BAM2015

4th Belgian Agroecology Meeting

Leuven (KULeuven) — 17th November 2015

4th Belgian Agroecology Meeting (BAM)

Venue

Tuesday 17th November 2015, 8h30 — 17h15

Morning : Aula van de 2de Hoofdwet Thermotechnisch Instituut
Kasteelpark Arenberg 41 – 3001 Heverlee
Afternoon : GEO-Instituut, Campus Arenberg
Celestijnenlaan 200E – B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee

Scientific committee

Erik Mathijs
Marjolein Visser
Tessa Avermaete
Séverin Lagneaux
Pierre Stassart
Marc Dufrêne
Jean-Claude Grégoire
Denise Van Dam
Frédéric Vanwindekens

Organizing committee

Tessa Avermaete
Erik Mathijs
Marjolein Visser
Natalia Brzezina

Cover picture : (i) Brassica oleracea convar, based on the works of Elrond : Ein in der Mitte geschnit-
tener Kopf eines Rotkohls – This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike
4.0 International license. and (ii) Bred carrots with pigments that reflect almost all colors of the rain-
bow. Based on the work of Stephen Ausmus : ("More importantly, though, they’re very good for your
health.” — USDA ARS) This image was released by the Agricultural Research Service, the research
agency of the United States Department of Agriculture, with the ID K11611-1

© Giraf, 2015

2
About . . .

. . . GIRAF

The Group of Interdisciplinary Research in Agroecology of the Belgian Fund for Scientific Research
(FNRS) GIRAF – Groupe de contact Interdisciplinaire de Recherche en Agroécologie du FNRS - has
been founded in 2009 by 9 Belgian academics. This interdisciplinary group brought together re-
searchers from Université de Liège (ULg), Université catholique de Louvain (UCL), Université Libre de
Bruxelles (ULB), Universiteit Gent (UGent), and the Walloon Agricultural Research Center “CRA-W.”
working in the fields of agronomy, ecology, sociology and economy. In 2012 the group has published
a conceptual framework for agroecology : “Agroecology : pathway and potential. For a transition to
sustainable food systems*”. Since 2012, GIRAF has extended his membership to young post-doc and
phd-students and currently consists of 20 members. GIRAF has created a complementary training
course in agroecology that started in 2013.
Chairman of GIRAF : Jean-Claude Grégoire (jcgregoi@ulb.ac.be)
Secretary of GIRAF : Denise Van Dam (denise.vandam@unamur.be)

. . . Agroecology

GIRAF endorses the fact that agroecology is a polysemic concept. There is therefore not a single
way to define and work ‘for’ and ‘on’ agroecology. However, three key dimensions in the history
of agroecology can be identified, namely ecology, food systems and interactions between nature,
science and society.
Altieri (1983) coined the word agroecology to designate the application of ecology to the study of
agriculture. This approach, which focuses on the analysis of stability and resilience of agroecosys-
tems, was aimed at producing knowledge and practices that would make agriculture more sus-
tainable. In that sense, agroecology involves deep interactions between ecology and agricultural
sciences.
In a second phase, the field of agroecology has broadened to include socio-ecology in the study,
conception and management of food systems. The links between food and on-farm production are
now emphasized. The ‘food systems’ concept was especially taken up a few years later by Steven
Gliessman and Keith Warner in two seminal works, namely Agroecology of Sustainable Food Systems
(Gliessman, 2006) and Agroecology in Action (Warner, 2007). This broader concept gave room to the
social dimension. By choosing to address food systems instead of agrifood systems we emphasize the
role of the citizens in the building of agroecology, each of them being a food consumer.
In a third phase, agroecology has meant the interaction between science, practices and social
movements, which can been represented as the three angles of a triangle (Wezel, Bellon et al., 2009).
As a scientific practice, we consider that agroecology can no longer be developed without taking
into account the relationships between science and society. Researchers can no longer ignore the
fact that practitioners, associations, citizens, consumers, social agents might as well accept or refuse
experts’ conclusions, and choose to adopt, adapt or not adopt innovations that research produces.
Agroecological issues thus address different audiences, which they themselves help to create, while
these groups in turn go on to build agroecological issues. Fully acknowledging the consequences of
that triangular setting, we assume that agroecology cannot be defined either from the perspective
of scientific fields neither from social movements or practices. It is a federating concept of action

3
filling the triangle. Therefore, agroecology is an interdisciplinary scientific practice and our aim is not
to build agroecology as a science and still less as a “superscience” that should be the umbrella of
the different disciplines involved in agroecology.
A new field has arisen on the boundary between the socioeconomic and the sociotechnical, that
of the resiliency and adaptability of agroecological systems, in which notions such as the threshold
(of irreversibility), social equity, and food sovereignty are explored. In this vast field we propose, more
generically, three socioeconomic principles and one methodological principle that help to anchor
the definition of agroecology as the ecology of food systems and an interdisciplinary practice that
entails a redefinition of scientific and social boundaries and is a major intellectual challenge for re-
search (Buttel, 2003).

P RINCIPLES 1

A. Historical principles of agroecology – Reijntjes, Haverkot et Water-Bayer (1992) in Altieri (1995)

1. Recycle biomass as much as possible, so as to optimise both energy flows and nutrient cy-
cling and availability.
2. Nurture soil conditions for optimal plant growth, with a keen eye on organic matter and
soil life management. Because of the antagonisms with oil-based external inputs and be-
cause fossil fuel is going to be outphased anytime soon, this nurturing should be conceived
minimising the use of petrochemicals (fertiliser, pesticides, fossil fuels).
3. Minimise resource losses (e.g. energy, nutrients, water and soil) through microclimate man-
agement, water harvesting techniques in drylands, increasing soil cover in space and time
and the interplay of territorial specifities, especially through mixed farming systems.
4. Favour genetic diversification of agroecosystems, both within and between species, in
space and in time.
5. Allow for beneficial interactions and biological synergies between components of agrobio-
diversity so as to strenghen the above-mentioned key processes and services.
6. Value agrobiodiversity as an entry point for the redesign of food systems that ensure peasant
autonomy and food souvereignty (Machado, Santili et al. 2008; Jackson, Rosenstock et al.
2009).
B. Methodological principles – Science in Action Department (SAD), INRA (Tichit, Bellon et al.
2010)
7. Develop multi-criteria guidance of agroecosystems within a long-term transition perspec-
tive, taking into account trade-offs between long term and short term benefits, and giving
due importance to properties that increase resilience and adaptability.
8. Value spatio-temporal resource variation : exploit local resources when and where they are
available rather than trying to get rid of intrinsic variation.
9. Stimulate the exploration of agroecosystems far removed from the already known local op-
tima of today (Weiner, Andersen et al. 2010), e.g. « extreme » systems with very low levels of
external inputs both in animal and plant production (Jackson 2002).

1 Complete references in Stassart, P. M., Baret, P., Grégoire, J. C., Hance, T., Mormont, M., Reheul, D., Stilmant, D., Vanloqueren
G. & Visser, M. (2012). L’agroécologie: Trajectoire et potentiel pour une transition vers des systèmes alimentaires durables.
In: Van Dam D. et al. (Eds). Agroécologie : Entre pratiques et sciences sociales. Educagri Editions, 2012.

4
 B. Methodological principles – GIRAF
10. Favour the construction of participatory research frameworks, which allow for action-
oriented research while guaranteeing its scientific validity (Hatchuel 2000; Hubert 2002). De-
signing sustainable food systems is indeed complex because it requires researchers to take
into account stakeholder interdependencies and ambiguities as well as the socio-economic
uncertainties of technical innovations (Bell and Stassart 2011).
C. Socio-economic principles – GIRAF
11. Create knowledge and a collective capacity to adapt, through networks comprising pro-
ducers, citizen-consumers, researchers and state-funded technical advisers. These networks
promote decision-making fora, public debate and the diffusion of knowledge (Thompson
1997; Pimbert, Boukary et al. 2011).
12. Foster opportunities for peasants to evolve towards greater autonomy with regard to domi-
nant (world) market forces. This fostering happens through the creation of enabling environ-
ments for public goods and the development of practices and socio-economic models that
strengthen the democratic gouvernance of food issues. Systems would then be (re)localised
and co-managed by both producers and citizen-consumers (Ploeg 2008; Wittman, Des-
marais et al. 2010).
13. Value the diversity of forms of knowledge: local know-how (Hassanein and Kloppenburg
1995) or Indigenous Technology and Knowledge (ITK, Richards 1993) or empirical knowledge
(Wynne 1996), both while constructing problems and the audiences these problems address
as during problem solving research.

These thirteen principles call for future developments stemming from the diversity of analyses con-
ducted, experiences, and practices observed. Our aim is not to build a closed framework but rather
to provide the main themes of agroecological research. Our last task is thus to set the priorities for the
medium term (five to ten years on).

5
Program

Welcome: Erik Mathijs

09h15 - 11h15 – Plenary session – chair : Tessa Avermaete p.8
Keynote speaker: Joost Visser – Political correctness at odds with the
history of agronomy : paradigm building through knowledge erosion
Reaction: Dirk Reheul
Plenary debate with Marjolein Visser and Erik Mathijs
10h45 - 11h15 Coffee Break
11h15 - 12h30 – Plenary presentation of selected abstracts p.10
1– A first definition of the socio-economic dimensions of agroecology –
Antoinette M. Dumont, Gaëtan Vanloqueren, Pierre M. Stassart, Philippe V.
Baret
2– Seeing is believing: Agroecological knowledge and practices amongst
extension workers in Senegal and The Gambia – Carla Kay, Garikai
Magaya, Teresa Anderson, Julia Wright
3– Micro food planning: Creeping towards an understanding of practices
within sustainability transitions – Stephanie Nuria Spijker
4– Structuring and guiding knowledge exchange within the organic farming
sector in Flanders: A transdisciplinary and system approach – Jo Bijttebier,
Fleur Marchand, Jef Van Meensel, Matthias Strubbe & Ludwig Lauwers
12h30 - 13h45 Lunch

6
14h00 - 15h45 Three parallel sessions
Ü Parallel session 1 – chair : Marjolein Visser (01.267) p.20
1– Designing systems based policy evaluation tools: The case of the EU
organic farming policy – Natalia Brzezina, Tessa Avermaete, Erik Mathijs
2– Simulation of the agroecological production of balanced food baskets:
case of Graux Estate. – Manu Lambert, Alain Peeters and Elisabeth Simon
3– Unravelling the politics of urban food transitions. A governance approach
on Alternative Food Networks – Alessandra Manganelli
4– How to circulate “population varieties” inside a locked seed system? – The
case of Kaol Kozh – Corentin Hecquet
Ü Parallel session 2 – chair: Erik Mathijs (01.263) p.28
1– Local food and biophysical realities: a comparison of four apple supply
systems – Bernd Annaert, Erik Mathijs and Liesbet Vranken
2– Agro-ecology as a leverage in education for sustainable agriculture? – Lies
Debruyne, Laure Triste and Fleur Marchanda
3– Agroecological practices at farming system level – case of beef and dairy
farming in Flanders – Laura Schotte, Erwin Wauters, Philippe V. Baret and
Fleur Marchand
4– The COSY-food project: Assessing sustainability of alternative food networks
in Belgium – Sureau S., Bauler T., Delespesse F., Descampe A., Labarge A.,
Pauwels, A., Pelenc J., Wallenborn G., Achten W.M.J.
Ü Parallel session 3 – chair: Tessa Avermaete (01.262) p.37
1– The importance of a landscape perspective in agroecology – Isabelle
Vranken, Line Louah , Katrien Quisthoudt, Vincent Delobel, Marjolein Visser
2– The development of agroforestry systems in Flanders. A farming systems
approach to social, institutional and economic inquiry – Lieve Borremans,
Marjolein Visser and Erwin Wauters
3– Comparing insect-flower interactions networks between species-rich
meadows and wildflower strips. – Emilie Pecheur, Julien Piqueray, and
Grégory Mahy
4– Nature-oriented measures on agricultural land: searching for a win-win –
Laura Van Vooren, Bert Reubens, Steven Broekx and Kris Verheyen
16h00 - 16h30 – Closing of the day and drink (room 200E, 01.267) p.46

7
09h15 - 10h15 – Keynote speaker : Joost Visser - Political correctness
at odds with the history of agronomy : paradigm building through
knowledge erosion

Joost Visser (1948) studied chemistry and mathematics at the University of Amsterdam in the sixties
(when the numbers of students were still very small) and took courses on the history of natural sci-
ences and philosophy of technology, which showed him already that scientific knowledge is neither
universal nor final in nature. He developed a keen interest in soil and environmental sciences. From
2000 on, he started to research the history of agronomy as a science during the twentieth century.
Years and years of stubborn archive work resulted in a very late PhD: Down to Earth. His co-promoters
were Jan Douwe van der Ploeg and Bob Goudzwaard.
Down to earth (592 pages)2 is not an easy read, nor a page-turner. Virtually every page challenges
the mind with a constant going back and forth between chemistry and sociology, history and bio-
chemistry, political and soil science, genetics and economic policy. The PhD is also radical and
confrontational, challenging many scientific truths. More in particular, the findings are at odds with
(1) mainstream thinking about the perceived need for chemical inputs, so-called HYV (High Yielding
Varieties) and scale enlargement, but also (2) what we think are firmly established scientific facts that
do not need to be challenged any longer.
What follows is a chronological shortlist of statements, which Visser is invited to explain and defend at
the BAM.

