Periodic Reporting for period 2 - Agroecology-TRANSECT (Trans-disciplinary approaches for systemic economic, ecological and climate change transitions)
Okres sprawozdawczy: 2024-03-01 do 2025-08-31
The application of ecological principles and concepts in farming and food systems gave rise to a holistic approach called agroecology, which provides new agricultural management approaches. Agroecology-TRANSECT aims to realize the full potential of agroecology both as a concept, and a set of practices and policy proposals, and quantify the effects of agoecology on climate change adaptation and mitigation, biodiversity preservation in agro-ecosystems, and farm socio-economic resilience. A challenge is however that the term agroecology is interpreted differently in scientific, social and political arenas, which can lead to false equivalencies and confusion. We therefore reviewed i) scientific evidence on the effects of agroecological interventions on biodiversity and climate change mitigation; ii) the narratives that frame agroecological social movements in Europe; and iii) how key instruments of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) influence agroecological farming practices. Taking a place-based approach, we aim to empirically learn from and support the transition to agroecology in 11 multi-actor Innovation Hubs (IHs), focused on annual and perennial cropping, grassland-based and integrated crop-livestock systems across Europe, through a co-innovation approach to project governance. From this dialogue, we are continually identifying drivers, barriers, policies, market powers and social norms that generate opportunities to enhance the adoption of agroecology. We are acting to ensure that the knowledge generated in the project serves decision-making from regional to EU level.
Our meta-analysis of 170 independent studies in 21 European countries revealed a general positive effect of agroecological interventions on biodiversity, for arable cropping, perennial and grassland systems. With respect to climate change mitigation, agroecological interventions were found to increase soil C storage and N2O mitigation, but not CH4 and CO2 mitigation. The majority of studies with both biodiversity and climate change mitigation data showed a synergy between the two types of metrics in response to agroecological interventions. We also performed a content analysis of 137 documents elaborated by civil society organizations (social movements and NGOs) supporting agroecology in Europe and identified 58 main counter-narratives to dominant agricultural narratives on biodiversity, climate change, and socio-economic resilience. In our IH network, we are successfully sharing and valorizing past, ongoing and future experiences of agroecology in order to increase awareness and knowledge exchanges between local stakeholders. Different ranking of importance of agroecological principles among IHs indicates a variety of entry points for building unique IH identities. We co-developed with IH practitioners a multi-criteria analysis tool to assess on-farm agroecological performance, using 50 core indicators, as well as IH-specific indicators, to evaluate both farming systems and field-level practices. Recommendation domain analysis showed that based on biophysical and socio-economic similarities there is a large potential for out-scaling agroecology. Focusing on farmers' social norms with nudges or information campaigns could also positively influence the scaling out. Our activities at the policy level revealed a central role of the CAP, a potential synergistic effect of the Nature Restoration Regulation (NRR), but risks emerging from a growing tension between environmental needs and potentials, vs socio-economic pressures against the Green Deal, including agroecology and its adoption.
The consortium’s mode of collaboration, with in-depth structured co-innovation workshops supported by online meetings, has contributed to project dynamics well beyond the state of the art in project governance-for-change. The working hypothesis is that understanding of each other’s contexts and abilities in a reflexive atmosphere where people feel safe to raise contested topics contributes to unfolding agroecological transformation. We evaluate this based on a principles-focused evaluation framework revolving around data from Learning History – Action Planning learning cycles. Many IHs have developed a deeper and systemic understanding of sustainability problems and solutions, while the resources (funding, time, knowledge) and legitimacy provided by the project also enabled some IHs to devote more time to expanding their networks and influencing their institutional context. We have discussed context-specific outcomes, using the framework of political agroecology and social transformation, to provide insights and develop guiding questions for practitioners (funders, project managers, researchers) who are interested in supporting or engaging in transdisciplinarity for transformation. The identification of contrasting conceptualizations of agroecology has resulted in a critical dialogue around the socio-politically oriented pillars of the Nyéléni declaration and their complementarity to more institutional definitions. The dialogue was extended to 207 researchers, practitioners and activists involved in agroecology in Europe who ranked their agreement with agroecology statements using Q-methodology. Results will help establish a consolidated conceptual framework of agroecology in Europe. Balancing between open-ended versus more transformative and rigid definitions of agroecology is a tension that needs to be embraced for unlocking the potential of agroecology.