# Territorial capacities for the scaling of agroecological innovations

Edison Suárez-Ortiz, Jean-François Le Coq

► To cite this version:

Edison Suárez-Ortiz, Jean-François Le Coq. Territorial capacities for the scaling of agroecological innovations. Revista de Investigacion, Desarrollo e Innovacion, 2024, 14 (2), pp.165-182. 10.19053/uptc.20278306.v14.n2.2024.18159. hal-05182359

HAL Id: hal-05182359

https://hal.science/hal-05182359v1

Submitted on 23 Jul 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# Territorial capacities for the scaling of agroecological innovations

## Capacidades territoriales para el escalamiento de innovaciones agroecológicas

### Review Article

Recibido: abril 04 de 2024

Aceptado: julio 30 de 2024

Publicado: septiembre 15 de 2024

**Cómo citar este artículo:** Suárez-Ortiz, E., & Le-Coq, J. F. (2024). Territorial capacities for the scaling of agroecological innovations. *Revista de Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación, 14*(2), 165-182.

doi: https://doi.org/10.19053/uptc.20278306.v14.n2.2024.18159

### Edison Suárez-Ortiz*

Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia.

E-mail: ehsuarezo@unal.edu.co

Orcid: https://orcid.org/0009-0006-9520-0778

### Jean François Le-Coq

Centro de Cooperación Internacional en Investigación

Agronómica para el Desarrollo – DIRAD, Montpellier, Francia.

E-mail: jf.lecoq@cgiar.org

Orcid: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1084-1973
**Abstract**

Agroecology is an alternative approach to socio-economic and environmental crises, which hinder the utilization of natural and cultural wealth in rural communities, and it requires the strengthening of territorial capacities for its scaling up. Despite the extensive literature on agroecological scaling, studies must be more comprehensive to understand the territorial capacities required in this process.

A review of 37 documents was carried out in specialized databases to establish the relationship between capacities and scaling, highlighting agency, territorial governance, and co-construction of knowledge, which enable the management of natural and artificial assets. The involvement of actors seeking to participate in political advocacy through collective action was evident, but few documents emphasized the importance of natural capital and infrastructures. No works suggesting evaluations of shared knowledge construction processes were found. Hence, additional research should be developed.

**Keywords:** territorial capacities, agroecological scaling, agency capacity, governance.

**Resumen**

La agroecología, como enfoque alternativo a las crisis socioeconómicas y ambientales que impiden el aprovechamiento de la riqueza natural y cultural en comunidades rurales, requiere para su escalamiento del fortalecimiento de capacidades territoriales. A pesar de que la literatura sobre escalamiento agroecológico es extensa, no existen estudios que ayuden a comprender las capacidades territoriales requeridas en este proceso. Se adelantó una revisión de 37 documentos, en bases especializadas, para establecer la relación entre las capacidades y el escalamiento, destacando: la agencia, la gobernanza territorial y la co-construcción de conocimiento, que permiten gestionar los capitales natural y artificial.
Se pudo evidenciar el involucramiento de actores que, mediante la acción colectiva, buscan participar en procesos de incidencia política, pero son pocos los documentos que destacan la importancia del capital natural e infraestructura. No se evidenciaron trabajos que sugieran evaluaciones de procesos de construcción compartida de conocimiento, por lo que deberán desarrollarse investigaciones adicionales.

**Palabras clave:** capacidades territoriales, escalamiento agroecológico, capacidad de agencia, gobernanza.
# 1. Introduction

Conflicts, natural disasters, health emergencies, and climate change are the leading causes of food crises and the main challenges to sustainable development (Blom, 2014; Girardot, 2010). For rural communities, they are evidenced in aspects such as migration, lack of economic opportunities, deterioration of the institutional framework and loss of identity, which prevents them from taking advantage of the natural and cultural wealth of their territories (García-Madurga et al., 2020; García, 2021).

In order to prevent, prepare, and recover territories in the face of different shocks and threats (Blom, 2014), it is necessary to create and strengthen different types of capacities, considered as abilities of individuals, organizations, institutions, and systems to identify and solve their problems and use available resources (human, financial, natural, physical and political) in the development and implementation of strategies that address their needs (Costamagna, 2015).

Territorial development presupposes the strengthening and accumulation of endogenous capacities (collective skills and abilities) based on the articulation, participation, and learning of territorial actors, considering a new directionality in the management of their material and immaterial resources (Cummings, 2021), which vary between tangible (physical and infrastructure productive factors) and intangible elements (local and specialized knowledge, social behavior and networks) (Trujillo-Osorio et al., 2018).

Agroecology establishes a synergistic relationship between sustainability and innovation, which arises through a creative process

of interaction between small producers and their natural environments (Levidow, 2015, p. 34), considered not only technological but also that which establishes new forms of social and organizational innovation, which in turn allows improving the functioning and governance of agrifood chains.

