THE AGROECOLOGY

ASSESSMENT
FRAMEWORK
Introducing the framework 4
Framework content 5
List of Red Flags 5
List of 13 principles, value statements and
examples/indicators 8
Acknowledgements
The development of the agroecology assessment framework represents a collaborative work by a
community of practice on financing agroecology that includes researchers, civil society organizations
(CSOs), international organisations and donors:

This work was published in October 2023 and it was financially supported by:

Visit also the Tracking Finance in Agroecology online tool at:

https://agroecology-coalition.org/agroecology-finance-assessment-tool

Cover Picture: Shutterstock/ DisobeyArt

Icons (13 principles): Dorottya Poór/Agroecology Europe
Introducing the framework
The agroecology assessment framework was developed to evaluate individual projects/initiatives,
or entire portfolios of projects, for their degree of agroecological integration or, we might say, their
“agroecologicalness“. This framework, based on the High-Level Panel of Experts’ (HLPE) 13 Agroecology
Principles. It represents collaborative work by a community of practice on financing agroecology that
includes a number of researchers, CSOs, international organisations and donors (see above).
The framework evaluates the alignment of a project or initiative with each of the 13 HLPE principles.
For each of the principles the framework includes two “value statements” - one describing a strong
alignment with the principle, and one describing a lack of alignment, as well as a dynamic list of
examples/indicators of what contributes to the implementation of the principle.
While some principles may not be relevant to a particular project or initiative (e.g. “animal health”
principle for a project/initiative that does not involve any animals), four principles should always be
respected in all agroecological projects/initiatives. These are: co-creation of knowledge, social values
and diets, fairness, and participation.
The framework also includes “red flags” for practices that run counter to agroecological values. Projects/
initiatives with any “red flags“ do not qualify as agroecological no matter what the rest of their work
looks like.
While the framework was primarily designed to evaluate individual projects/initiatives for their
“agroecologicalness“, the red flags, the value statements and the list of examples/indicators for each
principle constitute an excellent guide for project design or for the design of calls for proposals, or even
as a pedagogical tool in conversations about what agroecology actually is and aims for.
This document has been designed to adapt the framework to inspire and assist in the development of
agroecological project proposals or in the design of calls for proposals for agroecological initiatives.
More information about the development of the framework can be found in the following article:
Moeller, N.I., M. Geck, C.R. Anderson, C. Barahona, C. Broudic, R. Cluset, G. Henriques, F. Leippert, D.
Mills, A. Minhaj, A. Mueting-van Loon, S. Piers de Raveschoot, E. Frison (2023) Measuring agroecology:
Introducing a methodological framework and a community of practice approach. In Elementa: Science
of the Anthropocene, Vol. 11, Issue 1. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2023.00042

1. The 13 principles of agroecology defined by the High-Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) are aligned with
the 10 Elements of Agroecology adopted by the 197 FAO Members in December 2019.

4
Framework content
List of Red Flags

RED FLAG DEFINITION AND JUSTIFICATION

Project focuses on the introduction of GMOs and associated genome-editing technologies.

GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) are generally considered incompatible with the principles
of agroecology, both from agronomic and social perspectives (Altieri, 2005). One of the key concerns
is that GMOs often rely on monocultures, leading to a reduction in biodiversity within production
systems. Additionally, many GMOs are engineered with herbicide resistance genes, which
GMOs necessitates the use of herbicides associated with environmental toxicity and soil fertility reduction
(Tsatsakis et al., 2017). Furthermore, GMO varieties are primarily commercialized by a few large
multinational companies that dominate the market. These varieties are protected by intellectual
property rights, resulting in increased costs for farmers and creating harmful dependencies on agro-
industries, particularly impacting smallholder farmers. Notably, the development of GMOs typically
excludes the participation and involvement of farmers in the decision-making processes.

Project focuses on the promotion of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides.

The production and utilization of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides have profound adverse effects
Synthetics across multiple dimensions. These effects include the collapse of biodiversity (Alliot et al., 2021; Rigal
et al., 2023), pollution of air, water and soil (Benton et al., 2021; Carvalho et al., 2017; Pathak et al.,
2022), impacts on human health (Curl et al., 2020; Inserm, 2021), and the escalation of greenhouse
gas emissions (Tripathi et al., 2020).

