 our panelists later at the beginning of the part two. It will be a round table presentation. They will make their first presentation in five minutes at the start and there will be 20 minutes interaction with them with the audience through a Q&A tool. And there will be a poll of two questions popping up on your screen. So you can vote on very easy answers of this question just to warm up the audience for this debate. The third part will be about how research can answer these needs and these gaps facing the global challenges. And we will have different, an overview of different aspects of these answers from the CG initiative, from the TPP, from a specialist in NRS, from Burkina Faso. So all these seven is about doing research differently. Not only new questions of research but doing research differently. There is a strong need to examine the way we do research, the way we fund research, the way we engage with a wide range of stakeholders both locally and globally. The TPP, the transformative partnership platform is committed to explore ways to do research differently, to give scientists the way to fully and better play their role through inclusive partnerships to promote the changes that agriculture urgently needs. The TPP was founded two years ago and one of its foundation has been a call signed by several scientists from French institutions and the CGIR and explains what does mean doing research differently. We will put the link of this call in the chat. So with that, I will give the floor for the first part to Bernard Ribert for this introduction of this dossier. And with you, over to you Bernard to share your PowerPoint and to start your presentation. So thank you very much. So a few words and for this first part to present this dossier. And myself, I'm Bernard Ribert. I'm a emeritus researcher at INRAE and teacher at SSS. I'm the chair of the French Committee for International Agricultural Research which was leading this process. So this part is a way to present and even to present this last number of the dossier of Agropolice Internationale which is an organization in Montpellier gathering all research organization in high education organization French and from abroad in Montpellier. And it has been published early September to be in phase with the UN Food Systems Summit and it's about agroecological transformation for sustainable food systems. And as it's been told is an initiative from French researchers and CGI colleagues. Why is this dossier? So agency of agroecological transformation of agro-food systems linked to SDGs has been one of the game changers discussed at UN Food Systems Summit this year as I told, it's why we published it at that time. Clearly diversity of agriculture on this planet here holds the way to a variety of agroecological transition pathways, different baselines, input usage levels, socioeconomic context and particularly different labor costs and availability. And also a diversity in terms of means for public action, subsidy levels that could be reoriented to incentivize change, research and extension. So also similarities in terms of understanding the biology, ecology and socioeconomics of farming and agroecosystems and the functioning and how to manage risks including those triggered by climate change and it will be on the agenda next week in Glasgow with the COP26. We'll contribute to this issue. As Etienne told us, the authors are about 500 scientists and experts from around 100 national and international universities and research organizations from France, among others, CIRAD, INRAI and IRD and abroad and a lot of universities from the North, from the South, from Asia, Africa, Latin America and so on and from all CGIR centers. This dossier is not meant to be excessive, of course. The research examples presented reflect the diversity and the dynamics of scientific and technological research at national and international levels. For that four, we also try to link the five levels proposed by Stefan Glissmann on food system transformation with the 10 elements of the AFARO presented in the COAG in 2018 and also the certain principle of the HLPA report published in 2019. And this was very important for us in order to build the structure of the dossier, of the booklet. And it's why you can find also the organization according to these five levels and the structure of the dossier is in three parts. Two parts, these two parts, part one and part two are linked to these five levels proposed by Stefan Glissmann. So one in part one, it's mainly about the agro-ecosystems and chapter one is increasing the efficiency of practices in order to reduce the use of costly scarce or on that environmentally damaging inputs. Chapter two, substituting intensive external input used by biodiversity-derived ecosystems functions. And chapter three, we designing agro-ecosystems on the basis of a new set of ecological processes from farm and landscape. And this will be illustrated just after myself by Stefan Glissmann who is working in Icarda, Morocco. And part two is on the level four and five of Stefan Glissmann. That's chapter four, identifying and overcoming constraints within food systems to achieve a great ecological transitions at scale by collecting producers and consumers. And this will be illustrated by Stefan McMillan just after me too from, with working at the craft in Kenya. Chapter five is the last one, of course, and really at stake after the summit, building a new global food system based on equity, participation, democracy and justice. And then we had a part three with between them chapter six about key processes, methods and tools for agroecology. And this will be illustrated by Muriel Mambrini about the living labs. And Muriel Mambrini is working at in high entrance. So to conclude and to wrap up all of this work because it was, we did that during seven months' work and really we have to go in deep with all these research presentations. So I can merge new research questions and a brand new way of doing research as also a tiered advocate too. That changing the paradigmatic vision of food systems leads to addressing multifunctionality of agriculture. Agriculture is not only the production of agricultural goods, food or not. To recognize the urgent and imperious necessity to respect ecosystems and martial nature and its resources, including biodiversity and its function. Then you need to address questions that have been overlooked by conventional approaches like soil biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, optimization of functions at plot and landscape levels, resilience towards changes and particularly climate change. Moreover, agroecology is dovetail with principles such as fairness, social values, diets, land and local resource governance which implies that scientific research but also focus on addressing questions linked to labor and market organization to stakeholder interactions, behavioral change mechanisms, social inclusion, public policies, added value distribution along agri-food supply chains and so on. Agroecological approaches also imply new ways of doing research and contributing to innovation. Agroecological transformation requires hybridization of scientific knowledge, technological and institutional innovations, local actors, capacities and knowledge, public policies, infrastructures and means. It is a context dependent process with multiple transformational solutions and pathways and local innovation systems of a crucial role to play. So, agroecology needs a collective approach. It is not a one by one advocacy. It has to be managed collectively taking into account the diversity of people, diversity of knowledge, of means, of geographical and ecological position in a watershed or things like that. Scientific research, therefore, has to produce knowledge to fuel these local innovation systems through new ways of cooperation with stakeholders, including policymakers, of course. This means accounting for the complexity of agroecosystem functioning in a diverse range of situations and settings by connecting biological, technical and socio-political questions using inclusion, systemic, interdisciplinary, participatory and transdisciplinary research. It is an advocacy to change our way of working with the authors and the world with change not only by scientists but by the people who are living on this planet and working all together and with scientists and overcoming tensions and confrontations we have. These are some of the ambitions of the transformative partnership platform on agroecology TPP with organizing this meeting and that has been jointly built by French research organizations and CGIR two years ago. Bernard, oh yeah, can you last one? Go ahead, yeah. That's the last one. That's it. Just to say that the editorial board is made of French people and people from CGIR. If you want to contact Isabelle Amsalem, we supported us for all this job or myself. It's dossier is available in hard copy and digital format in English and will be in French at the end of this year. And issues can be downloaded as this address which could be also put on the Q and R or the discussion. So we have a DOI, then you can find it anywhere. Okay, that's it. Thank you very much for your attention. Thank you Bernard. So now we have three authors of these dossiers. First, Stephanie Christman from... You have the floor, Stephanie, from Ikala. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to present here on this new agroecological approach farming with alternating pollinators which benefits pollinators, natural animals, yields and offers transformative change to agriculture. Agroecology is often costly add-on to conventional agriculture but this is not scalable to low and middle income countries. For instance, pollinator protection is mainly done by wildflower strips which require rewards to farmers and the European Union can pay that but low and middle income countries cannot. Therefore, about 10 years ago I started to develop farming with alternative pollinators. Farm fields use only 75% of the field for the main crop and 25% for habitat enhancement but not with wildflowers, weeds in the language of farmers but with marketable habitats enhancement plans like oil seeds, spices or vegetables, nesting support out of local materials and water support and then we compare in comparison to monocultural control fields the impact of habitat enhancement concerning diversity and abundance of pollinators, natural enemies and pests and net income per surface. So here you see the results from a large project in Morocco but we did such projects also in other countries. So the diversity of wild pollinators and of natural enemies is much higher in pup fields than in control fields while the pest abundance in pup fields is on average a 65% lower and as we used for agroecosystems, seven main crops and a lot of farm fields is a really robust average. So this means pup works as a major positive preventive pest control, same as seeds coated with neonicotinoids but a pup does not have these negative impacts on biodiversity. In the 65% Can you put in full presentation the screen? Okay. Yeah. In 65% reduction of pest abundance is an argument for many farmers not to use pesticides at all. Here we see the impact on net income. It's on