Lastly, in a study of different strawberry production systems, it was observed that organic producers observed higher yields (13 t/ha as opposed to 9.8 for vegetable growers and 11 for combination growers) than those practicing conventional strawberry cultivation (Randrianarison et al. 2017).

Economic outcomes of the implementation of agroecological practices were variable between cases. On the one hand, Randrianarison et al. (2017) observed low income in organic producers due to expensive land rental required outside labour. On the other hand, the adoption of better adapted paddy rice varieties allowed farmers greater production stability and hence more stable income (Naudin et al. 2018). Finally, a single farmer case study showed how the association of paddy rice and fish production in the same field optimized land use and enabled continuous production throughout the year, allowing the farmer a consistent source of income (ADRA 2016).

Through incorporation of agroecological practices, some studies showed environmental benefits. In the study of strawberry producers, organic farmers experienced improved soil fertility as a result of organic fertilizer and management practices (Randrianarison et al., 2017). In a study of smallholder farmers' carbon footprints (CFP), it was shown that by incorporating agroforestry practices, composting of organic matter, and SRI, farmers were able to significantly reduce their CFP (Rakotovao et al. 2017). In another study about agroforestry, it was observed that biodiversity was enhanced through reforestation, and suggestions were made that these practices also increased on-farm carbon storage (Razafimbelo et al. 2018).

The analysed literature reported a limited range of social benefits. Only L'Agence Française du Développement recorded an increase of extension and support services for local farmers (AFD 2016).

### 3.13.5 Promotion of Agroecology in the Country: Evidence from Literature

There was no mention in the literature of government organizations promoting agroecology. A report from the Centre De Coopération Internationale En Recherche Agronomique Pour Le Développement (CIRAD) highlighted a number of regional, national, and international NGOs working in tandem to promote such practices as conservation agriculture, vermicomposting, agroforestry, and improved water management (Naudin et al., 2018). In another study, the Malagasy Department of Agriculture participated in the distribution of improved lima bean seeds in cooperation with a research team to study the adoption trends with new varieties (Rakotovao et al., 2017).

Overall, the promotion of agroecology and agroecological practices appeared low based on the resulting literature search. Where specific practices were being promoted, it was generally initiated by development organizations or research institutions.

### 3.13.6 Conclusions

In conclusion, the literature on agroecological practices in Madagascar included family and entrepreneurial farming systems, covering extensive aquaculture, livestock, agroforestry and cropping agroecosystems. The main agroecological practices included composting, SRI, organic fertilizer, crop rotation, protection against erosion and diversification. Reasons to adopt these practices included climate change resilience, soil health and low or no access to inputs. Literature has shown that agroecological practices can improve food and nutrition security in Madagascar, as they contribute to increased income, yield and/or food availability. The main observed benefits from the literature were yield increases, improved incomes, and reduction of environmental impacts. The studies analysed showed that there is a lack of participation from state actors in the promotion of agroecology and diffusion of agroecological practices.

The analysed literature neglected to assess food security based on distribution and access to food resources. There was also poor differentiation between realized benefits and the hypothetical potentials of agroecological practices with regards to food security. The lack of research of agroecological practices and their relationship to food security suggests a greater need to explore the potential of agroecology in Madagascar.

### 3.13.7 Number of analysed documents

The selection process returned 85 scientific articles and no documents of grey literature. Three scientific papers were found to match the aim of the study, in addition grey literature was further screened to highlight research, projects or initiatives not represented in journal articles. Six documents were identified.
### 3.13.8 References

#### Peer Reviewed Literature

Rakotovao, N.H., Razafimbelo, T.M., Rakotosamimanana, S., Randrianasolo, Z., Randriamalala, J.R., Albrecht, A. (2017). *Carbon footprint of smallholder farms in Central Madagascar: The integration of agroecological practices*. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1165–1175.

Randrianarison, R., Ranaivoarisoa, H.F., Rabibisoa, N.L., Rasamimanana, L.A., Ramananarivo, S., Ramananarivo, R. (2017). *Smallholder farmers' logic to promote strawberry value chain in the rural Commune of Tsiafahy, Analamanga Régions, Antananarivo*. Acta Horticulturae, (1156), 929–936.

Razafimbelo, T.M., Andriamananjara, A., Rafolisy, T., Razakamanarivo, H., Masse, D., Blanchart, E., Falinirina, M.-V., Bernard, L., Ravonjiarison, N., Albrecht, A. (2018). *Impact de l'agriculture climato-intelligente sur les stocks de carbone organique du sol à Madagascar*. Cahiers Agricultures, 27(3), 35001.

#### Grey Literature

ADRA 2016. *L'innovation paysanne. Le journal de la pisciculture à Madagascar*. Vol 33. http://www.apdra.org/IMG/file/voix_rizipisciculture/LVRP%2033%20VF.pdf

Agence Français de Development (AFD) (2016). *Améliorer la productivité agricole à Madagascar (PAPAM) | AFD - Agence Française de Développement*. www.afd.fr/fr/ameliorer-la-productivite-agricole-madagascar-papam.

Dupin, B. (2011). *Analyse des conditions d'adoption paysanne de diverses techniques agro-écologiques à partir des expériences de coopération d'AVSF*. www.avsf.org/public/posts/667/l-agroecologie-a-madagascar-analyse-des-conditions-d-adoption-paysanne-de-differentes-techniques-a-partir-de-l-experience-d-avsf.pdf

Naudin, K., Auffray, P., Dusserre, J., Penot, E., Raboin, L.-M., Raharison, T., Rakotoarisoa, J., Ramanantsoanirina, A., Randrianjafizanaka, M.T., Rasolofo, L.I., Raveloson, H., Razafimahatratra, H.M., Salgado, P., Sester, M., Vom Brocke, K., Scopel, E. (2018). *L'agro-écologie à Madagascar: de la plante au paysage*. http://agritrop.cirad.fr/590486/

Rerolle, J., Andriamampionona L.L.R., 2017. *D'une innovation à une pratique paysanne améliorée: Cas de la culture de manioc sur "billan amélioré" dans le Sud de Madagascar*. ASARA. Agronomes et vétérinaires sans frontières. http://asara-aina.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2-AVSF-MANIOC.pdf

Violas, D., Maharetse, J., Sandratriniaina, R., Lhériteau, F. 2018. *Document de capitalisation sur les blocs agroécologiques. Région Androy*. ASARA. Gret. https://docplayer.fr/129433601-Document-de-capitalisation-sur-l-experience-des-blocs-agroecologiques.html
## 3.14 Lao People's Democratic Republic

### 3.14.1 Country profile from the agro-environmental perspective<fnref n="21" />

Agriculture is a key sector for Lao PDR economy, it accounts for nearly half the country's GDP and employs around 75% of the population. The sector is dominated by small-scale subsistence farmers, depending on rice-based agriculture and livestock. The country is rich in biodiversity, consequently used also as an important source of food and nutrition for rural people.

Principal crops other than rice include sweet potatoes, sugarcane, corn (maize), assorted vegetables, fruits in smaller quantities, tobacco and coffee, which is the main exported crop. The country is characterized by a low agricultural productivity which can generate food security issues. Agriculture is also vulnerable to weather events like flooding, droughts or typhoons.

The analysis that follows is based on the documents listed in the References, retrieved through the selection process described in chapter 2.

### 3.14.2 Main topics addressed in the selected documents

All documents focus on smallholder farming systems. The main crops studied are rice and maize, which are grown both for as staple food and cash crops. Some farms also own livestock as assets to finance monetary costs including ceremonies, healthcare and education, even though animals are also used to generate power and manure. The agronomic practices studied include conservation agriculture, which requires no-till, permanent soil cover (mulch), and diversified crops rotations; maize/rice bean cropping system; organic farming rice and growing forage to feed livestock.

On the other hand, documents from the grey literature deal mainly with organic farming vegetable production based on principles in accordance with the belief of nurturing nature, traditional customary law and local ethnic knowledge in a village community; sustainable rice systems with single seedling transplanting, manual weeding and no chemical inputs; as well as organic rice under contract.

### 3.14.3 Links to food security

No scientific document specifically addresses the question of food security and only one evokes the nutritional qualities of rice beans as a source of protein while another suggests production in marginal lands through conservation agriculture may improve food security, but these documents do not really develop thoroughgoing the notion. Yet, no document mentions an adverse effect of agroecology on food security. On the contrary, two documents from the grey literature highlight the benefits of organic farming vegetable production that enable villagers to be in a position of self-reliance while ensuring the long-term sustainability of natural resources (SPERI 2017). Another report of the Sustainable Agriculture and Environment Development Association (SAEDA) claims that organic vegetable production enables to improve food security at the family level due to satisfactory food production with low cost, though this argument is not supported by scientific data. In addition, organic vegetables provide families with healthy food.

