An innovative approach combining fieldwork and local participation means that agroecology can be evaluated with fewer resources and comparable results Multifunctional landscapes combine various agroecological spaces: flooded rice paddies, cattle grazing areas, annual crops on foothills, and agroforestry systems on slopes (photo: IRD – Jean-Christophe Castella) Agroecology draws its inspiration from natural ecosystems to reconcile food production, resource conservation, and improved living conditions for farmers. It is a response to the challenges posed by climate change and the erosion of biodiversity, and establishing itself as a sustainable alternative to intensive agriculture in many parts of the world. However, its rapid development raises important questions: how to evaluate the implementation and development of agroecology in a given region? What indicators and methods should be put in place for rigorous measurement? How can they be adapted to local contexts? IRD scientists and their partners have attempted to answer these questions with a new approach tested in three districts of Xiengkhouang Province, Laos, as part of the ASSET project. The right balance between local and global The most widely used agroecology evaluation methods oscillate between two main trends: one is locally rooted and participatory, the other is global and standardized. While the former offers detailed information on the local factors behind the switch to agroecology, it mobilizes intense resources, making it complicated to implement on a large scale. The second, on the other hand, categorizes farms into different types using generic indicators applicable to a variety of contexts, but limits the co-production of knowledge with local communities and misses essential regional specificities. “Yet this subtle balance between local relevance to encourage action and the importance of generalizing results to produce syntheses on the large-scale coverage of agroecology is essential for building political advocacy aimed at donors, sustainable development actors and decision-makers”, analyses  Jean-Christophe Castella, an IRD agronomist with the SENS unit. This is why, with an interdisciplinary and international team, the researcher has developed an innovative methodology capable of rapidly providing decision-makers with empirical data to guide their policies and intervention plans. A Participatory and Multi-Scale Approach “The idea was to propose an alternative to existing methods that was rapid, applicable on a large scale and adaptable to a diversity of contexts, while adequately capturing the level of agroecology in the areas studied”, explains Zar Chi Aye, senior researcher at the University of Bern’s Interdisciplinary Centre  for Sustainable Development and Environment (CDE), and first author of the study. To achieve this, the team designed and tested an approach based on field observations and Focus Group Discussions with key witnesses to socio-technical change at village and district levels. These discussions were based on a set of indicators defined in consultation with local stakeholders and covering several dimensions: agronomic (crop diversity, soil cover, recycling of organic matter), economic (farm autonomy, short marketing circuits), social (collective organization, transmission of knowledge) and environmental (preservation of water and soil resources, functional biodiversity). “Over and above village-level mapping, this multi-scale approach has enabled us to characterize the extent and intensity of agroecological transformations”, says Albrecht Ehrensperger, geographer at the University of Bern’s CDE. Comparable results with fewer resources One of the strengths of the methodology put in place by the scientists is that it do not rely on the aggregation of figures from different sources of information, whose collection and processing methods may be uncertain, but on the participation of stakeholders in the transformations underway. This makes it possible to go beyond a simple report on the state of agroecology and interpret agroecological scores in terms of actionable knowledge. “In the end, our method mobilizes far fewer human and financial resources than traditional household surveys, while delivering comparable results”, says Zar Chi Aye. A method that represents an interesting advance in the evaluation of agroecology, but which is still in its infancy and could be further improved. One of the challenges is to extend its field of application to other territories and agricultural contexts. To this end, scientists suggest to adapt indicators to local specificities by co-constructing them with those involved in the agro-ecological transition, and developing digital tools to facilitate data collection and analysis. Indeed, the involvement of farmers and other agro-ecology stakeholders in the evaluation process remains crucial. Greater appropriation of the method by local communities would make it a real lever for supporting the agroecological transition. This would provide a snapshot of the current state of agroecology in local areas, as well as a monitoring tool to help agricultural policies implement sustainable food systems. Louise Hurel This article has first been published by IRD, which is a member of EHC. SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER To stay up to date with our projects and the development of the EHC Read more articles

As World Water Day approaches, Hester le Roux highlights the link between water security, gender equality and women’s rights – and explains why the Fair Water Footprints programme is working to ensure that the water we use is truly equitable for all. Local communities in Woukpokpoe, Benin accessing safe, clean water (Photo: World Bank Photo Collection, via Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) The annual World Water Day (22 March) comes close on the heels of International Women’s Day, which is marked on 8 March every year. This feels apt, given that issues affecting women and gender equality – social norms, power relations, land ownership, access to basic services, risk of violence and the like – are also hugely relevant in the spaces of water security and WASH (water, sanitation and hygiene). Recent months have seen a backlash in some quarters against any initiatives that openly commit to include everyone in their reach, regardless of personal characteristics such as gender, age, ethnicity or ability. Such initiatives surely have admirable intentions, despite being tarred by the tainted ‘DEI’ brush. Yet, the fact remains that water security affects different groups of people in very different ways. Any efforts to ensure better management of our collective water resources that do not