The adoption of agroecological innovations by a broad number of farmers, known as "massification" or "scaling up" of agroecology, is a process that does not occur linearly but iteratively, "reworking" technologies and practices based on the recognition of the complex interactions between biophysical, social, economic and institutional factors (Terán-Giménez Cacho et al., 2018; Wigboldus et al., 2016).

Although the scientific literature on innovation and agroecology is extensive, no study still needs to help identify and understand the territorial capacities involved in scaling-up processes. Nor is there a definition of concrete indicators to identify these in specific territorial areas, which would allow differential public policy efforts to build or strengthen capacities, with particular interest in the Colombian context, where social organizations, academia, and government are making efforts to consolidate agroecological innovation at the territorial level.

The article seeks to establish which are the territorial capacities related to the scaling up of agroecological innovations, for which a literature review was carried out in specialized databases, taking as an analytical framework the link between territorial capital, its most relevant capacities, and its attributes (qualities or characteristics), which favor scaling up processes of agroecological innovations. Based on this, indicators were sought to measure and evaluate capacities
at the territorial level in the Colombian
text.

The document is organized as follows: First, the analysis framework is established through the relationship between the concepts of territorial capital, capacities, and scaling up. Second, based on the findings, the territorial capacities related to the scaling up agroecological innovations are described. Third, the paper concludes with a discussion of the identified territorial capacities and the proposal of indicators and indices that can contribute to measuring and evaluating them at the territorial level.

## 2. Methodology

The article is based on a systematic literature review through a search conducted on March 18, 2023, in specialized databases (Scopus, Web of Science, Scielo, and Redalyc). Only research and review papers on capacity and innovation in agroecology were included. It was conducted in five phases (Figure 1), as follows:

### Phase I. Database search

Systematic search in the Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) databases, with the search equation:

((capacity* OR capability*) AND (territorial OR development) AND (innovation AND agroecolog*)), which yielded 86 documents in total. Additionally, in order to incorporate into the analysis some evidence in the literature on the research topic in the Colombian context, a search was conducted in the databases of Scielo, with the equation (capacities and territorial) or (innovation and agroecology) and Redalyc with the equation: ("territorial capacities") AND (innovation and agroecology), which yielded 121 additional records for a total of 207 documents.

### Phase II. Reading and analysis of abstracts

From the Scopus and WoS databases, 32 records were excluded because they were duplicates, and 25 additional records were also excluded because, according to their reading, they did not deal directly with agroecological innovations and territorial capacities, giving 29 records for these two databases.

In the case of the Scielo and Redalyc databases, after reading the abstracts, 82 documents were excluded (1 record was repeated) because they needed to deal with capacities applied to agroecological innovations or innovations in the agricultural field.
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Processes and steps of the systematic review (El Bilali 2019).</figcaption></figure>

### Phase III. Reading and content analysis

Finally, 37 documents were made part of the list of selected research articles, including review articles and book chapters, on which their content was analyzed.

A matrix was prepared to classify the articles by categories (territorial capacities) of analysis, identifying their attributes (qualities or characteristics) to give an idea of how to measure and evaluate them in a specific territory. The analysis focused on collective

capacities (organizational and systemic), considering that innovation as a social process involves multiple actors. There may be a more significant impact at the territorial level if an intervention in capacities favors collective action.

### Phase IV. Search for indicators

After analyzing the content of the selected documents, it could be evidenced that in no case were indicators or indexes mentioned
that would allow field verification of the
presence or absence of the territorial ca-
capacities referenced in each document, so it
was decided to expand the search by using
the search engine of the "Google Scholar"
website, where additional documents of
both scientific nature and gray literature
were consulted, to select the proposals for
indicators or indexes.

3. Results and discussion

3.1 Analytical framework

The analytical framework was defined
based on the relationship between two
bodies of literature for which there is little
evidence of their integration. On the one
hand, territorial development is conceived
as an endogenous process of expanding
and accumulating individual and collective
capacities conditioned by organizational,
economic, and institutional factors (Gari-

azzo et al., 2014; Menardi et al., 2016). On
the other hand, there is the scaling out
or massification of agroecology, a process
through which a large number of farmers
adopt agroecological practices on a larger
spatial scale and which is composed of two
interdependent processes that co-occur,
known as “scaling out” or horizontal type
diffusion and “scaling up” referring to ver-
tical processes of scaling up institutional
practices (Schut et al., 2018; Millar & Con-
nell, 2010).

A synergistic relationship was identified
between territorial capital and endogenous
capacities in driving the transformation
toward sustainable agriculture by adopting
agroecological innovations. In this sense, it
is relevant to facilitate the construction and
strengthening of endogenous territorial
capacities that facilitate the generation and
adoption of such innovations at local and
regional levels (Figure 2).