### 3.14.4 Sustainability assessment addressing the environmental, social and economic dimensions

Regarding productivity, no-till systems may increase maize yields under certain conditions. For example an experiment observed an increase of 16% for grain yield and 34% for crop residues, under no-till compared to conventional tillage from the third year onward (de Rouw and al. 2010). Likewise, Lienhard and al. (2014) suggested that total grain production of maize, rice and soybean was similar or even higher under conservation agriculture systems than under conventional tillage systems. The use of cover crops under conservation agriculture prior to or intercropped with main crops increased significantly total biomass production, of 50% higher, under all conservation agriculture systems as compared with conventional tillage. Besides, the maize / rice bean cropping system resulted in lower or equivalent maize yields in respectively intercropping and relay cropping in comparison with sole maize (Yap and al. 2019). This later study identified a number of challenges

<footnote n="21">²¹ Sources (in addition to the references below): https://www.agropolis.fr/formation/pdf/2009-politique-agricole-monde-laos.pdf, https://www.britannica.com/place/Laos/Agriculture-forestry-and-fishing</footnote>
associated with intercropping systems with rice bean. On the other hand, rice yields were estimated as equivalent in organic and conventional farming in Sangthong District, due to the closeness between the two systems, because conventional farmers are cropping in low-input systems in this region (Phranakhone and al. 2017). Rice farmers in organic farming obtained higher yield than conventional farmers (3272 kg/ha vs 2603 kg/ha), as farmers have better access to seeds, organic fertilizer and technical assistance facilitated by the contracting firm (Setboonsarng and al. 2008). In addition, according to a literature review carried out by Philp and al. (2019), the expansion of forage production can result in successful cattle fattening in Lao PDR.

From an economic point of view, crop diversification may generate additional income, such as maize / rice bean cropping system or cover crops in conservation agriculture for example, but the lack of local markets in some rural areas can hinder the selling of these crops (Yap and al. 2019). In conservation agriculture, total net incomes can be similar (without cover crop value) or even higher (with cover crop additional value as forage) than conventional tillage systems. This can be explained by higher grain production and lower annual variable costs for land preparation and weed management, despite higher initial investments (Lienhard and al. 2014). On the other hand, growing forages in a sustainable way may provide households with a general increase in the quantity and quality of feeds available for animal production that can generate greater returns from livestock than would be attainable under traditional smallholder farming practices (Philp and al. 2019). Besides, organic rice farmers can achieve a higher profit from their rice production, due to higher selling price of certified organic rice. For example, Phranakhone and al. (2017) reported a 50% increase of profit with organic rice farming compared to conventional farming in Sangthong District. The development of local or export organic markets to increase the selling price compared to conventional farming also resulted in better farmer incomes in two other cases study (SAEDA, Setboonsarng and al. 2008).

Regarding environmental benefits, some papers suggest that agroecological practices can contribute to improving soil fertility, for example in the case of rice bean production by farmers (Yap and al. 2019). However, no-till systems have been shown to improve soil structure, leading to more water availability (de Rouw and al. 2010). The recycling of biomass in conservation agriculture systems can considerably contribute to enhancing soil chemical, physical and biological properties and to producing various ecosystem services (Lienhard and al. 2014). However, a study found a loss of carbon in a no-till system while conventional tillage system significantly stored carbon. The authors argued that this can be due to the slowness of biomass transformation into organic matter from the soil surface compared to direct carbon losses, while ploughing plant residues into the soil enable to capture them more efficiently. However, the authors highlighted the fact that no-till system depended heavily on fertilizers and herbicides (de Rouw and al. 2010), which cannot be consider as agroecology. Besides, Philp and al. (2019) referenced similar ecological benefits that can be attained by growing forages, such as limiting soil erosion, sequestrating carbon, or fixing nitrogen through leguminous forages.

No noticeable social benefits were pointed out in the selected scientific papers, except the positive effect of increase income on households' livelihoods. In the grey literature documents, organic production of vegetables was mentioned as suitable for women in two articles as it is less labour intensive (SPERI 2017, SAEDA). In addition, the agroecological system production of Long-Lan village is a relevant example of agricultural system where the village elders, heads of families, prestigious villagers and key farmers are playing a decisive role in maintaining the traditional values, structures and regulation of relations amongst families and clans, and ensuring the sustainable management of natural resources.

### 3.14.5 Promotion of agroecology in the Country: evidences from literature

The agricultural development policies of Lao PDR are aiming at intensifying the production system and forcing out the traditional shifting cultivation practices. However, there is a series of research and development projects that are testing and promoting alternative low input cropping in various places of the country. For example, the Eco-Friendly Intensification and Climate Resilient Agricultural Systems in Lao PDR (EFICAS) and Forestry and Agro-Ecology in Lao PDR Rural Uplands (FORAE) projects can be mentioned. These projects are mainly led by NGOs, as Agrisud which supported the development of rice bean cropping system for example. Besides, organic rice farming can be promoted by farmer associations, as the Sangthong Organic Farmers Association, which developed organic rice markets (Figure 9 and Figure 10).
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 9.** Rice parcel © Agrisud</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 10.** Rice harvest, F. Grunewald, © Cirad</figcaption></figure>

Several NGO lead agroecological development projects in Lao PDR, mainly at the village community level. The ALiSEA database (Agroecology Learning Alliance in South East Asia) has capitalized a significant amount of these projects. ALiSEA is “an innovative regional platform to network all initiatives supporting the agroecology movement, to feed public policies and to support wider dissemination of successful alternative agricultural practices”. These development projects can effectively promote transition from conventional to agroecology farming in Lao PDR. However, as for West African countries, they do not result in scientific publications, neither in quantitative database allowing verifying narratives about agroecology.

Several impediments need still to be overcome to upscale agroecological production. Economic difficulties to invest in new practices, commitment to traditional practices, lack of knowledge regarding agroecological practices and high labour requirements are cited as the main barriers to adoption. Financial support to implement agroecological practices and development of markets for new agroecological products are needed. Farmer-led organizations can provide a strong basis for the promotion of agroecology, as they can enhance access to information and market channels and provide farmers with technical mentoring. According to documents from the grey literature, farmer to farmer learning is a very effective extension methodology. Factors of success for promoting agroecology farming include simple and low investment techniques. The development of organic farming markets is also essential, provided that consumers are aware of benefits of organic products.

### 3.14.6 Conclusions

This literature review of agroecological research experiences in Lao PDR highlights some considerable environmental and economic benefits that could be brought about by agroecological practices. However, the amount of relevant scientific literature is relatively poor, there is therefore a need to enhance active research in these topics. On the other hand, development projects are quite active in some areas, and the capitalization of agroecological experiences through the creation of ALiSEA database shows that agroecological awareness is growing. Even if the development projects need to be supported, the publication of exploitable reports must be encouraged, as most of documents on ALiSEA were not relevant to provide a scientific insight of agroecology practices.

### 3.14.7 Number of analysed documents

The analysis highlights a weak amount of relevant scientific literature concerning agroecology in Lao PDR, with only 5 papers found relevant among the 60 papers returned by the application of the search protocol. Regarding grey literature documents, they were retrieved from ALiSEA (Agroecology Learning Alliance in South East Asia). However, they are mostly based on empirical knowledge. Thus, only three documents were relevant among 226 available found in ALiSEA for Lao PDR.

### 3.14.8 References

#### Scientific papers

de Rouw, A., Huon, S., Soulileuth, B., Jouquet, P., Pierret, A., Ribolzi, O., Valentin, C., Bourdon, E., Chantharath, B., 2010. *Possibilities of carbon and nitrogen sequestration under conventional tillage and no-till cover crop farming (Mekong valley, Laos). Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment* 136, 148-161.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2009.12.013

Heong, K., Escalada, M., Sengsoulivong, V., Schiller, J., 2002. *Insect management beliefs and practices of rice farmers in Laos*. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 92, 137-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00304-8
Lienhard, P., Panyasiri, K., Sayphoummie, S., Leudphanane, B., Lestrelin, G., Seguy, L., Tivet, F., 2014. *Profitability and opportunity of conservation agriculture in acid savannah grasslands of Laos*. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 12, 391–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2013.806419

Philp, J.N.M., Vance, W., Bell, R.W., Chhay, T., Boyd, D., Phimphachanhvongsod, V., Denton, M.D., 2019. *Forage options to sustainably intensify smallholder farming systems on tropical sandy soils. A review*. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-019-0576-0

Yap, V.Y., Xaphokhame, P., de Neergaard, A., Bruun, T.B., 2019. *Barriers to Agro-Ecological Intensification of Smallholder Upland Farming Systems in Lao PDR*. Agronomy-Basel 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9070375

**Grey literature**

Huam Jai Asasamak Association, 2018. *Identifying barriers to the adoption of agroecological practices in rural Laos*. Setboonsarng, S., Stefan, A., Leung, P., Cai, J., 2008. *Profitability of Organic Agriculture in a Transition Economy the Case of Organic Contract Rice Farming in Lao PDR*.

Social Policy Ecology Research Institute SPERI, 2017. *Ecological vegetable cultivation-of Hmong in LongLan village, Luang Prabang province, Laos*.

