DOCSLIB.ORG

Tool for Agroecology Performance Evaluation (TAPE) Aims to Assess the Multi-Dimensional Performance of Agroecology in Various Contexts, Territories and Regions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tool for Agroecology Performance Evaluation (TAPE) Aims to Assess the Multi-Dimensional Performance of Agroecology in Various Contexts, Territories and Regions TAPE TOOL FOR AGROECOLOGY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROCESS OF DEVELOPMENT AND GUIDELINES FOR APPLICATION TEST VERSION TAPE TOOL FOR AGROECOLOGY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROCESS OF DEVELOPMENT AND GUIDELINES FOR APPLICATION TEST VERSION FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS ROME, 2019 Required citation: FAO. 2019. TAPE Tool for Agroecology Performance Evaluation 2019 – Process of development and guidelines for application. Test version. Rome The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO. ISBN 978-92-5-132064-8 © FAO, 2019 Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/ legalcode). Under the terms of this licence, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted for non-commercial purposes, provided that the work is appropriately cited. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that FAO endorses any specific organization, products or services. The use of the FAO logo is not permitted. If the work is adapted, then it must be licensed under the same or equivalent Creative Commons licence. If a translation of this work is created, it must include the following disclaimer along with the required citation: “This translation was not created by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. The original [Language] edition shall be the authoritative edition.” Disputes arising under the licence that cannot be settled amicably will be resolved by mediation and arbitration as described in Article 8 of the licence except as otherwise provided herein. The applicable mediation rules will be the mediation rules of the World Intellectual Property Organization http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/mediation/ rules and any arbitration will be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). Third-party materials. Users wishing to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party, such as tables, figures or images, are responsible for determining whether permission is needed for that reuse and for obtaining permission from the copyright holder. The risk of claims resulting from infringement of any third- party-owned component in the work rests solely with the user. Sales, rights and licensing. FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/ publications) and can be purchased through [email protected]. Requests for commercial use should be submitted via: www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request. Queries regarding rights and licensing should be submitted to: [email protected]. Cover photograph: © FAO/Daniel Hayduk Back cover photograph: © FAO/Astrid Randen CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... V ACRONYMS ...........................................................................................................VII SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1 1.1 Why do we need to assess agroecology? .............................................................. 2 1.2 Background and mandate .................................................................................. 2 1.3 Targeted audience and how to use this document .................................................. 4 SECTION 2 DEVELOPING A GLOBAL ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK ON AGROECOLOGY .............. 5 2.1. Objectives ..................................................................................................... 6 2.2. Process ......................................................................................................... 7 2.3. Founding principles ......................................................................................... 8 2.4. Key attributes from existing frameworks ............................................................. 9 2.5. A stepwise approach ....................................................................................... 9 2.6. Scale of assessment, data collection and sampling methodology ............................13 SECTION 3 TAPE, STEP BY STEP .................................................................................... 15 3.1. Step 0. Description of systems and context ........................................................16 3.2. Step 1. Characterization of Agroecological Transition (CAET) .................................16 3.3. Step 1bis (optional). Transition Typology ...........................................................20 3.4. Step 2. Core Performance Criteria ......................................................................23 3.4.1. Secure land tenure (or secure mobility for pastoralists) ...............................27 3.4.2. Productivity .........................................................................................28 3.4.3. Income ...............................................................................................31 3.4.4. Added value .........................................................................................33 3.4.5. Exposure to pesticides ...........................................................................34 3.4.6. Dietary diversity ...................................................................................35 3.4.7. Women’s empowerment ..........................................................................37 3.4.8. Youth employment opportunities .............................................................40 3.4.9. Agricultural biodiversity .........................................................................42 3.4.10. Soil health .........................................................................................45 3.4.11. Optional: Selection of Advanced Criteria .................................................47 3.5. Step 3: Joint analysis of Step 1 and 2 and participatory interpretation ...................48 SECTION 4 TESTING TAPE ............................................................................................49 REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................52 ANNEXES ANNEX 1 List of participants to the FAO expert workshop on Multi-Dimensional Assessment of Agroecology (8-9 October 2018, Rome) ................................................................58 ANNEX 2 Questionnaires .....................................................................................................60 FIGURES Figure 1. Process and timeline for the development of a global analytical framework on agroecology ........................................................................ 7 Figure 2. The global analytical framework of agroecology step by step ..........................................11 Figure 3. Visualization of the results of the CAET for three farms in Western Cuba at different stages of agroecological transition: monoculture in conventional production, recent transition, and advanced transition. ..............................................................................19 Figure 4. Visualization of the results of the CAET for a vulnerable smallholder farm in a degraded agricultural area of Central Angola, before and after a project for sustainable rural development and improved nutrition ...........................................................20 Figure 5. Visualization of the results of the CAET for 25 farms in Patagonia (Argentina) after using the Step 1-bis Transition Typology ..........................................................................22 Figure 6. Results of Step 1 and Step 2 applied to a farm in Thailand .............................................51 TABLES Table 1. Key attributes retained from a number of existing frameworks reviewed and main differences ...............................................................................................10 Table 2. Characterization of agroecological transitions (CAET): descriptive scales and score for the element of “Diversity” ..........................................................17 Table 3. Results of the CAET for 25 farms in Patagonia, Argentina ................................................22 Table 4. 10 Core criteria of performance of agroecology and their links to SDG indicators .................25 Table 5. Non-exhaustive list of possible advanced criteria identified and their associated methodologies for assessment. ........................................................................26 Table 6. Calculation of the family net income ...........................................................................31 Table 7. Calculation of the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Curriculum Vitae
    CURRICULUM VITAE BRIAN C. CAMPBELL Present Position: Associate Professor, Berry College, Director, Environmental Studies Program Evans Hall 212, Mount Berry, GA, 30149-0081 Email: [email protected] Phone Number W: (706) 368-6996 Citizenship: United States of America Languages: English and Spanish Research Program: Agricultural Biodiversity Conservation and Food Sovereignty in Floyd County, GA, and Visual Environmental Anthropology in the US Southern Highlands (Ozarks, Appalachia) and Belize, Central America RESEARCH APPROACHES, INTERESTS, REGIONS Agroecology, Applied, Community-Based, Ethnoecology, Political Ecology, Visual Anthropology Agrarianism, Agrobiodiversity, Environmentalism, Food Sovereignty, Justice, Methods, Sustainability Andes, Appalachia, Central America, Ozark Highlands EDUCATION 2005 Ph.D., Cultural Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA Concentrations: Agricultural Anthropology, Environmentalism, Ethnoecology 2002 Conservation Ecology and Sustainable Development, Graduate Certification University of Georgia Institute of Ecology 1994-1998 B.A., Summa Cum Laude, Truman State University, Kirksville, MO Majors: English, Anthropology Minors: Spanish, International Studies 1996 Attended Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica, Heredia, C.R., Central America PROFESSIONAL AND ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE 2018 Development of “Food, Ecology and Culture in Greece” Study Abroad course and 6-week summer and semester courses at the American Farm School / Perrotis College, Thessaloniki, Greece 2016 Tenured at Berry College, Mount Berry,
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Resource Management Among Small-Scale Farmers in Semi-Arid Lands: Building on Traditional Knowledge and Agroecology
    Annals of Arid Zone 44(3&4): 365-385, 2005 Natural Resource Management among Small-scale Farmers in Semi-arid Lands: Building on Traditional Knowledge and Agroecology Miguel A. Altieri1 and Vìctor M. Toledo2 1 Department of Environmental Science Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley, USA 2 Centro de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas, Universidad Nacional Autònoma de Mèxico Abstract: Although risk and uncertainty dominate the lives of most rural inhabitants of the semi-arid regions of the world, many farmers have been able to develop durable farming systems through the use of innovative soil and water management systems and the use of locally adapted crop species and varieties. In this paper we provide examples of farming systems developed by traditional farmers well adapted to the local conditions of the semi-arid environment, enabling farmers to generate sustained yields meeting their subsistence needs, despite harsh conditions and low use of external inputs. Part of this performance is linked to the ingenious soil and water conservation systems but also to the high levels of agrobiodiversity exhibited by traditional agroecosystems, which in turn positively influences agroecosystem function. We also give examples of projects aimed at assisting rainfed resource-poor farmers in the development of a variety of practical techniques and strategies to enhance production and resiliency in the midst of resource constraints typical of semi-arid environments. Many of these efforts use elements of modern science but that build upon