Project focuses exclusively on promoting large scale single cash crop production at the expense
of diversified strategies.

Monoculture, monocropping, and industrial-scale feedlots lead to uniformity at the heart of

agricultural systems. This uniformity is associated with a dependency on synthetic fertilizers,
pesticides, and preventive use of antibiotics, which has negative outcomes for the sustainability
Monoculture of food systems (IPES Food, 2016). Genetic uniformity in agricultural systems has systematically
generated vulnerability to epidemics and other biotic and abiotic stresses (Scarascia Mugnozza &
Perrino, 2002). Monocultures and highly mechanized practices are directly linked to land degradation
(Shannon et al., 2015). Large-scale monocul-tures also entail widespread contamination of soil
and water through runoff and erosion (Boardman et al., 2003). They also lead to wild biodiversity
reduction (Gallai et al., 2009), economic and health vulnerability of farm workers, food insecurity,
and cultural erosion (Bacon et al. 2012; Gliessman, 2014; Owens et al., 2010; Ye et al., 2013).

The Agroecology Assessment Framework 5

 RED FLAG DEFINITION AND JUSTIFICATION

Project focuses exclusively on productivity resulting in avoidable destruction of vital

ecosystems and their functions and services.

The prioritization of productivity at the expense of ecosystem integrity is considered an exclusionary

criterion for agroecological projects, as it contradicts the integrated nature of agroecology as
Productivity defined by the FAO (2018) and the HLPE (2019). The FAO underscores agroecology as a holistic
approach that concurrently addresses agronomic, ecological, social, and economic aspects to
enhance the sustainability and equity of food systems. The HLPE distinguishes agroecology from
other approaches by emphasizing its focus on sociocultural, environmental, and governance
dimensions while ensuring productivity is not compromised, rather than solely emphasizing
productivity enhancement.

Project actively promotes regulations and/or actions that hamper and/or destroy local and
farmer-managed seed systems.

Seeds, in addition to soil, water, and sunlight, form the foundation of agriculture. Throughout
history, farmers have been actively involved in the selection, preservation, storage, sharing, and
planting of seeds, which has significantly contributed to agricultural biodiversity (Moeller, 2021).
The right of farmers to engage in these practices is recognized and protected under Article 19 of the
Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas, endorsed by the
Seed Systems United Nations Human Rights Commission in 2018. The knowledge of seed preservation, exchange,
and storage systems plays a critical role in supporting agroecological systems that prioritize the
empowerment of producers (Pimbert, 2022). Consequently, initiatives that undermine local and
farmer-managed seed systems cannot be regarded as agroecological, as they contribute to the
erosion of these essential components. This includes the implementation of restrictive seed laws
and regulations which prioritize the adoption of uniform, standardized, and certified seeds while
disregarding alternative sources. Similarly, the enforcement of stringent intellectual property rights
on plant varieties and traits further exacerbates this erosion (GAFF, 2016).

Project focuses on large-scale intensification of animal production.

Factory farming (feedlots and other large-scale, intensive animal production) is in conflict with
numerous principles of agroecology, particularly those related to animal health and biodiversity.
Factory The practices employed in factory farming contribute to the destruction of natural habitats, leading
Farming to a reduction in overall biodiversity. This system also drives deforestation and causes pollution of
air, water, and land (Turner, 1999). Furthermore, factory farming poses a significant threat to small-
scale farmers who rely on livestock for their livelihoods but struggle to compete with the scale and
efficiency of industrial operations (D’Silva, 2000).

6
 RED FLAG DEFINITION AND JUSTIFICATION

Project excludes or actively discriminates against women and other marginalised groups.