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Integration of the concepts of territorial capital, capacities, and scaling of agroecological innovations.</figcaption></figure>
This review made it possible to establish a correspondence in the concepts of territorial capital and capacities for agroecological scaling, identifying three relevant territorial capacities: agency capacity, territorial governance, and co-construction of knowledge and dialogue of knowledge, which are manifested in solidarity-based collective action, self-organization for the generation of transdisciplinary knowledge, adaptive governance and democratic participation in the definition of policies. To be relevant to developing, disseminating, and using agroecological innovations, allow for efficient management of natural and artificial resources in specific territories.

## Agency capacity

Agency capacity is the capacity of actors to change their disadvantaged social and structural conditions and build shared visions of territorial development alternatives (Cumings, 2021). It refers to the possibilities that individuals have to influence their social reality (Aguirre, 2021), through the conformation of formal and informal networks of solidarity, cooperation, self-organization (Ostrom, 2009) and learning (Trujillo-Osorio et al., 2018; Dubois, 2019; Ibrahim, 2017; Gamache et al., 2020).

As agents of change, people define life trajectories that lead to social and political transformations (Wolfram, 2016) from endogenous processes of self-determination based on their abilities and capacities to define and pursue their own goals (Dubois, 2019; Ariza et al., 2019).

Levidow et al. (2021), when analyzing two case studies on agroecological solidarity economy schemes in Brazil, evidenced the strengthening of collective self-management capacities for constructing short solidarity

circuits and broad support networks and interfaces with public policies. On the other hand, Badstue et al. (2020), conducted a study to understand the factors that promote or limit innovative capacities in women, identifying the capacity to define one's objectives and act critically to achieve them, with attributes such as self-confidence, determination, and risk management.

In an analysis of the link between individual capabilities and social structures using self-help as a conceptual framework, Ibrahim (2017), finds that while critical self-reflection allows improving living conditions and taking action to solve problems, the occurrence of political changes for people in conditions of poverty can occur in a better way by collective agency, as a capacity acquired by the individual through their participation in collective actions.

In the food system of the community of Valencia in Spain, Sarabia et al. (2021), identified using the Urban Transformative Capacities Framework that empowered social movements have promoted reflection and social learning as capacities for the elaboration of a vision of disruptive changes for sustainability, also supported by systemic awareness and collective vision of sustainability (Table 1). Romero-Riaño et al. (2019), in a literature review, examined capacities in agricultural innovation systems, finding that the development of systemic capacities is based on the interaction and interdependence of actors, which generates links and collective action for networking through processes of social learning, adaptability, and self-organization.

In Colombia, reference can be made to the development of a protocol to strengthen the capacity for agency in the socioeconomic reincorporation of ex-combatants who
signed the 2016 peace agreement, which allowed them to act autonomously in decision-making and carry out effective project management, identifying aspects such as education, training and vocational training, networking and access to resources such as housing, health care and financial support (Ruano & Castillo, 2022).

Based on the attributes referring to agency capacity (Table 1), some indicators and indexes were identified that can account for the measurement of this capacity in a given territory, such as the Social Cohesion Index, whose pillars for its construction are identified with (i) Gaps, (ii) Institutionality and (iii) Belonging; the Social Sustainability Index, which has as pillars: i) Inclusion, ii) Cohesion and iii) Resilience and the Territorial Cohesion Index, which is based on the pillars of (i) Efficiency, (ii) Quality and (iii) Identity.

## Territorial governance

It is a mechanism through which the participation of civil society actors in the process of policy formulation and implementation is guaranteed (Palacios & Estrada, 2020) through a scheme of interaction for cooperation and conciliation of interests, among territorial actors, including the State, in multi-level and multisectoral public-private networks, which allow addressing political and economic changes for the sustainable transformation of conventional agricultural production systems (García-Madurga et al., 2020; Gariazzo et al., 2014; Anderson et al., 2019).

Territorial governance "is based on horizontality and the social, institutional and geographic proximity of socio-territorial actors" (Torres-Salcido, 2018, p. 75); it can be considered as a tool that gives them the capacity

to articulate interests and make decisions for collective action (Camacho-Fandiño, 2020).

Governance with flexible, diversified structures and stakeholder participation brings about changes in economic and political power relations (Sarabia et al., 2021; Kang et al., 2022), and increases the capacity for community action through aspects such as autonomy, implementation of mechanisms for accountability and conflict resolution (Anderson et al., 2019; Farreras & Salvador, 2022; Snapp & Pound, 2017).

Wolfram (2016) states that governance capacity is mediated by different collective actions, such as collaborative decision-making, the construction of social networks among multiple actors, the participation and inclusion of stakeholders, and the joint development of economic and social agendas (Table 1). Similarly, for Speich (2023), participation, engagement, and collaboration are fundamental aspects to guarantee success in the implementation processes of territorial planning policies.