1. Without the world wars I and II, we might have had a completely different food system. Twice,
government-linked large-scale industry and the ideology of technocracy had the chance to
take over in state policies, leading to today’s “tunnel vision” on agriculture. Especially during
the post WWII years, technocracy was a widely held ideology, which meant that everything
that was not technical/ocratical was suspicious. However, there is no sound justification for
technocracy, other than the wish for central control of an activity that is, in essence, utterly
local and decentralised.
2. Another direct consequence of both world wars and the rise of technocracy during the twenti-
eth century is “wissenserosion”, a German term to be translated as knowledge erosion.
3. At the end of the nineteenth century and up to WWI, not only Anglo-Saxon but also French en
German research in zoology, botany, plant physiology, chemistry and biochemistry was bloom-
ing. Leading researchers were often active in several of these fields simultaneously. In particular,
Visser cites a number of papers, theses and conference proceedings on plant nutrition. He lays
bare the existence of two schools on plant nutrition: one school following the well-known Jus-
tus von Liebig (in his early years) stating that plants only take up mineral substances and one
“organic” school with a number of then famous researchers who, unlike Liebig, have fallen into
oblivion. The organic school was based on experiments showing that plants, in interaction with
a variety of soil biota, can take up and metabolise more or less complex organic substances,
with morpho-physiological and metabolic changes as a result.
4. WW I (and the Spanish flue) not only killed many active researchers, it also took away the lead-
ing position of German research and the German language in botany, biology and agronomy.
German researchers were excluded from international contacts. A lot of German-language

2 Joost Visser, 2010. Down to earth. A historical-sociological analysis of the rise and fall of industrial agriculture and the
prospects of re-rooting of agriculture from the factory to the local farmer and ecology. PhD thesis, Wageningen University

8
 research from before the war thus became unavailable to the next generation. WW I created
therefore an immense multi-dimensional disconnection between pre-war and post-war research
and researchers. In many ways, the interbellum years and WW II can be seen as the continua-
tion and deepening of the movement that had been set in motion by WW I.
5. Despite the upheaval brought about by the wars, research on organic plant nutrition and soil
microbiology was again taken up during the interbellum years and thereafter, but politically
silenced by the take-over of technocracy. Visser names many researchers and publications,
of which I will mention just Artturi Ilmari Virtanen (1895 – 1973), a Finnish biochemist and Nobel
prize winner (1945) with his work on biological nitrogen fixation and animal fodder conservation
through fermentation.
6. Even though WW II is considered the continuation of WW I, Visser cites the Nazi regime and WW
II as the main factors explaining the disappearance of “peasant-friendly” plant breeding. It was
actually the Nazi regime that outlawed farmer’s seed and landraces and substituted them with
highly centralised plant breeding programs. These measures have been continued after the
war without proper scrutiny.
7. Visser shows with very recent papers and books on these research subjects, that “history strikes
back”. Indeed, contemporary research in ecology, plant nutrition, soil biology and genetics is
busy rediscovering, rehabilitating and deepening knowledge that was known already a century
ago, but swept away by a continuing political economy of war using technocracy to keep
control.
8. However, in contemporary agronomy textbooks, neither the old nor the new research is hon-
oured (e.g. the persistence of the mineralisation dogma in the nitrogen cycle, the strife for
genetic uniformity in plant breeding, the growth myth based on false economies of scale in
agriculture), with dire consequences for university education in agronomy, ecology, and agroe-
cology.
9. From a historical point of view, because of the influence of the wars, the post-war chaos and
the craving for strong leadership to restore a semblance of normality in daily life are under-
standable phenomena, as are path dependency and lock-in into technocracy. However, the
resulting socio-ecological devastation cannot be ignored any longer. The thesis advocates a
“comprehensive agronomy”, a return to localness and ecology, by focusing on the farmer.

Visser is aware of the difficulty of his argument, the inaccessibility of his archive work and the risks run
by messengers of inconvenient truths. He sees his work as an attempt to reopen the debate on what
has been conveniently ignored for more than a century by policymakers on agriculture. At this BAM,
he will attempt yet another time to show the political nature of agronomy and its most strongly held
“truths”.

9
10h15 - 10h45 Reaction: Dirk Reheul – Plenary debate with Marjolein Visser and Erik
Mathijs

11h15 - 12h30 – Plenary presentation of selected abstracts

A first definition of the socio-economic dimensions of agroecology

Antoinette M. Dumont (1, *), Gaëtan Vanloqueren (2), Pierre M. Stassart (3), Philippe
V. Baret (4)
(1) PhD Student at Université de Louvain (UCL), Earth and Life Institute ; (2) Université de Louvain
(UCL) and guest lecturer at ICHEC-Brussels School of Management and Sciences Po ; (3) Professor at
Université de Liège (ULg), Département des Sciences et Gestion de l’Environnement, unité SEED ; (4)
Professor at Université de Louvain (UCL), Earth and Life Institute ; (*) ELIA, Croix du Sud, 2 boite
L7.05.14, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium – Tel. : +32 10 47 30 46 – e-mail :
antoinette.dumont@uclouvain.be ; dumont.antoinette@gmail.com

Introduction

The concept of agroecology is being mobilized increasingly. However, its socio-economic dimensions
received little attention from academia. This study helps to clarify the socio-economic principles of
agroecology by trying to achieve two goals. First of all, it is designed to start filling a gap in the
literature, that of the lack of socio-economic principles of agroecology. The second goal aims at
understanding the distinction between the theoretical principles and their practical applications in
order to contribute to the global discussions on principles.

Methodology and theoritical framework

To address our first goal, a first list of principles is suggested. We chose not to conduct our review of
the literature mainly on the materials and publications of actors who identify themselves explicitly with
the agroecology movement. We also wanted to look at those of agricultural movements that are al-
ternatives to conventional agriculture (Nature & Progrès Belgique 2013; FADEAR 2012; IFOAM 2009),
fair trade (Ethiquable 2011; Bio Partenaire 2011; World Fair Trade Organization 2009), the coopera-
tive movement, and the social and solidarity economy movement (EMES 2011; Centre d’Economie
Sociale Université de Liège 2010; Laville 2006), i.e., four currents that we considered to be close to
agroecology.
As for the second goal, we put the principles identified in the literature to the test of a qualitative
study of two Belgian organizations. Both of them had an agroecological dimension from the outset.
Agribio is a grain cooperative, and Les Grosses Légumes is a network of consumers, farmers, and the
members of an association set up to organize the production and distribution of vegetable boxes.
Semi-directed interviews of the various actors linked to these organizations were conducted and then
analyzed through an approach inspired by the convention theory (Boltanski and Thévenot 1991). This
approach focuses on individual’s behavior, regardless of her/his social category and level of power,

10
and investigates the situated people’s relationships with other people and things when they try to
justify their behavior.

Main results

Thirteen main “themes” of the socio-economic principles were identified in the literature (Table 1).
The principles elaborated by the organizations themselves were often more detailed, restrictive, and
linked to different local contexts. They were consequently grouped by topics.

Table 1: Main themes of the socio-economic principles in the literature

Theme
AE, FT, AA
1. Environmental equity
2. Financial independence
AE, AA, CO, SSE
3. Market access and autonomy
AE, FT, AA, CO
4. Sustainability and
adaptabilityAE, FT*, CO
5. Diversity and exchange of
knowledgeAE*, AA, CO*
6. Social equity AE, FT, AA, SSE
7. Partnership between
producers and consumers
AE, AA, SSE*
Brief presentation
Environmental equity enhanced by taking the negative environmental
externalities in each economic choice into account
Farmers and agricultural organizations are in control of the economic
and technical decisions that they take, even if that means limiting the
amounts of inputs used. This theme does not concern independence
from the customers of the agricultural organization in question, which is
considered a separate theme (4. Market access and independence)
Access to and independence from markets for farmers and all
collective production or processing structures
Sustainability and adaptability of agricultural organizations stemming
mainly from their inclusion in a network of farmers, consumers, technical
advisors, and scientists
Traditional, empirical, and scientific knowledge is exchanged among
the members of an organization
Social equity among all the stakeholders on all levels of the food system
Partnership marked by the existence, whether formal or not, of a social
contract between producers and consumers

8. Geographic proximity Geographic proximity of the stakeholders in the various production,

AE, FT, AA, SSE
9. Rural development and
preservation of the rural fabric
AE, FT, AA, CO, SSE
processing, and consumption phases
A food system’s projects participate in rural development and
preserving the social fabric

10. Shared
organizationFT, AA, CO, SSE
11. Limited profit distributionCO, SSE
12. Democratic
governanceFT, AA, CO, SSE
13. Joint implementation of the
various principles in actual
practice AE, AA, SSE
Organization by the farmers and/or actors of the processing steps in
common
The profits are used to reach a social goal and not just to maximize the
return on the capital invested
The power of an organization’s members is not based on their capital;
decisions are made democratically
The principles that an organization defends must be implemented
together rather than separately

*AE = Agroecology; FT = fair trade; AA = alternative (to conventional) agricultural models; CO = cooperative
movement; SSE = social and solidarity economy.

The main findings of the second goal are based on the analysis of four strong agreements which
concern the two organizations’ marketing schemes : a Participatory Guarantee System set up by Les
Grosses Légumes and Agribio’s flour mill.

11
The analysis of four agreements already sheds light on two differences between the very general
principles identified in the literature and their practical implementation. Firstly, differences are ob-
served between two agreements reached by the actors of a same organization. For example, the
two agreements reached by Agribio on marketing options and on the production system express
the will to be independent from the markets. In the agreement reached with regard to the milling
business, autonomy is acquired by taking over all of the grain production and processing steps. But,
in the agreement concerning Agribio’s sales network, it is achieved by the presence of many differ-
ent marketing channels. Secondly, the analysis shows that the same principle can be implemented
differently between two organizations. This point is also exemplified with the principle of indepen-
dence from the market. Whereas Agribio acquires its independence by multiplying the number of
sales circuits, with conventional markets being one of them, in the case of Les Grosses Légumes, this
independence is achieved by creating a new market that circumvents the conventional markets.
The two case studies show the gap exists between the principles that describe the horizon of agroe-
cology and the principles that are actually put into practice by the parties in the field through various
transition pathways.

References

Bio Partenaire. 2011. “Référentiel Bio Solidaire.” http://www.biopartenaire.com/doc/2/raw.html.

Boltanski, Luc, and Laurent Thévenot. 1991. De La Justification : Les Économies de La Grandeur. Nrf
Essais. France: Gallimard.
Centre d’Economie Sociale Université de Liège. 2010. “EMES.” http://www.ces.ulg.ac.be/fr_FR/
emes-2.
EMES. 2011. “Les Entreprises Sociales D’insertion Dans l’Union Européenne. Un Aperçu Général.” http:
//w.emes.net/fileadmin/emes/PDF_files/PERSE/PERSE_WP_03-11_Trans-FR.pdf.
Ethiquable. 2011. “Charte Paysans D’ici.” http://equimax.free.fr/Textes/La%20Charte%20Paysans%
20d%27ici.pdf.
FADEAR. 2012. “La Charte de L’agriculture Paysanne.” http://www.agriculturepaysanne.org/la-charte-de-l-agri
IFOAM. 2009. “The Principles of Organic Agriculture.” http://www.ifoam.org/about_ifoam/principles/
index.html.
Laville, Jean-Louis. 2006. “Economie Solidaire.” In Dictionnaire de L’autre Économie, Gallimard,
303–12. Paris.
Nature & Progrès Belgique. 2013. “Charte Nature & Progrès.” Accessed July 12. http://www.natpro.
be/alimentation/producteursnp/chartenp/000000a1ca09d3a21.html.
World Fair Trade Organization. 2009. “Charter of Fair Trade Principles.” http://www.wfto.com/index.
php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1082&Itemid=334.

12
Seeing is believing: Agroecological knowledge and practices amongst extension
workers in Senegal and The Gambia
Carla Kay (1), Garikai Magaya (2), Teresa Anderson (3), Julia Wright (1)
(1) Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience, Coventry University, Coventry, United Kingdom ;
(2) ActionAid International, The Gambia ; (3) ActionAid International, United Kingdom

Keywords: agroecology, climate change, extension work, agriculture, West Africa.

Introduction

The aim of this paper is to share the outcomes of field work conducted in West Africa in April 2015, to
ascertain extension workers’ knowledge and attitudes regarding Climate Resilient Sustainable Agri-
culture – also known as Agroecology. This research was commissioned by ActionAid International, a
world-wide charity which is conducting a project to facilitate the exchange of knowledge on Agroe-
cology in Senegal and The Gambia. Research findings were based on information gathered during
one-to-one interviews and focus group discussions held in both countries with extension workers and
those working to deliver extension services.

Actors consulted

Focus group and interview participants were either extension workers or individuals who were closely
linked to extension services, often fulfilling a managerial role or conducting research. The sample
was dominated by men (93%, 26/28), conducting extension work as a part-time or full-time job and
their experience ranged from 1 to 37 years. Participants worked mainly for their governments, with
occasional projects in collaboration with NGOs. Their levels of agricultural training varied greatly with
some having followed only some weeks of training and others having full university degrees.
Most extension workers work with smallholder farmers. They focus mainly on arable, horticultural and
silvicultural systems but their services extend to animal rearing, pisciculture and ornamentals. Al-
though the vast majority of extension workers were men, they all claimed to work with both men and
women farmers, usually in their designated areas but with some having the flexibility (or the need)
to support other areas. In The Gambia, extension workers support younger and older farmers, whilst
in Senegal, they specified that traditionally it is the head of household that will seek help and will be
trained thus Senegalese extension workers tend to work mainly with older farmers.