average more than 120% though we even added additional costs for harvesting the marketable habitat enhancement plants though the farmers did themselves. The incentive is method inherent and performance-related. It is economically self-sustaining different to the wildflower strips. And that has a high potential for agroecological intensification and combative malnutrition. We simulated this on the example of small lotus in Morocco with different assumptions to show in the upper graph the potential for higher food security, more produce and in the lower graph for reduce of land use change for food production. This is quite important as for centuries the land use change decreases semi-natural lands and this really threatens biodiversity and it's overdue to bend this curve. I don't know why we have now this other voice Can you stop me at the voice? Yeah, you have run your time I think. But I don't get back to the screen now. No, your screen is black. Please exit your presentation mode. Okay, you can continue speaking. Fabio, can you show the last screen? So this is an example for palm-driven pollinated protection and also an example for economically self-sustaining agroecology which has much advantages in comparison to costly add-ons to conventional agriculture. Thank you. Thank you, Stefanie. And sorry for the little problem with the last slide. The program presentation will be on online with the recording. With that, I would pass the floor to Stéphane MacMillan from CFOI-CRAF. Please, you have five minutes, Stéphane. Okay, hello everybody. I'm very happy to be here today to share some of our work with you on customizing nutritious food tree portfolios for delivering more diversified diet in local food production systems. So we all know that there are multiple challenges affecting our global and local food systems and one of them has been and is this narrow focus on a few crops that are nutritionally limited, undermining human health and also degrading ecosystems. And the availability of micronutrient rich crops like fruits and vegetables are often lacking in these local systems and they're highly season dependent. So in terms of local food systems, we need to look towards ways that can transform them for delivering a greater diversity of nutrient dense food and this calls for contextually relevant solutions. So one of these solutions or approaches that we've devised at CFOI-CRAF are these nutritious food portfolios and they're all about promoting diversity in local food production systems. These are carefully designed portfolios combining a diversity of different food tree species, so not only those that have fruits but also other tree foods such as nuts and leaves with vegetable pulp and staple crops to address seasonal harvest gaps and also micronutrient deficits which may exist in local diets. We co-develop these portfolios with communities based on site-specific information on food production diversity on the local diets and also the priorities of the community. So really the portfolios are all about enhancing the seasonal availability of a greater diversity of more nutrient dense food. As I mentioned, it's all about co-development with our communities. So to devise these site-specific recommendations we need to understand more about the sites. So in a first step we look at food production diversity. Here we assess the different food and fodder production diversity and we're really keen to also understand what are the indigenous and underutilized species that specific communities may be using and managing in their landscapes. In a second step it's really important for us to understand food consumption diversity. What do the local diets look like? What are people consuming? And importantly what foods and micronutrients may be missing from their local diet so that we can fill those gaps with some suitable recommendations. In a third step we also undertake a priority setting with the communities and this is really where we come together with the communities to discuss the full extent of species diversity that they use and manage. We go into the detail of the different functional uses that are important to the communities also based on gender and generational differences so that we really understand what these communities are interested in. We also identify opportunities and challenges related to these species and challenges may refer to a lack of quality planting material for certain food species whereas opportunities may relate to market potential and the economic value. So once we've had all this rich discussion with the communities we're then able to prioritize with the communities what are the species and the functional uses that are most important to them to meet their multiple needs. During this process we also develop seasonal food harvest calendars which are site specific because quite often we are lacking technology data for when these different species may be harvested. So using all this data we're then able to customize these portfolios to a given site and to given communities and I'm going to show you an example from Katoi County in Kenya. So we first start with the prioritized list of food tree species that the communities have identified. The ones highlighted in yellow are indigenous species. We then do this for vegetable, pulse and staple crops. So this is really to take a broader dietary approach with the portfolios. We map each of the species for the specific months that they are available across the calendar year, taking particular note of the months when these communities may be most stretched by higher peaks of food insecurity. In a subsequent step we then match each of the species for their micronutrient value considering vitamin A, C, iron and folate. And what we've done is we have developed a scoring system to simplify this nutritional information to indicate whether species may be a low source, a medium source, or a high source. And this really offers a good decision support tool for communities and other stakeholders to select species not only based on when they're available but also their micronutrient value and what they can deliver in local diets. Ultimately the portfolios are a contextually relevant recommendation. It's all about promoting greater diversity of species on farms to enhance the seasonal food resilience of local communities and diversified diets. Indigenous and underutilized species should not be overlooked because quite often they have high nutritional value, they're more resilient and adapted to their landscapes and they're very much linked to culture and tradition. We also develop the portfolios with each of the communities that we work with. So this is really all about empowering communities by using their own knowledge. It's centered around their participation in the process, their social values and diets, their priorities for economic diversification plus other principles of agroecology. In addition to these recommendations that we devise with different communities we also engage in outreach and impact in these smallholder farming communities and this relates to the seed system dimension to make sure that communities have access to quality planting material as well as relevant agriculture and nutritional information as a correspond to the recommended portfolios. We've now developed these portfolios across 17 different sites in East Africa and this approach can now be expanded and adapted to different regions and contexts. Thank you, Stefa. Thank you. Thank you, that's great. Thank you, that's very illustrative and fascinating research. So with that I would pass to Muriel Mambrini from INRAE for the last illustration of one of these research of the portfolio of the dossier. Muriel, you have the floor for five minutes. Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. It's really shaking to see your search work and all the ones of the world that has been presented in the dossier and there we had the chance to present the already project, our current project which aims to build the framework of a transnational network for living life or agroecology transition. As you said, Mr Chairman, agroecology transition means a strong evolution of the way we produce and share knowledge. So why living labs can help then? To situate living labs we can keep in mind that there are open innovation arrangements set around three principles, concern the users, promote co-creation and innovate in real conditions. They are really at the center of the interface between the four spaces considered by innovation, technology, intelligence, solutions and combination of talent. And as a matter of fact, they are providing economical values but also social innovation. They are diverse, they have been developing many different fields but they are adapted and they are diverse because they are adapted to the purpose and real conditions in which they are operating. But what they have in common is that the activities of co-creation are really well suited for development and having collective experimentation. The context of real life use is really central and facilitates the share of knowledge and also the share of risks. The participants are really a combination between public, private, academic and citizens in a different proportion but they are combined. And the aim is not only to innovate but living labs have also an improving effect. So knowledge intensive, they offer capacity to accommodate between science and practice to co-experiment and share risk and know from local experience. And their participants are really keen to network because they want to share their practice. So promoting the development of living labs appear to policymakers as a way to open and unlock the system of individual innovation. In France and Canada, for example national programs have been launched in a very unusual way. Putting first the co-creation with the users locally either for territorial development or for gaining resilience in the agriculture sector in Canada. The results are that in France 10 among the 24 projects selected for territorial development deals with agroecology transition. They split high at the agenda at the regional, national agenda agriculture and food supply questions. In Canada, 5 big living labs are currently running bridging scientists from very different fields with local producers and policymakers to improve resilience. So we have outlined the unique features of such living labs situated on each side of the Atlantis. One of such feature is the strong relatedness of the living labs with the agriculture research and their capacity to generate multi-actor processes. So when the EU appealed for the design of a framework, we candidate it. So what we living lab bring specifically for agroecology transition. So we translated the different frames that Bernard Hubert exposed at the beginning into the types of activities that can be expected to happen on field. On one side, we categorized the activities that can be seen in the agri-food system and on the other side the activities that will help taking to a conduct context. And clearly what living labs will help to do is really to bridge those two phases to really accelerate the transition. But what I would like to point out with you is a representation of what is going in the living