Experimentation for the development of agroecological innovations facilitates, in turn, a new approach to governance based on the assignment of new roles and forms of relationship and cooperation between actors that are present at different scales (Gamache et al., 2020; Anderson et al., 2019).

In this sense, the decision-making process with a systemic approach is analyzed by Granada-Vahos (2017), in light of the resource allocation process of the General Royalties System in Colombia and the use of funds allocated to Science, Technology, and Innovation - CTel, highlighting the need to enable a transparent and impartial process of accountability. It requires improving the capacities of
the territorial governments and, in general,
of the departmental systems to guarantee an
efficient execution of the resources.

Additionally, Lozano (2021), proposed a "Ter-
ritorial Governance Index" for the Depart-
ment of Tolima in Colombia (Table 1), which
allows evidencing the initial conditions and
their opportunities for improvement in terms
of effectiveness, legitimacy, innovation, re-
sults, and stability. For this purpose, it took
as pillars: i) Municipal Performance, ii) Access
to Local Justice, iii) Electoral Participation,
iv) Inputs, vi) Governmental Stability, and v)
Results.

Co-construction of knowledge and dialogue
of knowledge

Local knowledge (knowledge, practices, and beliefs) is considered territorial capital and cultural heritage, fundamental for sustainable transition in agro-food systems with an agroecological approach. They consist of skills and processes that arise from experiences about the environment and the direct relationship with the ecosystem, applied by territorial actors as part of their agricultural production practices through the preservation of biocultural heritages, the dialogue of knowledge, and the different systems of social organization (García, 2021).

The co-construction of local knowledge oc-
curs through a system of social organization
that allows the integration of local knowledge
through transdisciplinary territorial networks
of knowledge and innovation (García, 2021;
Camagni, 2017; Trujillo-Osorio et al., 2018; López
& García, 2020). In it, knowledge is exchanged
between farmers and external experts, inte-
grating traditional knowledge with scientific
knowledge, using participatory methods of

experimentation and collective learning (Levi-
dow et al., 2021; Chávez et al., 2015).

Since agroecology is based on principles de-
pendent on local realities, local knowledge,
and farmers’ ingenuity occupy a prominent
place, demonstrating that the dialogue of
knowledge allows for building a framework
for the mobilization and transformation of
agricultural production practices (Martinez-
Torres & Rosset, 2014).

Wezel et al. (2020), in analyzing agroecologi-
cal principles and their evolution, compar-
ing the elements of FAO agroecology and
specialized literature, identify as one of the
entry points the “co-creation and exchange
of knowledge,” which requires the develop-
ment of holistic or systemic thinking capa-
bilities, to generate diverse agroecological
practices adapted to local conditions.

Sarabia et al. (2021), evaluating the capacity for transformation towards sustainability of the agri-food system in the city of Valencia (Spain), observed that agri-food innovations are “insufficiently developed” (isolated, fragmented and with low adoption) to compete with the dominant agri-food regime, so they propose as a response, the strengthening of capacities for the transdisciplinary co-production of transformational knowledge.

Analyzing participatory design methods for generating agroecological innovations, Berthet et al. (2016), state that it is necessary to build local knowledge exploration dynamics, integrating scientific knowledge and locally situated knowledge, to identify knowledge and capacity gaps.

This capacity lacks experiences that refer to
any indicator or variable that pretends to
account for a transdisciplinary knowledge
management scheme based on the dialogue
of knowledge. There are only a few ways of
calculating different aspects related to in-
novation management in general, such as
FAO's rural innovation indicators: Research
and Development, Technical Assistance and
Extension, Education and Training, Knowl-
edge Dissemination and Management, and
Enabling Environment and Incentives for
Innovation (Table 1).

In this sense, the National Planning Depart-
ment (DNP), calculates every year the Depart-
mental Innovation Index for Colombia - IDIC,
within which we can highlight the Human
Capital and Research pillar, which estimates
the functioning and quality of the educa-
tion and science and technology systems
and is built from the sub-pillars of coverage
and performance of secondary, middle and
higher education and the level and quality of
Research and Development activities (DNP,
2022).

Natural and artificial capital

Natural capital is the stock of nature's as-
sets or physical resources of natural origin
(soil, vegetation cover, water bodies, fauna,
atmosphere, and forests), which enhance
agricultural activity and the conservation of
ecosystems (García, 2021; Trujillo-Osorio et
al., 2018).

Co-production with nature, on which agro-
ecology is based, proposes a synergistic
relationship between people and the natural
environment with low use of external inputs
(Levidow et al., 2022), in addition to the secu-
rity of land tenure, availability and access to
seeds, soil and water management and bio-
diversity conservation (Anderson et al., 2019).

For Giraldo-Valdés et al. (2013), knowledge
of the environmental base and ecosystem
services is considered part of the territo-
rial capacities for a territorial environmental
planning proposal in the municipality of
Pereira (Department of Risaralda, Colombia),
which seeks to give sustainability to the land
occupation model, through regulatory, man-
agement and financing proposals.