Sustainable Agriculture and Environment Development Association (SAEDA), District Agriculture and Forestry Office (DAFO), n.d. *Results of Sustainable Agriculture and Market Access Development Project*.
## 3.15 Guatemala

### 3.15.1 Country agro-environmental profile

The total land area of Guatemala is 109,000 km² with 39,000 km² devoted to agriculture and 35,000 km² to forests. The country is mostly mountainous with two major chains from west to east, while lowlands are limited to the southern coastal area and in the northern Petén department. Consequently, the climate varies with elevation, from the hot and humid tropical lowlands and to the temperate and even cold highland peaks and valleys. Guatemala, like other central American and Caribbean countries, is seasonally hit by hurricanes causing floods and landslides with serious consequences to agriculture and its rural population. The country is considered a biodiversity hot spot with seven main biomes (tropical humid forest, tropical rainforest, cloud forest, montane forest, dry scrub, sub-tropical humid forest, and tropical humid savannah) which are home to 1,246 known species of amphibians, birds, mammals and reptiles (7% endemic), 8,680 vascular plants (13.5% endemic). This is the land where corn was domesticated with other major plants (squash, beans, avocados, cacao, tomatoes, zapotes, jocotes, chicle, amaranth, chilis, among others) and animals such as the turkey. Notwithstanding its high rate of endemisms, however, biodiversity in general is being degraded through unsustainable land uses. Traditional practices and knowledge associated with the use of biological resources are threatened, as well as the cultural and ethnic diversity with its traditional knowledge, skills and timeless practices. Between 1999 and 2003, the extent of forests, agricultural lands and wetlands was reduced while the cover of natural pastures and shrubs increased. The agricultural and livestock sector is promoting sustainable practices and market competition, with a view towards high aggregated value in volume and quality in the national and international markets. As such, the country recognises the importance of considering ecosystem conservation, genetic diversity, traditional knowledge related to the cultivation and use of native species, among other factors, in the development of sectoral policy to deal with present and future challenges. Certain institutions are undertaking activities to compile and record traditional knowledge but this is hampered by the absence of baseline information. The prevailing economic model of agriculture threatens biodiversity and traditional practices with moving towards packaged food and drinks, large-scale monoculture farming (e.g. sugar cane, African palm) for export purposes. The loss of traditional practices as a result of the exodus of the rural populations to the urban centres poses another threat. Indigenous Guatemalans are close to 50% of the national population, which is among one of the largest percentages in Latin America, behind only Peru and Bolivia. Most indigenous Guatemalans are of the Maya people with a large cultural diversity of ethnic groups. They often speak almost exclusively their native languages. This is raised as an obstacle in scientific agroecology investigation.

The analysis that follows is based on the documents listed in the References, retrieved through the selection process described in chapter 2.

### 3.15.2 Links to food security

Taking into account that Guatemala is a country suffering from decades-long armed conflicts with devastating consequences on rural people and family farming systems, food insecurity in Guatemala is an access-related problem given that most rural households are net consumers of food, which means that they buy more food in the market than what they produce. Widespread malnutrition is, consequently, to be expected in a country where more than half of total households live in poverty. Despite its wealth of natural resources, nearly half the children under 5 years of age suffer from malnutrition. Nearly 60% of the national population lives under the poverty line with two towns in the San Marcos Department, Tacaná and Sibinal, reaching 84% and 90% respectively. Agroecology-based farmers have higher levels of food availability than semi-conventional ones during both dry and rainy seasons. The former produce 27% more plant varieties during the dry season and 62% more so during the rainy season than the latter. In fact, agroecological farmers make also more agricultural income during both seasons (46% in the dry season and 78% in the rainy one) than their semi-conventional peers. Agricultural production is irregular in Guatemalan households throughout the year, reaching minimum levels during water-shortage periods. Farmers explain scarcity periods as the result of a number of factors, namely: (i) limited areas for production; (ii) lack of irrigation systems during the dry season; (iii) climate-related limitations such as frosts, droughts, excess of rainfall, and hail; and (iv) plant disease out-breaks during the rainy season. Seed storage is, for the most part, artisanal which can entail health-related risks and jeopardize food security, moreover agroecology-based farming provides grounds for more resilient livelihoods among smallholders in Western Guatemala (Calderón et al. 2018).
### 3.15.3 Sustainability assessment addressing the environmental, social and economic dimensions

While agroecological produce is commercialised at the municipal level, semi-conventional products seem to stay within the realm of the village. Agroecological producers are better suited to local markets than their semi-conventional peers. The households engaged in commercialising their produce made an average USD PPP 766.43 over a 6-month recall period. This means that each month these households made around USD PPP 127.74 or USD PPP 4.26 per day for the whole family. As for semi-conventional households, this figure drops to USD PPP 2.06 per day for the entire family. These numbers suggest that both, semi-conventional and agroecological farmers do not align perfectly with regional market systems. Agroecological producers, however, claim to generate enough income to live off the land throughout the year, which suggests that even if weakly suited to the market-based economy, they meet their needs with a combination of self-consumption and a limited share of cash-income generating produce. Semi-conventional producers, conversely, contend that agriculture is not enough and many among them seek job opportunities overseas, notably in Mexico and the USA. Despite widespread concerns among agroecological producers regarding marketing and income-generating strategies, our analysis suggests that they have better market integration levels than their semi-conventional peers, which on its own is no guarantee for long-lasting poverty alleviation but indicates a trend. In addition, agroecological farmers seem to be better organized and have access to stronger solidarity networks. With agroecological practices they provide soil conservation and erosion control and plant diversity. This means that agroecological fields harbour a larger amount of plant species which brings about structural advantages given, for example, a more diversified root system and therefore a more even absorption of soil resources. A cohesive social fabric is instrumental in providing community members with a sense of belonging and enables a number of solidarity networks to grow. This is particularly relevant under challenging circumstances such as climate-related catastrophes when social bonds allow victims to endure hardship and uncertainty. Organisational capacities provide community members with a safety net and it seems to be working for both agroecology-based and semi-conventional farmers. Agroecological families seem to distribute schooling opportunities more evenly (15 girls and 15 boys) than their semi-conventional peers (15 girls and 23 boys). Agroecological groups have had more chances of being trained by a number of organisations which seems to have deepened their gender-related sensitivity. Even so, agroecological female producers still face major challenges as to health, nutrition, education, access to credits, access to water, work, migration, and organisation (Calderón et al. 2018).

### 3.15.4 Promotion of agroecology in the country: evidence from literature

Guatemala is noted for its deep connections to the agroecological movement, the social and political actions propelling the spread of sustainable/ancestral agricultural practices and principles, often connected to larger territorial struggles. Throughout the 70s and 80s thousands of peasant farmers reclaimed autonomy at the family and community level through the horizontal exchange of agroecological knowledge and practices: the methodological process of learning by doing, largely successfully widespread in Latin America and the Caribbean, now commonly referred to as Campesino a Campesino, in English Farmer to Farmer (Einbinder et al. 2019). The grassroots approaches to collective action have provided opportunities to foster community-level climate adaptation strategies despite long-running social, economic, and political divisions (Hellin, J. et al. 2018))). In 2007 Guatemala established a National Commission on Ecological Agriculture (Comisión Nacional de Agricultura Ecológica – CNAE) as a public-private organisation that, under the auspices of the government and international partners, has been developing synergies with the different institutions and member sectors of the country's organic production chain, making the best efforts to become a collegiate body representing the organic and/or agroecological sector of Guatemala. Its purpose is to "promote and regulate organic and/or agroecological production at the national level, whose development is based on the sustainable management of natural resources, avoiding pollution and degradation of the environment, protecting human and animal health, properly manage water, soil and biodiversity".

In 2010 CNAE starts the consultations and definition of the "National Strategy for the Development of Organic and Agroecological Production of the Republic of Guatemala 2013-2023" as a working tool for the promotion, improvement and strengthening of production, transformation, marketing, regulation, and prioritisation of food and agricultural products consumption in general from organic and/or agro-ecological production systems using natural resources efficiently and sustainably. The National Strategy states that "organic and agroecological agricultural production systems are alternative and differentiated, capable of generating various income in family and subsistence farming, and guarantees food security, contributing to improve the quality of life of those who are part of this important productive segment. The principles of organic and agro-ecological agricultural production are in accordance with the requirements necessary to comply with the Hunger Pact of
the Government of Guatemala and the Millennium Development Goals, considering this type of production a tool for sustainable rural development and poverty reduction" (Estrategia Nacional para el Desarrollo de la Producción Orgánica y Agroecológica de la República de Guatemala 2013-2023 https://visar.maga.gob.gt/visar/eao13.pdf).