labs for the scientists. And I like this representation of specialists in quality and agronomists who was really used to work with the different specialists to provide a solution for the users. Where is his experience in a living lab was really putting the user at the center helps the different experts to work more together and to for increasing the water quality through iteration. And you can see here that the shift of paradigms effect of the living labs is going on. So of course, living labs are not old but what we can really say is that they are really resuited for what is needed for agroecology transition. Our work for proposing the right framework for the future network of living labs and research infrastructure pursues has been a pleasure to share with your first results and we'd be more than happy to get your insights and know better the initiatives worldwide to improve. Thank you very much for your attention. Thank you very much Maria. It was very clear and crisp and these three illustrations of this dossier, I hope it gives you the willingness to get to this dossier because it's fascinating the diversity of the landscape of research in agroecology in this dossier mobilizing over 500 researchers around the world. So without waiting more slightly behind the time so we're going to pass to part two about the I would say the perspective from outsiders of research about the needs of the researcher. I would ask to the three panelists to keep their camera on so everybody can see the panelists there and I will ask the question about how do you see the need of doing research differently? Are there specific knowledge gaps or domains that requires new research investments? Are there new ways of doing research that you recommend for research? So I would pass first the floor to His Excellency the Ambassador Miguel Garcia-Winder from Mexico. Miguel you have the floor for five minutes. Thank you Dr. Heislein. Allow me to start by thanking the organizers and tell you how deeply honor I am to participate in this conversation not only honor but humble to share the floor and I'm sure that in the audience we have tremendous vast knowledge. I just hope I can contribute a little bit. Let me start by saying that my country, Mexico, has a very long standing tradition in agriculture. Much more before we started using the term agriculture and probably since the 1950s and 1960s for the previous years we have different names at Novotanics Campesino Systems, Campesino Productions and it is important for you to look into the Mexican experience. There are two works that I would recommend. One is a work by Astier published in 2015 that makes a great summary of the history of ecology in Mexico social movements and the scientific movements and also it gives you insight of some of the traditional science and innovation in this process. The other is a work of Glitzman in 1981 with a seminar work where he brings the issues of agriculture to an area that basically the tropical areas. Mexico also has the present time and in the past a very strong institutional arrangement that allows agriculture should allow the agriculture the national law development climate change environment forestry all of these laws set the basis so science cannot progress unless we have a tremendous set of institutional principles and in the current administration we have a very strong effort to put agriculture in mainstream and there is a group called Kisemata is doing a great job. The other thing is important in unique capacity to do this and Mexico has one series of institutions from the traditional institution like Chapingo and Collegio Pograduals to younger institutions like Collegio de Frontera del Sur who are working on agriculture and have specific programs and training in agriculture. If you ask me what type of research is needed and this is my personal opinion coming one time I was a researcher coming from my opinion. I think we need to increase scientific research around agriculture. Yesterday by accident he came to my desk a paper who shows that bacteria, viruses and fungi are important for drought resistance in plants so we cannot only story what the plant does but we need to story how the system goes so we need scientific knowledge and we are in an opportunity to bridge the divide between the hardcore only has to be empirical and the hardcore scientists we had to find a way to bring this. The second area that I think we need to research is what are the policy innovations that are needed so we need to work on creating new policies and new innovations. The third area I'm sorry I don't have time for this but the time is short we can probably this call later on but the other research and I think some of my previous speaker already suggested we need to do research on social interactions market and consumers. This is tremendously important for us to contain. So there are some critical issues that I see and the critical issues are basically three types investments for the development of this new research. The subsidies we need to have subsidies for this to succeed and we have to have some sort of rights and protection of rights particularly indigenous and local rights so these are some of the critical issues that we need to address in research. In conclusion I think we are at a state that we can bridge the divide between the different cultures and I want to finish with a phrase from Fernandez Cholocochi which was the father of our ecology for many of us is that we need to develop programs that are congruent with our history custom traditions ambitions of the world that is there is no solution to fit all and basically the research has to be at the local level. Thank you very much and I took 24 more seconds than I expected. Thank you. Thank you very much Ambassador that was a great public view from policy makers we come back to that in the round table debate. Now I will give the floor to Guy Four who is a policy officer in Paris European Commission Guy you have the floor for five minutes. Merci je vais donc parler en français so please please put your interpretation channel at the bottom of the screen there will be interpretation in English and Spanish. Thank you go ahead Guy. Ok, so je vais parler en français A INPA on support on finance les actions de recherche et innovation et en particulier on finance les recherches menées dans le cadre du CG mais aussi on a tout un programme tout une initiative appelée désirat visant à accompagner la transformation des systèmes alimentaires pour traiter les questions du changement climatique mais avec une approche agro-écologique et de plus en plus on pousse cette dimension et on est convaincu et c'est une partie de notre argumentaire que l'on a besoin de recherche pour développer les approches agro-écologique et pour lever certains goulots d'étranglement et pour arriver à des performances qui soient tout à fait supérieures à celles des systèmes conventionnels donc on a besoin de la recherche mais pour ça on pense qu'on a besoin d'une recherche différente de la recherche conventionnelle c'est-à-dire qu'on a besoin d'une recherche holistique, systémique pour comprendre la complexité des interactions écologiques mais aussi pour prendre en compte les dimensions sociales au niveau des systèmes de production des chaînes de valeur, des territoires et puis on a besoin d'une recherche qui permet de produire des connaissances qui sont adaptables et utiles au niveau local et donc de travailler pour cela avec les acteurs local en mélangeant avec 100 connaissances scientifiques et connaissances des acteurs locaux donc on pousse beaucoup et dans le cas de désirats c'est un des principes d'une part à des approches multi-acteurs et je pense que les living labs qui ont été présentés auparavant s'inscrivent dans cette perspective mais aussi des approches partenariales où on doit travailler entre différents organismes de recherche pour nous l'Europe et les pays partenaires en Afrique, Asie, Amérique, Latine mais aussi avec le CG et des approches partenariales entre acteurs de la recherche et autres acteurs du secteur privé du secteur public, organisation de producteur donc multi-acteurs partenariens c'est quand même des mots clés qui paraissent parfois évident dans certaines enceintes mais qui dans d'autres enceintes où l'on traite de la recherche ne sont pas des mots on doit aussi dans ce context-là finalement pousser pour que la recherche ou les chercheurs jouent des rôles différents, bien sûr production de connaissance, bien sûr mis au point de technologie pour changer les pratiques des agriculteurs, des opérateurs des chaînes de valeur ou des territoires mais aussi des rôles autour de la facilitation des processus d'innovation des rôles pour de formation de renforcement des capacités des acteurs, c'est les acteurs ce n'est pas la recherche qui pousse à l'innovation et puis des rôles d'interaction, d'appui aux politiques publiques pour les améliorer donc véritablement on veut à la fois une forme d'excellence dans la recherche mais aussi une recherche qui soit impliquée dans les processus d'innovation donc cette façon de voir la recherche n'est pas forcément admise par toutes les cercles de chercheurs mais non plus par tous les bailleurs de fond notamment pour certains mécanismes de financement qui cherchent à obtenir des résultats plus centrés sur la production de connaissance et des résultats à plus court terme pour appuyer l'innovation il faut donc que l'on puisse admettre et ça c'est un enjeu dans le cadre de nos enceintes au niveau des bailleurs de fonds, institutions publiques d'accompagnement du développement que le changement prend du temps et que ce sont des investissements dans le partenariat avec les acteurs dans le temps et que le temps du projet n'est qu'un instrument de mise en œuvre des actions et que l'on boit s'inscrire dans la durée et cette conception cette prise en compte de la durée qui n'est quelque chose qui n'est pas toujours partagé par l'ensemble des opérateurs de développement le dernier point sur lequel je voudrais insister c'est sur les mécanismes de financement on a à la fois besoin de s'inscrire dans la durée donc d'avoir un accompagnement des acteurs dans la durée mais on a aussi besoin de s'entendre sur des programmes de recherche qui s'inscrivent dans au moins le moyen terme et je pense que l'expérience du CG avec la mise en place de ces initiatives fait partie de cette démarche-là où l'on crée des programmes avec une vision un moyen et long terme et on s'inscrit dans des financements dans la durée au-delà de financements de projets de courte de courte durée le dernier point que je veux soulever autour des financements c'est l'importance de travailler avec les acteurs non seulement de la recherche mais les partenaires pour créer ces programmes de recherche et pour pouvoir élaborer la programmation dans le cadre de la programmation de l'Union européenne 2021-2027 sur des programmes d'appui à l'agroécologie mobilisant la recherche on va développer une série de concertations avec les acteurs de la recherche et de la société civile pour essayer d'identifier les gables de connaissance et ce qui pourrait être utile en termes de recherche pour accompagner la transition agro-écologique merci merci beaucoup merci beaucoup pour cette présentation