Artificial capital consists of the endowment
of physical elements and infrastructure,
which accumulate from economic activity
and represent the transformation of natural
capital by human intervention and techno-
logical change (Trujillo-Osorio et al., 2018; Ca-
magni, 2017). For Kapgen and Roudart (2022),
the availability of research and development
(R&D) facilities and institutions in rural areas
can provide an enabling environment for in-
novation by supporting local entrepreneurs,
researchers, and inventors.

According to Lacey (2021), within the public
policies that should be adopted to support
agroecology, actions that contribute to en-
suring the availability of resources such as
seeds, water, soil, and biodiversity, but also
to the collaboration of communities and sup-
port agencies for the acquisition of facilities
for training and education and presence of
scientists and advisors in the field with ex-
pertise in agroecology, should be relevant.

For Colombia, the Territorial Green Growth Index (TGGI), proposed in 2022 (Table 1), refers to two pillars: i) Optimal use of resources (energy, water, soil) and ii) Natural capital (environmental quality, biodiversity) and the infrastructure pillar of the IDIC considers general infrastructure (electricity production, logistics performance and public investment in fixed capital), and ICT infrastructure (access, use, service and online participation).
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Matrix of description of capabilities, their attributes and indicators or indexes.</caption><thead><tr><th>Territorial Capacity</th><th>Attributes</th><th>Indicators / Indexes</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="12">Agency Capacity</td><td>Mutual help and solidarity</td><td rowspan="12">Social Cohesion Index<br>Pillars:<ul><li>Gaps</li><li>Institutionality</li><li>Belonging</li></ul>References:<br>(Pita-López & Pedregal-Mateus, 2010)<br>(Maldonado-Valera et al. 2021)<br>(UNDP/AECID, 2021)</td></tr><tr><td>Self-confidence</td></tr><tr><td>Self-determination</td></tr><tr><td>Self-organization</td></tr><tr><td>Self-management</td></tr><tr><td>Self-Assessment, Awareness and Reconciliation</td></tr><tr><td>Empowerment and autonomy</td></tr><tr><td>Differential approach (gender)</td></tr><tr><td>Social justice</td></tr><tr><td>Transformative leadership</td></tr><tr><td>Critical reflection, Reflexivity</td></tr><tr><td>Conflict resolution</td></tr><tr><td>Risk taking</td></tr><tr><td>Collective long-term vision</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="10">Territorial Governance</td><td>Organizational learning</td><td rowspan="10">Social sustainability index<br>Pillars:<ul><li>Inclusion</li><li>Cohesion</li><li>Resilience</li></ul>References:( Barron et al., 2023)</td></tr><tr><td>Coordination</td></tr><tr><td>Balance of power</td></tr><tr><td>Inclusion and Participation</td></tr><tr><td>Legitimacy and transparency</td></tr><tr><td>Accountability</td></tr><tr><td>Municipal Performance</td></tr><tr><td>Access to Local Justice</td></tr><tr><td>Electoral Participation</td></tr><tr><td>Inputs</td></tr><tr><td>Government Stability</td></tr><tr><td>Results</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>References:<br>(Lozano, 2021)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Territorial Governance Indicators<br>Pillars:<ul><li>Participation</li><li>Equity</li><li>Accountability</li><li>Efficiency</li><li>-Human resource development</li></ul>References:<br>(Bravo, 2018)</td></tr></tbody></table>
**Co-construction of knowledge and dialogue of knowledge**

Experiential learning

Adaptive experimentation

Participatory design

Collective knowledge creation and sharing

Transdisciplinary science

Horizontal relationship building

Generation of linkages and networks

Action research

Socio-environmental technologies

**Natural capital**

Agrobiodiversity

Seeds

Natural ecosystems

Fertility and productivity of systems

Common goods

Land use diversity

Land tenure and land management

**Artificial capital**

Training and education facilities

ICT use

R&D facilities and institutions

**Rural Innovation Indicators**

**Pillars:**

* Research and Development

* Technical Assistance and Extension

* Education and Training

* Dissemination and knowledge management

* Enabling environment and incentives

**References:**

Platform for Inclusive and Sustainable Territories and Landscapes.

Inclusive and Sustainable Landscapes and Territories Platform.

FAO. https://www.fao.org/in-action/

territories-intelligent/components/en/

**Departmental Innovation Index**

**for Colombia - IDIC**

**Pillars:**

* Human Capital and Research.

**References:**

(DNP, 2022)

**Territorial Green Growth Index**

**Green Growth Index (GGI)**

**Pillars:**

* Optimal use of resources (energy, water, soil)

* Natural capital (Environmental quality, biodiversity)

**References:**

(DNP, 2022)

**Biophysical Index of Natural Capital**

**Pillars:**

* Ecosystem services

* Complementary variables

* (Agricultural lands, air quality, biodiversity).