### 3.15.5 Conclusions

The Guatemala National Strategy for Organic and Agroecological Production, based on the actor consultation at the regional and national levels, identifies and synthetises the following main limitations by thematic areas:

* primary production: • limited quantity of seeds produced organically or agroecologically • soils with a high degree of degradation and low fertility • plants with a high degree of infection by diseases and insects • little control over irrigation water quality • minimum crop diversification • limited available productive infrastructure • poor planning and management of production activity records • limited production experiences and lack of knowledge of them to encourage new ones;

* transformation of primary production: • limited infrastructure in the regions, centralized in the capital of the country • little development of machinery and industrial equipment • limited network of services for the transformation of products • low availability of packaging for processed products because of its high price • production volumes dispersed in the territories that raise transportation costs • little knowledge of good manufacturing practices and quality regulations • poor product design and marketing development • high degree of bureaucracy in the procedures of brand, label, sanitary registration, etc. • shortage of some organic or agroecological inputs for the transformation;

* commercialisation: • ignorance of the term "organic" • limited knowledge of national organic production regulations • consumers with little or no knowledge of what organic products are • lack of advertising and dissemination of organic products and where they are sold locally and nationally • strong competition from the non-regulated advertising industry of conventional products • for the national and local market there is no type of certification that guarantees organic product or ecological quality • organic and agroecological production, as it does not have a differentiation or distinction, competes with conventional products in local markets • no records of production marketed in the national market; • limited storage and market place infrastructure • few fairs or places of sale of organic and organic products • a large majority of peasant production lacks a trade patent, tax identification number and/or legal quality records • consumers prioritise the purchase of agricultural products accordingly at a lower price than quality;

* Institutionally: • poor organization of the sector in general and more specifically by region • limited union association • consumers not organised to demand and monitor quality • no government programmes and/or policies aimed at promoting, strengthening and encouraging the organic and agroecological sector • limited recognition of producers as economic actors by the central government and municipal • international cooperation supports actors in a dispersed way, without a strategic approach to coordination and development of the sector • great ignorance of the ministerial agreement that conforms to the NACE, which sectors participate and their functions • limited inter-institutional coordination of the CNAE; • poor representation of the regions on the board of directors of the CNAE • little investment of the state for the promotion of organic and agroecological agriculture • little regulation and public supervision of the health quality of the pro conventional agricultural pipeline (use of sewage, prohibited agrochemicals, etc.) • segregation of members of the board of directors of the CNAE at the end of its management period; • CNAE lacks self-sustainability plans

(Estrategia Nacional para el Desarrollo de la Producción Orgánica y Agroecológica de la República de Guatemala 2013-2023 https://visar.maga.gob.gt/visar/eao13.pdf).

### 3.15.6 Number of analysed documents

The scientific and grey literature of Guatemala is mostly based on social, historical, political and cultural reviews and qualitative assessments rather than quantitative agronomic or production figures, like many countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. Two related questions raise for agroecology: how to identify and quantify the different components – agronomic, ecological, economic, social and, last but not least, cultural (so often forgotten and so clearly evident in the case of Guatemala)? And once identified and quantified a set of criteria and indicators, how and what scale to compare inputs and outputs in relation to industrial agriculture? Most papers show that agroecology runs all along the food chain, the different levels, and all the components of sustainability including cultural diversity and heritage.
The literature review returned 14 scientific publications 12 grey literature documents. Of these, 8 scientific papers and 6 documents from the grey literature were found relevant for the scope of this study.

### 3.15.7 References

#### Scientific papers

Arnés E. et al. 2018. *Participatory evaluation of food and nutritional security through sustainability indicators in a highland peasant system in Guatemala*. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, Volume 43, Issue 5
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21683565.2018.1510871

Calderón C.I. et al. 2018. *Agroecology-based farming provides grounds for more resilient livelihoods among smallholders in Western Guatemala*, Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems. Volume 42 - Issue 10
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21683565.2018.1489933

Einbinder N. et al. 2019 *Agroecology on the periphery: A case from the Maya-Achí territory*, Guatemala.
Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems. Volume 43, Issue 7-8
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21683565.2019.1585401

Gerlicz A. et al. 2018. *Use and perceptions of alternative economic activities among smallholder coffee farmers in Huehuetenango and El Quiché departments in Guatemala*. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems. Volume 43, Issue 3 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21683565.2018.1532480

Isakson S.R. 2009. *No hay ganancia en la milpa: the agrarian question, food sovereignty, and the on-farm conservation of agrobiodiversity in the Guatemalan highlands*. The Journal of Peasant Studies. Vol. 36, N° 4, 725-759 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03066150903353876

Hellin, J. et al. 2018. *Increasing social-ecological resilience within small-scale agriculture in conflict-affected Guatemala*. Ecology and Society 23(3):5
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326432376_Increasing social-ecological resilience within small-scale agriculture in conflict-affected Guatemala

Luna-González, D.V. & Sørensen, M. 2018. *Higher agrobiodiversity is associated with improved dietary diversity, but not child anthropometric status, of Mayan Achí people of Guatemala*. Public Health Nutrition, 21(11): 2128-2141. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/public-health-nutrition/article/higher-agrobiodiversity-is-associated-with-improved-dietary-diversity-but-not-child-anthropometric-status-of-mayan-achi-people-of-guatemala/FE413B004858651116FECFD16F24E131

Morales H., Perfecto I. 2000. *Traditional knowledge and pest management in the Guatemalan highlands*. Agriculture and Human Values 17: 49-63
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/30842544_Traditional_knowledge_and_pest_management_in_the_Guatemalan_highlands

#### Grey literature

Caballeros A. 2016. *Agroecología como alternativa y solución a las crisis del campo en Guatemala*. IDEI/USAC/FUNDEBASE/USAC http://ceur.usac.edu.gt/eventos/Rural/Presentaciones/03-Agroecologia-alternativa-y-solucion-Alvaro-Caballeros.pdf

Estrategia Nacional para el Desarrollo de la Producción Orgánica y Agroecológica de la República de Guatemala
2013-2023 https://visar.maga.gob.gt/visar/eao13.pdf

Convention on Biological Diversity, Guatemala Country Profile https://www.cbd.int/countries/profile/?country=gt

Delegation of the European Union to Guatemala, 2018. Proyecto agroecología, economía solidaria, y espacios de diálogo, en el manejo de la conflictividad económica y ambiental, a través de redes, en la Costa Sur y en los departamentos de Huehuetenango, Sololá, y Chimaltenango, Guatemala.
https://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/guatemalaPt/38964/Proyecto%20agroecologi%CC%81a,%20economi%CC%81a%20solidaria,%20y%20espacios%20de%20dia%CC%81logo,%20en%20el%20manejo%20de%20la%20conflictividad%20econo%CC%81mica%20y%20ambiental,%20a%20trave%CC%81s%20de%20redes,%20en%20la%20Costa%20Sur%20y%20en%20los%20departamentos%20de%20Huehuetenango,%20Solola%CC%81,%20y%20Chimaltenango,%20Guatemala

Praun A., n.d. *Agroecology provides grounds for resilient livelihoods among small-scale farmers in Western Guatemala*. Trocaire Report. https://www.trocaire.org/sites/default/files/resources/policy/agroeco_summary.pdf
## 3.16 Nicaragua

### 3.16.1 Country agro-environmental profile

The total land area of Nicaragua is 130,000 km2 with an agricultural area of 51,000 km2 and 31,000 km2 of forest cover<fnref n="22" />. Nicaragua hosts 68 ecosystems, a figure that represents 60% of the 114 ecosystems that are identified in the Central American isthmus. The biological wealth of Nicaragua is 20,485 species distributed as follows: 29.35% corresponds to flora, 9.75% vertebrates, 59.98% invertebrates and 0.89% fungi. The genetic resources of Nicaragua are important elements for the food security and sovereignty of the country, mainly those originating in the biogeographic region (corn, beans, cocoa, cucurbitaceae, capsicum spp, among others). It is significant to mention that Nicaragua is home to a population of teocintle corn (Zea nicaraguensis Iltis & Benz), ancestor of corn, located in the Department of Chinandega. This genetic wealth is being managed by both government institutions and by peasant families, who are working for the recovery and conservation of genetic resources of ancestral origin. A good part of the conservation of this genetic heritage is carried out by peasant families who have organized to rescue the knowledge associated with creole seeds. Today in the country there are 342 community banks of creole seeds, distributed in the different departments of the country. For its part, the Government, through the Nicaraguan Institute of Agricultural Technology (INTA), has rescued 403 creole varieties of basic grains (rice, beans, corn and sorghum) with the objective of conserving and using genetic resources for improved yields, disease tolerance and adaptation to adverse climatic conditions. Nicaragua has planned to achieve the following strategic goals and actions in its Biodiversity Strategy by 2020:
- design and promote food security and sovereignty-oriented programmes, based on the principles of agroecology;
- promote healthy production, making use of the ancestral knowledge of the communities, for example, the inclusion of native species of high nutritional value;
- diversify agricultural, forestry, livestock and aquaculture production, in order to obtain locally the necessary products for the food security of the communities;
- promote family gardens to improve the diet of families;
- develop recovery programmes and promote ancestral practices and traditional sustainable use of biodiversity;
- implement procedures and technical standards to support agroecological production based on human health<fnref n="23" />.

The analysis that follows is based on the documents listed in the References, retrieved through the selection process described in chapter 2.