    [Show full text]
  • Integrating Ecological Risk Assessment and Economic Analysis in Watersheds: a Conceptual Approach and Three Case Studies
    EPA/600/R-03/140R September 2003 Integrating Ecological Risk Assessment and Economic Analysis in Watersheds: A Conceptual Approach and Three Case Studies National Center for Environmental Assessment Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Cincinnati, OH DISCLAIMER This document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. ABSTRACT This document reports on a program of research to investigate the integration of ecological risk assessment (ERA) and economics, with an emphasis on the watershed as the scale for analysis. In 1993, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency initiated watershed ERA (W- ERA) in five watersheds to evaluate the feasibility and utility of this approach. In 1999, economic case studies were funded in conjunction with three of those W-ERAs: the Big Darby Creek watershed in central Ohio; the Clinch Valley (Clinch and Powell River watersheds) in southwestern Virginia and northeastern Tennessee; and the central Platte River floodplain in Nebraska. The ecological settings, and the analytical approaches used, differed among the three locations, but each study introduced economists to the ERA process and required the interpretation of ecological risks in economic terms. A workshop was held in Cincinnati, OH in 2001 to review progress on those studies, to discuss environmental problems involving other watershed settings, and to discuss the ideal characteristics of a generalized approach for conducting studies of this type. Based on the workshop results, a conceptual approach for the integration of ERA and economic analysis in watersheds was developed.
    [Show full text]
  • Designing Agroecological Transitions; a Review Michel Duru, Olivier Therond, Mehand Fares
    Designing agroecological transitions; A review Michel Duru, Olivier Therond, Mehand Fares To cite this version: Michel Duru, Olivier Therond, Mehand Fares. Designing agroecological transitions; A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, Springer Verlag/EDP Sciences/INRA, 2015, 35 (4), pp.0. 10.1007/s13593-015-0318-x. hal-01340332 HAL Id: hal-01340332 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01340332 Submitted on 30 Jun 2016 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution| 4.0 International License Agron. Sustain. Dev. (2015) 35:1237–1257 DOI 10.1007/s13593-015-0318-x REVIEW ARTICLE Designing agroecological transitions; A review Michel Duru1,2 & Olivier Therond1,2 & M’hand Fares1,2 Accepted: 28 May 2015 /Published online: 1 July 2015 # INRA and Springer-Verlag France 2015. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract Concerns about the negative impacts of agriculture, (2) the pathway of the transition and (3) the re- productivist agriculture have led to the emergence of two quired adaptive governance structures and management strat- forms of ecological modernisation of agriculture. The first, egies. We conclude by analysing key challenges of designing efficiency-substitution agriculture, aims to improve input use such a complex transition, developing multi-actor and multi- efficiency and to minimise environmental impacts of modern domain approaches based on a combination of scientific and farming systems.
    [Show full text]
  • A Measure of Risk Tolerance Based on Economic Theory
    A Measure Of Risk Tolerance Based On Economic Theory Sherman D. Hanna1, Michael S. Gutter 2 and Jessie X. Fan3 Self-reported risk tolerance is a measurement of an individual's willingness to accept risk, making it a valuable tool for financial planners and researchers alike. Prior subjective risk tolerance measures have lacked a rigorous connection to economic theory. This study presents an improved measurement of subjective risk tolerance based on economic theory and discusses its link to relative risk aversion. Results from a web-based survey are presented and compared with results from previous studies using other risk tolerance measurements. The new measure allows for a wider possible range of risk tolerance to be obtained, with important implications for short-term investing. Key words: Risk tolerance, Risk aversion, Economic model Malkiel (1996, p. 401) suggested that the risk an to describe some preliminary patterns of risk tolerance investor should be willing to take or tolerate is related to based on the measure. The results suggest that there is the househ old situation, lifecycle stage, and subjective a wide variation of risk tolerance in people, but no factors. Risk tolerance is commonly used by financial systematic patterns related to gender or age have been planners, and is discussed in financial planning found. textbooks. For instance, Mittra (1995, p. 396) discussed the idea that risk tolerance measurement is usually not Literature Review precise. Most tests use a subjective measure of both There are at least four methods of measuring risk emotional and financial ability of an investor to tolerance: askin g about investment choices, asking a withstand losses.