**References:**

(Murcia et al., 2023)

**Departmental Innovation Index**

**for Colombia - IDIC**

**Pillars:**

* General infrastructure

* ICT

**References:**

(DNP, 2022)

**4. Conclusions**

Agency, co-constructed knowledge, and participatory territorial governance are the three pillars of the processes of accumulation

of capacities that allow the participation of communities in the transformation processes through the strengthening of social and political aspects such as autonomy and commu-
nity self-organization, which make it possible to address the political and economic changes required for a transition to agroecology, as a paradigm that transforms conventional agricultural production systems.

It became evident that the relationship between territorial capacities and the processes of creation, linkage, transfer, and use of agroecological innovations, refers to the involvement of a broad base of territorial actors in collective action efforts for the development of planning and policy formulation processes, in a bottom-up approach, based on principles such as participation, appropriation, collaboration, commitment, and mutual trust.

The review of the attributes associated with capacities made it possible to learn about different indexes and indicators that can account for the existence and status of capacities in specific territories but not for the construction of knowledge and the dialogue of knowledge, so it is considered essential to work on the design of measurement systems, based on a discussion among stakeholders.

Finally, it should be affirmed that the State must lead reforms in both policies and in the CTel systems, which will make it possible to address the processes of territorial capacity building at all levels, guaranteeing articulation, participation, and collective learning for the formulation of participatory policies, the construction of shared visions of ideal futures and the systemic generation of transdisciplinary innovations.

## Authors' contribution

**Edison Suárez-Ortiz:** Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Validation,

Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review editing.

**Jean François Le-Coq:** Methodology, Visualization, Writing - review editing.

## Ethical implications

There are no ethical implications to state in writing or publishing this article.

## Funding

The authors did not receive resources for the writing or publication of this article.

## Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest from the authors in the writing or publication of this article.

## 5. References

Aguirre, P. G. (2021). El concepto de capacidad de agencia en Giddens y su relación con el desarrollo Social. Ixaya. *Revista Universitaria de Desarrollo Social, 11*(20), 10-27.

Anderson, C. R., Maughan, C., & Pimbert, M. P. (2019). Transformative agroecology learning in Europe: building consciousness, skills and collective capacity for food sovereignty. *Agriculture and Human Values, 36*(3), 531-547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-018-9894-0

Ariza-Arias, J. A., & Morante-Trigoso, F. B. (2019). Soberanía alimentaria y tecnologías sociales: una experiencia de desarrollo autónomo desde los Andes del Perú. *CIENCIA ergo sum* 26 (2), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.30878/ces.v26n2a2

Badstue, L., Petesch, P., Farnworth, C. R., Roeven, L., & Hailemariam, M. (2020). Women farmers
and agricultural innovation: Marital status and normative expectations in rural Ethiopia. *Sustainability (Switzerland)*, **12** (23), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12239847

Barron, P., Cord, L., Cuesta, J., Espinoza, S. A., & Larson, M. W. (2023). Social Sustainability in Development. World Bank.

Berthet, E. T. A., Barnaud, C., Girard, N., Labatut, J., & Martin, G. (2016). How to foster agroecological innovations? A comparison of participatory design methods. *Journal of Environmental Planning and Management*, **59** (2), 280–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2015.1009627

Blom, S. (2014). Capacity Development for Resilient Food Systems. May.

Bravo, O. (2018). Indicadores de gobernanza territorial de los objetivos del Plan Nacional del Buen Vivir (PNBV 2013-2017), Ecuador. *Civilizar, 18* (35), 25-38. https://doi.org/10.22518/usergioa/jour/ccsh/2018.2/a03

Camacho-Fandiño, C. L. (2020). *Gobernanza territorial para el fortalecimiento de procesos en transición agroecológica: Caso Sumapaz-Cundinamarca* (Tesis de maestría). Universidad Nacional de Colombia.

Chávez, R. X., Lombeida, E. D., Pazmiño, A., & Vasconez, F. del C. (2015). La innovación en el sector agrario: Experiencias en Latinoamérica. *Ciencia e Investigación Agraria*, **42** (3), 483-92. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-16202015000300016

Costamagna, P. (2015). Política y formación en el desarrollo territorial. In Orkestra.Deusto. Es. http://www.orkestra.deusto.es/images/investigacion/publicaciones/informes/politica-formacion-desarrollo-territorial.pdf

Cummings, A. (2021). Capacidades territoriales para crear alternativas innovadoras de desarrollo económico territorial, competitivas, inclusivas y sostenibles. En Menardi, E. (comp.), *Il Congreso Internacional de Desarrollo Territorial: Nuevos desafíos en la construcción de los territorios*. Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires: edUTecNe.