Food systems serve as significant sources of livelihood for women, with global statistics indicating
that 36 percent of women are employed in agrifood systems, a percentage that can exceed 70
percent in certain regions (FAO, 2023). Achieving gender equality and promoting women’s economic
empowerment are therefore crucial for fostering inclusive food systems, as women fulfill critical
roles as agricultural producers, farm managers, processors, traders, wage workers, entrepreneurs,
Women & and decisionmakers regarding household nutrition. The prevailing food systems contribute to
marginalised the perpetuation of social inequalities, as marginalized social groups experience higher levels of
groups food insecurity and suffer from food-related health impacts. Agroecology embeds at its core the
values of fairness, participation, and justice, ensuring that food systems are built with and based on
social and gender equity and the culture, identity, tradition of local communities. It encourages a
rights-based approach addressing the political, social, economic and cultural rights, including food
sovereignty, the right to food, food justice and women’s empowerment. Agroecology also draws
on the ancestral knowledges of peasants and indigenous peoples (Pimbert et al., 2021) whose
practices and food systems help preserve global biodiversity (FAO, 2021).

Project focuses exclusively on promoting highly processed, industrially produced foods (with
low nutrient value).

The consumption of processed foods, particularly ultra-processed foods (UPFs), has significant
implications for both human health and the environment. The production of UPFs involves the use
of harmful ingredients, excessive packaging, and large-scale industrial processes, which contribute
to environmental waste, resource depletion, and the release of potentially harmful compounds
Processed food (Seferidi et al., 2020). More-over, highly processed foods heavily rely on and exacerbate the
demand for a limited number of high-yielding plant species, thereby undermining the diversity of
traditional crops, cuisines, and diets (Leite et al., 2022). These products also have a negative impact
on nutrition, as studies have shown that a high consumption of ultra-processed foods is associated
with low dietary diversity and inadequate intake of essential micronutrients (Marrón-Ponce et al.,
2023). By exclusively promoting highly processed or industrially produced food, the development
of agroecological food systems and the promotion of health-supporting nutrition are undermined.

The Agroecology Assessment Framework 7

 RED FLAG DEFINITION AND JUSTIFICATION

Project promotes extractive raw material production that depletes local resources
over time.

The operations of extractive industries have profound detrimental effects on local ecologies
and result in the depletion of value and resources within affected communities. Extractivism
Extractivism encompasses a complex set of practices, mindsets, and power dynamics that justify and
enable destructive socio-ecological modes of organising life through domination, violence,
depletion, and one-sided relationship (Chagnon et al 2022). Such dynamics are frequently
observed in development projects that enable the forceful appropriation of natural
resources, such as land and water grabbing, thereby directly undermining the progress of
agroecological transformations (Anderson et al., 2021).

Project promotes approaches that violate rights, including customary rights, ignores
prior informed consent or results in population displacement and/or land grabbing.

The promotion of human rights is an inherent component of the concept and overarching
framework of agroecology, forming the bedrock for the establishment of sustainable food
Human systems (HLPE, 2019). Agroecology strives to alleviate poverty, hunger, and inequalities
Rights while safeguarding the right to food, food sovereignty, indigenous rights, and sustainable
production and consumption practices that ensure future generations’ access to food (De
Schutter, 2012; FAO, 2018b; HLPE, 2019; Wezel et al., 2020). It is essential to acknowledge
that any project that violates the principles outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (1948) cannot genuinely contribute to the promotion of healthy food systems and
agroecology.

List of 13 principles, value statements

and examples / indicators
The value statements describe what should be aimed at in agroecological projects and initiatives and
the examples/indicators represent a non-exhaustive, dynamic list of actions that can be included in
agroecological projects/initiatives in order to contribute to the implementation of the respective
principles.
These value statements represent the two extremes of a continuum and the aim is to strive as much as
possible towards the strong alignment.

8
1. Recycling

HLPE Definition: Preferentially use local renewable resources and close as

far as possible resource cycles of nutrients and biomass.