    [Show full text]
  • Exposure and Vulnerability
    Determinants of Risk: 2 Exposure and Vulnerability Coordinating Lead Authors: Omar-Dario Cardona (Colombia), Maarten K. van Aalst (Netherlands) Lead Authors: Jörn Birkmann (Germany), Maureen Fordham (UK), Glenn McGregor (New Zealand), Rosa Perez (Philippines), Roger S. Pulwarty (USA), E. Lisa F. Schipper (Sweden), Bach Tan Sinh (Vietnam) Review Editors: Henri Décamps (France), Mark Keim (USA) Contributing Authors: Ian Davis (UK), Kristie L. Ebi (USA), Allan Lavell (Costa Rica), Reinhard Mechler (Germany), Virginia Murray (UK), Mark Pelling (UK), Jürgen Pohl (Germany), Anthony-Oliver Smith (USA), Frank Thomalla (Australia) This chapter should be cited as: Cardona, O.D., M.K. van Aalst, J. Birkmann, M. Fordham, G. McGregor, R. Perez, R.S. Pulwarty, E.L.F. Schipper, and B.T. Sinh, 2012: Determinants of risk: exposure and vulnerability. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation [Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, pp. 65-108. 65 Determinants of Risk: Exposure and Vulnerability Chapter 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................67 2.1. Introduction and Scope..............................................................................................................69
    [Show full text]
  • Scaling up Agroecology to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals
    SCALING UP AGROECOLOGY TO ACHIEVE THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS 2ND FAO INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON AGROECOLOGY By Kim Assaël From 3 to 5 April 2018 FAO has hosted the 2nd International Symposium on Agroecology: Scaling-up Agroecology to achieve the (SDGs). Building on the first Symposium and the subsequent regional workshops, the Symposium on Agroecology focused the transition of Agroecology from dialogue to action, by sharing ideas and experiences, while discussing policies and actions that can support agroecology in achieving the SDGs and accompany the decade of Family Farming (2019-2028) and the Decade of Action on Nutrition (2016-2025). About 400 participants were attended, from policy- makers and governments, agroecology practitioners and civil society representatives, to members from academia and research, the private sector and representatives from the regional meetings. Even with it almost 700 were the effective participants and plenary rooms have been changed at the last minute to make space to all participants. Key elements and actions to support scaling up agroecology have been intensively discussed as the multiple benefits of agroecology are an important path for meeting the 2030 Agenda objectives and addressing the interlinked challenges. The key facts underpinning the big advantages of agroecology are summarized in the FAO website: Agroecology relies on ecosystem services to improve productivity. The knowledge and practices of farmers and food producers from all over the world are at the core of agroecology. Agroecology can address the root causes of hunger, poverty and inequality. Agroecology combines farmers’ knowledge with modern science in innovative ways. Agroecology provides local solutions for global challenges.
    [Show full text]
  • Anthrozoology and Sharks, Looking at How Human-Shark Interactions Have Shaped Human Life Over Time
    Anthrozoology and Public Perception: Humans and Great White Sharks (Carchardon carcharias) on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, USA Jessica O’Toole A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Marine Affairs University of Washington 2020 Committee: Marc L. Miller, Chair Vincent F. Gallucci Program Authorized to Offer Degree School of Marine and Environmental Affairs © Copywrite 2020 Jessica O’Toole 2 University of Washington Abstract Anthrozoology and Public Perception: Humans and Great White Sharks (Carchardon carcharias) on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, USA Jessica O’Toole Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Dr. Marc L. Miller School of Marine and Environmental Affairs Anthrozoology is a relatively new field of study in the world of academia. This discipline, which includes researchers ranging from social studies to natural sciences, examines human-animal interactions. Understanding what affect these interactions have on a person’s perception of a species could be used to create better conservation strategies and policies. This thesis uses a mixed qualitative methodology to examine the public perception of great white sharks on Cape Cod, Massachusetts. While the area has a history of shark interactions, a shark related death in 2018 forced many people to re-evaluate how they view sharks. Not only did people express both positive and negative perceptions of the animals but they also discussed how the attack caused them to change their behavior in and around the ocean. Residents also acknowledged that the sharks were not the only problem living in the ocean. They often blame seals for the shark attacks, while also claiming they are a threat to the fishing industry.