### 3.16.2 Synthesis of agronomic practices

There are limited data available from field research in Nicaragua on the purely "agronomic" aspects of agroecology practices. In the perspective of food security, most of the agri-food system in Nicaragua is structured around families and cooperatives. Most often small holders rely on coffee, milpa (the traditional Mesoamerican family agricultural practice combining maize, beans and squash as core crops for daily food requirements along the year), home gardens, fruit trees and animals (mostly pigs and chickens). Since the '90 coffee production turns to agro-ecological practices to meet market quality standards. Today some 10% of the country farming is considered as agroecological. After the devastating Hurricane Mitch in 1998 a comparative study on agroecological and conventional plots (Holt-Giménez 2002) showed the advantages of practices such as rock bunds, contour ditches, live barriers, green manures and cover crops (e.g. the legumes Mucuna spp, Canavalia ensiformis) to conserve water, protect soil and supply organic nitrogen, crop rotation and stubble incorporation. As in other Mesoamerican countries, agroecological practices in Nicaragua developed from bottom-up adaptations to unfavourable climatic, economic, market and political trends.

### 3.16.3 Links to food security

In Nicaragua, bottom-up (lead by grassroots organisations) and top-down (lead by national government) processes are in play, an element which several authors have identified as critical to the diffusion of agroecology. The national legislation on agroecology and related topics since 2007 is the following:

- 2007 n° 620: Regulation of national water sources;

- 2008 n° 648: Equal rights and opportunities for all citizens;

- 2009 n° 693: Food and nutrition security and sovereignty;

- 2010 n° 705: Regulating the use of biotechnology;

<footnote n="22">²² http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/index/en/?iso3=NIC</footnote>

<footnote n="23">²³ https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/ni/ni-nbsap-v2-es.pdf</footnote>
2011 n° 747: Animal rights;

2011 n° 765: Agroecological and organic production: The purpose of this law is to promote the development of agroecological or organic production systems, through regulation and promotion of production activities, practices and processes with environmental, economic, social and cultural sustainability that contribute to the restoration and conservation of ecosystems, agroecosystems, as well as sustainable land management. The definition of agroecological production in this law is: "production process where local resources are used to the maximum and the synergy of the processes at the agroecosystem level, uses practices that favor its complexity, adopting biological control and organic nutrition optimally in the management of the production system or the farm";

2012 n° 807: Conservation of biodiversity.

In 2013 the technical norm 11 037 regulates the characterisation, regulation and certification of the production units in agroecology. Other steps in the adoption of agroecology as a major option for food security and sovereignty in Nicaragua are the Creation of the Agroecological and Organic Producers and Producers Movement of Nicaragua (MAONIC/2009), an arena that aims at contributing to the improvement of the quality of life of farming families through the positioning of agroecological and organic production on the national agenda and the creation of the Alliance for Agroecology in 2014.

**3.16.4 Sustainability assessment addressing the environmental, social and economic dimensions**

Evidences show that Nicaragua is well in advance on agroecology within the Latin American and Caribbean countries. The number of agroecological farmers in Nicaragua is rapidly growing, as is their social prestige and, importantly, their capacity to innovate and generate solutions from below. Agroecological organizational structures in the rural territories of Nicaragua are also generating secondary benefits, such as massive processes of education, prevention of mosquito-borne epidemics, and greater levels of citizen security. Agroecology has important synergies with the food sovereignty paradigm, including its focus on local resources and knowledge, women's participation in food systems, and long-term economic, ecological, and social sustainability. (McCune 2016).

**3.16.5 Promotion of agroecology in the country: evidence from literature**

There is a surprising degree of overlap among the visions of rural communities, territorial government institutions, and social movements in promoting agroecological farming as a way to reduce dependence on farm inputs and food imports, conserve agrobiodiversity and maintain food production levels during long-lasting droughts that afflicts the country. The number of agroecological farmers in Nicaragua is rapidly growing, as is their social prestige and, importantly, their capacity to innovate and generate solutions from below. Agroecological organisational structures in the rural territories of Nicaragua are also generating secondary benefits, such as massive processes of education, prevention of mosquito-borne epidemics, and greater levels of citizen security. Some historical conjectures are more propitious to scaling-up agroecology than others, and in the case of Nicaragua, post-neoliberal development under the leadership of a national unity and reconciliation government is creating a fertile medium for agroecological transition at the national scale (McCune 2016).

**3.16.6 Conclusions**

Analysing the situation in Nicaragua, some central mechanisms blocking the agroecological transition have been identified: policy mismatches, inadequate mobilization of resources, and insufficient market development, which weaken entrepreneurial opportunities and experimentation. Although these blocking mechanisms hindering the diffusion of agroecology are strongly interlinked, the analysis allowed to pinpoint specific factors break down these barriers. The results of this research highlight the coupled innovations that are necessary to drive agri-food systems sustainability transitions. A central factor is the fragmented institutional framework concerning agroecology, which inhibits a wide-spread perception of agroecology as a viable alternative to conventional agriculture, as well as hinders concrete actions that could incentivize stakeholders in the agroecological innovation system. Two other strongly interlinked factors are the lack of a common definition of agroecology, and the lack of a common vision amongst stakeholders for the development of agroecology vis-à-vis conventional agriculture. These factors open interesting avenues for future research, particularly concerning the power struggles during the development of common definitions of agroecology and vision for contested processes such as agri-food system sustainability transitions, the role of politics and the state in transition processes, and the role of individual and organizational agency in such transitions (Schiller 2019)
### 3.16.7 Number of analysed documents

As for Cuba, and among other countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, most of the scientific papers and the grey literature describing agroecology in Nicaragua stresses the social and socio-economic aspects also in relation to the national and international historical developments of the latest four decades. Little is still available on pure agronomic terms, given the fact that agroecology is a complex combination of traditional knowledge, innovation, skills that embrace a large agrobiodiversity, a diversity of soil conditions, and the changing patterns of climate. Of the 15 scientific papers returned by the applied protocol for literature review, 10 were selected as relevant for this brief. 20 documents of grey literature were returned and 5 selected.

### 3.16.8 References

#### Scientific papers

Bacon, C.M., Sundstrom, W.A., Stewart, I.T. & Beezer, D. 2017. Vulnerability to cumulative hazards: coping with the coffee leaf rust outbreak, drought, and food insecurity in Nicaragua. World Development, 93: 136–152.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X15303582

Bliss, K. 2017. Cultivating biodiversity: a farmers view of the role of diversity in agroecosystems. Biodiversity, 18, 2-3, 102–107.
https://tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14888386.2017.1361866?src=recsys&journalCode=tbid20

Fréguin-Gresh S. et al. 2016. La Agroecología en Nicaragua Génesis, institucionalización y desafíos. Contribución al Seminario intermediario “Políticas a favor de la agroecología en América Latina y en el Caribe”, 9-11 de Noviembre, Brasilia (Brazil)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314082078_La_Agroecologia_en_Nicaragua

Mithöfer, D., Méndez, V.E., Bose, A. & Vaast, P. 2018. Harnessing local strength for sustainable coffee value chains in India and Nicaragua: reevaluating certification to global sustainability standards. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 13(1): 471–496.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21513732.2018.1460400

Godek W. 2013. The Complexity of Food Sovereignty Policymaking: The Case of Nicaragua’s Law 693. Food Sovereignty: A Critical Dialogue. International Conference, Yale University, September 14-15, 2013.
http://www.yale.edu/agrarianstudies/foodsovereignty/index.html
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01436597.2015.1005437

Gonzálvez V., Salmerón-Miranda F., Zamora E. 2015. La agroecología en Nicaragua: la praxis por delante de la teoría. Agroecología Volume 10 n°2, pp. 19-28 https://revistas.um.es/agroecologia/article/view/300791

Holt-Giménez E., 2002. Measuring farmers' agroecological resistance after Hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua: a case study in participatory, sustainable land management impact monitoring. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 93, 87–105 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167880902000063

McCune N. 2016. Family, territory, nation: post-neoliberal agroecological scaling in Nicaragua. Food Chain. Volume 6, n°2. https://wwwsemanticscholar.org/paper/Family%2C-territory%2C-nation%3A-post-neoliberal-scaling-McCune/aeca292a752b490a6aec909650369c443c6c7162

Muñoz Izaguirre P.E., 2017. Investigación agropecuaria con enfoque agroecológico para el desarrollo de una agricultura sostenible en Nicaragua. La Calera. Vol. 17. N° 28, p. 43-45.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326656382_Investigacion_agropecuaria_con_enfoque_agroecologic_o_para_el_desarrollo_de_una_agricultura_sostenible_en_Nicaragua

Schiller K.J.F. 2019. Exploring barriers to the agroecological transition in Nicaragua: A Technological Innovation Systems Approach. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems. Volume 44, Issue 1
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21683565.2019.1602097

#### Grey literature

Alianza por la Agroecología, 2014. Retos de la Agroecología y la Agricultura Familiar Campesina en Nicaragua. Primero Encuentro, San Ramón, Matagalpa 16 de julio 2014, Nicaragua.
http://alianzaagroecologia.redelivre.org.br/files/2017/06/Nicaragua-lanzamiento-Alianza-2014.pdf

Gobierno de Nicaragua, 2013. Norma Técnica Obligatoria Nicaragüense NTON 11 037 – 12: Caracterización, Regulación, y Certificación de Unidades de Producción Agroecológica. Comité Técnico de caracterización,
regulación y certificación de unidades de producción agroecológica. La Gaceta No. 123 del 03 de Julio de 2013. http://legislacion.asamblea.gob.ni/Indice.nsf/9499521c0ebc358b06256ff80049dd33/d684859e3c92112306257bc9005a081f?OpenDocument