make special provision for these groups, risk deepening existing inequalities and increasing potential harm to the very people whose rights they seek to protect. This is why gender equality and social inclusion has been placed at the heart of the Fair Water Footprints initiative. Launched at the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow in 2021, Fair Water Footprints forms one part of the UK government-funded Just Transitions for Water Security programme, which aims to help countries manage water resources responsibly for the future. Watching our water footprints Similar to carbon footprints, a ‘water footprint’ can be a useful indicator of how sustainable a production process is from a water use perspective. Developed in 2002 by Professor Arjen Hoekstra, a product’s water footprint takes into account all the water consumed to make it, expressed in cubic metres per year. This includes ‘blue water’ (freshwater like lakes and rivers), ‘green water’ (rainfall) and ‘brown water’ (freshwater needed to dilute pollutants in post-production water to make it safe to use again). It is thanks to this concept that we now know that it can take up to 83,000 litres of water to manufacture a car, or 10,800 litres for one pair of jeans: an extremely water-intensive process. For context, the average person in the UK uses around 150 litres of water per day. The concept of a product’s water footprint is becoming more widely used to influence buying decisions. During the ‘Veganuary’ campaign earlier this year, I was able to compare the water footprints of different milks and milk substitutes on offer in a London coffee shop, thanks to a poster prominently displayed near the counter. (In case you’re wondering, rice milk had the lowest water footprint, while cow’s milk had the highest, with 125.6 litres of water used to produce just 200ml). Whose water is it anyway? However, knowing how much water is used in the products we consume is only one part of the picture. What do we understand about where the water used in the production process was sourced from, or who was affected by its use in this particular way? Which groups had less access to water as a result of the making of this product? Was any community’s only source of fresh water polluted? Were people’s WASH needs met before water was diverted for commercial use? These are the issues the Fair Water Footprint initiative seeks to address through the Glasgow Declaration for Fair Water Footprints (PDF), which commits signatories to a number of principles, including sustainable and equitable withdrawal and water use, and zero water pollution. The fact is, while risks to water security affect entire communities, certain groups within those communities are even more at risk: particularly those whose voices often go unheard, or who lack access to services, decision-making and empowerment.  This typically includes include people living with disabilities, the elderly, young people, LGBTQI+ communities, Indigenous Peoples, migrants or displaced communities and, unsurprisingly, women. Women and water: an unequal burden In many communities in the global South, fetching water is women’s work. Time spent collecting water for the household’s daily needs, on top of providing care and domestic work, leaves women and girls little time to earn money or attend school; let alone to rest. When water sources are polluted or depleted, women and girls have to walk further to collect water, also increasing their risk of harm from gender-based violence. In many agricultural communities, women make up the majority of smallholder farmers who are very vulnerable to disruptions in their clean water access; and when their farming income is threatened, entire households are at risk of harm. These water security risks are exacerbated by the effects of climate change, which is disrupting rainfall patterns and causing more droughts and floods. Women are also disproportionately affected by lack of access to WASH. If workplaces do not have clean, adequate and safe WASH facilities, this prevents women from realising economic opportunities and can also create gender-based violence risks.  In most sectors, women have less power and representation at work, so are less able to advocate for their needs. Girls are more likely to stay away from school if their hygiene needs are not met – with lifelong implications for their income, opportunities and wellbeing.  Ensuring no one is left behind In light of these vulnerabilities, the Fair Water Footprint initiative has gender equity and social inclusion (GESI) baked into its very design. The four organisations jointly delivering the initiative – CDP, Chatham House, IIED and Water Witness – have signed up to a set of GESI principles that will guide all their activities. This allows GESI to become mainstream throughout the programme: from design and implementation, to stakeholder engagement and monitoring impact. While women are not the only group disproportionately affected by water insecurity, this month’s

New Zealand’s body mass index threshold for publicly funded fertility treatment is outdated and unethical. Here’s why it should go Pregnancy exam (Mart Production – Pexels) Women seeking publicly funded fertility treatment in New Zealand must have a body mass index (BMI) under 32, according to clinical priority assessment criteria for access to assisted reproductive technology. But as our in-depth interviews and a growing body of evidence show, this approach is outdated and unethical. One of our study participants described the system as “completely rigged if you’re a fat person”. Nina, a 37-year-old dance teacher, was denied public funding support to help her conceive because her BMI was above 32 – even though the cause of infertility was her husband’s sperm count. Age limit Nina is not alone. Paratta, who moved to Aotearoa from Sri Lanka in 2009, was also denied because of her BMI. She raced to lose the required weight in spite of a medical condition, but was then denied again because she had reached 40, the age limit for access to public funding. Both women’s experiences highlight New Zealand’s obsolete and discriminating BMI limit. The United Kingdom does not include BMI as a criterion for public funding, and international cutoffs are generally between 35 and 45. We argue New Zealand’s BMI threshold must be scrapped to reflect impactful research and respond ethically to New Zealand’s diverse population. BMI and fertility One in six people worldwide are affected by infertility, according to the World Health Organization’s most recent estimate. They suffer severe social and psychological consequences. There are numerous factors that can affect fertility, and obesity is certainly