d'un point de vue de fond durant la débat je suis sûr maintenant je voudrais passer par la flotte à million de belet avec le coordonnage général pour les alliances pour le food sovereignty en Afrique représentant la société civile perspective de la recherche merci beaucoup et merci pour la invitation j'ai toujours dit que l'Afrique c'est la gravière de so many initiatives so many programmes I think there are a lot of explanations for that and one of them I think is the way research is done to just give you an illustration I remember giving a presentation at the Stockholm Resilience Centre once and somebody asked me you know we have produced this highly productive that is to women farmers in Uganda and women farmers wouldn't accept it do you know what the reason is did you ask them did you participate in the research itself so there are so many examples like that I think the participation is one of the certain principles of agro-écology and in the 10 principles of in the 10 elements of agro-écology there is co-creation of knowledge what does it mean why do we co-create knowledge why do we have to participate farmers, fisher folks, pastoralists those affected by all those are not affected those are part of the food system they know the seed varieties diversity they have names for them the soil varieties that they have they know the insects and they can explain to you the interaction that they have between the landscape and their farm their animals even the cosmos so we have to we have to really recognize that knowledge but there is this epistemological superiority among the researchers in most of the cases so they talk about they give lip service participation but they go to fields and they don't really participate them the only participation is by giving data, by giving information and they say that they are participated they have to participate in the problem identification to begin with in the kind of data that should be collected in the data collection and also in analysis I know this can be challenging to so many researchers there are kinds of research but they have to be participating in it has to be a genuine participation and agroecology talks about you know science practice and social movements and we need research around the social movement we operate in Africa for example under this green revolution agenda the green revolution agenda has to be in Africa and we can give the number of examples that it's not working in Africa it's impacting in Africa there are a lot of researchers minted out of this process they are doing a lot of research and their research in most of the research centers is to produce seeds which do respond to agrochemicals so what kind of research do we need we have to really accept this context and we have to be research around social movements there has to be a social show on the political economy of the full system so that we understand the socio-political context around the revolution thank you very much for this kind of sobering balance of conventional research in Africa but I think it raised some very relevant points about the challenge lying ahead for researchers to be efficient in promoting changes thank you million now I would like to finish this round table with Miss Rick Oliveira who is a senior global technical specialist at EFAD to give the perspective of a multilateral agency for development Rick you have the floor very much and also thank you for the invitation to participate in this panel so maybe just a very short overview of what we do in agroecology in EFAD we have recently done a stock take on what we do and it turned out that like 60% of our projects are actually promoting agroecology practices in some way of the other so this is quite a good number so what has this been driven by is driven by the farmers themselves because many EFAD projects are actually designed to be demand driven so the design contains that we invest through business plans or production development plans that are presented by farmers group and their organizations so in a lot of those agroecology is there so that's why we invest in it the other reason why we invest so much in that is because of EFAD mainstreaming priorities so we can clearly see from this stock take and what is driving this is our priority of climate change, resilience and nutrition which has also been mentioned by other speakers these are very important for agroecology offset the other way around agroecology is very good at supporting those mainstreaming priorities so 96% of projects supporting agroecology in the EFAD portfolio is also supporting climate change and this is compared to only 18% not supporting agroecology so we see a clear benefit there and the same can be said on nutrition where 92% of projects supporting agroecology supports nutrition compared to only 20% of projects not supporting agroecology so this is a little bit just a picture of what we do this study also looped into what type of agroecology activities are actually done in our projects both at farm level, landscape level in creating access to markets that values agroecology produce products and also the support for the policy enabling environment so when we look at the activity groups around co-creation and sharing of knowledge that has been mentioned here today is very at the core of what agroecology does is in its values we found that 85% of projects are supporting this type of policy group so that is quite high so when they work on agroecology they actually have this element included this is positive but maybe not that surprising because EFAT has a very long tradition in supporting farm of field schools and that is as many of you may know and approach that is dedicated to experimental learning among farmers and in that sense fits very well with co-creation however this is at the core of farm of field school we also do see throughout our portfolio that sometimes it's watered a little bit down to more being used as a demonstration plot approach where the experimentation part is less strong or sometimes even absent altogether so as part of rethink with small scale producers participation in research and support for community led research at Genvers for further upscaling of agroecology there is a need for refreshing this farm of field school approach as an important interest point for participatory action research which is at the core of the thinking as I mentioned in agroecology as an investment organization that is focused at the support of investing with farmers through the government we don't support upstream research so our core focus is that exactly these aspects of research the policy that told the action research with farmers one weakness that we often see in our projects to make this happen more effectively is small scale of farmers lack of capacity and tradition for even simple record keeping so this is down to the very great unity so as if we should propose but an important role for researchers would be in this policy research approach to be to facilitate farmers own research agenda and their capacities with setting up their experience record keeping and analyzing data and even using this data for the decision making so I think that's the role researchers could also play how do we involve farmers in research and give them the capacities that they need to be able to innovate when they manage to do that and have quite transformative impacts one example of that is from EFAS project in the semi-arid region in the north eastern part of Brazil this these projects are using what is called agricultural log approach and these are books where women keep record on the diversity of crops they cultivate in their backyards gardens and also what they collect in landscape for food and for income generation for their families so these log books have proven to be a very powerful way for the women to learn and share with each other but also visualize their work and contributing to the family and community economy and the nutrition so this has led to an increase in their production activity so they get excited about this even more because it has a value it's a visualized value and the use of agro biodiversity is increasing and even more women are joining in and another approach that we have also learned from our portfolio in Brazil that we are trying to replicate is to invest instead of investing through business plan with farmers groups of farmers that we instead invest through development plans for agro-ecology transition proposed by a network of actors in a territory so they come together and propose to the project funding what they want to do and how they want to do it together and these actors include everything from the farmers organization of course at the core but it can be a lot more than one so we don't go farm organization by farm organization we encourage them to work together and come with this joint proposal but then they can also include the NGOs that are often providing technical assistance and other type of support and they can improve research partners by working with the farmers in introducing innovations and solving concrete barriers in their farming and commercialization systems so this would be another way of investing for us instead of investing through just one producer organization which can sometime have limitations and engagement with action research institution on their own but if they work together in networks and they have this more territorial view that would be a new way of investing and trying to link all the dots my final point would be on the research gaps for agriculture upscaling even though it's improving we still find that we need much more evidence on the socio-economic and the food security benefits for small scale producers of different archaeological farming systems as an investment organization with a clear mandate to address rural poverty we need this evidence in our guidance in collaboration with the governments farmers, producers of station in finding sustainable pathways out of poverty and the role our colleagues can play in this we need this evidence so hard data that's really needed so in that sense we need researchers to work with small scale producers in documenting how cost structures and income for the farms and landscapes are changing in the agricultural institution process how is this increased in the diversity of output securing more resilience in income streams that they often will experience when they transit to agriculture system so it's important to look at the annual income from farm output instead of just looking at the yields per hectare for one crop because this is the particularity of agriculture systems they are resilient they are resilient because they have multiple outputs having a lot more evidence in these aspects would also support our work with farmers and development partners in finding the best way of investing so setting up the best support mechanism for off-scaling agroecology thank you thank you very much Richard we kind of behind the schedule and I see there are many questions in the audience thank you for this full perspective very complimentary with that I would invite you to ask a question specifically for the outsider's perspective on research and we try to treat the other question in the part three with that I