Ministerio del Ambiente y los Recursos Naturales (MARENA). Estrategia Nacional de Biodiversidad y su Plan de Acción Nicaragua 2015 - 2020 www.marena.gob.ni https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/ni/ni-nbsap-v2-es.pdf

Saavedra Montano D., Briones Valenzuela M.A., Fiallos Oyanguren A., 2017. Programa Campesino a Campesino en Nicaragua: 30 años innovando con los campesinos. Un modelo de extensión rural participativa. Fundación para el Desarrollo Tecnológico Agropecuario y Forestal de Nicaragua, Unión Nacional de Agricultores y Ganaderos. http://www.renida.net.ni/renida/funica/REC20-SAB112.pdf

United Nations Development Programme-UNDP, 2012. Farmer-to-Farmer Program (PCaC), Siuna, Nicaragua. Equator Initiative Case Study Series. New York, NY. https://www.equatorinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/case_1348164088.pdf
## 3.17 Cuba

### 3.17.1 Country agro-environmental profile

The total land area of Cuba is 111,000 km2 with an agricultural area of 62,000 km2 and 32,000 km2 of forest cover<fnref n="24" />. The country hosts 42 types of ecosystems, ranging from arid and semi-arid land to humid tropical forests and mountains. Plains cover 75% of the territory, while mountains cover 18% (in the southeast and south-central area) and humid coastal lands cover the remaining areas<fnref n="25" />. The country is divided into seven agro-ecological zones. The Cuban flora is one the richest in the world and an important source of domestication and diversified agro-ecosystems. The forests cover was 14% in 1959 and reached 32% in 2015 (FAO data). Plant and seeds collections are organised in germplasm banks, genetic resources for food and agriculture in 14 conservation centres, which store 17,773 samples or accessions of 844 species, without considering forest resources<fnref n="26" />. The climate of Cuba is tropical, with a dry and relatively cool season from November to April, and rainy the rest of the year. Annual precipitation is between 1,000 and 1,500 mm. The wettest month is August (58 mm), the driest month is December (17 mm). Average temperature in July is 27°C and in December 21°C. Hurricanes in Cuba are frequent and often severe.

The analysis that follows is based on the documents listed in the References, retrieved through the selection process described in chapter 2.

### 3.17.2 Links to food security

In Cuba, after thirty years of the Green Revolution, since the beginning of the 1990s, work has been carried out on the transition to organic and agroecological agriculture (N.B. in Cuba it is common to use 'organic farming' to refer to any kind of sustainable agriculture, agroecology, ecological farming, etc.). Agroecology has played a key role in helping Cuba survive the crisis caused by the collapse of the socialist bloc in Europe and the tightening of the US trade embargo. Cuban peasants have been able to boost food production without scarce and expensive imported agricultural chemicals by first substituting more ecological inputs for the no longer available imports, and then by making a transition to more agroecologically integrated and diverse farming systems. This was possible not so much because appropriate alternatives were made available, but rather because of the Campesino-a-Campesino (Farmer to Farmer) Agroecology Movement (MACAC), a social process methodology that the National Association of Small Farmers (ANAP) used to build a grassroots agroecology movement. The method, successful in other Latin American countries, significantly increased agro-ecological practices, contributing to increase relative and absolute food production and security, social movement dynamics, diversification, ecosystem services, including resilience to climate change (Rosset, 2011). In 2019 the Ministry of Agriculture and the European Union (EU) agreed on the Programme "Strategic Support for Sustainable Food Security in Cuba" (SAS), with the main goal of efficient and sustainable increase local level production of diversified and healthy food in six municipalities and the Integrated knowledge management system for food security in the country. The Programme includes aspects related to climate change adaptation, agroecology and exchange of experiences with other countries <fnref n="27" />. Since the 90s, Cuba has been working on the transition to organic and agroecological agriculture with a number of cross-sectoral policies, as a way to achieve food security and sovereignty, and nutritional sustainability of the population<fnref n="28" />. The 2019 Report of the High-Level Panel of Experts on Food Security-HLPE reports on Cuba as a case study, summarising critical aspects of agroecology in the country as related to food security: - over 300000 farmers use agroecological practices; - over half of all vegetables, maize, beans, fruit and pork are produced using agroecological methods; the Campesino-a-Campesino method is a key strategy; - land reform, which provided 75000 new farmers with access to land, helped address SFSs; - urban agriculture contributes ~70% of vegetables in major cities; - agroecological research centres develop locally adapted solutions across the country; - agroecology is taught in rural vocational high schools, which includes daily field work; - government, university researchers and NGOs have provided technical support to farmers; - food security improved; nutritional issues remain a problem for marginalized groups. Four key steps have been identified in driving this transition: (i) the farmer-to-farmer horizontal training and systematic knowledge exchange; (ii) farmers treated as the experts in research and exchanges; (iii) development of crop varieties and biological products that are adapted to local conditions; and (iv) building institutional cooperation between stakeholders, including research centres and advisory services

<footnote n="24">²⁴ http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/index/en/?iso3=CUB</footnote>

<footnote n="25">²⁵ https://www.cbd.int/countries/profile/?country=cu</footnote>

<footnote n="26">²⁶ Funes Monzote F.R. 2017. Reseña sobre el estado actual de la agroecología en Cuba. Agroecología 12 (1): 7-18 https://revistas.um.es/agroecologia/article/view/330301/229261</footnote>

<footnote n="27">²⁷ http://www.fao.org/cuba/noticias/detail-events/en/c/1251083/</footnote>

<footnote n="28">²⁸ https://www.cbd.int/doc/nr/nr-06/cu-nr-06-p1-es.pdf</footnote>
for agroecology. The research centres are spread across the country and provide locally-adapted biological pest and disease management solutions, including organic fertilizers, locally-made biopesticides and raising beneficial organisms. (HLPE 2019, Mier y Terán et al. 2018, IPES-Food 2018, Rosett et al. 2011, Gliessman 2007).

### 3.17.3 Sustainability assessment addressing the environmental, social and economic dimensions

Scientific and grey literature on agroecology in Cuba clearly highlights the different aspects of sustainability of the current process. Although figures may vary and many practices are still in transition, a considerable effort is underway to identify, monitor and evaluate main criteria (environmental and more strictly ecological, economic, social, cultural and political) and indicators of the state and progress of agroecology. This effort is even more significant if we consider that agroecology is still lacking in the majority of countries of official (and national) statistical data while comparisons with intensive agriculture are limited.

Figure 11 shows data on chemical use and food production in Cuba before the Special Period - the years after the fall of the Soviet Union from the early 90s on - and more recently (2008). It reveals a drop in production in 1994, a critical year during the Special Period, as a result of decrease in availability of imported inputs required for conventional agriculture. Since that time, the campesino sector has greatly recovered productive levels, due to the consolidation of agroecology, as can be seen for the largely campesino-produced food items in the graph. This has been possible despite a massive reduction in agrochemical use from 1988 levels, when the Green Revolution was at its peak. The data show an opposite trend for sugar cane, a crop that is still largely cultivated in Cuba according to the precepts of the Green Revolution, and which is not known as a campesino crop, for which yields have been continually decreasing; moreover, evidences show that the damage from the hurricane on most agroecological farms ranged from 30% to 60%, which is 15 to 45% less than in non-agroecological farms<fnref n="29" />.

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 11.** Four examples of agro-chemical use vs. production (Source: http://www.fao.org/3/a-bl991e.pdf).</figcaption></figure>

Although field data (and statistics) are still lacking, Cuba provides examples of agroecosystem sustainability through sets of indexes or indicators, such as the agrobiodiversity index to identify the role of food varieties in human health, economy, social cohesion, among others (Leyva and Lores, 2018). Agroecological practices show high ratios of labour intensity/productivity, diversified economic outcomes, clear environmental advantages (organic matter, good soil conditions or recovery, prevention of soil erosion, resilience from pests or climatic events). The social benefits (at household, village, watershed, national levels) are found in a large framework of social cohesion, beside the improvements in some specific aspects such as employment (higher number of jobs). In fact, agroecology in Cuba demonstrates the capacity of balancing the components of sustainability through a social movement of communities, groups and individuals. Most, if not all, of the scientific papers and grey literature in this country recall the key role of farmers and their groups in making agroecology viable and acceptable.