Departamento Nacional de Planeación, DNP. (2022). Guía práctica de interpretación del Índice Territorial de Crecimiento Verde (ITCV). Informe Final IDIC 2021.

Dubois, A. (2019). La propuesta alternativa desde el enfoque de las capacidades conceptos y marco de análisis. Territorios En Conflicto. *Claves Para La Construcción de Alternativas de Vida*, 48. https://territoriolab.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Mod-1-CAS.pdf

El Bilali, H. (2019). The multi-level perspective in research on sustainability transitions in agriculture and food systems: A systematic review. *Agriculture (Switzerland)*, **9** (4). https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9040074

Farreras, V., & Salvador, P. F. (2022). Why do some Participatory Guarantee Systems emerge, become effective, and are sustained over time, while others fail? An application of the Ostrom social-ecological system framework. *Land Use Policy*, **118**(5). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106134

Gamache, G., Anglade, J., Feche, R., Barataud, F., Mignolet, C., & Coquil, X. (2020). Can living labs offer a pathway to support local agri-food sustainability transitions? *Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions*, 37 (9), 93–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2020.08.002

García-Madurga, M. Á., Grilló-Méndez, A. J., & Esteban-Navarro, M. Á. (2020). Territorial intelligence, a collective challenge for sustainable development: A scoping review. *Social Sciences*, **9** (7). https://doi.org/10.3390/SOCSCI9070126

García, J. M. (2021). Saberes locales, capital territorial y transición agroecológica: implicaciones para el desarrollo sostenible de la región de Sierra de Lobos en León, Guanajuato y el Monte Amiata en la Toscana, Italia. 1-16.

Gariazzo, F., Goinheix, S., Parada, C., Troncoso, C., & Rodríguez-Miranda, A. (2014). Mapeo de capacidades territoriales y desarrollo productivo: oportunidades de intervención para el desarrollo local con inclusión. Uruguay.
Giraldo-Valdés, E. A., Osorio-Salgado, L. F., & Tobón-Zapata, M. M. (2013). Propuesta de planificación ambiental territorial del suelo suburbano del municipio de Pereira (Risaralda), estudio de caso. Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. https://repositorio.autonoma.edu.co/handle/11182/286

Girardot, J.-J. (2010). UMR ThéMA, Théoriser et Modéliser pour Aménager 1 USR MSHE Ledoux, Maison des Sciences de l'Homme et de l'Environnement 2 Coordinador ENTI 3. 15-40.

Granada-Vahos, J. G. (2017). Cambios políticos. De la política pública de desplazamiento forzado a la política pública de víctimas de Medellín, Colombia. *Estudios Políticos*, 50, 159-79. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.espo.n50a09

Hanell, T. (2015). Measuring Territorial Cohesion. Understanding Geographies of Polarization and Peripheralization, 8. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137415080.0020

Ibrahim, S. (2017). How to Build Collective Capabilities: The 3C-Model for Grassroots-Led Development. *Journal of Human Development and Capabilities*, 18 (2), 197-222. https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2016.1270918

Kang, H., Roggio, A. M., & Luna-Reyes, L. F. (2022). Governance of local food systems: Current research and future directions. *Journal of Cleaner Production*, 338 (1), 130626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130626

Lacey, H. (2021). The methodological strategies of agroecological research and the values with which they are linked. *Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A*, 88, 292-302. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2021.06.013

Levidow, L. (2015). Feeding the people -Roecology for Nourishing the world and transforming the agri-food system. 44.

Levidow, L., Sansolo, D., & Schiavinatto, M. (2021). Agroecological innovation constructing socio-

natural order for social transformation: two case studies in Brazil. *Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society, 4* (1). https://doi.org/10.1080/25729861.2020.1843318

Levidow, L., Sansolo, D., & Schiavinatto, M. (2022). EcoSol-agroecology networks respond to the Covid-19 crisis: building an economy of proximity in Brazil's Baixada Santista region. *Journal of Peasant Studies*, 49 (7), 1409-1445. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2022.2096447

López, M., & García, L. (2020). Territorios rurales inteligentes: lineamientos para el replanteamiento curricular en desarrollo territorial. *Agroalimentaria*, 26 (50), 263-80. https://doi.org/10.53766/agroalim/2020.26.50.16

Lozano, L. (2021). Pensar la Gobernanza Territorial a partir de la Innovación. 1-15.

Maldonado-Valera, C., Tromben, V., Cea, C., & Suárez, J. I. (2021). Panorama de la cohesión social en América Latina y el Caribe. CEPAL.

Marquez, R., Kaztman, R., Arim, R., Vigorito, A., Canal, F., Quiroga, R., Rodriguez, Y., Stockins, P., Najera, M., Maurizio, R., Feres, J., & Villatoro, P. (2010). Cohesión social en América latina. Una revisión de conceptos, marcos de referencia e indicadores. *Cepal.*, 1-219.