would like to start with the pause very simple pause I'm going to read the question and you're going to have the questions on pop-up screen the first poll will be and you have to vote to answer for this poll what is the first priority for doing research differently for you in agroecology first to become more inclusive and participatory to be more systemic to have a more full system and territorial approach or to be more action oriented and aligned with the SDGs just to warm up so you have just one minute to answer that and we're going to then put on the screen the results for this almost 400 participants in the meantime we're going to synthesize some of the questions we have many questions you can vote for the questions also to make them higher in priority rank and we try to treat some of them okay we're going to close the poll shortly so if you haven't voted yet please I'll give you another 10 seconds okay I think you can you can go ahead there are still some questions coming in okay I'm going to cut it in 5 4 3 2 1 okay alright so here are the results okay so there is clearly the first point about inclusive and participatory is an echo to what has been said by several of them of the panelists about analyzing the data and create change so that's good to know 42% for that and other obviously answer our rights as well we go to the second question now second poll which of the 5 research domains that are here are most missing today just one choice biophysical mechanisms for production agroecological markets value change and consumption public policies to enable agroecological transition private sector engagements or business models or behavioral changes for both producers and consumers so go ahead make your choice okay so there is a big voting for public policies one of the implementation gaps I think it's fair but as well you can see that the behavioral changes in private sector and markets are also present in the vote so it shows that the basic research on mechanism is going behind maybe because of the audience but obviously it seems that we have a lot of results already but not always the capacity to promote change at local level so thank you very much for this poll and with it I would like to start redirecting some of the questions we received to the finalists there are two questions coming from the audience about the question on research on markets one of the question is about how the current market systems are able to respond to the agroecological approach so and how you see the public policy role in this market situation and so I would just go around the panelist and I would also like to put another question which came frequently in the panelist presentation about the capacity of the actors if you can connect these two questions because in the markets you have many actors involved in this question of capacity and the capacity also of researchers to interact with them is key so with that I would like to give to million first the floor to answer in two minutes and to react to two minutes to this question of markets million market research is very much important we did research on markets what kind of agroecological markets are conducive to agroecology you can go to our website to see the result of that research it has shown us that we need to focus on territorial markets and the focus should also be convening agroecological entrepreneurs and the connection between service providers and agroecological entrepreneurs was huge the people who working in banks and other entities do not know how to supply the necessary material to agroecological entrepreneurs but the capacity I think there has to be probably a teaching of the research world on how to interact with local communities it doesn't mean that they know how to do it as I say they go with this epistemological superiority to begin with they are superior the local community there has to be the equal level of interaction of the two knowledge systems it is happening in some instances there are ways of how to do it so it's not that it's not tried it is out there but this has to be taken in researchers have to be really taught that the quality level also as it is said probably this documentation is not the practice it is probably the oral knowledge historical knowledge knowledge of the landscape it may not be written but it is there so the question is how do what kind of methodologies do you use to mobilize this knowledge that's very much important so it becomes also a methodological question so thank you very much thank you just to follow up on your answer I would ask if you with this program who is aiming at change at scales in agroecology specifically this question of capacity is very linked to the question of scale there is also the capacity of researchers to engage with stakeholders and millions mention that but what about the capacity of the other stakeholders who have also answered about that and she touched that in her presentation but how did you deal with that in this program Ghi thank you in the program of the Iranians the question of reinforcement of the capacity of the actors and one of the key principles of the program because the actors who innovate as I said earlier are not the researchers who have created this capacity of innovation especially because the question of innovation at scale which is a lot in the context of the buyers we must have impacts at scale in the context of agroecology do not rely on the passage at scale of standard technology as we have been able to do for the green revolution but goes through a change at scale we will say the process of accompanying actors so that they identify themselves solutions we can draw lessons we can have examples of what is happening elsewhere but in each territory, in the end actors must find their own solutions and for that must have the capacity to do in the framework a particular accent will be put on the reinforcement of the actors' capacity to innovate in their particular financing so that they can themselves lead research and innovation and themselves develop collaborations with the research somewhere reverse the look and give the capacity to the actors to lead their own research and innovation an example we work with Agricorps an agency to support producers to put in place a project reinforcement of the capacity of producers organizations to lead research and accompany innovation processes in agroecology and these are the organizations that will mobilize research to bring this scientific knowledge and we think that this way of doing can also balance the efforts of reinforcement of the capacity by putting the actors in a situation of experimentation thank you very much Guy that's a very strong statement you said about it's not research that innovates but it's more the actors so I would like to ask to follow up on that about the capacity to innovate and the scale of change because EFAT's remit is exactly to promote the change of scales so Riker what could you say about that the capacity role in your programs I think what we gain a lot from is this demand-driven designs that we have so people can propose and they can propose for other actors what they want to do and I think the demand-driven part is quite important if you want to have people to innovate give them a space so don't give a pre-prescription from the project side what should be financed and how things should be done and then as I said as trying to learn how do we make sure that more actors get involved to inspire each other to reach to innovation and I also gave the other point that to do more systematic innovation we need to support farmers in particular but also women's group, youth group how do you do experimental learning how do you innovate and again through the partnership so what also happened with these log groups that I mentioned was that that was in a partnership with an NGO of course that was supporting the women and then they slowly take it on their self and move it on and then visualizing and helping people to keep logs which is a simple thing for some of us but for other people it's not usual because they have so much knowledge but it's most in the head and what they talk about but having logs and really more systematic information that can actually move innovation thank you. Thank you Riker we can have a late but I have a last question for Ambassador Miguel about subsidies as you see the poll show that public policy is central for the change we have many questions we synthesize one about subsidies at the same time subsidizing the change and stopping the subsidy for conventional intensification what could you say about that is there a role for research in that understanding of subsidy role? Thank you and hopefully you don't take it against me because I'm the only one wearing a tie today but let me tell you subsidies is a very sensitive issue and I think we have been fighting for the reduction of subsidies for the last 40 years at least for 30 years and there is a strong economic interest by some big countries and regions not to do so and some of these regions are the ones promoting agriculture very big subsidies, when I use subsidies I probably have used the incentives we in the developing countries need to develop incentives for smallholder farmers to develop agricultural programs so it's not about the issue of subsidies as a whole we need to reduce subsidies there is a lot of research on the negative impacts of subsidies what I think we need to develop in agriculture is what are the best approaches to provide incentives to farmers because for many of these farmers conventional agriculture is agriculture industrial agriculture is conventional agriculture they lead the transpartum farmers the Milpa farmers they are conventional agriculture this is a psychology so maybe what we need to do and I had to rephrase probably my use of subsidies is how research can help us as a policy makers to orient incentives and instruments of policy for the smallholder farmers and the medium sized farmers to try on their agriculture access markets and make a profitable living for a better way of living the use of subsidies is sensitive and we need to raise the subsidies thank you Ambassador I can mention that TPP started a big research program on public policy and subsidy is a big part of it so with this we kind of laid I would like to pass to the third part our research can answer to all these needs new needs emerging and challenges we have many many questions we have a back office that is kind of synthesizing these questions to orient the debate but I would like to thank you again the panelists for this part 2 and we're going to pass to the part 3 about the answers of research through experience and projects so Marcela and Matthew will start with the new CG initiative that is being built now about agriculture so Marcela you have the floor I would say for 7 minutes if you can children to leave the space for the interaction with the audience thank you and thanks also for the organizers so I think by saying that during this event and also through this dossier that we are launching today we have seen the broad capacity in multiple disciplines applied to our ecology projects in the CGIR and French research organizations and in many other partners organizations so our ecology