<footnote n="29">²⁹ http://www.fao.org/3/a-bl991e.pdf</footnote>
### 3.17.4 Promotion of agroecology in the Country: evidences from literature

Scientific papers and grey literature refer to different sources of promotion of agroecology. Projects and programmes, such as the Farmer-to-Farmer, a social process method of "learning by doing" (e.g. Rosset, 2011), farmers cooperatives, local institutions and the government have been paying attention and providing support to the development of agroecology and a praxis, while scientific research and evidences have been strengthening the narrative through various disciplines. Cuba's transition to agroecology is perhaps as widely known as it is misunderstood. In response to the economic crisis of the early 1990s, the Cuban agricultural sector largely departed from the industrial model of food production that it had previously pursued. The subsequent transition towards an agroecological model has been a dynamic and uneven process, elevating Cuba on the world stage as a global leader in sustainable agriculture while at the same time producing unique challenges for Cuban farmers, policy makers, researchers and academics. By analysing both the historical and contemporary processes through which agroecology has taken root in Cuba, it has been demonstrated that, despite its uneven and incomplete implementation, such a sustainable agroecological transition holds great, untapped potential. Agroecology in Cuba currently faces pressure from normalizing Cuba-US relations, with potentially profound implications for agriculture in both countries. But increasing opportunities are also emerging for investment, collaboration, knowledge exchange, and solidarity. Contributions from science provide overviews of the evolution of the Cuban agroecology movement, analysing the state of food security and challenges to food sovereignty on the island today and recommending support to agroecology for food security, food sovereignty, and sustainability<fnref n="30" />.

### 3.17.5 Conclusions

The agricultural sector in Cuba is made up of five types of productive entities: 1) Basic Units of Cooperative Production (UBPC); 2) Agricultural Production Cooperatives (CPA); 3) Credit and Services Cooperatives (CCS); 4) private owners and 5) state areas, which correspond to different forms of property. Following the scientific evidences, the most efficient are the CCS and private farms, which in recent years have produced 57% of the country's total agricultural food, with only 24.4% of the arable land, while registering only 3.7 and 1, 7% respectively of idle land (Nova 2016). The core components of agroecological development that are able to overcome limitations and obstacles coming from both domestic and international factors are: re-organisation of the property forms, learning agrobiodiversity, agroecological technologies (ex. organic fertilizers, irrigation, microbial and stimulant inoculants, biodigesters and native microorganisms, biological control, participatory plant breeding and Local agricultural innovation program, agricultural mechanization, polyculture and rotation, among others). Agroecology in Cuba, as in many other countries of Latin America and the Caribbean, is basically a movement coming and carried by farmers securing a high level of sustainability, including food sovereignty and security.

### 3.17.6 Number of analysed documents

Cuba has an extensive scientific and grey literature on agroecology from different perspectives. Most of it stresses the social and socio-economic aspects also in relation to the national and international historical developments of the latest four decades. Little is still available in pure agronomic terms, given the fact that agroecology is a complex combination of traditional knowledge, innovation, skills that embrace a large agrobiodiversity, a diversity of soil conditions, and the changing patterns of climate. The application of the protocol for the literature review has led to the identification of 44 scientific papers and 15 documents within grey literature. Of these, 13 and 6 respectively have been declared apt for the present study.

### 3.17.7 References

#### Scientific papers

Altieri M.A., Funes-Monzote F.R., Petersen P. 2012. *Agroecologically efficient agricultural systems for smallholder farmers: contributions to food sovereignty*. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 1–

<footnote n="30">³⁰ Fernandez M. et al., 2018. New opportunities, new challenges: Harnessing Cuba's advances in agroecology and sustainable agriculture in the context of changing relations with the United States. Elem Sci Anth, 6: 76 https://www.elementascience.org/articles/10.1525/elementa.337/</footnote>
13. INRA and Springer-Verlag, France. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs13593-011-0065-6.pdf

Díaz González B.F., 2016. *La conversión agroecológica de la agricultura cubana ante nuevos escenarios*. Revista Estudios del Desarrollo Social: Cuba y América Latina. Vol. 4, No. 4, Número Extraordinario, 2016 http://www.revflacso.uh.cu/index.php/EDS/article/view/150/150

Funes-Monzote F.R. 2008. *Farming like we're here to stay The mixed farming alternative for Cuba*. PhD thesis Wageningen University https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/fulltext/122038

Funes-Monzote, F. R., Monzote, M., Lantinga, E. A., Ter Braak, C. J. F., Sánchez, J. E. and Van Keulen, H. 2009. *Agro-Ecological Indicators (AEIs) for Dairy and Mixed Farming Systems Classification: Identifying Alternatives for the Cuban Livestock Sector*, Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 33:4, 435 — 460 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10440040902835118

Funes Monzote F.R. et al. 2012. *Idefiying agroecological mixed farming strategies for local conditions in San Antonio de los Baños, Cuba*. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 10:3, 208-229 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14735903.2012.692955

Funes Monzote F.R. 2017. *Reseña sobre el estado actual de la agroecología en Cuba*. Agroecología 12 (1): 7-18 https://revistas.um.es/agroecologia/article/view/330301/229261

Gliessman, S.R.2007. *Agroecology: the ecology of sustainable food systems*. 2nd Edition. Boca Raton, USA, CRC Press. 384 pp.

Leyva, Á. and Lores, A. 2018. Assessing agroecosystem sustainability in Cuba: A new agrobiodiversity index. *Elem* *Sci* *Anth*, 6 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329547583_Assessing_agroecosystem_sustainability_in_Cuba_A_n_ew_agrobiodiversity_index

Mier y Teran M.G.C. et al., 2018. *Bringing agroecology to scale: key drivers and emblematic cases*. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 42, 6 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21683565.2018.1443313

Milián-García I. et al. 2018. *Study of biodiversity components in the agroecological farm La Paulina, Perico municipality, Cuba*. Pastos y Forrajes, Vol. 41, No. 1, January-March, 47-51 http://scielo.sld.cu/pdf/pyf/v41n1/enPyf07118.pdf

Rodríguez, L. C. 2016. *Need of an agroecological transition in Cuba, perspectives and challenges*. Pastos Y Forrajes, 39(3), 150-159. https://wwwsemanticscholar.org/paper/Need-of-an-agroecological-transition-in-Cuba-%2C-and-Rodr%C3%ADguez/c1c2cfeca519cdc988bfa0594b8565a7b2dc2a4e

Rosset P.M., 2011. *The Campesino-to-Campesino agroecology movement of ANAP in Cuba: social process methodology in the construction of sustainable peasant agriculture and food sovereignty*. The Journal of Peasant Studies. Vol. 38, No. 1, 161-191 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03066150.2010.538584

Yong Chou A. et al., 2016. *Use and handling of agroecological practices in farms of San Andrés locality, La Palma municipality*. Cultivos Tropicales, 2016, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 15-21 https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/20163388205

## Grey literature

Cuban National Association of Small Farmers (ANAP), n.d. *Agroecology in Cuba: for the Farmer, Seeing is Believing*. Case study provided by La Via Campesina http://www.fao.org/3/a-bl991e.pdf

Hay E., 2019. *Cuba's Agro-Ecology Movement and What We Can Learn from It*. WCAI The Cape, Coast and Islands NPR Station, Woods Hole, MA, USA https://www.capeandislands.org/post/cubas-agro-ecology-movement-and-what-we-can-learn-it#stream/0

HLPE. 2019. *Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition*. A report by the High-Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/ca5602en/ca5602en.pdf

Iozzi D., 2016. *Cuba, a Model of Sustainable Agriculture Towards Global Food Security*. Council on Hemispheric Affairs, Washington http://www.coha.org/cuba-a-model-of-sustainable-agriculture-towards-global-food-security/
IPES-Food, 2018. Cuba. *Turning economic isolation into an opportunity for agroecological transition*. In *Breaking away from industrial food and farming systems: Seven case studies of agroecological transition* Gliessman S. (Ed.) http://www.ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/CS2_web.pdf

Laing N., 2019. *Agroecology in Cuba and Jamaica: A Case Study*. *Nature Conservation and Sustainability in Cuba*. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332863632_Agroecology_in_Cuba_and_Jamaica
## 4 General synthesis: what science is telling us on agroecology, and benefits deriving from agroecological practices on food security - a study on 17 food insecure countries

Agroecology designs sustainable agroecosystems by applying ecological and agronomic concepts and principles. It includes a wide range of agricultural practices, all based on a sustainable use of natural resources, enhancement of ecosystem services (e.g. pollination, natural pest control, decomposition and fixing processes in the soil) and recycling of biomass and nutrients, which substitute the use of chemical inputs. Available literature on agroecology has been analysed for 17 countries (Benin, Burkina Faso, Mali, Senegal, Ghana, Niger, Togo, Kenya, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Madagascar, Tanzania, Lao PDR, Cuba, Guatemala, Nicaragua). Overall, 172 papers have been synthesized and on the basis of the selected body of literature, including scientific and grey literature, some conclusions can be drawn on characteristics of existing research and available scientific results addressing the agroecological transitions and implementation of agroecological practices.

It should be noted that the search method adopted aimed at identifying agroecological approaches in the strict sense, and this may have restricted the identification of relevant papers, since literature on agroecology has been increasing in recent years and some practices or approaches may have not be labelled as agroecology as such in older papers (the selection procedure focused on documents published in the 2000-2019 period). Morevoer, by focusing on agroecology as farming approach, result hits were not exhaustive for individual agroecological practices, e.g. "organic production" is not identified through a search string including "organic farming". On the other hand, searching for each individual agroecological practice was not the scope of the study, which aimed at identifying the evidence of the contribution of the agroecological approach in relation to the improvement of food security.

