8SHRHLPK

3298

13 avril 2021 13:50

13 avril 2021 13:50

Agroecology is increasingly advocated as a solution to current challenges faced by conventional farming systems. Agroecology goes beyond the suggestion of alternative agricultural practices. It also questions the whole food systems, including the stakeholders involved and their interdependencies. By suggesting such a holistic transition, agroecology also questions current research practices. Such an approach to agriculture requires new scientific tools which allow the integration of multiple value domains, account for the system complexity and the underlying uncertainties. Integrated ecosystem service (ES) valuation claims to offer such tool. However, to date, few studies report on the implementation of integrated ES valuations to real-life contexts of agroecological transitions. The present work aims at filling this gap by applying the concept to three real-life farm examples which are undergoing agroecological transition. Both a biophysical ES assessment, based on field measurements and a socio-cultural ES valuation, based on a focus group and questionnaires, are carried out on the sampled agroecological farms and their neighbor’s conventional farms. The aim is to analyze these agroecological farming systems (AFS) through the lens of the integrated ES valuation tool and to share lessons learned in a reflexive posture. Prior to the implementation of the tool to the case studies, a literature analysis is carried out providing a state-of-the-art on (i) the concept of agroecologogy and how it questions current research processes (Article 1) and (ii) the tool of integrated ES valuation and how it can steer agroecological transition (Article 2). The socio-cultural valuation was then implemented to identifiy and select ES for the subsequent steps of the research. Based on consultation of 19 locals including farmers (ES providers) and local inhabitants (ES beneficiaries) organized under a focus group, a list of prioritized ES was drawn. This preliminary list was then confronted to the technical and time constraints of the research and to expert judgement who decided to add two ES. At last, 12 ES were kept for the next valuation steps. The second part of the socio-cultural valuation consisted in photographs-based questionnaires to assess the extent to which locals (local inhabitants and farmers) viewed landscapes undergoing agricultural transitions by comparing it to ‘ES experts’ perceptions (Article 3). Manipulated photographs simulating an agroecological landscape, a conventional agriculture landscape, and landscapes including each agroecological practice isolated were submitted to both locals and ES experts. Both profiles perceive and appreciate landscapes similarly, appreciating the agroecological landscape the most and seeing it as delivering more ES. Additionnally, the agroecological landscape was seen as a synergetic whole were negative comments formulated for isolated practices disappear once assembled into the agroecological scenario. Such results illustrate that locals perceive the feedback loop of how agricultural practices shape the landscape and how this impacts ES flows. In the light of this observation, and considering that such interactions are highly context dependent, local knowledge and perception should be capitalized for sustainable rural land management. Next, the biophysical assessment was carried out, which focused on the selected regulating and provisioning ES (Article 4). These seven ES were assessed based on 14 indicators. The assessment was carried out in three agroecological farming systems (AFS) of the Western part of the Hainaut Province in Belgium and their adjacent conventional farming systems (CFS). Based on three years of field-scale measurements, our findings suggest that the studied AFS succeed in providing a wider array of regulating services than their neighbors CFS. More precisely, soil aggregate stability, soil respiration rates are in general more supported in AFS which also show less aphid abundance. On the other hand, CFS show higher grain production and higher performance for two out of three fodder quality indices. While this ‘productivity gap’ may be due to the still-evolving state of the studied AFS, we nuance this through the lens of a new paradigm to assess farming system performance based on multiple dimensions. Based on the implementation of the tool of integrated ES valuation on case studies AFS, a reflexive analysis was carried out to share lessons learned and feed future research. A thorough reflexive work was carried out on the participatory ES identifaction and selection of the present research along four other case studies. This resulted in 11 recommendations detailed in Article 5. The literature on participatory research evaluation used to guide our reflection demonstrated the relevance of participatory science to the field of ES. From the biophysical ES assessment, it appeared clear that each methodological option, it being the approach (the ES tool in the present case), the selected ES, the indicator or the method used to assess them, orients the outcomes of the research. This is partly due to the fact that distinct indicators measure different ecological processes or functions underlying the delivery of the ES to be assessed. Hence, it is recommended to use multiple indicators for a single ES to inform more comprehensively on the underlying processes of ES delivery. This influence of the researcher’s methodological choices also illustrates how each methodological decision is value-laden. To bring more transparency and legitimacy to these steps, including stakeholders in ES selection (as done in the present work), but also in the selection of indicators and assessment methods is a solution often put forward. Stakeholder knowledge indeed showed to represent seen as a complementary source of information to scientific knowledge. The integration of the two value domains, i.e. the biophysical and the socio-cultural remained a challenge, as it is the case for many other examples of integrated ES valuation. As aggregation of outcomes into a single value or score is not the pursued objective, applying scenario comparison within commensurable value categories is adviced (Article 6 – Appendix 1). Again, stakeholder inclusive deliverative approach is one way to overcome the challenge. Inteed, such approaches allow implementing iterative research processes bridging between the two value domains. The ES tool applied as done in the present work produces knowledge which represents a first step and a subset of the bulk of information needed by farmers envisioning transition. Within the framework of Dendoncker et al. (2018a), the present work only applies the first step, i.e. the ‘building of a common understanding of the current situation’. To bring the ES valuation to action and steer agroecological transition, the biophysical assessment and socio-cultural valuation of the present study should be embedded within a wider framework which also includes the identification of plausible evolutions of the system (step 2 of the framework). To consider different options, the approach of deliberative multicriteria analysis shows some interesting potential in supporting decision making while accommodating value pluralism and structuring deliberative approaches. Rather than providing one-size-fit all solution, deliberative multicriteria analysis provides insights on the potential compromises and could thus feed steps 3 and 4 of the framework: the selection of the most acceptable pathways of change and the implementation of the selected scenario. Carrying such transdisciplinary research allows tackling multiple valuation languages which offers a more comprehensive perspective on the analysis. However, such research approach differs from classical disciplinary research wich has long dominated in educational programmes and research institutions. These two are currently undergoing fundamental modifications, as an increasing amount of instiutions offer mutlidisciploinary field-based problem oriented educational courses or programmes, and research institutions increasingly restructure to provide interdisciplinary environment to researchers.

None

• AB - Utile à l'AB
• ecosystem service
• FREDO durabilité
• FREDO environnement
• GEO Belgique
• GEO Wallonie
• agroecology
• agroécologie

2018

1 janvier 2018