Changes in Agriculture

Extension workers have witnessed several changes in agriculture in the past decades, both positive
and negative. Along with a renewed interest in living off the land, extension workers have observed
an increase in unsustainable farming practices (decreased fallowing and use of composting, and
increased tree felling). Climate change was unanimously mentioned as a major cause for concern.

13
The vast majority of farmers in Senegal and The Gambia practice rain-fed agriculture and they expe-
rience first-hand two main consequences of climate change: decreased and irregular rainfall and
increased temperatures. According to extension workers, the topic of climate change is considered
in every extension services programme. Extension workers derive most of their knowledge on climate
change and Agroecology from training sessions (25%), the internet (16%), and the radio (13%). Many
extension workers discuss climate change and agroecological issues with colleagues, farmers and
experts, and they feel they have access to people that can support them and with whom they can
share experiences and knowledge. Extension workers based in big cities, with more formal education
and stronger links with major national institutions, also seek information from the government, books,
magazines, and conferences and seminars.

Agroecological practices promoted by extension workers

The agroecological practices most cited by extension workers in Senegal and The Gambia were the
use of early-maturing seed varieties, and early soil preparation and sowing (Figure 1). With the grow-
ing season starting later and finishing earlier than decades ago, it now becomes essential to sow as
soon as possible and grow early-maturing varieties that have a higher chance of reaching maturity
before the end of the season. These varieties were highly valued by extension workers because (1)
they were developed locally and were adapted to local needs, (2) they could be saved, and (3)
they were often either given for free by the government and organisations, or farmers were supplied
a kilogram of seed at the beginning of the season and had to give a kilogram back at the end of
the season. Tree planting and agroforestry were mentioned repeatedly as a direct response to the
urgent issue of deforestation, soil erosion and lack of rain. The importance given to the develop-
ment of alternative livelihoods (e.g. livestock rearing, tie-dye, basket making, etc.), flood protections,
intra- and interspecific crop diversity and early-warning systems (amongst others) show that extension
workers are aware of the uncertainties related to agriculture and climate change. It is essential to
ensure diverse income streams and to reinforce the protection against natural disasters.
All extension workers consulted were convinced that the most important and most efficient way to
increase Agroecology is through the sensitisation of farmers. Extension workers believe that more
meetings with farmers – and between farmers – need to be organised to raise awareness of climate
change and Agroecology, and that information needs to be more readily available in both countries
and in local languages.

Conclusion

Extension workers widely recognised and promoted the value of Agroecology in strengthening farm-
ers’ resilience to climate change. Agroecology practices such as composting, use of manure, agro-
forestry, early preparation of soil, and seed diversification were widely acknowledged as key strate-
gies for farming in the current context of climate change. Extension workers place high value on
farmers’ indigenous knowledge, and their ability to adapt. They expressed a wish to be able to learn
more from farmers’ own knowledge and strategies that have worked. This highlights the need to
communicate Agroecology as an approach that is not an external set of techniques brought in from
outside, but an approach that builds on farmers’ own knowledge. Where they see other farmers’
crops succeeding, farmers are more likely to test and take up Agroecology strategies themselves.
There is therefore more scope to support Farmer Field Schools, farmer exchanges and farmer exten-
sionists, to encourage effective farmer-to-farmer learning.

14
Figure 1: Most promoted agricultural techniques, according to extension workers in Senegal and The
Gambia

Micro food planning: Creeping towards an understanding of practices within

sustainability transitions
Stephanie Nuria Spijker
PhD fellow at Research Foundation - Flanders (FWO). Division of Geography, Department of Earth
and Environmental Sciences, KU Leuven, Belgium

Food security is a significant challenge. While there may be more food than people need, accessibil-
ity rather than availability is the main challenge (De Schutter, 2010; Misselhorn et al, 2012). This leaves
some people planning for their food at a micro-level (for their own household or community). This
paper presents and titles the practices related to this kind of food planning as micro food planning
practices. It goes on to define micro food planning practices as domestic, subsistence food produc-
tion that defy complete reliance on the conventional food system. Food production is undertaken
without commercial gain, or contribution to a conventional food system, necessarily being a primary
reason behind it. There is currently no comprehensive framework for analysing this kind of practice
and this paper aims to fill that gap.
Micro food planning practices are sometimes misrepresented. Prepping is perhaps the best example
of a misunderstood micro food planning practice. Preppers are individuals and/or groups prepar-
ing for situations in which there is an interruption or complete cessation of access to goods and/or
services. For instance, they stockpile food, water and emergency medical supplies for domestic use
in the aftermath of a natural disaster (Adler, 2015). Prepping may be distinguished from other similar
practices based on its rigorous ethos of self-reliance as opposed to system reliance. Prepping looks to-
wards an uncertain future, anticipates and plans for those needs. This is especially important because

15
past, present and future food crises necessitate the exploration of social innovations (Mehmood and
Parra, 2013) that may challenge and favourably reconfigure the status quo of food production and
consumption. Nevertheless, preppers are often portrayed by popular media as irrational people who
are obsessed with the end of the world (Zand 2015).
In order to reframe this discourse on micro food planning practices, the focus is shifted to their socially
innovative character. They can be considered as socially innovative not necessarily because they
are new, but rather because they are actions that arise out of need and that sometimes challenge
– or even change – norms and perceptions (Spijker et al, 2015). These alternative practices have
the potential to make contributions to a more sustainable and just global food system (Kremen et al,
2012). More precisely, attention is drawn to their psychological underpinnings and socially innovative
role within sustainability transitions. This path of inquiry is in line with the “soft” system thinking of
agroecology because it zooms into the human and societal elements of the agroecosystem. In the
words of Dalgaard, et al (2003, p41), “the empowerment of citizens for developing their own food
systems”.
This paper develops a multi-dimensional analytical framework through which micro food planning
practices can be examined and understood. It draws on behavioural, social innovation and transi-
tion theories (Steg et al, 2012; Moulaert et al, 2013; Geels, 2002) to structure the framework and shed
light on dichotomies between self- and system reliance. Beginning with the behavioural underpin-
nings that precede involvement in micro food planning practices, the paper links these behavioural
roots to socially innovative actions and their place within the multiple levels of sustainability transi-
tions. Building on insights from the aforesaid bodies of theory, six analytical dimensions (perceptions,
needs, drivers and constraints, efficacy, power and, territory and scale) are put forward to frame dis-
courses on socially innovative micro food planning practices. This framework can ultimately be used
to analyse the multiple facets of both alternative and conventional socio-ecological systems.
References
Adler, E. (2015, October 10). Kansas City-area group stocks up to prepare for calamity. Associated
Press. Available from: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/10/kansas-city-area-group-stocks-up-to
?page=all [Accessed: 27/10/15].
Dalgaard, T., Hutchings, N. J., & Porter, J. R. (2003). Agroecology, scaling and interdisciplinarity. Agri-
culture, Ecosystems & Environment, 100(1), 39-51.
De Schutter, O. (2010). Agroecology and the right to food. United Nations. December.
Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level
perspective and a case-study. Research policy, 31(8), 1257-1274.
Kremen, C., Iles, A., & Bacon, C. (2012). Diversified farming systems: an agroecological, systems-
based alternative to modern industrial agriculture. Ecology and Society 17(4): 44. http://dx.doi.
org/10.5751/ES-05103-170444
Mehmood, A., Parra, C., (2013) ‘Social Innovation in an Unsustainable World’. In Moulaert, F., Mac-
Callum, D., Mehmood A. and A. Hamdouch (eds.). The International handbook on social innovation:
Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research. 53-66. Cheltenham, UK: Edward
Elgar.
Misselhorn, A., Aggarwal, P., Ericksen, P., Gregory, P., Horn-Phathanothai, L., Ingram, J., & Wiebe, K.
(2012). A vision for attaining food security. Current opinion in environmental sustainability, 4(1), 7-17.
Moulaert, F., MacCallum, D., Mehmood A. and A. Hamdouch (eds.). (2013). The International Hand-
book on Social Innovation: Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research, Chel-
tenham, Edward Elgar.

16
Spijker, SN., Parra, C., Kingston-Polman, J., (2015). Knitting green spaces with the threads of social
innovation in Groningen and London. Cultures in Sustainable Futures: theories, policies, practices.
International conference in Helsinki 6-8 May 2015.
Steg, L., van den Berg, A. E., & De Groot, J. I. (Eds.). (2012). Environmental psychology: An introduc-
tion. John Wiley & Sons.
Zand, B. (2015, 27 October). The British people preparing for the end of the world. BBC. Available
from: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34637377 [Accessed: 27/10/15].

Structuring and guiding knowledge exchange within the organic farming sector in
Flanders: A transdisciplinary and system approach
Jo Bijttebier (1*), Fleur Marchand (1,2), Jef Van Meensel (1), Matthias Strubbe(1) &
Ludwig Lauwers (1,3)
(1) Social Sciences Unit, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research, Merelbeke, Belgium ; (2)
Ecosystem Management Research Group and IMDO, University of Antwerp, Belgium ; (3)
Department of Agricultural Economics, Ghent University, Belgium ; (*) Corresponding author:
jo.bijttebier@ilvo.vlaanderen.be

Introduction

In Flanders, organic farmers, advisors and researchers within the “bio-firm network” meet on a regular
basis to exchange knowledge related to farm management. These meetings take place at a farm
and discussions are mainly focused on agro technical issues. However, to deal with environmental
and societal concerns, besides achieving a satisfying income, organic farmers have to address a
wide range of issues, when considering new farm strategies. This complexity calls for new ways of
thinking and of structuring knowledge to improve strategy design and strategic choices on the farm.
The farmers and advisors from the bio-firm network requested to guide and structure their knowledge
exchange process. Literature provides two key issues in approaching this. First, a system approach
delivers tools to understand the complex interactions within and between farming systems (Darnhofer
et al., 2012). Second, a transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge is recommended (Aeberhard
& Rist, 2009). Transdisciplinary research aims at identifying, structuring, analysing and handling real
world problems by understanding complexity of the problem, by linking abstract and case-specific
knowledge, with the ultimate goal to develop knowledge and practices that promote what is per-
ceived to be the common good (Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn, 2007). The uniqueness of the approach
lies in the partnership and sharing of knowledge between research of different disciplines and other
stakeholders (farmers, advisors, farm networks, and educational institutions). As a result, this paper
aims to describe a transdisciplinary and system approach to improve knowledge exchange in the
organic farming sector.

Methodological approach

During the transdisciplinary process, we searched for techniques that include system thinking and
explored both quantitative and qualitative techniques because a mixed methods approach can

17
 Figure 1: Overall framework to structure knowledge gathering on organic farming systems

provide strengths that offset the weaknesses of each type of research (Creswell & Clark, 2011). The
combination of these techniques resulted in a framework (Figure 1). Throughout a first phase (P1),
key management features for successful organic farming are captured during meetings of organic
farmers and advisors and through observations and participation in discussion groups with farmers.
Second (P2), a farm scan is developed and used to structure both quantitative and qualitative infor-
mation on these key features in a collaboration between advisors, experts and researchers (Bijttebier
et al., 2015). In a third phase (P3), the focus is on defining the interactions and trade-offs between the
key features by use of both qualitative (e.g. cognitive mapping) and quantitative techniques (e.g.
farm modelling). Cognitive mapping is a technique that captures an individual’s view of a particu-
lar issue in a graphical representation. Cognitive maps were constructed out of interviews with the
main question to elicit their perception on a successful organic agricultural system (Fairweather et
al., 2010). This framework was applied for three organic production systems (beef cattle, dairy cattle,
arable crops and vegetables).

Results – Discussion

The implementation of the framework on different production systems (beef cattle, dairy cattle,
arable crops and vegetables) revealed differences with respect to the effectiveness of the process,
the series and timing of the phases and convergent attention points. Within each sector, the phases
were carried out not through a linear process and not even an iterative one. Instead, depending
on the questions and needs of the farmers, the phases were succeeded organically. For example, in
the case of the production of vegetables, we started with P1 to identify key management features
and simultaneously conducted interviews (n=21) to capture farmers’ and stakeholders’ perceptions
on trade-offs and interactions between key management features. The outcome of each interview
was graphically represented by an individual cognitive map. These maps were subsequently merged
into one social map which was used as input to feed farmers’ group discussions on farm strategies on
these management features.

18
Second, although the framework was applied separately for the three cases, outcomes converge to
common key features of major importance. Insights in common attention points may incite cooper-
ation and learning between different farming sectors and novel strategy search within the organic
farm system. For the case study of organic vegetables production, analysis of the social cognitive
map revealed labour organisation, marketing, weed management, crop planning, product quality,
and decisions with respect to technology and mechanisation as management features highly im-
pacting decision making processes on the farm. Exchanging these findings with the farmers, resulted
in fruitful discussions further enriching our understanding of the decision making processes by farmers.

Conclusions

Through a transdisciplinary and system based approach, we were able to develop a framework to
structure knowledge gathering and sharing on organic farming systems. Although the implemen-
tation differed a lot among the sectors, the common framework provides a tool for advisors and
researchers to guide the knowledge structuring, depending on the farmers’ needs. This approach
can be used to structure and improve knowledge transfer during meetings of organic farmers. The
cognitive maps supported farmers’ sharing of experiences with respect to key dealing with key man-
agement issues and the reasoning behind their decision making process. This way, the framework
might be a support to farmers decision making when adapting their strategies to fast changing
socio-ecological demands. This approach might stimulate learning on common key features be-
tween sectors and even lead towards cooperation in the long term.