DEGREE OF
VALUE STATEMENT
ALIGNMENT

Relies on natural processes and has mostly closed resource cycles (nutrients, water,
biomass, ...) using predominantly local renewable resources, and/or encourages circular
Strong alignment
economy, especially in waste management, including measures to reduce food waste
at consumption level

Lack of Makes no effort to close resource cycles or contribute to circular economy, and
alignment introduces non-recyclable materials

This principle may be non-applicable if the project cannot address any dimension of
n/a
recycling

Examples / Indicators

• Closing nutrient cycles through biomass recycling - at farm or landscape level depending on
context (e.g. produce and use own compost, manure including humanure, biofertiliser, active
use of food waste)
• Wastewater (greywater) & waste recycling
• Rainwater harvesting
• Reusable or recyclable packaging

The Agroecology Assessment Framework 9

2. Input reduction

HLPE Definition: Reduce or eliminate dependency on purchased inputs and

increase self-sufficiency.

DEGREE OF
VALUE STATEMENT
ALIGNMENT

Increases self-sufficiency on farm, community or territorial levels and eliminates harmful

Strong alignment
inputs, particularly synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and preventive antibiotics

Lack of Neutral regarding external inputs or increases dependency of producers on external

alignment inputs

n/a This principle may be non-applicable if the project does not address production system

Examples / Indicators

• Reduce before recycle ought to be a guiding principle

• Use preventative methods (e.g. nitrogen fixing plants, biological pest management, production
of natural remedies)
• Water harvesting, storage and efficient water management (e.g. drip irrigation, rainwater
harvesting, harvester ponds)
• Eliminate or actively reduce use of plastic (e.g. packaging, mulch)
• Reduce energy consumption and/or produce renewable energy for domestic use on farm (i.e.
not for export), including producing wood and other for fuel, reducing vehicle use, reducing
digital implements & use of renewable energies (e.g. solar electricity, biogas from animal
manure)
• Eliminate or actively /significantly reduce synthetic fertilisers
• Eliminate or actively/significantly reduce synthetic pesticides and veterinary drugs
• Eliminate or actively/significantly reduce industrial/imported feed (e.g. from outside the
territory, highly processed, with additives)
• Use farm-saved seeds or community seed banks or seed saver networks

10
 • Deliberatively use preventative methods (e.g. nitrogen fixing plants, biological pest management,
production of natural remedies)
• Produce fibre and building materials on-farm for own use
• Elimination of heavy, soil (structure) damaging machinery

3. Soil health

HLPE Definition: Secure and enhance soil health and functioning for
improved plant growth, particularly by managing organic matter and
enhancing soil biological activity.

DEGREE OF
VALUE STATEMENT
ALIGNMENT

Deliberately and actively preserves and enhances soil health through explicit design for
Strong alignment
improving soil biological activity and structure and preserving soil erosion

Lack of
Does not focus on soil health and may use practices undermining soil health
alignment

This principle may be non-applicable if the project does not address agricultural
n/a
production system

Examples / Indicators

• Monitor/assess soil health and biological activity to evaluate practices

• Holistic approach using multiple practices to deliberately enhance soil health including car-
bon sequestration
• e.g. vermicomposting, permaculture, natural farming, integrated diversified farming, or-
ganic agriculture
• mulching, organic matter addition, cover crops

The Agroecology Assessment Framework 11

 • minimum tillage
• deliberate fallow periods
• Animal integration for manure
• Land use management & prevention of soil erosion (terracing, zai pits,...)

4. Animal health

HLPE Definition: Ensure animal health and welfare.

DEGREE OF
VALUE STATEMENT
ALIGNMENT

Ensures highest standard of animal health and welfare, during entire life cycle with a
Strong alignment
focus on species-appropriate environment and locally adapted and resilient breeds

Lack of Neutral regarding animal health and welfare or meets required animal health and
alignment welfare standards in intensive production

n/a This principle may be non-applicable if the project does not involve animals

Examples / Indicators

• Work with resilient, locally adapted and naturally healthful breeds & promote responsible
research on these
• No breeding-related handicaps (e.g. brittle bones, hip problems, inability to birth naturally, or
proclivities to particular diseases)
• Align number of animals to carrying capacity of the land/water

12
 • Species-appropriate environment (free range, grass-fed ruminants, foraging fowl, outdoors
ideally all year round)
• High standards of animal welfare: free from stress, hunger, thirst
• Ethical killing, including in fishing
• Preventative approach to disease, preferably with natural remedies/approaches; castration
or other medical interventions only when necessary (not routine)
• Integrated pollinator management
• Eliminate/ reduce actively/significantly use of synthetic feeds and hormones - increase use of
organic feeds
• No separation of mother from young; no routine slaughter of baby males

5. Biodiversity

HLPE Definition: Maintain and enhance diversity of species, functional

diversity and genetic resources and thereby maintain overall agroecosystem
biodiversity in time and space at field, farm and landscape scales.