    [Show full text]
  • Environment and Natural Resource Management POLICY
    Environment and natural resource management POLICY Resilient livelihoods through the sustainable use of natural assets Enabling poor rural people to overcome poverty IFAD ENRM core principles 10 Reduce Productive and IFAD’s environmental resilient livelihoods footprint Increase and ecosystems smallholder access to Promote role 9 green finance 8 of women and indigenous peoples Promote livelihood 7 diversification Improve 6 governance of natural assets Engage in value chains 5 that drive green growth Build 4 smallholder resilience to risk Promote climate-smart 3 rural Recognize development 2 values of natural assets Scaled-up 1 investment in sustainable agriculture Scaled-up investment in Improved governance of natural assets multiple-benefit approaches for for poor rural people by strengthening land tenure sustainable agricultural intensification and community-led empowerment Recognition and greater awareness Livelihood diversification to reduce vulnerability of the economic, social and cultural and build resilience for sustainable value of natural assets natural resource management ‘Climate-smart’ approaches Equality and empowerment for women to rural development and indigenous peoples in managing natural resources Greater attention to risk and resilience Increased access in order to manage environment- and by poor rural communities natural-resource-related shocks to environment and climate finance Engagement in value chains Environmental commitment through to drive green growth changing its own behaviour A full description of the core principles begins on page 28. Environment and natural resource management Policy Resilient livelihoods through the sustainable use of natural assets Enabling poor rural people to overcome poverty Minor amendments have been included in this document to reflect comments received during Board deliberations and to incorporate the latest data available.
    [Show full text]
  • Agroecology What It Is and What It Has to Offer
    Agroecology What it is and what it has to offer Laura Silici Issue Paper Food and agriculture Keywords: June 2014 Agroecology, Small-scale farming, Food sovereignty, Agro-biodiversity About the authors Laura Silici, Researcher, IIED Natural Resources Group, Agroecology team [email protected] Acknowledgements The author is extremely grateful to Barbara Adolph, Krystyna Swiderska and Seth Cook (IIED) for their significant contributions to the draft; to Patrick Mulvany (UK Food Group) and Bruce Ferguson (El Colegio de la Frontera Sur) for reviewing the paper; and to Fiona Hinchcliffe for her valuable editorial advice. Produced by IIED’s Natural Resources Group The aim of the Natural Resources Group is to build partnerships, capacity and wise decision-making for fair and sustainable use of natural resources. Our priority in pursuing this purpose is on local control and management of natural resources and other ecosystems. Published by IIED, June 2014 Laura Silici, 2014. Agroecology: What it is and what it has to offer. IIED Issue Paper. IIED, London. Product code: 14629IIED ISBN: 978-1-78431-065-3 Printed on recycled paper with vegetable-based inks. Photo credit: CIMMYT using Creative Commons International Institute for Environment and Development 80-86 Gray’s Inn Road, London WC1X 8NH, UK Tel: +44 (0)20 3463 7399 Fax: +44 (0)20 3514 9055 email: [email protected] www.iied.org @iied www.facebook.com/theIIED Download more publications at www.iied.org/pubs ISSUE PAPER In a context of a changing climate and growing concerns for more healthy food systems, agroecology is gaining momentum as a scientific discipline, sustainable farming approach and social movement.
