Many thanks Daniel for your grounded, thought provoking and inspiring response. You have really hit the nail on its head.  The moot point is that the current performance metrics for agroecology often fail to take the type of multifunctional approach and benefits of agroecology. It sounds obvious that we need harmonized (as Jilian indicated) and at the same time context-relevant approaches that can adequately measure the performance of agroecological systems towards poverty reduction, human health, and environment. Many examples that you have cited and the story of inspirational farmer (Mr Zepheniah Phiri) are all indicative of the potential of agroecology if rightly understood and implemented. In many academic debates, agroecology is cited as a political agenda of anti-capitalist and deindustrialization activists. There is clearly a need for proving that the pursuit of agroecology is worth all the investments that are currently being undertaken. Your post provides a useful answer to arguments that questions the need for ‘agroecology’. We need to improve both our understanding and application of agroecology as well as multifunctional approaches to measure the ‘worth’ of agroecology. A way to go, indeed!

Thanks and Best,

Ravi