DEGREE OF
VALUE STATEMENT
ALIGNMENT

Deliberately and actively protects and enhances biological diversity within production
systems – from domesticated diversity (crops and animal races, ...) and ‘wild’ diversity
Strong alignment
(soil microorganisms, plants, insects, birds, fish, ...) to multi-habitat approaches (land
use diversity at landscape level)

Lack of Neutral with respect to biodiversity or actively manages production system to limit
alignment diversity (e.g. monocultures for ease of mechanical harvesting)

n/a This principle may be non-applicable if the project does not address production system

The Agroecology Assessment Framework 13

 Examples / Indicators

• Use a diversity of nutrient-rich crops, species and varieties including of local, traditional,
indigenous or ‘orphan’ crops, locally adapted breeds and varieties (animals, trees, crops, fish)
• Encouraging of particular species (e.g. pollinators, pest predators, wild companion plants)
through habitat management
• Conservation of forest fragments around farms, conversion of field edges into woodlands
• Multi-year crop rotation
• Multi-habitat approaches (land use diversity at landscape level)
• Biological soil fertility/health measures
• Measures to enhance local and natural pollinators

6. Synergy

HLPE Definition: Enhance positive ecological interaction, synergy,

integration and complementarity among the elements of agroecosystems
(animals, crops, trees, soil and water).

DEGREE OF
VALUE STATEMENT
ALIGNMENT

Enhances positive ecological interaction, integration and complementarity among the

elements of agroecosystems (animals, crops, trees, soil and water), as well as between
Strong alignment
production and environmental objectives across field, farm and landscape scales (e.g.
land sharing).

Neutral with respect to integrating or segregating components within production

Lack of systems or actively segregates components within production systems, including
alignment intensification of production on higher potential land, leaving other land for meeting
conservation objectives (land sparing)

This principle may be non-applicable if the project does not work on biophysical aspects
n/a
of landscape

14
 Examples / Indicators

• Agroecological redesign & diversification increasing synergies

• Companion planting
Š non-crop plants for ecological functions
Š polycultures and mixed farming, cover cropping, green manures or permanent ground
cover
Š intercropping, agroforestry, silvopasture,
Š crop-tree-livestock-fish integration;
Š legumes for nitrogen fixation
Š fodder trees and crops (mangroves for fisheries?)
Š soil-plants management system
• Connectivity between elements of the agroecosystem and the landscape
• Symbiotic and complementary role of plant and animal agriculture i.e. rotational / regenerative
grazing; manure-based composts and fertilizers
• Integrated pest management by habitat management (planting flowers to attract bees,...)
• Integrated landscape planning/territorial approach leading to improved ecosystem services
• Tackle climate change, food insecurity and all forms of malnutrition through redesigned
system

The Agroecology Assessment Framework 15

7. Economic diversification

HLPE Definition: Diversify on-farm incomes by ensuring that small-

scale farmers have greater financial independence and value addition
opportunities while enabling them to respond to demand from consumers.

DEGREE OF
VALUE STATEMENT
ALIGNMENT

Actively strives for greater economic diversity of local and regional production
Strong alignment and consumption systems, including to diversify livelihoods and enable financial
independence and autonomy

Lack of Neutral with respect to diversification or actively emphasises specialization in

alignment production systems

n/a This principle may be non-applicable if the project does not address livelihoods

Examples / Indicators

• Diversification of production – e.g. honey, wild/foraged foods and herbs, non-timber forest
products, native local fish species
• Safe, nutrient-preserving on-farm or cooperative-based storage agroprocessing/
transformation
• Farm-based or local input production for distribution (seed, seedlings, trees, biofertilisers,
biopesticides)
• Small enterprise development and support in agro-food value chains
• Support short/regional/diversified value chains/circuits, local food system
• Supporting youth and women entrepreneurship
• Farm-based non-agricultural activities (e.g. crafts, agri-tourism, eco-tourism, services, cooking-
classes, school visits)

16
8. Co-creation of knowledge

HLPE Definition: Enhance co-creation and horizontal sharing of knowledge

including local and scientific innovation, especially through farmer-to-
farmer exchange.

