There is increasing interest in agroecology as a way to move toward more sustainable agriculture and food systems. However, the evidence of agroecology's contribution to sustainability remains ...fragmented because of heterogeneous methods and data, differing scales and timeframes, and knowledge gaps. Facing these challenges, 70 representatives of agroecology-related organizations worldwide participated in the development of the Tool for Agroecology Performance Evaluation (TAPE), to produce and consolidate evidence on the multidimensional performances of agroecological systems. TAPE is composed of: Step 0, the preliminary step that includes a description of the main socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the agricultural and food systems and an analysis of the enabling environment in terms of relevant policy, market, technology, socio-cultural and/or historical drivers; Step 1, the Characterization of Agroecological Transitions (CAET), based on the 10 Elements of Agroecology adopted by FAO and its member countries, using descriptive scales to establish scores and assessing the degree of transition, with information from the farm/household and community/territory scale; Step 2, the Core Criteria of Performance listing the key dimensions considered relevant to address the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Environment & climate change; Health & nutrition; Society & culture; Economy and Governance. Finally Step 3, a participatory validation of the results obtained from the previous steps with the producers and relevant stakeholders. TAPE can be used (i) to assess the extent of agroecological transition among agricultural producers in a community or a territory, (ii) to monitor and evaluate projects by characterizing the initial and subsequent steps in an agroecological transition, and/or (iii) to evaluate widely diverse agricultural systems against agroecological elements and how they contribute to the achievement of the SDGs. Its application can support the transition of all forms of agricultural systems toward more sustainable practices and the formulation of adequate policies to enable this transformation. Preliminary results from pilot applications show that TAPE can perform in a variety of geographic regions and agroecosystems and that it allows assessment of performances of various criteria that move beyond classic indicators to begin to build a global evidence base for agroecology and support transformation to sustainable agricultural production and food systems.
Most of the attention given to intraspecific crop, livestock, and aquaculture diversity in agricultural production systems has been targeted at their roles in providing provisioning services, such as ...food and fibre or their cultural services, providing non-material benefits, such as places for recreation and inspiration. The additional role that intraspecific crop, livestock, and aquaculture diversity has in providing regulating and supporting ecosystem services for agricultural productivity and ecosystem resilience has been largely neglected. A literature review was carried out across sectors (crop, livestock, aquaculture), both on the counterfactual, i.e., the lack of intraspecific diversity in the production system and on the direct and indirect roles that intraspecific diversity plays in maintaining seven of the regulating and supporting ecosystem services: (i) regulating pest and diseases; (ii) maintaining and regulating water and soil quality; (iii) regulating and improving the flow of reproductive diversity; (iv) buffering excess or lack of water; (v) regulating soil erosion; (vi) nutrient cycling in water and soil; and (vii) supporting habitat maintenance. Benefits from the use of intraspecific diversity, diversity per se, and adaptive traits include a limited use of chemical inputs and unsustainable practices and their negative impact on livelihoods, ecosystem functioning, and productivity. All sectors (crop, livestock, and aquaculture) should be examined in the agricultural production system to understand the provision of the different ecosystem services by intraspecific diversity. Differences in structure, functioning, and temporal and spatial scales of these sectors should also be considered. Supporting and regulating ecosystem services often have relatively longer-term processes than food provisioning and rely not only on the current diversity but also on its presence over time. The presented regulating and supporting ecosystem services rely on the presence of the diversity from the farm to the landscape and to agroecological zone. Neglecting the additional role that intraspecific crop, livestock, and aquaculture diversity has in providing regulating and supporting ecosystem services is shown in this review to be detrimental to agricultural productivity and landscape resilience.
Animal genetic resources are critical to livestock productivity and adaptability, facilitate resilience to climate change, and are a key contributor to food security and livelihoods around the world. ...The Global Plan of Action for Animal Genetic Resources (Global Plan), consisting of four Strategic Priority Areas (SPAs: Characterization; Sustainable use; Conservation; Policy), provides a framework to guide countries and other stakeholders on actions to improve the management of animal genetic resources. Assessing, reporting and monitoring the progress and implementation of the Global Plan are critical processes for understanding global commitments made to enhance livestock genetic diversity. In this study, three rounds of reporting (2012, 2014, and 2019) from Member Nations of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations were quantitatively analyzed to gain insight into the progress and implementation of the Global Plan by grouping questionnaires responses into quantitative indicator scores. Variations were found in indicator scores across SPAs, year, and regions, as well as within regions. Countries from North America and Europe and the Caucasus reported higher scores, while most BRICs countries (Brazil, India, China, South Africa) had high implementation scores relative to other countries in the same region. A significant positive correlation was observed between mean implementation scores in 2019 and GDP per capita (r = 0.456). Countries reporting higher implementation of in situ conservation also indicated higher proportions of breeds at risk. Significant progress was reported over the years for three of the four SPAs; SPA3 (conservation) was not found to have significantly improved. Despite the gains that have been made since 2012 in management of animal genetic resources, much remains to be done. The population status of nearly 60% of breeds is unknown while almost three quarters of breeds of known status are at risk of extinction. Efforts must continue to improve management of livestock genetic diversity, with further investments and development of approaches that support socio-economic viability of local genetic resources.