The majority of the reviewed cases are small scale, extensive farming systems that produce food at subsistence levels and for sale on local markets. Most of the analyzed production systems were focusing on smallholder farming producing staple crops (millet, sorghum, yam, etc.) or vegetable gardening for local markets. Cash crops (e.g. rice, cotton, oil palm, rubber, cocoa) are overall much less targeted by research focusing on agroecological practices. This may reflect the fact that cultivation of cash crops is mostly driven by conventional intensive models to export to the world market, and is less interested by the agroecological perspective.

The recurrent agroecological practices studied are agroforestry, intercropping (or mixed cropping), introduction of legumes in rotations, soil and water conservation practices (mulching, return of crop residues, zaï holes etc.), use of animal manure and biocontrol methods to mitigate chemical pesticide use. However, some documents dealt with fertilization practices mixing manure/compost/crop residues with synthetic fertilizer. It is questionable whether these practices are fully agroecological, as they do not necessarily mean significant savings in chemical inputs. It is often the case that constraints to production deriving from soil erosion, soil infertility and lack of water for irrigation were the reasons why agroecological practices were implemented.

Some aspects of production resulted insufficiently addressed, such as post-harvest practices and crop-livestock integration.

Overall, though the assessments of fully agroecological systems not using chemical inputs found within the selected literature were few, studies on specific agroecological practices were much more common. In this regard some significant contributions of such practices to household food security were identified (it has to be noted, importantly, that the link to food security may not be a specific research target, and therefore is not always reported).

At least 50% of the analysed papers report a positive contribution of agroecological practices to food security, notably due to improved yields and/or a better economic situation of producers. For example, an improved use of organic fertilisers (with manure or compost), results in a significant improvement in yields. However, access to manure can often be a problem in the absence of significant crop-livestock integration. Diversified crop systems, including the introduction of agroforestry, improved household nutritional status and had positive links to better health conditions. Higher on-farm crop species diversity often results in more diversified diets. In many cases, the improvement of soil quality is key to improve yields and consequently income and food security; this can be achieved using various practices including the use of residue mulch from tree leaves in agroforestry, as well as crop mixtures or intercropping and longer more diversified crop rotations. In fact, throughout different articles, the lack of access to inputs is a recurring issue, particularly for what concerns the improvement of soil fertility (manure, mineral fertilizer, leaf litter, etc.), remaining a major hindrance for food security.
In a few cases increased resilience to extreme weather events and climate change deriving from the implementation of an agroecological approach to farming was mentioned.

Concerning environmental benefits, practices such as water management, use of manure and residue management were found to reduce the negative effects of agriculture on the environment and contributed to improved soil characteristics, biodiversity and environmental health.

Lack of financial support from the government, lack of scientific knowledge regarding practices alternative to what currently is applied, higher labour requirements, and lack of higher market value for the products have been identified as main constraints to the development of agroecology at the farm level.

Within the selected literature, very few social aspects of agroecology have been reported in West African countries. This is not the case for the Latin American countries analysed, where social aspects very often underpin the transition to agroecology. Agroecological research and development in Africa is more technical-based than socio-economic in nature.

The results of the analysis highlight the need to intensify research projects to get more evidence on the potential of agroecology in terms of efficiency in general terms and in particular for improving yields and nutritional quality of products and consequently food security in the countries studied. Economic, social and environmental benefits should be equally studied. Investments should be made in research for understanding and modelling the functioning of the soil-crop system in interaction with various types of agroecological practices and techniques, with the aim to develop a solid scientific basis for agroecology.

In general terms the great majority of the papers focuses on only one specific key aspect of sustainability (whether environmental, social, agronomic, economic), and shows a lack of balance between quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data are often missing, especially in describing the direct association of the agroecological practices analysed to food security. For some countries, the absence of such information has represented a strong limitation to carry out a complete analysis of the link with food security. Overall, there is currently scattered knowledge on the functioning of agroecological systems, and a systemic approach to research should be adopted, to cover a greater diversity of practices and cropping systems, in a wide variety of biophysical-climatic zones.

Moreover, traditional knowledge, when still available and suitable to changing conditions (e.g. climate, soil, ecosystem degradation), has in general not been taken into sufficient account by scientific and analytical observations, although it is an essential aspect of the agroecological approach.

At the systemic level, an important aspect shown by the study is the absence of a sector-wide approach in most agroecological research and development activities, with literature focusing on production only, and not addressing local supply chains and networks for agroecological products. Literature also often neglects the linkage with land tenure regimes and possible implications on sustainability.

It is also important to characterize the effectiveness of disseminating practices to farmers, for example fertilization with organic manure is not always accessible because of limited resources or structures. Some countries, such as Senegal and Lao PDR, have intense NGO activity with substantial publication of agroecological practice guides for farmers.

A last recommendation which can be drawn from the analysis is that in order to better assess the performance of the agroecological systems, a set of common criteria (fixed) and indicators (variable) valid for all countries should be considered for monitoring, communicating and evaluating current processes and results. This could lead to establish a permanent system of observation on the long term to inform and assist policies.
# Annexes

## Annex 1. Items in the table template utilised for document synthesis

The 172 documents selected following the procedure described in chapter 2 were summarised in a table according to the following items (one document per line), if the information was not available in the original paper, "NA" was reported:

1. Bibliographic reference

2. Type of document (unregistered report, student study (BSc, MSc), PhD thesis, referenced article, book chapter)

3. Web link

4. Category of document: (1) NGO report; project report (2) conference proceedings, master thesis; (3) institutional report and synthesis; (4) PhD thesis; (5) peer reviewed literature

5. Country

6. Period (years of the work)

7. Farming system (according to a typology: entrepreneurial, business or family farming) and cropping systems (according to a typology: agroforestry, home gardening, extensive, intensive, high-tech)

8. Area (in ha) or territory (field, village or watershed)

9. Land ownership (structure, holding)

10. Number of farms / % of farmers (according to the considered territory)

11. Study scale / Type of organization (farmers group, purchasing or marketing organization, production means sharing, waste management zone etc.)

12. Crops grown and type of production (grain for food or feed, biomass for forage, etc.)

13. Cropping practices, description and further specification if: traditional practices (adapted); practices adapted/proposed by science and technology; practices co-designed with local actors

14. Postharvest agroecological practices for avoiding or reducing product's damages and wastes

15. Unit of measure of each practice (where possible)

16. Current status (including not yet started in the "true life", just as an experimental plot, under transition in farmer's fields, certified as organic, fair trade or other, other)

17. Reason for the farmer to have changed to agroecological practices

18. Connection to the food system (local markets, regional markets, niche markets, exports)

19. Certification process to increase the price value (yes / no; very important to success / not necessary)

20. Are there specific policies in the country fostering or supporting agroecology

21. Average yield or income (and % in comparison to conventional production)

22. Description of the level of input (seeds, fertilizer/manure, pesticides, water, energy power, mechanisation)

23. Unit of measure of each input

24. Labour input (quantity, gender and qualification)

25. Costs of transition (e.g. investment, new material needed)

26. Economic benefits (at household, village, watershed, national levels) in income, property (land, buildings, tools), influence (political, business)
27. Environmental benefits: improvements in biodiversity (e.g. number of trees per ha, presence of bees, Shannon index), decrease in pollution of water/soil/air, improvements in proximity of markets, soil fertility, decrease of soil erosion (number of flood per year), improved water management (water harvesting facilities, irrigation area and type of irrigation, water quality), waste management (composting platforms, recycling process, storage facilities), and energy management (wood and charcoal, solar panels, transport means)

28. Social benefits (at household, village, watershed, national levels): improvements in employment (e.g. higher number of jobs), schooling, gender equity, access to public health, access to information (Internet and mobile phone, infrastructures), number (% and size) of farmers groups, of cooperatives, of SMEs

29. Contribution to food and nutrition security: direct (surveys, census, health indicators) or indirect (food availability, food price evolution, income evolution, food diet and consumption behaviour changes) evaluation

30. How contribution to food and nutrition was measured and assessed

31. Number and accuracy of observations

32. Nature of causal effect on food and nutrition security/ Summary of findings

33. Perceived impact on food and nutrition security (positive, negative, null)

34. Conditionality: Under what conditions is this valid?/ Limitations of the study

35. Upscalable experience (yes/no/under certain conditions)

36. Explain why you suggest this recommendation or the conditions needed to expand the experience

37. How AE is perceived/promoted at national level by the local/public authorities? What is the enabling environment for AE practices at individual/collective level?

38. Other useful information: Context/Objective of the study

39. Other useful information
## GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU

### In person

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the address of the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en

### On the phone or by email

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service:

- by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),

- at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or

- by electronic mail via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en

## FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU

### Online

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en

### EU publications

You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en).
The European Commission's
science and knowledge service

Joint Research Centre

JRC Mission

As the science and knowledge service of the European Commission, the Joint Research Centre's mission is to support EU policies with independent evidence throughout the whole policy cycle.

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

EU Science Hub

ec.europa.eu/jrc

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

@EU_ScienceHub

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

EU Science Hub - Joint Research Centre

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

EU Science, Research and Innovation

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>

EU Science Hub

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>

Publications Office
of the European Union

doi:10.2760/82475

ISBN 978-92-76-21077-1