one of them, impacting 6% of women who have never been pregnant. But the BMI is an outdated method of assessing this risk. It doesn’t measure body fat percentage, distribution or differences across populations. Our study participants have raised concerns about the BMI limit. International and local studies concur with them. Research shows Polynesians are much leaner than Europeans at significantly higher BMIs, meaning Māori and Pacific women are disadvantaged before they even step into the clinic. Quick weight loss unlikely to help In New Zealand, people seeking public support are told that “making lifestyle changes like quitting smoking or losing weight” could help them become eligible. They are given a stand-down period wherein they must lose the requisite weight before referrals. As in Paratta’s case, this can lead to a race to lose weight before the inflexible age limit of 40 is reached. Evidence-based research advises that fertility care should balance the risk of age-related fertility decline with weight-loss advice. Nina rejected the advice to lose weight. She was concerned that quick weight loss would require unhealthy practices that could affect her success rate during the embryo transfer. Interventions may cause harm At the Australia and New Zealand Fertility Association’s annual conference last month, US obstetrician Kurt Barnhart confirmed that lifestyle interventions made weeks or months before conception are unlikely to improve outcomes. They may even cause harm. He discussed the FIT—PLESE randomised control study, which compared two groups of infertile women. One underwent a targeted weight-loss program and another exercised but did not lose weight. The results showed no statistically significant difference between the groups’ fertility and live-birth rates. These findings suggest the stand-down period should be revised. Barnhart also highlighted that weight loss through lifestyle changes can be practically impossible given obesity is often linked to endocrine issues that have nothing to do with choice. He observed signals that the medical community is changing its views on obesity as a “lifestyle” choice – a welcome shift. BMI, lifestyle and ethics Social science research has long challenged a colonial and biomedical habit of imposing standards on women whose bodies do not conform to Western ideas of a healthy or ideal body. Historically, the emphasis on weight as a criterion for reproductive health echoes harmful eugenicist beliefs. As US science historian Arleen Tuchman writes, the discovery of insulin prompted some groups to recommended banning marriages for people with diabetes to prevent the “unfit” from reproducing. New Zealand’s BMI criteria similarly suggest only those who fit specific physical standards deserve access to fertility care. The idea that lifestyle and health are straightforward individual choices is also challenged by research in epigenetics and philosophy. Obesity is often linked with poverty, which in turn is linked to broader social and living environments, including access and income. The high economic burden of obesity has led biomedical experts to recommended obese people should be considered for particular support, given the prohibitive cost of assisted reproductive technologies. Nina exercises more than eight hours a week and Paratta leads an active lifestyle. For both women, behavioural advice – and the stigma and assumptions it underscores – is offensive. Weight-loss advice can be particularly culturally offensive for Māori and Pacific peoples, who may be stigmatised in clinic settings for being too “fat” but considered “skinny” in their communities if they lose the required weight. Transdisciplinary approach to manage risks New Zealand’s assessment criteria for publicly funded fertility treatment have not been updated in 27 years. While infertility and health risks associated with obesity during pregnancy and at birth should not be ignored, research shows these risks can be managed effectively and with empathy through a transdisciplinary approach. The Australian state of Victoria now offers two free cycles of fertility treatment to any Medicare-holding woman, regardless of BMI, up to the age of 42. The program deliberately reaches out to specific groups whose ethnicity, sexuality and environment limit their access. It has been highly successful and should inspire New Zealand to approach fertility funding with fresh perspectives. Carina Truyts, Monash University; Nelly Martin-Anatias, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University, and Sharyn Graham Davies, Monash University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER To stay up to date with our projects and the development of the EHC Read more articles

The launch of the Science Decade symbolically took place 2nd December 2024, at the Latin America and Caribbean Open Science Forum on San Andrés, Colombia UNESCO launched a new website dedicated to the International Decade of Sciences for Sustainable Development Lidia Brito, Deputy Director General of UNESCO, Natural Sciences sector, officially opened the International Decade of Sciences for Sustainable Development (2024-2033) during the Latin America and CaribbeanOpen Science Forum (CILAC) 2024, held on San Andrés, Colombia, 2 – 4 December 2024. After a 30 minutes keynote talk, she moderated a ministerial panel with: Yesenia Olaya, Minister, Ministerio Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación, Colombia; Eduardo Ortega-Barría, National Secretary for Science and Technology, Panamá (SENACYT); Benjamin Barán, President Minister, National Council of Science and Technology, Mexico (CONACYT); Walter Sáenz Rojas, Subdirector General, Tecnológico Nacional INATEC, Nicaragua; Manuel Martin Catacora Villasante, Advisor to the Presidency of the National Council for Science, Technology and Technological Innovation (CONCYTEC), Peru; Andrea Brito Latgé, Vice Minister of Strategic Policies and Programs, Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, Brazil; Violeta Vázquez Rojas, Undersecretary of Science and Humanities, Government of Mexico; Andrea Armas Rodríguez, Director General of Science, Technology and Innovation, Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment of the Republic of Cuba; Paula González Frías, Head of the Public Policy Division, Chilean Ministry of Science, Technology, Knowledge and Innovation New website The International Decade of Sciences for Sustainable Development now has also a companion website, with all relevant information about UNESCO action for this Decade. Luc Allemand SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER To stay up to date with our projects and the development of the EHC Read more articles