In September 2007, the international community adopted the Global Plan of Action for Animal Genetic Resources to ensure that the world’s livestock biodiversity is utilised to enhance global food ...security and remains available to future generations. The Global Plan includes 23 strategic priorities for action grouped into four priority areas: characterisation and monitoring; sustainable use and development; conservation; and policies, institutions and capacity-building. The main responsibility for implementing the Global Plan lies with national governments. Progress in the implementation of the Global Plan is monitored using two types of indicators. Process indicators are used to describe the extent to which the actions set out in the Global Plan have been implemented. Resource indicators are used to describe the state of animal genetic diversity itself and therefore the impact of the Global Plan. The indicators contribute to the measurement of progress towards Aichi Biodiversity Targets 13 (maintenance of genetic diversity), 7 (sustainable management of agriculture, aquaculture and forestry) and 4 (sustainable production and consumption). Information on the implementation of the Global Plan is obtained regularly from a number of sources, namely: national governments; regional networks; and international governmental and non-governmental organisations; as well as from the Domestic Animal Diversity Information System (DAD-IS). Information from countries, regions and international organisations is drawn together and reported to the governing bodies of the Food and Agriculture Organization. The paper describes the monitoring system, its contribution to the measurement of Aichi Biodiversity Targets 13, 7 and 4 and the state of implementation of the Global Plan at international and regional levels.
A food system covers all the elements (environment, people, inputs, processes, infrastructures, institutions, etc.) and activities that relate to the production, processing, distribution, preparation ...and consumption of food, and the outputs of these activities, including socioeconomic and environmental outcomes. Making a food system nutrition-sensitive entails applying a nutrition lens to all its activities, considering all forms of malnutrition. First, an analysis of the food system and nutrition situation shall be done, based on which interventions shall be planned and implemented, explicitly designed to improve nutrition by taking the constraints of the food system into account. This shall be followed by monitoring of impacts. Possible questions can be 'Will activities improve (or harm) the nutrition situation?' or 'Which of the possible activities would best enhance better nutrition--while considering other aspects such as productivity or income?' or 'Are the currently produced and processed foods meeting the nutritional requirements of populations? If not, what needs changing, and is this feasible?' To answer most of these questions, data are needed to design, implement and monitor nutrition-sensitive activities within the entire food system. Two important datasets are food consumption, e.g. FAO/WHO GIFT platform, or food composition data (FCD). For example, in food production, FCD can be used to inform decision makers which agricultural products have the optimal nutrient composition to reduce malnutrition using foods. Those foods should then be included in large or small scale production, seed or research programmes and policies; or in incentives considerations to enhance production while lowering prices. A useful tool is FAO's newly developed Nutrient Productivity Scale which combines yield/production of different agricultural goods per hectare with their content of nine nutrients (energy, protein, dietary fibre, iron, zinc, calcium, vitamin A, vitamin C and folate) which is then compared to human nutritional requirements. Biodiversity needs to be considered as nutrient content differ significantly among the varieties or breeds of the same food, making the difference between nutrient adequacy and inadequacy. If foods or varieties with high micronutrient contents were produced or consumed in higher quantities they would eliminate micronutrient deficiencies worldwide. For that, FDC are needed, including data on different varieties or breeds delivered by different production systems. During food storage and processing, some foods and nutrients are lost or wasted. FCD are key to develop new approaches to reduce food and nutrient losses or waste; enhance value chains of e.g. nutrient- dense fruits and vegetables; or develop food products being naturally enriched by adding highly nutritious foods. Food labelling is part of trade and marketing and useful in guiding food choices. Food Based Dietary Guidelines (FBDG) can inform policies, guide nutrition education, and inform consumers about healthy food choices at all ages and conditions. For all these purposes, FCD are needed on raw, cooked, processed and biodiverse foods. Although FCD are needed to formulate and implement appropriate food system policies, they are absent for over 99% of the global foods produced and consumed. This should urgently be addressed to effectively and sustainably reduce malnutrition rates worldwide.
Ways forward to meet nutritional requirements while producing foods sustainably could be to simultaneously increase diversification; higher production/use of species, varieties and breeds rich in ...micronutrients; use resources efficiently; integrate value chains; and reduce food loss and waste. They all aim to produce more diverse and nutritious foods and sell them at decent prices, hopefully resulting in the consumption of sustainable diets. A multi-sectorial approach is most efficient (following the principle 1+1=3) because change is most likely to be efficient if all elements of the food system are moving into the same direction, i.e. production is linked with consumer and environmental demands, enhanced by appropriate value chains, progammes and policies (e.g. agriculture, trade, health, nutrition, education) and nutrition education.
PDF