is not new in the international and national agricultural research agenda however I think that is therefore an immense opportunity right now to combine these capabilities to take our ecology research to another level and where our ecology is applied at the food system level and at the territorial level so in the CGIR we have been now not only I mean with people inside of the CGIR but also listening others thrown outside of the CGIR and also through an ample consultation in different countries and thinking okay what could be those elements that a new research agenda in our ecology should have and especially thinking on the new research agenda of the one CGIR so I want to emphasize three main aspects and my colleague Matthew McCartney who has been with me working on this thinking and facilitating this process will highlight other aspects so the first aspect I want to highlight is that we need for conducting systematic research in our ecology across different contexts and in developing countries so we are proposing for example the establishment of a network of our ecological living labs in developing countries where our ecological innovations can be co-designed from the beginning with their users and at the same time these are living labs that are going to enable to do scientific evaluation on what is the performance of those our ecological innovations not only in terms of our agricultural productivity and profitability but also how that contributes to social inclusion and environmental sustainability so that's the first aspect we need a platform for systematic research in our ecology in our developing countries the second one is that we need to do research in our ecology beyond the farm level I think we have listened already that today a lot we need to work on policies we need to work on business models and in all those contextual aspects that are needed to enable our ecological transitions and the third aspect I want to highlight at the end is that we need also to understand better what are those effective scaling strategies to do agriculture at a scale so we need to work with policymakers yes how we can integrate better policies that support our ecology at a scale we need to work with the private sector we need to work with markets to see how we understand and find effective avenues to take our ecology at a scale so I'm going to stop here because I want now to give the floor to my colleague Matthew who is going to add on these aspects that we are thinking in the CIR in terms of researching our ecology thank you Tim thank you Marcella, Matthew you have the floor thank you very much Marcella thank you Etienne as Marcella has made very clear I think the challenge for agroecology now is not only demonstrating the application of agroecology principles that can lead to resilient and sustainable agriculture but now perhaps more importantly and has been said by others is determining mechanisms that encourage uptake across a wide range of real world socio-ecological contexts and one point that is excellently the ambassador from Mexico made very clearly was that we need more research on policies and this point is also I think emphasised very clearly in the poll just now so certainly the lack of and sometimes counterproductive laws and policies and for instance subsidies are one of the more critical impediments to agroecology agroecological transformation and for this reason one of the key components of the new initiative that the CGI is putting together is to better understand the policy environment in the countries that we're going to be working in to investigate in partnership with policymakers themselves as well as communities, farmers and other stakeholders how existing policies need to change and what new policies are needed from both a national perspective but also more locally to create an enabling environment and promote the uptake of agroecology the agroecology initiative also recognises that a critical piece of the Jigsaw is more understanding of the behaviour of consumers and others and how changing behaviour can also contribute to promotion of agroecology and uptake so just as one example consumers understanding the importance for their health of more diverse food products produced in nutrient rich soils and without the application of agrochemicals and then perhaps being willing to pay a premium for food produced in this way and as a result there's also a work package in the initiative that will investigate behaviour and ways to influence behaviour not just of consumers but of all food system actors including the farmers themselves and then another critical element of the initiative is to provide a very solid evidence base of the agroecological practices not only on productivity but also the environment at landscape and regional scales and be able to compare this with other options and business as usual we want to be able to say what the impact will be on soil and water and biodiversity when agroecology is scaled up and over short and long term time scales and we want to be able to give policymakers confidence that new technologies that promote agroecology will not have unintended consequences including for sectors outside of the agricultural sector so called water and energy and so forth and we need to be able to quantify both biophysical and livelihood consequences and what's more in an era of climate change we also need to be able to say how application of agroecological practices will impact on the resilience of agrofood systems and for this reason another critical component of the initiative is a holistic assessment framework so this will require very much a multi-disciplinary approach looking at different elements of biophysical and socio-economic and a system that's developed with communities and other stakeholders to enable comparison of agroecology practices against other options including business as usual in each of the labs where we want to work and this will include of course quantifying as far as possible trade-offs and there inevitably will be trade-offs for example in terms of labour and provide evidence for strategies that might help mitigate those trade-offs so this is just very very briefly an overview of this research program that's being developed at the moment the proposal is now being written and is being submitted for funding reviews Marcelo and I are very excited about the initiative that we hope will start in January next year we think it's an innovative research program it will certainly do research differently from the way the CG has done research in the past and we think it's critically we think it focuses very much on the issues that are needed for scaling agroecology for small holders clearly this is a very urgent need if food systems are to transform rapidly over the next decade thank you very much thank you Matthew and Marcelo and I would add because I'm not sure you said it is that this initiative is gathering a wide partnership of other organizations outside the CG and it's based on this leading lab concept that is extremely participatory from the start so thank you very much for this presentation and with that I would ask to Vincent to take the floor to present the TPP which is to answer and to address the challenges that have been raised all along in this event about the challenges that research much needs so Vincent you have the floor thank you Etienne and good afternoon everyone and I'll share I have a presentation so I'll share it I hope you can see it now so my name is Vincent and I'm with C4aCraft the director of the CGI research program of forestry and yes I'll present on the transformative partnership platform which is a living response from research of some of the challenges we've seen today so I'm going to show how the TPP emerged and what it can do so the TPP has emerged from prior processes during the last decade if we go back to the reform of the CFS in 2009 with the emergence of the topic in several discussions FAO convening two global symposium 2014 and 2016 and 2017 the CFS that requested an HLP report on agroecology another innovation the report number 14 that led to the adoption in 2021 of the CFS recommendation and now the UN food system summit and the agroecology coalition so a strong global emerging demand the last decade from the the policy side and then the positioning of the international research bodies to help formulate the agenda to support implementation at scale started in the CG and with FTA making over agroecology in 2017 one of its operational priorities then Fergus Sinclair is not with us today was appointed to lead the HLP report in 2018 a collaboration that was imposed between France and the CG around three priorities climate change food system and agroecology and the dossier that is launched today is in fact one of the outputs and the outcomes of this collaboration as is and Etienne can speak about that the Montpellier international workshop in 2019 that led to the call for action I think you have had a link in the chat and the prefabrication of the TPP with its partners and then the launch of the TPP earlier this year so all of that is kind of a recent blossoming but it has quite profound roots both in the political arena and also in the research arena of I would say the last the last decade so winds of change that have accelerated the HLP report the preparation of the food system summit and then the emergence of of the coalition and what we what we could say in a way is to simplify that the TPP is in a way a baby of the CFS and also because of that it helped turn the tables at the world food system summit that in fact led to the emergence of a coalition for the transformation of food system that was very important development for the whole community so what is the role of the TPP and what are the added values first we've heard that today doing research differently to address persisting and new knowledge gaps or emerging knowledge gaps second to work with policymakers and stakeholders to address implementation gaps sometimes the solutions are there the upscaling is an issue looking at the diversity of context but within the common comprehensive approach but most importantly in all of that working demand driven not supplied driven we can know what could be interesting because of the no emergence of the coalition is to look at the work of the TPP through the lens of the coalition the TPP has facilitated the emergence of the coalition and now it could be at its service as a research and knowledge arm gathering research actors and partner working demand driven with the stakeholders and we can look today at the four objectives of the coalition and how the TPP is already contributing to each of them with some emblematic examples the first objective of the coalition is to implement the policy recommendation of CFS and the certain principles of the HRP and these are exactly the foundation of the TPP the principles so perfuses the ways of works and its operation and just to give one example very briefly here the TPP project on metrics funded by EUIDPA that implements the recommendation number two of the CFS that is to establish and apply comprehensive performance measurements and monitoring frameworks and here what the TPP will do is not to start everything from scratch there's