    [Show full text]
  • PROMOTING AGROECOLOGY the Most Effective Way to Achieve Sustainable Food Security and Nutrition for All in a Changing Climate
    © Tine Frank - Soudan du Sud Frank Tine © PROMOTING AGROECOLOGY The most effective way to achieve sustainable food security and nutrition for all in a changing climate In 2017, at least 795 million people are facing chronic food This food system doesn’t address the joint challenges of food insecurity and half of the world’s population suffers from and nutrition security and climate change. Instead of this, it has malnutrition, while the total agriculture output produces enough a great responsibility in environmental degradation, collapse calories to feed 12 billion1. of biodiversity, pressure on natural resources, greenhouse gas emissions. It also has tremendous social impacts such as the loss Small scale farmers produce 80% of our food2 but remain the of traditional and locally adapted know-hows; concentration of most affected by food and nutrition insecurity and are the least wealth, exclusion of the most vulnerable, non-communicable supported by their governments. diseases and malnutrition in its different forms3. Climate change adds a new set of threats to food security: increased Agroecology proposes a comprehensive answer to these frequency of natural disasters, changes in local climate conditions, challenges and contributes to the realization of the Right to Food increased intensity of cyclical meteorological events, accelerated by offering a new basis for sustainable food systems, resilient desertification, floods, submersion, heat and cold waves, new pests agricultural livelihoods and good nutrition. and diseases. These phenomena will reduce crop productivity and nutrient density of crops. In this context, small scale farmers, infant children and women in particular, and the poorest, are the Therefore, Action Against Hunger stands for the promotion most vulnerable.
    [Show full text]
  • Agroecology and the Search for a Truly Sustainable Agriculture 1St Edition
    Agroecology and the Search for a Truly Sustainable Agriculture 1st edition Miguel A. Altieri Clara I. Nicholls University of California, Berkeley 9 Basic Textbooks for Environmental Training First edition: 2000 (Spanish version) First edition: 2005 (English version) © United Nations Environment Programme Environmental Training Network for Latin America and the Caribbean Boulevard de los Virreyes 155, Colonia Lomas de Virreyes 11000, Mexico D.F., Mexico ISBN 968-7913-35-5 CONTENTS PREFACE 5 INTRODUCTION 9 Chapter 1 MODERN AGRICULTURE: ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS AND THE ALTERNATIVES TO CONVENTIONAL FARMING 13 Chapter 2 AGROECOLOGY: PRINCIPLES AND STRATEGIES FOR DISIGNING SUSTAINABLE FARMING SYSTEMS 29 Chapter 3 TEN REASONS WHY BIOTECHNOLOGY WILL NOT ENSURE FOOD SECURITY, PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT AND REDUCE POVERTY IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD 39 Chapter 4 THE ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF TRANSGENIC CROPS 53 Chapter 5 A DIALOGUE OF WISDOMS: LINKING ECOLOGISTS AND TRADITIONAL FARMERS IN THE SEARCH FOR A TRULY SUSTAINABLE A GRICULTURE 73 Chapter 6 AGROECOLOGY: THE SCIENCE OF NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT FOR POOR FARMERS IN MARGINAL ENVIRONMENTS 99 Chapter 7 ENHANCING THE PRODUCTIVITY OF LATIN A MERICAN T RADITIONAL PEASANT FARMING SYSTEMS THROUGH AN A GROECOLOGICAL A PPROACH 145 Chapter 8 BIOLOGICAL CONTROL IN AGROECOSYSTEMS THROUGH MANAGEMENT OF ENTOMOPHAGOUS INSECTS 179 Chapter 9 AN AGROECOLOGICAL BASIS FOR INSECT PEST MANAGEMENT 199 Chapter 10 DESIGNING AND IMPLEMENTING A HABITAT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY TO ENHANCE BIOLOGICAL PEST CONTROL IN AGROECOLOGY 239 Chapter 11 AGROECOLOGY: TRANSITIONING ORGANIC AGRICULTURE BEYOND INPUT SUBSTITUTION 263 Cahpter 12 A RAPID, FARMER-FRIENDLY AGROECOLOGICAL METHOD TO ESTIMATE SOIL QUALITY AND CROP HEALTH IN VINEYARD SYSTEMS 277 PrefacePreface Environmental education and training is the process whereby new knowledge and practices evolve to understand and to intervene in the solution of the complex socio-environmental problems of our time.
    [Show full text]