provide useful lessons to this community to understand and design better methodologies to measure agroecology.