already a lot of work that's been done the FAO tapes framework as well as other frameworks and what we're going to do in the TPP with everyone on board is to help them to link them together and to add value and this blending can be done because the TPP is not owned by one institution it gathers a set of institution actors at the table if we take the second the second objective of the coalition it is completely central to the TPP because it deal with research but here the how is more important than the what the how is to do it through promoting local innovation, transdisciplinary approaches scientists farmers, indigenous people, other stakeholders of the food system and this is why also the recommendation of the HLP the TPP is putting agency as one of its core elements meaning providing the actors the means to do the choices by themselves and to be empowered by proper governance of course they are different context and different stages of development and there is not a single transition pathway but many transition pathways we have heard that before today they are only to be understood and supported and basically we work into options by context but also I would say transitions by context the third domain of the new coalition is to strengthen the consistency of the very sectoral policies and here on the right side of this slide just to mention the example I think ATN has made reference to that the first part of the work of the TPP is to look at policies to review them but also to make advice on how policies at different level can be put in place to support the agricultural transition it's a project that is led by colleagues in Seahad if priests, if aircraft and so on many involved first phase and it's also seeking funding for its next operational phases last domain of the coalition ensuring that public and private investment promote the adoption of large scale implementation of agricultural policies and one of the very first project of the TPP that was put in place and through French funding and FTA support was to understand what are in fact what are the business cases for socio-economic variability of agricultural practice across Africa across countries and ground work so this is exactly the kind of information that you need to then support upscaling and investments by private sector so basically so much I can say in 8 minutes the TPP has really taken off very quickly but in fact it's rooted on quite solid roots and grounds gain traction, it has a governance structure that associates many partners 8 domains of research we call it the docking station or central component to perform key transversal functions it has no portfolio of course 20 million of projects that were generated by the TPP and then also 60 million of projects that are aligned or attached now to it and more in the pipeline so what's coming next I think the first thing is to try to understand how we can really support this coalition moving forward because this is the kind of tradition that we need for transformative action and we also need it because we need to make sure that the answer from research is answering the demand which will come from there then second we need to deepen the linkages with national systems as millions voice is completely fundamental here we've heard him earlier on we need to help build the 1CG initiative and we are doing that that is in the making as Marcel and Mathieu have just presented and possibly docking to the TPP because it's going to be one very strong component of that we need to grow the community there is a community of practice please everybody that has joined the webinar please join the community on practice and then reach the discussion there and then of course we need also to increase funding and here is the challenge funding for the genuine agroecological research not just a repainting thank you very much thank you Vincent for this presentation now I will pass very quickly the floor to Catherine and once she install slides I would just like to recognize there are many questions coming all very interesting questions and comments we are trying to synthesize them for the next round of interaction but I would engage the participants to take a note of the panelists and contact them if they have a specific question but we will try to follow up on all these questions very rich Catherine you have the floor for seven minutes thank you my name is Catherine Darmelé I am a tree domestication scientist based at Inera National Research Institute of Agroecological Research in Burkina Faso I am going to talk about the role of for efficient agroecological transition then there is a long term collaboration between national agricultural research system and then the international agricultural research and then also developed countries research institute I will call all these international research institute there are a lot of projects that have been implemented and there are many are going on also but so far the advantage that are concluded from this include the leveraging resources and linking to the rest of global research activity capacity building there are many students that have been trained within all these collaboration projects and then it was also opportunity for funding for the nurse that have not enough fund from their own countries but there are also some many other challenges including funding issue mainly funding issue because often it is a small part that goes to the nurse including the implementation of the projects on the ground and recently there are in 2016 there is impact assessment study that revealed that there are few critical study with results for sub-Saharan Africa in spite of 40% of the resources that was invested by the city centers and another constraints is that the capacity building is also decreasing because of the short-term research funds now they are not long-term research funds they are mostly short-term research funds but what can be the added value for including nurse to agroecological transition activities now and it was already said like the agro agricultural system there is also a need for change for collaboration between the international research institute and the nurse that is a new paradigm that we need also to change and it is rightful but it is also legitimate to get nurse solely involved in the project from quite from the beginning then that will give value to the values research being implemented by the nurse using their own fund but also the external fund collaborating with other institutions like the CG and the institute from developed countries and in line with agroecological principle that we are discussing now which is giving great importance to local knowledge and then capacity alongside with knowledge and capacity scientific knowledge alongside scientific knowledge and technology and also this context specific that we are discussing and then the contribution of the nurse can be offered because they understand better the local context they can collect data about the knowledge locally, analyze them and then improve understanding of the result that will be obtained from all these studies. The nurse can then involve also an influence more efficiently local policy discussion and discuss better with the policy maker involvement because they have some of them at least have good scientific also scientists within institution but I think we can discuss about that some requirement that agroecological is specific that the partnership also should be specific as we are discussing from and then learn what you learn from the previous mistake or error and this is why the publishing failure results research research is also good and then we can learn from that and then we can also develop productive and efficient collaborative relationship that will threaten the partnership that should be systematic way the implication for the whole system and for involvement and coordination as we said it is a holistic approach and then we need also to be active and to manage to get dynamic management of the collaboration which is a relationship for instance we can avoid getting one focal point staying for long time for many years and then let involve other scientists with other discipline we said that it should be several discipline that can work together and address the many challenges that we are facing then we also need the last slide this is the last slide we need co-learning approach improving monitoring and evaluation procedure and where all partners are learning from each other it is already said and then we need to allocate also more funds to ground work and then involve in researching the means to improve extension of that option there are some example of co-developing local solution Stephanie already talked about that like plan comparison or rural resource centres those are approaches developed at ICRA then the researches from the NARS also need to be reflexive on all these place and this TPP partnership is an opportunity I think especially the viability project that will allow us to build resilience for livelihood and also for landscape thank you so much thank you very much Catherine for this presentation and from the question I would like to bounce back to the panellists about the very specification that came frequently in the Q&A section and I would like all the panellists to put their camera on this question is about something that has been mentioned by the panellists of the part 2 the epistemic superiority of researcher mentioned my million when you interact at local level obviously Vincent presented very global things but there is also this challenge at local level about the interaction with stakeholders so this epistemic superiority the time factor that Guy mentioned before the time of change is not the project time etc the new roles for research not only producing knowledge but also promoting interaction etc the very out question of capacity that Guy mentioned the low capacity of stakeholders just to keep records but I can mention also the low capacity of researchers sometimes to connect with the local reality of the context so it's not only to to collect data from interaction is not only to collect data and to interview people is to engage with them so my question in synthesize would be first of all to Marcella what is the added value and how you see the researcher of the CG and this initiative to be able to cope with this challenge of really interaction with local people and then I will go around and maybe with also Catherine but first of all this question Marcella and Matthew now thank you thank you Tien and we have been thinking a lot on this living lab concept and how we also adapt the concept to thinking on two main things is how the living labs are those spaces that enable the scientists not only from the CIR but from national centers and also the local users to co-design together those innovations that are required to address problems that identify jointly with people living in those territories and this is actually something that million has highlighted very well I mean since the problem formulation we need to do that together with people that are going to be using that and that are the ones that ultimately make the decisions on those territories so living labs is for that co-design and co-development of