References

Aeberhard, A. & Rist, S. (2009). Transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge in the development of

organic agriculture in Switzerland. Ecological Economics, 68, 1171-1181.
Bijttebier, B., Lauwers, L. & Marchand, F. (2015). Structuring data gathering on organic farms: the
transdisciplinary development and use of a farm scan within a broader methodological framework.
Paper on the 5th International Symposium for Farming Systems Design, Montpellier, France.
Creswell, J. & Clark, V. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage, London,
UK.
Darnhofer, I., Gibbon, D. & Dedieu, B. (2012). Farming systems research into the 21st Century: the new
dynamic. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
de Ridder, W., Turnpenny, J., Nilsson, M. & von Raggamby, A. (2007). A framework for tool selection
and use in integrated assessment for sustainable development. Journal of Environmental Assessment
Policy and Management, 9, 423-441.
Fairweather, J. (2010). Farmer models of socio-ecologic systems: Application of causal mapping
across multiple locations. Ecological Modelling, 221(3), 555-562.
G. Hirsch Hadorn, H. Hoffmann-Riem, S. Biber-Klemm, W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, D. Joye, C. Pohl, U.
Wiesmann, and E. Zemp. Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research. Dordrecht: Springer.

19
12h30 - 13h45 – Lunch

14h - 15h45 – Three parallel sessions

Parallel session 1 – Chair: Marjolein Visser (01.267)

Designing systems based policy evaluation tools: The case of the EU organic
farming policy
Natalia Brzezina, Tessa Avermaete, Erik Mathijs
KU Leuven, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Division of Bioeconomics

Experience demonstrates that policies crafted to operate within a certain range of conditions are
often faced with unexpected challenges outside of that range. The result is that many policies have
unintended consequences and do not achieve their objectives. Thus, policies should be adaptive –
designed to function more effectively in complex, dynamic, and uncertain conditions. Such policies
are important for a sustainable future, in which decisions are made with careful deliberative thought
about positive and negative impacts as viewed from economic, social and environmental perspec-
tives and with due regard for present and future generations. However, policymakers generally lack
appropriate tools to design adaptive policies (Walker et al., 2001; Swanson et al., 2010; Walker et al.,
2013).
Specifically, the European organic food and farming sector has emerged as a promising alternative
to conventional food production. The EU organic farming policy has been designed to support its
development. However, due to the complexity of the European agricultural food system and the as-
sociated uncertainties, it is not known whether a sustainable development of the organic sector can
be achieved. Recently, the EU organic farming policy has been reviewed by the European Commis-
sion through an impact assessment, in which potential economic, social and environmental conse-
quences of different policy options have been evaluated. In the context of the 2020 CAP reform, the
proposal of new policy aims at removing obstacles to the development of organic production in the
EU; improving the legislation in order to guarantee fair competition for farmers and producers and to
improve the functioning of the internal market; and maintaining or improving consumer confidence
in organic products (European Commission, 2014). However, the impact assessment has failed to take
a systems perspective, such that both dynamic effects and future uncertainties have been ignored
or underestimated. Therefore, in this study we investigate the long-term dynamics of the organic food
and farming sector in the EU and analyse the effectiveness of the EU organic farming policy under
uncertainties.
To address these issues, we propose a computational model-based assessment tool for designing
adaptive policies targeting the organic sector in the EU. We have designed the assessment tool in
three steps. First, following Stave and Kopainsky (2015), we have built a systemic representation of the
development of organic farming in Europe using a systems dynamics model that takes into account
the policy options put forward by the European Commission in its impact assessment. System dynam-
ics is a method developed by Forrester (1961) to describe and understand the dynamic behaviour of

20
complex systems. While system dynamics may form the basis for quantitative modelling and simula-
tion, it can also be used to describe the dynamics of social systems (Sterman, 2000). This model is able
to reproduce the results of the official impact assessment, but at the same time captures dynamics
effects, such that also longer-term effects can be simulated. Second, we have identified key external
drivers from ongoing scenario exercises with a focus on the EU food system (i.e. JRC foresight study
“Delivering on EU food safety and nutrition in 2050 – Future challenges and policy preparedness” and
EU FP7 TRANSMANGO research project “Assessment of the impact of global drivers of change on
Europe’s food and nutrition security”) and integrated them into the model to explicitly allow for the
exploration of the uncertainties. Third, we have simulated the effects of a change in the external
drivers on the key variables related to the development of organic farming, identifying troublesome
and advantageous (combinations of) uncertainties and stimulating policy design. This new tool may
enable policymakers to design better policies for the organic sector in the EU that contribute to more
resilient system.

References

European Commission, 2014. COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Ac-
companying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE
COUNCIL on organic production and labelling of organic products, amending Regulation (EU) No
XXX/XXX of the European Parliament and of the Council [Official controls Regulation] and repealing
Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007.
Forrester, J.W., 1961. Industrial Dynamics. Pegasus Communications.
Stave, K., Kopainsky, B., 2015. A system dynamics approach for examining mechanisms and pathways
of food supply vulnerability. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 5(3), 321-336.
Sterman, J.D., 2000. Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. Mc-
Graw Hill.
Swanson et al., 2010. Seven tools for creating adaptive policies. Technological Forecasting & Social
Change 77: 924–939.
Walker et al., 2001. Adaptive policies, policy analysis, and policy-making. European Journal of Oper-
ational Research 128: 282-289.
Walker et al., 2013. Adapt or Perish: A Review of Planning Approaches for Adaptation under Deep
Uncertainty. Sustainability 5: 955-979.

21
Simulation of the agroecological production of balanced food baskets: case of
Graux Estate.
Manu Lambert (1), Alain Peeters (2) and Elisabeth Simon (3)
(1) ULB, Research Unit of Landscape ecology and plant production systems ; (2) RHEA Research
Centre ; (3) Graux Estate.

Agroecological initiatives are being developed by farmers and farmer’s candidates convinced of
the need for a different food system. As a consequence, food self-sufficiency is slowly emerging
through the development of social and economic innovations. These farmers often adopt short and
local food marketing chain, for instance through food baskets. It is therefore interesting to compose
such baskets with healthy and nutritious products. In this framework, the project of the Graux Estate
(Tournai, Hainaut Province, Belgium) aims at producing food directly for consumers, in proportions
sticking to the population’s needs and through agroecological techniques.
Scientific knowledge on human nutrition constantly evolves, as well as the official nutritional recom-
mendations. These standards may be influenced by the lobbying of agrobusiness industries and their
reform after new scientific findings is slow and limited, sometimes leading to contradictions between
ancient and new concepts. A large range of diets is also proposed and defended. Among these,
the ‘paleolithic’ or ‘gather-hunter’ diet stands out for its scientific hypothesis based on evolutionary
medicine (Eaton and Konner, 1985; Cordain et al., 2005; Konner and Eaton, 2010). These hypothesis
state (1) that human beings, like every species, evolved and adapted according to the environment
in which they developed – i.a. their diet – during the 2.5 million years of the Paleolithic era and (2) that
our organism is not adapted to cereals and dairy products, food that appeared much more recently
in our diet, since 6,000 to 10,000 years. Moreover, recent studies have demonstrated risks associated
with consumption of refined sugars and processed foods (Willett and Stampfer, 2003).
In this master thesis, we designed an agricultural system that produces balanced food baskets in an
agroecological way.
With this objective in mind, we first analysed current knowledge in human nutrition and we developed
a database on food nutrition for developing these balanced food baskets. They supply all the food
necessary for an average person, all year long. Three baskets have been differentiated: (1) one bas-
ket adapted from the current consumption patterns of Belgians, (2) one basket based on Houlbert
(2008) (inspired from the paleolithic diet), and (3) one basket based on a strict paleolithic diet. The
baskets present similar energy and protein levels – respectively 2,100 kcal/day and 15% or more of to-
tal energy supply – needed for an average individual. The quantities considered for the different food
categories vary a lot with the baskets considered. Among others, the quantity of vegetables, fruits,
and oleaginous products is respectively twice and four times as big for the ‘Houlbert-based’ and
the Paleolithic diet-based” baskets, compared to the “Belgian’s habits-based” basket. A detailed
nutritional analysis was also performed to evaluate and compare the different baskets. It showed
fibers, simple sugars and saturated fat levels much more adequate for the “Houlbert-based” and
“Paleolithic diet-based” baskets, according to the Belgian official nutrition recommendations. The
content of macronutrients of the three baskets is comparable.
The baskets have then been translated in quantities of raw matter in order to proceed to the following
step: the calculation of the surfaces needed for the production of the baskets in an agroecological

22
way. In this purpose, each food product has been associated with a production unit; plant pro-
duction has been dimensioned through representative yield values in organic agriculture collected
in literature, and each livestock production has been modeled on the basis of real agroecological
farms. The main criterion for the choice of those farms was a high rate of self-sufficiency of livestock
productions through a maximum use of grass. Traditional orchards were also integrated in pastures,
organic monogastric productions have been organized as free-range activities, and relatively high
slaughtering ages have been considered for all livestock categories. Rations have been developed
for monogastrics to optimize the use of by-products and the feeding self-sufficiency of the system.
The surfaces needed to produce each food were sum up for each of the “Belgian habits-based”, the
“Houlbert-based”, and the “Paleolithic diet-based” baskets. The results were respectively 25, 23.5,
and 27 ares per basket per year. These surfaces are largely used for animal productions. In compari-
son, 20 ares per inhabitant are available in Wallonia.
The flows of inputs and outputs between the production units and their environment have been cal-
culated. This included the farmyard manure, the litter, and the by-products of food processing.
One specific case of the modeled production system has been designed and optimized for the Graux
Estate. This Estate is performing an agroecological transition. It closely associates a large mixed
farm with several micro-farms specialized in intensive productions such as market gardening, dairy
goat cheese or monogastric productions. In this case study, inputs quantities have been minimized
and the flows of matter between fictive micro-farms and the Estate have been dimensioned. The
Paleolithic diet based baskets have been chosen as the basis of the calculations, and the total
amount of baskets that can be produced on the Estate (83 hectares of Utilized Agricultural Area) is
305 individual rations. That means that 305 consumers/citizens can be fed on this surface. This result
considers an organic and agroecological production system almost totally self-sufficient.
The main output of this master thesis work is a programmable spreadsheet that can facilitate the
design of systems aiming at producing such baskets in an agroecological way. Different scenarios
can be simulated through the choice of diet, the type of food, and other agronomic parameters. The
simulation can concern only one type of production or a whole system. The result of the simulation is
the surface needed for each crop, the amounts of livestock, the inputs necessary for that production,
and the quantities of by-products generated.
This work is characterized by a system approach gathering agronomy and nutrition. A methodology
based on the data available was set as the work progressed. Also, a significant effort was devoted
to constitute a consistent database on yields, food nutritional characteristics and processing coeffi-
cients.
Further work should be provided for defining more precisely the individual micro-farms. The labour
units required for the productions considered as well as their profitability should be calculated to
better characterize the system. Those criteria, as well as the agronomic constraints could also be the
basis for the development of a food basket that would optimize the system and eventually minimize
the surface needed.

References

Cordain, Loren, et al. “Origins and evolution of the Western diet: health implications for the 21st
century”. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 81 (2005): 341-354.
Eaton S. B., and M. Konner. “Paleolithic nutrition: A consideration of its nature and current implica-
tions.” New England Journal of Medicine 312 (1985): 283-289.

23
Houlbert, A. La meilleure façon de manger. 1st Edition. Edited par Thierry Souccar Editions. Vergèze,
FR: Marabout, 2008.
Konner M. and S. Eaton. Paleolithic Nutrition, Twenty-Five Years Later. Nutrition in Clinical Practice 25,
6 (2010): 594-602.
Willett, Walter C., et Meir J. Stampfer. “Rebuilding the food pyramid” Scientific American (2003): 64-71.

Unravelling the politics of urban food transitions. A governance approach on

Alternative Food Networks
Alessandra Manganelli
KULeuven/VUB, PhD Researcher, II year

This contribution presents the analytical framework, research set-up and initial empirical operational-
ization of an early stage PhD research (Month 12) on the governance of Alternative Food Networks.
Alternative Food Networks are alternative modes of organizing actors, resources and processes of
the food chain, linking more closely food production with consumption. Civil society actors, such as
activists, citizens’ groups, cooperatives, or several types of grass-root organizations, have an active
role in catalyzing Alternative Food Networks. Such agents are often highly value driven, matching
local action with wider aspirations of socio-ecological transition. Furthermore, such actors need to
rely on supportive institutions for important aspects: among others, funding schemes, political visibility,
recognition and support. However, the institutional environment with which alternative food initiatives
are confronted, is not always favorable and accountable. Changes in political priorities, precarious-
ness of land agreements, constraining regulations affecting bottom-up initiatives, are some examples
of such tensions.
Disentangling the politics of urban food transitions, the research focuses on both, the internal gov-
ernance dynamics of urban food initiatives as well as on the relation with key external agents and
multi-scaled institutions. What are the internal incentives fostering organizational dynamics in grass-
root urban food projects? What kind of relations and adaptations such initiatives develop with a
wider range of institutional and urban actors?
The Brussels-Capital Region is the main empirical case study in which such questions are tested. The
research starts from the analysis of key grass-root movements or intermediary organizations establish-
ing alternative food projects. The GASAP movement, a spatially extended Community Supported
Agriculture, and the urban agriculture organization “Le Debut des Haricots”, are among the main
cases selected. The research develops a diachronic analysis of such movements and their ways
of developing and diversifying. Attention is paid to the horizontal relations with other initiatives or
networks as well as to the areas of intersection with institutional agents, political programs, funding
schemes, at the municipal, regional and wider institutional scales.
The empirical work is informed by a theoretical framework which identifies key governance tensions,
i.e. organizational, institutional, power and spatial tensions. Organizational tensions refer to the inter-
nal governance dynamics of Alternative Food Networks, i.e. the need to foster trust and cooperative
linkages among the participants. Institutional tensions connect to the external governance, high-
lighting frictions between the informal/customary rules of Alternative Food Initiatives and the broader
system of multi-scaled institutions with which such initiatives interact. Institutional tensions are directly

24
linked to power tensions, which concern the need for empowerment and representation of alterna-
tive food actors. Spatial tensions refer to frictions in the use of space, when Alternative Food Initiatives
need to secure land, open new markets, or develop alternative supply systems.
This framework combines elements from different governance traditions, i.e. social innovation theories
(González et al. 2010; Moulaert et al. 2005, 2010, 2013), sustainability transitions (Shove E, Walker G,
2007; Smith 2011) and the governance of Socio-Ecological Systems (Folke et al. 2005b; Cash et al.
2006).
Looking at governance relations from both, a bottom-up as well as from an institutional perspective,
this research aims at bridging knowledge gaps in governance traditions, which mostly lack of such
an integrated understanding. Furthermore, the research aims at opening new insights on institutional
tools or political arenas that better match the aspirations of bottom-up initiatives with the political
economy of decision-making of relevant policy actors.