DEGREE OF
VALUE STATEMENT
ALIGNMENT

Actively supports and emphasizes the importance of indigenous/traditional knowledge,

Strong alignment local innovation, farmer-to-farmer knowledge exchange, and other horizontal
knowledge exchanges within the food system

Lack of Does not promote co-creation of knowledge and emphasizes dissemination of

alignment innovation from state and privately-funded formal research

n/a This principle is always applicable

Examples / Indicators

• Platform for the horizontal creation and transfer of knowledge and good practices:
Š farmer to farmer learning and exchanges including farmer field schools, farmers’ climate
field schools
Š community of practices on agroecology
• Farmer research and experimentation groups
• recovery, valorisation and dissemination of traditional and indigenous knowledge
• co innovation between farmers and researchers/participatory research
• transdisciplinary research (design, implementation, analysis, evaluation).
• Improve access to agroecological knowledge:
Š capacity building/strengthen agroecological extension
Š improvement and development of agroecology curriculum
Š consumer food and nutrition education
• Engagement and participation of producers and consumers in local community and grassroots
organizations

The Agroecology Assessment Framework 17

9. Social values & diets

HLPE Definition: Build food systems based on the culture, identity, tradition,
social and gender equity of local communities that provide healthy,
diversified, seasonally and culturally appropriate diets.

DEGREE OF
VALUE STATEMENT
ALIGNMENT

Build food systems based on equity and the cultural identity and tradition of local
Strong alignment
communities that provide healthy, diversified, culturally appropriate diets

Lack of Does not address social inequalities and disregards cultural identities and values related
alignment to food and diets

n/a This principle is always applicable

Examples / Indicators

Social values:
• Cultural identity and tradition
• Gender equity
• Youth and women empowerment
• Inclusion (IPLC’s, PWD and other marginalised groups)
• Agriculture based on family farmers which have full access to capital and decision making
processes

Diets:
• Healthy and diversified diets
• Access to culturally and seasonally appropriate food
• Promotion of diversified locally produced healthy diets through a diversified food production
system

18
10. Fairness

HLPE Definition: Support dignified and robust livelihoods for all actors
engaged in food systems, especially small-scale food producers, based on
fair trade, fair employment and fair treatment of intellectual property rights.

DEGREE OF
VALUE STATEMENT
ALIGNMENT

Emphasizes fairness as well as decent work, and actively supports dignified and robust
Strong alignment
livelihoods for all actors engaged in food systems, especially small-scale food producers

Lack of Neutral to or disregarding labour conditions as well as injustices in trade and legal
alignment arrangements

n/a This principle is always applicable

Examples / Indicators

• Fair trade and fair prices in local, regional and international markets
• Decent jobs and working conditions for all actors in agri-food system
• social mechanisms to reduce vulnerability
• Producers and consumers organisations
• Dignified livelihoods especially for smallholders
• Protection of traditional knowledge and promotion of fair intellectual property rights, e.g.
Open Source Seeds
• Equitable and collective ownership models

The Agroecology Assessment Framework 19

11. Connectivity

HLPE Definition: Ensure proximity and confidence between producers and

consumers through promotion of fair and short distribution networks and
by re-embedding food systems into local economies.