innovations and it means that we scientists have to arrive with that very different attitude we need to listen we need to understand what are people's preferences and so on and the second function of the living labs is connecting so how we can connect what happen in those territories with other food system actors that are important to make those agricultural innovation long lasting and viable and scalable so that part of co-creation and connecting with others are key features of the living labs and of course these living labs benefit if I mean this living lab benefit if we have like a network of living labs across different contexts so we can make comparisons of different agricultural transition pathways so I want to stop there because my colleagues may want to say something else that's connected with another aspect of the question is that how researchers are evaluated so far in the CGN in many other research organizations they're evaluated by publication and they're not evaluated by the capacity to connect with local people so this question is very important I would like to follow up on another question that has been raised in the public in the audience about how you measure the agroecological change in your research so it's obvious it's not only the yield and Vincent mentioned that it's connected with social and economic aspect but what are the set of indicators to tackle the diversity of situation and maybe Vincent can touch this a little bit because I know that in the TPP we have the viability project and Catherine can complete the answer as well what is the set of indicators for the performance of agroecology well thanks it's a good question and it comes back to in fact your first one is that in fact the performance of agroecology is something that works for the farmers and for the value change now what we've seen is we're building a toolbox that goes from the plot to the farm to the value change and to the food system to look at different dimensions of what it means performance but ultimately and this is the reason of agency putting agency at the core is that the trade-offs the choices will need to be made by the actors themselves and not by others that's often a critique of conventional agriculture that the solutions are imposed to farmers which is also a critique to research in the past the way it was traditionally done with the kind of classical pilot phase in experimental farms and then scaling up in the fields that could never be as good as the pilot and basically the farmers were the corporates no here we're doing in fact as we like to say the farmers are doing the research and we're learning from that and from the options now what it would mean is and just to mention also one of the points of your very interesting first question is we need to work differently also with economic actors with corporates so for instance when you need when you when we have a project currently in para with with Amazon and the Nature Conservancy to develop a new agroforestry diversified agroforestry system over degraded pastures these are lands that are overgrazed are not productive anymore but the bottleneck is not necessarily the technical aspects in the field it is how the corporatives are able to treat diversity of produce transform a diversity of produce sell them etc so this really needs that in fact good research on farming systems needs to be complemented by the research or options on the enabling environment okay okay so we need to get a bit our hands dirty also with that okay so it's linked also with the capacity of researchers to do that I would last question with Catherine because that has been raised in the audience about the rights of farmers and smallholders since interaction is not only collecting the data and sending the USB key at the end of the project with the results that means that the rights of the farmers in this research project is at stake and the right of farmers organization so how you from a nurse perspective you see the legitimacy of this living lab with international researchers to respect the rights of farmers and and ultimately the restore the trust of farmers to research because somebody in the audience mentioned that there is not always trust between farmers and researchers so how do you see restoring the trust with farmers in their rights and in their expectation to reinforce their capacity to innovate Catherine in few minutes I think one thing is also increasing the awareness regarding what is what is being doing because we have a lot of constraints and the farmers are aware of that and then we increase this and sensitize them about that and then as we said we make the research from them it should be a collective way of researching that's what we are trying to do from the viability project ask them what they think about what they have been doing what they did what are the constraints and then also ask what they think that can be to avoid all these things that we are doing we need to get them confident on this and then get back to them the result of what we are doing as Thank you Catherine so this was very rich if you see the Q&A section was very rich but we have we are late and we have to close this event very interesting event and I would like to check if Juan Lucas arrives is he here with us I'm here I'm happy to see you I don't know how much you got from the exchange but it's been very rich with almost 400 participants so I would like to give you the floor to have some closing remarks you are the Global Director for Partnership in the CG a new position and at the same time General Director of the Alliance by University so you are very well positioned to comment on agroecology research in the CGN and beyond you have the floor for five minutes Thank you Etienne and hello everybody it's great to be here and as you well say Etienne I come here with a number of hats the CGR had the Alliance had a long standing connection with French institutions I was also a co-lead for the Managed Area and Action Track 3 of the UN FS Food Systems Summit and a few months back we tried and were successfully helping to bring TPP and CGI closer together and I was very pleased to use this great event to launch this fantastic my camera is not helping but here it is our great book on a special partnership issue and partnership is absolutely critical on agroecological transformation for sustainable food systems where we are highlighting the multidisciplinary expertise of CGR French research organizations with about 70 partners where we are enhancing these agroecological principles across food, land, water systems and showing the enormous capacity already there to integrate more of these very different disciplines when conducting the transdisciplinary research needed to support agroecological transition in support of food systems transformation so it's a great book I am already passing it to many people that say okay where can we learn more about how our organizations can implement some of these principles because we're still lagging evidence and data from research and this is what we've been hearing about the whole conversation today. I'm also very pleased at the end to say that the new 2030 research and innovation strategy of CGR is very different from the traditional CGR strategies and centers and we have already adopted important principles of agroecology related for example to circularity boosting environmental ecosystem but instead with productivity the diversification the supporting of human healthy human diets and of course making sure how all of these enhancements of systems need to go hand in hand with equitable benefits for men women young people respecting plurality respecting cultural values and a greater degree of co-creation of knowledge with our partners so there is a great momentum around all of these but again as we heard today there are still gaps and as you well said at the end there are still the lack of defining incentives to really be able to embrace the kind of research and agroecological transition and transformation needs so we basically need and from what we could capture today we need to keep producing scientific evidence on how and under what conditions these approaches in comparison to others enhance social agency delivery socio-economic outcomes and prioritized healthy nutrition and environmental and this analysis of trade-offs is going to be absolutely critical in multi-dimensional outcomes such as productivity social inclusion and environmental health the second element is how do we move aggressively I would say beyond the farm level and understanding how we incorporate these principles fairness, environmental stewardship cultural values in business models that involve farmers but where the incentives for their participation and the mechanisms to improve connectivity between farmers and consumers and there is still a big gap there that we need to cover the other element is how to keep working and learning on research in the co-creation of innovations by combining the scientific and other stakeholders knowledge and making sure we are well adapted to context and understanding that context one context does not easily relate to another one but still we need to learn to make the connections and create as many commonalities as possible while still respecting and understanding the specificities of the local conditions, communities etc and the last thing of course is how we get these commitments beyond farming across other actors so we can influence from science, business models, fur policies for all a healthy planet and this is why we need to finalize to make sure agroecology can engage in a better and more effective way policy makers private sector and other food system investors so we are on the right track it's difficult 10 years ago this was a little bit in the clouds now there is a lot of evidence still a huge knowledge gap but we are driving agroecological transformation in the right direction thanks a lot all and back to you again thank you Juan Lucas for this excellent closing remarks in summary challenge for everybody challenge for researchers, challenge for research organization challenge for funders, challenge for agency and agroecology is a difficult point because it's not the silver bullet there are so many agroecological pathways there is no transfer of solution they have to be built with interaction with local stakeholders and at the same time be credible globally to convince that there is an advantage and it's never a miracle solution so thank you I would like to think I would like to be in person here to ask for a round of applause for our partners because it was fascinating the matter that has been brought up in these panels obviously as usual the Q&A section was extremely rich I would invite people to convey we take care we take good note of the comments for the TPP TPP is still a modest thing you know but we taking good note of everything that has been saying we invite people who want to connect with panelists to come directly to them we try to follow up on these comments but I would finish to thank you all for the very good audience for this event and see you in the next event of the TPP and hoping that all this presentation will concretize in the CG initiative and in other projects thank you very much