References

Born, B., and M. Purcell, 2006, Avoiding the Local Trap: Scale and Food Systems in Planning Research,
Journal of Planning Education and Research 26: 195
Cash, D., Adger, W., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., Pritchard, L. and O. Young. 2006. Scale
and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and Society
11(2): 8
Gonzalez, S., and P. Healey, 2005, A Sociological Institutionalist Approach to the Study of Innovation in
Governance Capacity, Urban Studies, Vol. 42, No. 11: 2055–2069
Moulaert, F., Martinelli, Swyngedouw E., and S. González, 2010, Can Neighbourhoods Save the City?
Community development and social innovation, Routledge, London and New York
Moulaert, F., MacCallum, D., Mehmood A., and A. Hamdouch (Edited by), 2013, the International
Handbook of Social Innovation: Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research,
Edward Elgar.
Mount, P., 2012, Growing Local Food: Scale and Local Food Systems Governance, Agric Hum Values
29:107–121
Folke, K., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., and J. Norberg, 2005, Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Sys-
tems, Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour, 30:441–73
Shove E., and G. Walker G, 2007, CAUTION! Transitions ahead: politics, practice, and sustainable
transition management, Environment and Planning A, volume 39: 763-770
Smith A., 2011, The Transition Town Network: A Review of Current Evolutions and Renaissance, Social
Movement Studies: Journal of Social, Cultural and Political Protest, 10:01, 99-150

25
How to circulate “population varieties” inside a locked seed system? – The case of
Kaol Kozh
Corentin Hecquet
Phd. Université de Liège – SEED department, Member of the first Giraf circle

Context

In the late 1990s, early 2000s, various practices were established to provide selected seeds to farmers
year after year (for example, Réseau Semences Paysannes, Kokopelli, Semailles, Bionatur, Kaol Kozh).
In this paper, I will restrict my presentation to the Kaol Kozh case. Adapting seeds to soil differences
contributes to low input agriculture by inter and intra varietal reinforcement (Papy and Goldringer
2011). Specific to their work is that they consider selection at a varietal population level. What matters
is the genetic diversity of individuals and not the homogeneity between individuals. These practices
call into question the seed system without undermining it.
The seed system selects at individual level (pure line and F1 hybrid), where the variety meets the
standards of Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability (DUS). Two legal standards are developed on this
cognitive base. The first is the pre-market registration in the National Listing of agricultural and veg-
etable crops (in French: Catalogue). Only seeds that are registered seeds, and thus DUS, are allowed
to circulate among professionals. So, this framework excludes non-DUS seeds of the “population va-
riety” type (Bonneuil et al., 2006) showing a genetic variability. Consequently, the farmer is forced
to repurchase his seeds annually. The second standard concerns the intellectual property right by
the Proprietary Variety Certificate (PVC). It grants royalties to the breeder of the variety. In order to
get a PVC, the variety must meet the DUS standards. Therefore, the combination of these two legal
standards lead to a profitable captive market (Hecquet 2015). I call it a socio-technical lock-in as
defined by Stassart and Jamar (2009); Vanloqueren and Baret (2009).

The Kaol Kozh case in Brittany

The Kaol Kozh Association was created in 2007 in Brittany (which means “old cabbage” in Breton
/ “common good” in Russian). It seeks to reconcile the respect for the legislative framework with
the circulation of non-registered seeds in the National Listing. How do they circulate? How are they
managed?
I tried to answer these questions through 12 semi-structured interviews. Besides these interviews, I had
the opportunity to carry out participant observation at the International Meeting of Seed Houses in
September 2012, the Bio Bretagne Fair in Guichen in October 2013, and the training day on seed leg-
islation in January 2014 organized by Kaol Kozh. The 12 interviews were coded using RQDA software.
The aim of the association is the individual reappropriation of the seed practice (self-production)
and flow among professionals. Kaol Kozh shows a collective commitment to non-hybrid seeds which
are not registered in the Official Catalogue. In organizational terms, the association deals with self-
production by sharing seeds and practices. According to me, the idea is to be free because of
acting together. This “together free” takes the form of a shared heterogeneity where everyone can

26
come with his comments, questions and seeds. What matters is to enable a transmission of know-how
via seed production by experimentation (trial/error, questioning, discussions, new trials). This work de-
pends on each participant. In terms of characterization of a variety, they are free to orientate the
plant differently (via their selection) according to their desires and constraints (regarding their mar-
keting chain : short, long or towards chefs). Indeed, each of these chains have different expectations
in terms of customers even if it is the same variety.
Sharing practices focus on the seed as object, but what circulates is much more. They share liveli-
hoods (seeds) as well as ways of learning (know-how) organized around a common philosophy
(where the laws of nature are superior to human laws). This drives them to oppose the ban on non-
registered seed flow and on possession of individual variety ownership via the PVC.
In terms of managing their “population varieties”, all members are co-owners of seeds, no-one has
individual property rights. From the beginning, the association has been developing a system where it
is an intermediate between members for the production and circulation of seeds among members.
This, according to the association, makes it possible to circumvent the flow prohibition of non-DUS
varieties among professionals. The association claims thus the flow of products within the association
among co-owners and not in a bilateral relationship between two professionals. It is based on this
argument that they consider not to break the law. This way of putting seeds between professionals
into circulation is meant to be visible by the controlling authority for the enforcement of the regulatory
framework. And that, in order to defend a right of flow confiscated by the construction of a captive
and lucrative market. So far, this system has not been attacked. This is, according to the association,
a sign that the system holds up.

Conclusion

Kaol Kozh reflects the need of producers to revive and transfer a practice which was abandoned by
the previous generation (for some of them, their parents) when moving to an agriculture focused on
the productivist paradigm. These producers collectively revisit the varietal past of their region and ex-
plore other ways to get a seed flow producing vegetables adapted to the Breton soil and adapted
to an agriculture requiring no or few synthetic chemical-technical products. This means bypassing
the lock-in but not tackling it head-on as Kokopelli. They use the experimentation of collective man-
agement practices that strengthen agricultural autonomy.

References

Bonneuil C. , et al. (2006). "Innover autrement? La recherche face à l’avènement d’un nouveau
régime de production et de régulation des savoirs en génétique végétale." Dossier de l’environnement
de l’INRA N o 30: 29-51.
Hecquet, C. (2015). Comment faire circuler les semences? Enjeux et perspectives pour les alterna-
tives. 2ème Congrès International du Développement Durable. Louvain-la-Neuve.
Papy, F. and I. Goldringer (2011). "Cultiver la biodiversité." Courrier de l’environnement de l’INRA N o 60:
55-62.
Stassart, P. M. and D. Jamar (2009). "AB et verrouillage des systèmes de connaissances Conventional-
isation des filières agroélimentaire bio." Innovation Agronomique 4: 313-328.

27
Vanloqueren, G. and P. V. Baret (2009). "How agricultural research systems shape a technological
regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations." Research pol-
icy: 971-983.

Parallel session 2 – Chair: Erik Mathijs (01.263)

Local food and biophysical realities: a comparison of four apple supply systems
Bernd Annaert, Erik Mathijs and Liesbet Vranken
Division of Bioeconomics, KU Leuven

The debate on local and global food systems evolved recently in particular to differences in green-
house gas emissions and energetic efficiencies, with a focus on food miles (Coley et al. 2009). As
a result, particularly carbon accounting and energy input-output analysis were applied. However,
as explained by Coley et al. (2009), the concept of local food in scientific studies emerged from
a broader understanding, that is, that the properties of food are ‘natural’ and that heterogeneity
of edaphic conditions give rise to varied natures represented in varied foods, implying the need for
food systems grounded in local ecologies and responsive to consumer demands for quality and sus-
tainability. Reducing the debate to only CO2 and energetic efficiencies is therefore too simplistic.
Recently, Giampietro et al (2009) have developed the multi scale integrated assessment of societal
and environmental metabolism (Musiasem) method based on the fund-flow model of Georgescu-
Roegen (1971) to study the sustainability of systems at different hierarchical environmental dimension
in a consistent way and enables the study of internal and external constraints of the system. Based on
this system characterisation, different scenarios can be defined and their feasibility and sustainability
can be evaluated. The purpose of this paper is to use the metabolic approach to characterise dif-
ferent food systems and to evaluate different scenarios in order to provide new insights to the debate
on the sustainability of local food. As a case study we focus on apple supply systems in Flanders, a
region in the north of Belgium.
The MusSIASEM (Giampietro, 2009) approach is an operationalization of the fund-flow model devel-
oped by Georgescu-Roegen (1971). According to this, any metabolic system can be represented by
using fund and flow categories. On the time scale of the representation, fund categories transform
inflows into outflows, and flows are either consumed or generated in order to reproduce the funds.
Therefore, fund categories remain “the same” over the duration of the representation (e.g. capital,
people, Ricardian land). Flow categories refer to elements appearing and/or disappearing over the
duration of the representation (e.g. added value, water, energy, matter). What we call production
is in reality a transformation process of resources into useful products and waste products: a trans-
formation of some materials into others (the flow elements) by some agents (the fund elements). An
analysis based on the MuSIASEM approach differentiates those categories that have to be repro-
duced, from those that are used for the reproduction of the system and its compartments; that is, the
fund and flow categories.
One can combine fund and flow categories in order to characterize the system in quantitative terms.
As a result, we can define extensive and intensive indicators:

28
 • Extensive indicators are those that can be added. They characterize the size of the system
and its compartments in terms of either fund categories representing what the system is, or flow
categories representing what the system does.
• Intensive indicators are those that represent a ratio. They describe how the system does what it
does. When these ratios are constructed with funds or flows categories referring to different lev-
els, these fundk-1/fundk and flowk-1/flowk shares represent the relative sizes of lower-level fund
elements compared to upper-levels fund elements. They provide information on the structural
relation between the functional parts. When the ratios are constructed with fund and flow cat-
egories referring to the same level, a flowk/fundk ratio represents the speed and intensity of the
system’s metabolic processes.

Four apple supply systems were studied arising from a combination of two production methods –
integrated production and organic production – and two marketing systems – short supply chain
and supermarket. Data on flows (volume of apples, fuel use, electricity use, revenues) and funds
(land use and human activity) have been collected for an integrated farm and an organic farm,
while data on marketing systems are based on simulations using data from a supermarket chain and
from an auction. Results show small differences in metabolic activity between integrated and organic
production practices.

References

Coley D., Howard M., Winter M. (2009). Local food, food miles and carbon emissions: A comparison
of farm shop and mass distribution approaches. Food Policy, 34, 150-155.
Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1971). The enthropy law and the economic process. London, England:
Harvard University Press.
Giampietro, M., Mayumi, K., & Ramos-Martin, J. (2009). Multi-scale integrated analysis of societal
and ecosystem metabolism (MuSIASEM): Theoretical concepts and basic rationale. Energy, 34(3),
313–322.

Agro-ecology as a leverage in education for sustainable agriculture?

Lies Debruyne (1), Laure Triste (1) and Fleur Marchanda (2)
(1) Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Social Sciences Unit, Burg. Van
Gansberghelaan 115, box 2, 9820 Lemberge, Belgium. Lies.Debruyne@ilvo.vlaanderen.be ; (2)
Ecosystem Management Research Group and IMDO, University of Antwerp

Introduction

The current industrial agricultural system consumes external inputs like water, fossil fuel and artificial
fertilizers at unsustainable rates. It contributes to numerous forms of environmental degradation and
doesn’t succeed in feeding the global population successfully. Furthermore, latest news reports of
demonstrating farmers indicate also many social and economic problems related to their farm in-
come. An expanding academic field suggests agroecology as a possible solution to these problems

29
and the concept is gaining recognition within society as a valid alternative in the search for more
sustainable food production and consumption systems. The agricultural model using principles of
agroecology strives for optimal yields without the use of external inputs but through utilizing services
the agro-ecosystem can offer itself. Also social and economic aspects as food sovereignty, autonomy
for the farmer and resilience are important principles. However, the implementation of agroecology
in practice is very knowledge intensive and asks for specific competences. Furthermore, it requires a
shift in the way farmers think and act as the current regime proves that the agricultural system can-
not rely solely on technological solutions, policy recommendations and financial instruments. Walker
(2002) states that new skills and methods are needed to apply new ways of thinking in managing
a complex agricultural production system. Furthermore, with the UN ‘Decade of Education for Sus-
tainable Development’ (UNESCO, 2005-2014), the importance of education in the transition towards
a sustainable society and more specific towards a sustainable agricultural system is widely recog-
nized. However, at this point it is unclear if and how agroecology is being incorporated in education.
Therefore, we recently started a project entitled ‘Agroecology as a leverage for education in sustain-
able agri- and horticulture.’ In this project, we will screen the current educational package on the
incorporation of agroecology as an approach towards sustainable farming systems for the case of
Flanders. Furthermore, we will investigate how education addresses the required competences, i.e.
knowledge, skills and attitudes, to apply agroecology in practice. Lastly, we will translate the results
into policy recommendations. This paper focusses on the methodology and some preliminary results.