Martínez-Torres, M. E., & Rosset, P. M. (2014). Diálogo de saberes en La Vía Campesina: food sovereignty and agroecology. *Journal of Peasant Studies*, 41 (6), 979-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2013.872632

Menardi, M. A., Tecco, C. A., & López, S. R. (2016). El rol de las universidades en la generación de capacidades territoriales para la innovación y el desarrollo. *Revista Administración Pública y Sociedad*, 1, 73-84.

Millar, J., & Connell, J. (2010). Strategies for scaling out impacts from agricultural systems change: The case of forages and livestock production in Laos. *Agriculture and Human Values*, 27 (2): 213-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-009-9194-9
Murcia, M., Valle-Parra, J. S., Cortés, C., Montoya, M., Perilla, G., & Amaya, B. (2023). Informe analítico sobre tendencias del capital natural. Bogotá: Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt.

Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. *Science*, **325** (5939): 419–22. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133

Palacios-García, E., & Moyano-Estrada, E. (2020). Governance and territorial development. Rural development agencies at implementation of Mexican program pesas. *Ager*, **(28)**, 185–215. https://doi.org/10.4422/ager.2019.14

Pita-López, M. F., & Pedregal-Mateos, B. (2015). La medición de la cohesión territorial a escala regional. Propuesta metodológica y aplicación a Andalucía. *Boletín de la Asociación de Geógrafos Españoles*, **68**, 31–56. https://doi.org/10.21138/bage.1852

PNUD/AECID. (2021). Cohesión social en América Latina: Una propuesta de medición y sus resultados. 96. https://intercoonecta.aecid.es/Gestin del conocimiento/Cohesion-Social-Medicion-y-Resultados.pdf

Romero-Riaño, E., Guarín-Manrique, L., Dueñas-Gómez, M. and Becerra-Ardila, L. (2019). Reference framework for capabilities development in agricultural innovation system. *DYNA*, **86** (210), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.15446/dyna.v86n210.74475

Ruano, L. E., & Castillo, E. A. (2022). Capacidad de agencia para la gestión de proyectos en incorporados de espacios territoriales de capacitación y reincorporación en el Departamento del Cauca, Colombia. *New Trends in Qualitative Research*, **14**, 1–10.

Sarabia, N., Peris, J. and Segura, S. (2021). Transition to agri-food sustainability, assessing accelerators and triggers for transformation: Case study in Valencia, Spain. *Journal of Cleaner Production*,

325(10), 129228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcle-pro.2021.129228

Schut, J., Klerkx, L., Kamanda, J., Sartas, M., & Leeuwis, C. (2018). Innovation platforms: Synopsis of innovation platforms in agricultural research and development. *Encyclopedia of Food Security and Sustainability*. 3. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100596-5.22197-5

Snapp, S., & Pound, B. (2017). Agricultural Systems. Agroecology and Rural Innovation for Development. Elsevier.

Speich, C., Barth-Jaeggi, T., Musard, C., Havugimana, C., Nwokoro, C., Gakuba, E., Zamil, F., et al. (2023). "Nutrition in City Ecosystems (NICE): Protocol of a multi-sectoral development project to improve food and nutrition security of secondary city populations in Bangladesh, Kenya and Rwanda". *Frontiers in Public Health*, **11** (4). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1081535

Terán-Giménez Cacho, M. P., Giraldo, O. F., Aldasoro, M., Morales, H., Ferguson, B. G., Rosset, P., Khadse, A., & Campos, C. (2018). Bringing agroecology to scale: key drivers and emblematic cases. *Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems*, **42** (6), 637–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2018.1443313

Torres-Salcido, G. (2018). Gestión y gobernanza territorial. Los Sistemas Agroalimentarios Localizados en la encrucijada del desarrollo territorial. *Revista Iberoamericana de Viticultura, Agroindustria y Ruralidad*, **5** (14): 61–79.

Trujillo-Osorio, C., Eraso-Torres, F. W. and Loaiza-Trejos, P. A. (2018). La sostenibilidad del capital territorial: propuesta metodológica para su análisis y valoración. *Entramado*, **14** (2), 50–72.

UE, U. E. (2008). El libro Verde sobre la cohesión territorial: el camino a seguir. Inforegio Panorama, Diciembre (28), 1–20.

Wezel, A., Herren, B. G., Kerr, R. B., Barrios, E., Gonçalves, A. L. R. and Sinclair, F. (2020). Agro-
ecological principles and elements and their
implications for transitioning to sustainable
food systems. A review. *Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 40* (6). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-020-00646-z

Wigboldus, S., Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C., Schut, M., Muilerman, S., & Jochemsen, H. (2016). Systemic perspectives on scaling agricultural innovations. A review. *Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 36* (3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0380-z

Wolfram, M. (2016). Conceptualizing urban
transformative capacity: A framework for re-
search and policy. *Cities*, 51, 121–130. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.11.011
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>