DEGREE OF
VALUE STATEMENT
ALIGNMENT

Emphasizes proximity and relationships between producers, consumers and other food
Strong alignment system actors through promotion of fair, short and local distribution networks, circular
economy, workers’ cooperatives and solidarity networks

Lack of Project does not promote connectivity between food system actors and/or emphasizes
alignment global value chains

This principle may be non-applicable if the project does not address commercialisation
n/a
and exchange of produce

Examples / Indicators

• Re-establishing connection between consumers and producer emphasising connectivity and

trust, less intermediaries
• Access to markets emphasising short food chains and local food webs
• Encourage and sensitise for seasonal and regional demand
• Re-establishing and reinforcing the connection between communities and territories (including
spiritual and ancestral connections)
• Public procurement schemes for agroecological produce especially favouring smallholder
food producers
• Organisation and support of local farmer markets, workers cooperatives, CSAs and/or PGS
• Community restaurants, soup kitchens

20
12. Land and natural resource governance

HLPE Definition: Strengthen institutional arrangements to improve,

including the recognition and support of family farmers, smallholders and
peasant food producers as sustainable managers of natural and genetic
resources.

DEGREE OF
VALUE STATEMENT
ALIGNMENT

Asserts basic rights (especially the right to food and water, land rights) and strengthens
Strong alignment institutional arrangements to support agroecological production and smallholder food
producers as sustainable managers of natural and genetic resources

Lack of Neutral to rights-based approaches and/or ignores role of local communities in natural
alignment resource management

This principle may be non-applicable if l and natural resource governance and

n/a
institutional arrangements fall outside of the scope of the project

Examples / Indicators

• Recognition of smallholder rights & conflict resolution in their support

• Respecting, protecting, fulfilling, promoting the right to food
• Respecting, protecting, fulfilling, promoting the right to save, use, exchange and sell farm-
saved seed
• Respecting, protecting, fulfilling, promoting rights of traditional knowledge protection
• Promotion of food sovereignty
• Integrated seed governance emphasising farmer managed seed systems
• Land tenure that respects traditional and customary land rights and ensure equitable and
secure access to land for smallholders/ family farmers and peasant food producers. (e.g.
social forestry, community-based forest management, protected area management by local
communities)
• Control of inland and marine water resources by coastal/fishing communities; governance of
water resources include their representatives

The Agroecology Assessment Framework 21

 • Equitable ownership and access to natural resources recognising the crucial role of small
holders and IPLCs as stewards of the environment
• Improving the enabling policy environment for agroecology, sustainable land use and natural
resource management (e.g. Public and private incentives for provision of ecosystem services
through agriculture and land management, national land use policies that protect agricultural
land from conversion)

13. Participation

HLPE Definition: Encourage social organization and greater participation in

decision-making by food producers and consumers to support decentralized
governance and local adaptive management of agricultural and food
systems.

DEGREE OF
VALUE STATEMENT
ALIGNMENT

Places smallholder food producers and vulnerable, marginalised communities at

the centre of decision-making; encourages decentralized governance; strengthens
organisational capacity for self-determination and autonomy and actively strives for
Strong alignment
greater food actor agency – i.e. participation of all food actors and wider civil society
in decision-making about how food is produced, processed, stored, transported and
consumed

Lack of
Does not actively encourage inclusive participation and/or centralises decision- making
alignment

n/a This principle is always applicable

22
 Examples / Indicators

• Inclusive and meaningful participation of women, youth, IPLCs and other marginalised groups in
policy and decision (e.g. making Increased agency of all actors in the food systems, their legitimate
and self-selected representatives sit in relevant governance and implementation bodies)
• Participatory, inclusive and equitable food system governance (including policy development,
food councils)
• Multi-actor food system processes, communities of practice
• Deliberative and consultative democracy such as citizen’s juries, or participatory monitoring or
budgeting mechanisms
• Devolved decision-making
• Community-based natural resource management
• Participatory land use planning, landscape design
• Participatory biosphere conservation and restoration, catchment management
• Local adaptive management
• Rights awareness and capacity to claim for rights holders and accountability for duty bearers
• Strengthened organisational capacity for participation, self-determination and autonomy /
increasing agency (e.g food sovereignty)

The Agroecology Assessment Framework 23

 Contact:
Agroecology Coalition
Hosted by Bioversity International
Via di San Domenico 1
00153 Rome
Italy

secretariat@agroecology-coalition.org

https://agroecology-coalition.org/
24