Methodology

The project is structured in 3 distinctive steps and follows a participatory approach. Through a first
stakeholder analysis within the agricultural and educational field, a relevant and well-balanced
stakeholder group is formed. We will contact the members of this group in each consecutive step,
both for data collection and critical review of the intermediate results. In a first step, a reference
framework is constructed to link the concept agroecology with educational frames for compe-
tences. The framework will define agroecology and provide insight in agroecological principles and
practices, it will present relevant learning theories and will identify competences required by agroe-
cological practitioners and educators. Then, an assessment tool will be developed based on the
reference framework, to screen the current educational package on agroecological principles (ex-
plicit ) and relevant competences (implicit) during the second step. The screening will encompass
formal, non-formal and informal education (Eshach, 2007), and will rely on a combination of quanti-
tative and qualitative methods. For formal and non-formal education, a questionnaire based on the
assessment tool will be sent out to a broad selection of education providers. Using the results of this
questionnaire, a subgroup of educational providers will be selected for a more thorough audit of the
curriculum, courses, etc. and in-depth interviews. To gain insight in informal education, focus groups
will be organized with farmers. The screening will result in an inventory, allowing us to identify possible
voids and opportunities for further integration of agroecology in the current educational package.
This will then form the basis for the third and final step, i.e. the formulation of policy recommendations.

Preliminary results

Currently, a draft version of the reference framework is being constructed. Based on a literature re-
view, 3 main definitions can be distinguished for agroecology. The first is the one put forward by Altieri
(1995), defines agroecology as ‘the application of ecological concepts and principles to the design

30
and management of sustainable agro-ecosystems’. As the concept of agroecology evolved from
being merely science to the multifaceted concept nowadays, the definition has changed accord-
ingly. Francis et al. (2003) and Gliesmann (2007) define agroecology as ‘the application of ecological
concepts and principles on the design and management of food systems. It has the explicit goal of
the transformation of food systems toward sustainability where there is a balance between ecologi-
cal soundness, economic viability, and social justice.’ Finally, GIRAF further stresses the multiple facets
by proposing the following definition ‘Agroecology is not defined exclusively by scientific disciplines,
social movements, or practices. It is called upon to become a concept that federates these three
dimensions’. These definitions are further clarified by proposing a set of agroecological principles.
The educational side of the framework focuses on two main data sources to identify competences
needed for agroecology. Lieblein et al. (2007) propose a ‘dual learning ladder’ to describe the re-
quired learning process, which is applied in a MSc in Agroecology in Norway. The learning ladder
distinguishes between a cognitive learning process (external) and a personal learning ladder (inter-
nal). Further inspiration can be found in the literature regarding education for sustainable develop-
ment, where a set of competences is defined for education for sustainable development. Although
intended primarily for educators and not for learners, both are intricately linked (UNECE, 2012).
Next steps will involve interviewing experts in agroecology and educators in the field of agroecol-
ogy to elaborate and further refine the reference framework. The framework will be presented for
critical review by a broader stakeholder group, before proceeding with the second step, i.e. the
construction of the assessment tool.

References

Altieri, M.A. (1995) Agroecology: the Science of Sustainable Agriculture. Westview Press, Boulder, CO,
433 pp.
Eshbach, H. (2007) Bridging in-school and out-of-school learning: formal, non-formal and informal
education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(2), 171-190.
Francis, C., Lieblein, G., Gliessman, S., et al. (2003). Agroecology: the ecology of food systems.
Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 22, 99-118
Gliessman, S.R. (2007). Agroecology: the ecology of sustainable food systems (2nd ed.). Boca Raton,
FL, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group
Lieblein, G., Breland, T.A., Ostergaard, E., et al. (2007). Educational perspectives in agroecology:
steps on a dual learning ladder toward responsible action. NACTA Journal, 51(1), 37-44
UNECE (2012). Learning for the future. Competences in sustainable development. Programma Leren
voor Duurzame Ontwikkeling, 18pp.

31
Agroecological practices at farming system level – case of beef and dairy farming
in Flanders
Laura Schotte (1,3), Erwin Wauters (1,2), Philippe Baret (3) and Fleur Marchand (1,4)
(1) Social Sciences Unit, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO) ; (2) Department of
Veterinary Sciences, University of Antwerp ; (3) Earth and Life Institute – Agronomy, Université
catholique de Louvain (UCL) ; (4) Ecosystem Management Research Group and IMDO, University of
Antwerp)

Agroecology has the potential for moving animal production systems towards more sustainability
while meeting the forecasted demand for livestock products (Dumont et al., 2014). However, the
application of agroecology in the livestock sector, especially in Flanders, remains very low. This ab-
stract is part of a PhD research that studies the evolution to more agroecological practices through
a systemic approach for the case of the beef and dairy sector in Flanders. This is done by analyzing
practices at farm level, strategy choices within the broader food system and factors influencing these
choices. This abstract proposes a three step methodology to select our case study and to analyze
(agroecological) practices at farm level. Following paragraphs discuss each research step, visualized
in the figure 1.

Figure 1: The three research steps

In step one we create a typology of the Flemish beef and dairy sector and select our main focus.
To get an overview of the sector’s structure and diversity we analyze data from Statistics Belgium
and the Belgian Farm Accountancy Data Network . These results are complemented with literature
study and open-ended interviews with field experts to gain social and historic insights. Based on this

32
information a first typology is created, distinguishing three main production systems. We distinguish
farming systems with suckler cows and rearing & fattening of bulls on farm (closed farming systems),
systems with suckler cows and selling of new-born calves and systems specialized in fattening of pur-
chased new-born calves (open farming systems). This first typology is discussed during a focus group
composed of experts and farmers to elaborate and fine-tune the typology and determine distinctive
variables making up the types. Potential variables are feed autonomy, herd size, specialized versus
mixed farming systems, etc. This results in x types of farming systems, from which we select - for exam-
ple - four types as our main focus (see figure 1). This selection is based on insights and preferences
emerging during the focus group discussion. The selection should include not only innovative hobby
farmers, but also conventional farming systems to benchmark our results.
In step two we interview farmers from each of the types selected in step one, during which we focus
on their motivation and the practices they apply on farm level. We apply semi-structured interviews
to question each subsystem of the farming system (e.g. forage system, cattle reproduction, . . . ).
During the interview special focus is given to the underlying principles and their compliance with
the historic and socio-economic principles of agroecology (Stassart et al., 2012). This enables us to
identify practices contributing to agroecology. We also study farmers’ motivations because similar
practices may originate from very different incentives, or (structural) lock-in’s may restrain the appli-
cation of certain practices despite the farmer’s motivation. To study motivation or long-term vision
we use the efficiency – substitution – redesign framework (ESR) (Bellon et al., 2010 ; Chantre et al.,
2014). This framework differentiates between three production stages during the transition to more
sustainable agriculture. Efficiency stands for improving input efficiency without reducing farm depen-
dence on external inputs. Substitution implies that chemical inputs are substituted with organic ones
and alternative practices are implemented, but without (greatly) modifying the basic system struc-
ture. Redesign occurs when the farm system is redesigned on the basis of a new set of ecological
processes and works as a functioning agroecosystem. Through this approach we answer the follow-
ing questions among others. First, does ESR reflect a range in the implementation of agroecological
practices? Is there a gap between motivation and actual implementation, and what is the underly-
ing cause? Do farmers of one farming system type apply more or less the same practices, or do we
see a lot of diversity within the types?
In step three we re-cluster practices, farming systems or types according to their implementation
of agroecological practices and/or motivation. However, the level and method or technique that
we use will depend on the answers within the previous steps. A possible methodology is clustering
based on cognitive maps like Vanwindekens et al. (2014) developed. It may be that the final clusters
correspond with one or all of the types defined in step two, indicating that one type of livestock
farming systems applies different, or more, agroecological practices than the other. It may also be
that each cluster contains farming systems from each type, indicating that a specific subsystem or
practice determines the final cluster. By performing this analysis we gain insight in the similarities or
differences among different livestock farming system types in their implementation of agroecology.

References

Bellon S., Desclaux D. and Le Pichon V., 2010. Innovation and research in organic farming: A multi-
level approach to facilitate cooperation among stakeholders. Paper presented at the IFSA Congress,
Boku, Austria
Chantre E. and Cardona A., 2014. Trajectories of French Field Crop Farmers Moving Towards Sustain-
able Farming Practices: Change, Learning and Links with the Advisory Services. Agroecology and

33
Sustainable Food Systems, 38: 573 – 602
Dumont, B., González-García, E., Thomas, M., Fortun-Lamothe, L., Ducrot, C., Dourmad, J. Y., Tichit, M.,
2014. Forty research issues for the redesign of animal production systems in the 21st century. Animal
(2014), 8:8, 1382 – 1393
Stassart, P. M., Baret, P., Grégoire, J. C., Hance, T., Mormont, M., Reheul, D., Stilmant, D., Vanloqueren
G. & Visser, M. (2012). L’agroécologie: Trajectoire et potentiel pour une transition vers des systèmes
alimentaires durables. In: Van Dam D. et al. (Eds). Agroécologie: Entre pratiques et sciences sociales.
Educagri Editions, 2012
Vanwindekens F.M., Baret P., Stilmant D., 2014. A new approach for comparing and categorizing
farmers’ systems of practice based on cognitive mapping and graph theory indicators. Ecological
Modelling 274; 1 – 11

The COSY-food project: Assessing sustainability of alternative food networks in

Belgium
Sureau S. (1), Bauler T. (1), Delespesse F. (2), Descampe A. (3), Labarge A. (4),
Pauwels, A. (5), Pelenc J. (1), Wallenborn G. (1), Achten W.M.J. (1)
(1) IGEAT, ULB ; (2) Réseau des GASAP asbl ; (3) Färm ; (4) La vivrière asbl (La ruche qui dit oui de
Forest), (5) Delhaize

In Belgium new food production and distribution models have been developing rapidly over the last
years (organic farming, short supply chains, locavore regimes)1. These systems, called Alternative
food or agrifood networks (AFNs/AANs), have different features but have the common characteristic
to emerge in opposition to the mainstream food system2,3. AFNs have been developing for envi-
ronmental, social and socioeconomic (SSE) reasons (reduced food miles, fairer prices, healthier and
cheaper food, local jobs)2,4 and a variety of labels emerged to demonstrate the sustainability of
products from these systems and from others5. However, some argue that these sustainability claims
are still to be verified: environmental performances of AFNs would be hindered by production and
distribution scales and by logistics efficiency5 and their socioeconomic benefits in terms of support to
the producer and to local economy might not be so obvious2. The emerging labels often consider
only one or few sustainability aspects (e.g. organic label which considers only energy-non-related
environmental aspects and not social aspects) so as a number of AFNs initiatives. Those labels or
initiatives create confusion among consumers6, partly because of their non-systemic approach of
sustainability.
The COSY-food project originates from these observations and the identification of specific assess-
ment needs from four AFNs: the GASAP network (community-supported agriculture in Brussels), la
Ruche qui dit oui (local products webshop), FÄRM (organic retailer) and the organic chain of the
supermarket retailer Delhaize. These 4 AFN partners aim, together with IGEAT, a ULB research institute,
to co-create a common-ground definition of sustainable food and a way to assess this sustainability,
with the ultimate goal of improving it.
This will be achieved through 5 co-creation work spaces (cf. fig. 1), which will closely interact. Four
specific spaces will seek to address specific needs of AFNs and one transversal space will seek to
develop a generic tool that can be used elsewhere or to compare AFNs with each other’s if wanted
by project’s partners.

34
 Figure 1: The living lab of the COSY-food project

Within the GASAP space, we will build a Participatory Guarantee System, defining which specifica-
tions producers have to comply with, and how this can be verified by producers and consumers.
Within the Ruche space, we will co-build an evaluation framework to select producers participating
in the Ruche. Within FÄRM space, we will co-build a method focusing on cost- and waste-related
impacts. Within the Bio Delhaize space, we will build a tool for local organic products with the view
to improving product’s sustainability. Within the transversal space we will seek to define a common
definition of sustainability in a participatory manner and to contribute to the building of generic as-
sessment tools which will serve as a basis to design the specific assessment tools. A first tool would
follow the frame of the Principles, Criteria and indicators (PC&I) method (for GASAP and Ruche spe-
cific tools) and the second one would follow the frame of the Life-cycle sustainability assessment (or
LCSA, for Färm and Bio Delhaize specific tools).
PC&I is used by several product chains to build their code of practice (e.g. Forest Stewardship Coun-
cil, FSC). For example, the FSC label is awarded to a forestry product if its industry of origin respects
some defined sustainability criteria along the chain. Principles are “essential elements of the areas
covered by the code”, criteria are “conditions to be met in order to adhere to a Principle” and in-
dicators are “measurable states to assess whether or not associated criteria are being met”.7 This
method is useful for product and/or chain labeling/certification or to conceive specifications, as
GASAP and Ruche are pursuing. However PC&I cannot compare products or impacts along the
life cycle in order to improve sustainability performances (as pursued by Delhaize and FARM), nor
can identify impact displacement among impact categories and/or among life cycle stages, un-
like LCSA. LCSA8 is a method under construction and builds on Environmental Life-Cycle Analysis
(E-LCA) and Life cycle costing (LCC) which are currently the tools most used to assess respectively
environmental impacts and cumulated costs of a product. E-LCA and LCC have a comprehensive
and holistic approach: the assessment takes account of all life-cycle stages of products and services,
and considers a comprehensive range of impacts. LCSA is the combination of E-LCA, LCC and S-LCA
(Social Life-Cycle Analysis), the latter serving to assess SSE impacts.
However, LCSA methodology is under construction, and research work is ongoing to find ways to inte-
grate the 3 pillars of sustainability. Among these three, the S-LCA method remains in its infancy despite
research works since 20009,10 and the publication of S-LCA guidelines11. Remaining methodologi-
cal challenges that we intend to address include: (i) the choice of criteria to be measured, raising

35
ethical issues (ii) the construction of inventory and impact indicators because of the differing nature
of data in comparison with E-LCA (physical versus organizational data) (iii) the impact assessment,
which is not straightforward in social sciences12. We will develop and test those LCSA and S-LCA
related methodological tasks on products from the four AFNs.
In this project we address two main research questions: (i) the first one would be on the definition
of sustainability: what criteria define sustainability and how to define those criteria? Different actors
have different views on the factors that contribute to sustainability. Is it possible to agree on a com-
mon definition of sustainability in a given context (e.g. Belgium)? If so, how to build it? Our approach
is to seek to define it with a participatory process including all stakeholders of the 4 AFNs, producers,
processors and consumers, and key actors of sustainable food in Belgium.
Our second main research question is: (ii) On the basis of the sustainability definition, how to assess its
dimensions? The challenge is to operationalize in a co-creation process the two existing frameworks
PC&I and LCSA. What to choose as indicators? How to build indicators which address the constraints
of the two methods? And once those indicators are chosen, how to assess impacts, particularly SSE
impacts? Lastly, is it possible and desirable to combine the three pillars of sustainability? If so, how to
integrate those various dimensions?

References

1. Kneafsey, M. et al. Short Food Supply Chains and Local Food Systems in the EU. A State of Play of
their Socio-Economic Characteristics. 128 (EC Joint Research Centre, 2013). at http://ipts.jrc.ec.
europa.eu/publications/pub.cfm?id=6279
2. Tregear, A. Progressing knowledge in alternative and local food networks: Critical reflections and
a research agenda. J. Rural Stud. 27, 419–430 (2011).
3. Bauler, Tom et al. Construction of scenarios and exploration of transition pathways for sustainable
consumption patterns ‘Consentsus’. 110 (Belgian Science Policy, 2011). at http://igeat.ulb.ac.be/
fileadmin/media/publications/CEDD/CONSENTSUS_final_report.pdf
4. Forssell, S. & Lankoski, L. The sustainability promise of alternative food networks: an examination
through ‘alternative’ characteristics. Agric. Hum. Values 32, 63–75 (2014).
5. Redlingshöfer, B. Vers une alimentation durable ? Ce qu’enseigne la littérature scientifique. Cour-
rier de l’environnement de l’INRA N o 53 20 (2006).
6. Zepeda, L., Sirieix, L., Pizarro, A., Corderre, F. & Rodier, F. A conceptual framework for analyzing
consumers’ food label preferences: An exploratory study of sustainability labels in France, Quebec,
Spain and the US. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 37, 605–616 (2013).
7. Natural Resources Institute. What are criteria, indicators and verifiers? (n.d.). at http://www.nri.
org/NRET/nret.htm
8. Valdivia, S., Ugaya, C. M. L., Sonnemann, G. & Hildenbrand, J. Towards a Life Cycle Sustainability
Assessment: Making informed choices on products. (2011).
9. Jørgensen, A., Bocq, A. L., Nazarkina, L. & Hauschild, M. Methodologies for social life cycle assess-
ment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 13, 96–103 (2007).
10. Chhipi-Shrestha, G. K., Hewage, K. & Sadiq, R. ‘Socializing’ sustainability: a critical review on
current development status of social life cycle impact assessment method. Clean Technol. Environ.
Policy 17, 579–596 (2014).

36
11. UNEP & SETAC. Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. (2009).
12. Vanclay, Frank & Becker, H. A. The international handbook of social impact assessment: Concep-
tual and methodological advances. (2003).

Parallel session 3 – Chair: Tessa Avermaete (01.262)

The importance of a landscape perspective in agroecology

Isabelle Vranken (1), Line Louah (2), Katrien Quisthoudt (3), Vincent Delobel (4),
Marjolein Visser (5)
(1)Research unit of landscape ecology and plant production systems, Université Libre de Bruxelles,
Bruxelles, Belgium ; (2) line@louah.com, Research unit of landscape ecology and plant production
systems, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium ; (3) kquistho@vub.ac.be, Research unit of
landscape ecology and plant production systems, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium ;
(4) vdelobel@gmail.com, organic goatherd at La Chèvrerie de la Croix de la Grise (Tournai) ; (5)
mavisser@ulb.ac.be, Research unit of landscape ecology and plant production systems, Université
Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium

Farming represents one of the main land uses in the world, a major disturbance to ecological pro-
cesses, but also the main food source to mankind (Foley et al. 2005; Vranken et al. submitted).
Conventional agriculture indeed heavily impacts on natural resources with serious health, socio-
economical and environmental implications. Industrial agriculture has thus proven to be unfit to the
current and future food challenge in a world with a shrinking arable land base, increasingly limited
supplies of fossil fuels, water and phosphorus, and within a scenario of a rapidly changing climate,
social unrest and economic uncertainty (Foley et al. 2005; Doré et al. 2011).
In response to the multidimensional and international crisis of food systems, farmers around the world
develop more ecological, biodiverse, resilient, sustainable and socially fair forms of agriculture, in-
spired from agroecology. Agroecology postulates that ecological processes can be put to use in
farmland to ensure sustainable production (Altieri, Funes-Monzote, and Petersen, 2012).
Why do agroecological practices remain so marginal in spite of evidence that agroecology could
provide the necessary resources and regulation services to our sustainable subsistence (Doré et al.
2011)? The path dependence and lock-in hypothesis focuses on psychological and social aspects
and relies on the multi-level perspective framework to explain transition pathways (Geels and Schot
2007). It postulates the existence of a cognitive lock-in that prevents farmers from shifting from con-
ventional agriculture to a different farming system (Louah et al. submitted).
In this presentation however, we insist on the landscape hypothesis in two ways: the importance of
the ecological networks and the role of land tenure. The integrity of the rural landscape is of crucial
importance to agroecology: it is composed of a mosaic of various types of farmland and (semi-
)natural landscape elements such as meadows, hedgerows or woods, each patch of which can be
considered as a distinct ecosystem, interacting with the other patches, whether contingent or not.

37
These interactions have a strong impact on how well the ecological processes can provide the var-
ious ecosystem services related to agriculture: yield stability, pollination, biological control, biodiver-
sity, soil regeneration, erosion control etc. (Burel and Baudry 2003; Fahrig, Baudry, and Brotons 2011;
Tscharntke et al. 2005). Such provisions are influenced by the relative abundances of each patch
type (landscape composition), but also by the size, shape and spatial arrangement of patches, be
it farmland or not (landscape configuration). Therefore, the landscape hypothesis postulates that
an integrated management of both the composition and the configuration of the different patches
of the landscape would reinforce the provisioning services to the embedded farmland. From the
farmer point of view however, such a management is only possible at the scale of the farm, and at
the same time often hampered by the scattered nature of the land the farm has acquired during
its enlargement since the beginning of the Common Agricultural Policy (Thenail and Baudry 2004).
Furthermore, the tensions between land owners and tenants are not favorable to a landscape ecol-
ogy approach. The fragmented nature of many of today’s farms may hamper any motivation for an
integrated agrarian landscape management. In this way, the landscape hypothesis may reinforce
the path dependence and lock-in hypothesis. We will illustrate this with examples as seen through
farmer’s eyes.

References

Altieri, Miguel A., Fernando R. Funes-Monzote, and Paulo Petersen. 2012. “Agroecologically Efficient
Agricultural Systems for Smallholder Farmers: Contributions to Food Sovereignty.” Agronomy for Sus-
tainable Development 32 (1): 1–13. doi:10.1007/s13593-011-0065-6.
Burel, F., and J. Baudry. 2003. Landscape Ecology: Concepts, Methods, and Applications. Science
Publishers.
Doré, T., D. Makowski, E. Malézieux, N. Munier-Jolain, M. Tchamitchian, and P. Tittonell. 2011. “Facing
up to the Paradigm of Ecological Intensification in Agronomy: Revisiting Methods, Concepts and
Knowledge.” European Journal of Agronomy 34 (4): 197–210. doi:10.1016/j.eja.2011.02.006.
Fahrig, Lenore, J. Baudry, and L. Brotons. 2011. “Functional Landscape Heterogeneity and Animal
Biodiversity in Agricultural Landscapes.” Ecology Letters 14: 101–12.
Foley, Jonathan A., Ruth DeFries, Gregory P. Asner, Carol Barford, Gordon Bonan, Stephen, R. Carpen-
ter, F. Stuart Chapin, Michael T. Coe, Gretchen C. Daily, and Holly K. Gibbs. 2005. “Global Conse-
quences of Land Use.” Science 309: 570–74.
Geels, F.W., and J. Schot. 2007. “Typology of Sociotechnical Transition Pathways.” Research Policy 36
(3): 399–417. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003.
Louah, L., M. Visser, A. Blaimont, and C. De Cannière. submitted. “Barriers to the Development of
Temperate Agroforestry as an Example of Agroecological Innovation: Mainly a Matter of Cognitive
Lock-in? Land Use Policy.
Thenail, C., and J. Baudry. 2004. “Variation of Farm Spatial Land Use Pattern according to the Struc-
ture of the Hedgerow Network (bocage) Landscape: A Case Study in Northeast Brittany.” Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment 101: 20. doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(03)00199-3.
Tscharntke, Teja, Alexandra M. Klein, Andreas Kruess, Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter, and Carsten Thies.
2005. “Landscape Perspectives on Agricultural Intensification and Biodiversity– Ecosystem Service
Management.” Ecology Letters 8: 857–74. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00782.x.

38
Vranken, Isabelle, Marie André, L. Inostroza, G. Mahy, M. Visser, and J. Bogaert. submitted. “Spa-
tially Explicit Quantification of Anthropogenic Landscape Change. Towards a New Methodological
Framework.” Landscape and Urban Planning.

The development of agroforestry systems in Flanders. A farming systems approach

to social, institutional and economic inquiry
Lieve Borremans (1), Marjolein Visser (2) and Erwin Wauters (1,3)
(1) ILVO - Social Sciences Unit - Burg. Van Gansberghelaan 115 box 2, 9820 Merelbeke ; (2) ULB – Unit
of Landscape Ecology and Plant Production Systems – Avenue F.D. Roosevelt 50, 1050 Brussels ; (3)
University of Antwerp - Department of Veterinary Sciences - Universiteitsplein 1, 2610 Wilrijk

Problem statement

From a historical point of view various agroforestry systems existed in Flanders and the rest of Europe,
such as windbreaks or shelterbelts and standard orchards with grazing livestock1. In response to
technological, political and economic drivers, these trees have increasingly disappeared from the
agricultural landscape. In recent years, a renewed interest in modern agroforestry systems emerged
because of its potential to deliver both food and non-food products as well as environmental ser-
vices and socio-economic benefits at the same time2. Therefore modern agroforestry systems are
increasingly advocated for by various stakeholders and organisations, also in regions with capital-
intensive farming systems such as Western Europe. In Flanders, the development of these systems
is supported through a subsidy program that was initiated in 2011 and renewed in 2014. Although
the subsidy program currently includes a payment of 80% of the installation costs of the agroforestry
parcels, response of farmers remains low with only 23 applications from 2011 until 2014, good for 60
ha of agroforestry. The limited success of agroforestry in Flanders as contrasted to the conceptual
opportunities of such systems reveals the need for more scientific research and practical knowledge.

Research outline

In 2014 a 5-year IWT research project was initiated with the goal the breakthrough of agroforestry in
Flanders in the relatively short term. In this abstract the research activities related to the social, insti-
tutional, political and economic drivers of agroforestry development, are explained in more detail.
They are translated in a PhD research, of which the aim is to better understand the reasons for the cur-
rent implementation gap and based on these findings design appropriate agroforestry development
schemes. This will be done by answering the following research questions: a. Why do agroforestry
systems, despite their documented benefits, currently not breakthrough in Flanders? b. Which so-
cial, institutional and economic requirements are necessary to give incentives for the breakthrough
of agroforestry systems in Flanders? c. Which organized or market-based governance models can
foster agroforestry implementation by using the benefits of agroforestry to create value for society?

39
 Figure 1: Mix of methodologies and data collection techniques

A farming systems research approach

To answer these research questions a farming systems approach will be used, which implies systems
thinking, interdisciplinarity and participation. Furthermore there are also characteristics applying to
the researcher performing a farming systems approach. These are (1) reflexivity; draw attention to the
complex relationship between processes of knowledge production and the various contexts of such
processes, as well as the involvement of the knowledge producer and (2) conceptual triangulation;
blending different methodologies and data collection techniques to provide a broader and deeper
perspective3.

Methodologies

Inspired by the farming systems research approach, a mix of methodologies and data collection
techniques (Figure 1) are used to answer the research questions.

WP 1: Stakeholder and Social Network Analysis

In a first WP a stakeholder analysis is performed with the aim of understanding more in deeply which
organisations, companies or groups of individuals have interests in, are affected by or can influence
the development of agroforestry in Flanders. After an initial identification and classification, semi-
structured interviews are carried out with known but also new stakeholders that come up by using
a snowball sampling technique. Afterwards the different stakeholder groups are placed in a power-
interest diagram making use of focus groups. Finally Q-methodology is used to elicit different per-
spectives on agroforestry and compare them within and between different stakeholder groups.

40
WP 2: Discourse Analysis

Traditional innovation adoption research focuses largely on the farmer, and relates adoption to farm
and farmer characteristics, perceptions and attitudes. These researches ignore that farmers are em-
bedded in an environment shaping opportunities and rendering other options impossible. Therefore
in WP2 we will not merely look to the decision maker (the farmer) but focus especially on the impact
of context. To do so, we will make use of the structures-cultures-practices triplet4. As such we start
from the social reality in which farmers operate and relate this reality to discourses that are domi-
nating and steering this reality. Data of a qualitative nature will be collected mainly through open
interviews and document analysis.

WP 3: Market and Chain Research

Since most of the agroforestry systems that exist in Flanders are still very young and there are no
experiences with mature agroforestry systems, a lot of questions come up with respect to profitability
of agroforestry and marketization of end products. In this WP the knowledge generated in other WP’s
is complemented with lessons learnt from choice experiments and case studies (action research) to
design new financing and marketing schemes that can further support agroforestry adoption. The
general aim here is the participatory design of organized and/or market based mechanisms that can
use the value that agroforestry systems can create to create incentives for its implementation.

WP 4: Follow-up of starters

WP 4 focuses exclusively on agroforestry starters and their experiences. Through repeated open
interviews with a limited amount of starters, we want to better understand how and why - given the
structures, discourses and practices that render the decision to implement agroforestry unfavourable
for most of the other farmers -they took the decision to give agroforestry a try. The interviews will be
repeated over time to collect starters’ experiences while their agroforestry parcels are growing over
time.

Links between WP’s

Although these four WP’s at first glance seem to be quite isolated from each other, they are meant
to be very interlinked and follow each other logically. As such the different stakeholders we learn
about in WP1 will be the most relevant actors and respondents in WP2 and WP3. The experiences
from agroforestry pioneers collected in WP4 are also very important and will be compared with the
results of WP2 to understand why for a small minority of the farmers the obstacles to agroforestry are
surmountable while they are not for most of the others. Finally, the combination of the information
collected in WP2 and WP4 will hopefully lead to some interesting financing and marketing schemes
we are looking for in WP3.

References

1. Herzog, F. Streuobst: A traditional agroforestry system as a model for agroforestry development in

temperate Europe. Agrofor. Syst. 42, 61–80 (1998).

41
2. Smith, J., Pearce, B. D. & Wolfe, M. S. Reconciling productivity with protection of the environment:
Is temperate agroforestry the answer? Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 28, 1–13 (2012).
3. Farming Systems Research into the 21st Century: The New Dynamic. 490 (Springer, 2012).
4. De Haan, J. (Hans) & Rotmans, J. Patterns in transitions: Understanding complex chains of change.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 78, 90–102 (2011).

Comparing insect-flower interactions networks between species-rich meadows

and wildflower strips.
Emilie Pecheur (1), Julien Piqueray (2), and Grégory Mahy (1)
(1) University of Liege, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, Biodiversity and Landscape Unit, 2, Passage des
Déportés, B-5030 Gembloux, Belgium ; (2) Natagriwal asbl - University of Liege, Gembloux Agro-Bio
Tech, Biodiversity and Landscape Unit, 2, Passage des Déportés, B-5030 Gembloux, Belgium

Because of the large area covered and the abundance of agroecosystem associated species [1],
agricultural landscapes are relevant habitats to counter biodiversity erosion. In Europe, biodiversity
conservation in agroecosystems is supported by the Agro-Environmental Schemes (AES) program
[2]. In Wallonia, Belgium, wildflower strips (WS) and species-rich meadows (SRM) are part of the AES
program, conceived to halt biodiversity erosion. If SRM preserve existing semi-natural habi-tats, WS
are newly implemented in agricultural landscapes. Our work wishes to evaluate the con-tribution of
SRM and WS to biodiversity support by using insect-flower interactions networks [3].
This approach was willing to test whether new ecological infrastructures like WS offer an equivalent
or complementary support to biodiversity compared to SRM. The ecological relevance of the WS
design was also questioned.
Three pairs each made of a SRM and a WS were selected in the Condroz region, Belgium. Six quadrats
were fixed along a transect in each parcel. Data collection consisted in flowering plant species
identification combined to counting floral units [4] in the quadrats. Insect-flower interactions were
recorded along the transect and in every quadrat during a delimited time period. Poaceae cover
was evaluated once in each quadrat. Interactions data allowed us to build two types of meta-
networks – summary networks combining data from a same type of plot (SRM or WS): a generalist
one with insects’ families and a specific one with Syrphidae species. Data was collected before
cutting occurred in WS and SRM.
In WS some species initially sown were absent from the data collection, like Daucus carota. Densi-ty
in floral units was twice higher in the WS than in the SRM. Conversely, SRM exhibited a signifi-cantly
higher Poaceae cover than WS.
Low taxa overlap points out that WS and SRM share few families and Syrphidae species. WS widely
contribute to Syrphidae diversity.
The families’ meta-networks (Fig.1a) display the presence of key-stone plant species [5]. Several fam-
ilies structure the SRM’s meta-networks while a single species (Centaurea jacea) supports more than
85% of all interactions in the WS. Apidae and Syrphidae dominated the interactions in the WS while,
in the SRM, five families mainly structured the network, though their occurrence is parcel-specific. WS
display the higher Syrphidae diversity (Fig.1b). Syrphidae mainly interact with C. jacea. The robust-
ness of these networks – defined as the number of plant species that should disappear to induce a

42
Figure 1: Flower-insects interactions meta-networks at the insect family level (a) and the Syrphidae
43
species level (b). Lower level represents flower species, the upper insect taxa. Dark rectan-
gles width is proportional to the contribution of each taxa to the network. Interactions are
displayed in grey rec-tangles. Their width is proportional to the frequency of the links. WS =
wildflower strips ; SRM = Species-rich meadows.
loss of 50% of all insect taxa[6] - is quite high : 60% of the observed plant species are to disappear to
generate a such a collapse in all the insect taxa.
A crowding effect is probably observed in WS due to locally abundant food resources [7], explaining
the high Syrphidae diversity. However, the lack of Poaceae cover, depriving WS from oviposition
sites and overwintering habitats [8], question the ability of WS to sustain ecologically viable insects
communities [9]. According to the SRM’s networks, WS would benefit from the implementation of
some plant species like Hypericum spp., Knautia arvensis or Apiaceae.
In conclusion, WS appear complementary to SRM regarding biodiversity support in agroecosys-tems.
Synergies between newly implemented habitats like WS and habitat preservation through SRM should
be encouraged in agroecosystems in order to provide a coherent ecological network at landscape
scale [10].

References

[1] Kristensen 2003 in EEA, 2006. Progress Towards Halting the Loss of Biodiversity by 2010, EEA report
No 5/2006. European Environment Agency
[2] Kleijn, D., & Sutherland, W. J. (2003). How effective are European agri-environment schemes in
conserving and promoting biodiversity? Journal of Applied Ecology, 40(6), 947–969.
[3] Memmott, J. (1999). The structure of a plant-pollinator food web. Ecology Letters, 2(5), 276–280.
[4] Vázquez, D. P. (2005). Degree distribution in plant–animal mutualistic networks: forbidden links or
random interactions? Oikos, 108(2), 421-426.
[5] Dupont, Y. L., & Olesen, J. M. (2012). Stability of modular structure in temporal cumulative plant–flower-
visitor networks. Ecological Complexity, 11, 84–90.
[6] Dunne, J. A., Williams, R. J., & Martinez, N. D. (2002). Network structure and biodiversity loss in food
webs: robustness increases with connectance. Ecology Letters, 5(4), 558–567.
[7] Haenke, S., Scheid, B., Schaefer, M., Tscharntke, T., & Thies, C. (2009). Increasing syrphid fly diversity
and density in sown flower strips within simple vs. complex landscapes. Journal of Applied Ecology,
46(5), 1106–1114.
[8] Haaland, C., Naisbit, R. E., & Bersier, L.-F. (2011). Sown wildflower strips for insect conserva-tion: a
review. Insect Conservation and Diversity, 4(1), 60–80.
[9] Tscharntke, T., Klein, A. M., Kruess, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., & Thies, C. (2005). Landscape per-
spectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity - Ecosystem service management. Ecology
Letters, 8, 857–874
[10] Duelli, P., & Obrist, M. K. (2003). Regional biodiversity in an agricultural landscape: the contri-
bution of seminatural habitat islands. Basic and Applied Ecology, 4(2), 129–138.

Nature-oriented measures on agricultural land: searching for a win-win

Laura Van Vooren (1,2,3), Bert Reubens (1), Steven Broekx (2) and Kris Verheyen (3)
(1) Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO) ; (2) VITO - Flemish Institute for Technological
Research NV ; (3) FORNALAB – Forest & Nature Lab. Ghent University

44
Worldwide, biodiversity is under great pressure. To reduce biodiversity loss, ecologically valuable
areas in Europe are protected in the Natura 2000 network. In Flanders, 12% of the land area is desig-
nated as Natura 2000 network, of which 1/3 is at the moment under conventional agricultural use. In
this area, all land users including nature organisations and farmers will have to make efforts to reach
the European objectives. In some areas agricultural activities will probably become impossible over
time, while in other areas measures will have to be implemented to reduce the environmental impact
of farming activities, for example in terms of nutrient leaching. This could have a non-negligible socio-
economic impact at farm level, hence cost-effective realisation of the ecological objectives is vital.
Therefore it is crucial to make reliable estimates on the consequences (both positive and negative)
of farming activities on the environment on the one hand, and of nature-oriented measures that are
implemented on agricultural land on the other hand. Nature-oriented measures affect agricultural
productivity, the delivery of regulating ecosystem services as well as biodiversity, and an interaction
between these three factors is expected. At the moment, quantitative information on these conse-
quences and interactions is scarce and often inconsistent, especially for temperate areas.
The concept of ecosystem services can be of valuable assistance to search for a balance between
agricultural and ecological objectives. Nature-oriented measures will probably result in a decrease
in the delivery of productive ecosystem services (related to agricultural production), but it is hypoth-
esized that other productive, regulating and cultural ecosystem services might increase. Quantita-
tively evaluating and weighing of changes in ecosystem services will offer the possibility to estimate
the multidimensional impact of nature-oriented measures.
The overall objective of this project is the development of an assessment framework for the implemen-
tation of nature-oriented measures on agricultural land. These measures are: amended/reduced
fertilization on grassland, grass strips and hedgerows. Selection of these measures is based on rele-
vance in Flanders and in the Natura 2000 network. In the framework, changes in agricultural pro-
duction, in the delivery of regulating ecosystem services and in biodiversity will be balanced against
each other. Regulating ecosystem services that are considered are: carbon sequestration, nutrient
regulation, natural pest control and pollination. Balancing all these aspects allows comparison of
ecological objectives, contributing to an enhanced biodiversity management and an assessment of
socio-economic consequences and feasibility for the agricultural sector. To develop this framework,
we defined a set of work packages, each of them having an individual target. In Figure 1, the struc-
ture of the project is presented. In the first work package, we will synthesize existing knowledge on
the impact of the measures on ecosystem services and biodiversity in temperate regions through a
meta-analysis. For each measure and ecosystem service, we aim to define a quantitative relation
describing the effect of the measure on the ecosystem service delivery. This relation will later be in-
corporated in spatial models. For example, we found that between a distance of zero and two times
the tree height, starting from a hedgerow, average crop productivity is 87%, compared to a situation
with no hedgerow.
In the second work package, a field campaign is set up to quantify the effect of the measures specif-
ically in Flanders. For each measure, a specific region was selected. Selection of these regions is
based on the presence of the Natura 2000 network and relevance of the measure in the network. In
each region, agricultural plots with the according measure (either adapted fertilization, grass strips
or hedgerows) are selected. On these plots, agricultural production is followed up, pitfall traps are
installed to measure soil biodiversity and more specifically the presence of natural pest regulators,
a vegetation survey is conducted and soil samples are taken to examine soil nitrogen, phosphorus
and carbon. Data from the field campaign will be compared with results from the meta-analysis. In

45
 Figure 1: Structure of the research project

the third work package, existing ecosystem models will be fine-tuned, using the relations developed
in the meta-analysis and field campaign. This will contribute to a spatially integrated estimation of
effects of nature-oriented measures. Additionally, the delivery of ecosystem services will be valued
on plot and landscape level. In the fourth work package, the agronomic impact of the measures will
be investigated, to estimate the effect on farm management. Eventually, in the fifth work package,
all information will be integrated into a framework. For specific regions, a set of scenarios will be elab-
orated. In each of these scenarios, a different set of measures (with varying spatial configuration) will
be virtually implemented. By comparing differences in the delivery ecosystem services, an optimal
scenario can be selected.
In the presentation, we aim to present the results from the first and the second work package.

16h00 - 16h30 – Closing of the day and drink (room 200E, 01.267)

46