Proposal of tag agroecology=yes

General talk Tagging general discussion
, ,
1

Hello!

I would like to propose a new tag to describe places related to agroecology. It could be farms that apply ecological principles to agricultural production systems, shops that sell agroecological products, non-governmental organizations or public agencies dedicated to research or promotion.

Details are in the proposal page: Proposal:Agroecology - OpenStreetMap Wiki

Thanks!

Andrés Duhour

Rationale

The reason for the proposal is the lack of a specific tag for identifying map elements related to agroecology. As expressed in the description of the proposal, there are several elements that could be identified with agroecology from individual farms, research centers, public offices, shops or marketplaces, among others.

Therefore, having a specific tag on OpenStreetMap to identify such sites will help engage the community associated with agroecology-based projects to interact with the map. In the same way, it will make it easier to search for map elements that are related to agroecology. The data contributed using this tag could be used by public agencies and research centers to group different types of institutions related to agroecology. It might also be of interest to farmers to find supplies, sell products or get advice. Individual consumers or their associations could find products and farmers involved in alternative agriculture.

The proposed tag attempts to be as general as possible, choosing the key “agroecology” to represent a variety of map elements that are identified with its principles. The places could make agricultural management decisions, sell products, be registered in public databases, or develop research topics related to agroecology. Compared to “agroecologic”, another possible alternative, the proposed one is preferred because of its generality. The value “yes” is suggested, encouraging its use to positively identify the elements of the map.

1 Like
2

Does this match in with the existing use of organic?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Aorganic

1 Like
3

Thanks!
The use of the word “organic” is limited by law in many regions to farms and products that have had certification. In addition, organic farming can be described as one of several agroecological approaches.

4

The wikipedia page talks about “the study of the relation of agricultural crops and environment”. Isn’t every agricultural process (with the exception of someone growing mushrooms in a cellar or similar) dependent on the environment - rainfall, what’s in the soil, amount of sunlight, etc.?

How would I distinguish an agroecology=yes farm from any other one?

5 Likes
5

This shows the problem. Both organic= and fair_trade= are at least labelled, and with some nominal third-party certification. This completely relies on some self-advertising somewhere, or someone’s judgement.
Vague categorization should be avoided. This is akin to adding sustainable_development=yes , or ecosystem_services=yes . As how you put it, the exact method practiced ie organic= etc should be added. Not this.

2 Likes
6

Thank you for your responses. The definition of agroecology and the issue of third party labeling or certification are not described in the proposal and need to be added and clarified.

On the one hand, I think the reference to the FAO definition of agroecology is more accurate, briefly:

Agroecology is a holistic and integrated approach that simultaneously applies ecological and social concepts and principles to the design and management of sustainable agriculture and food systems

on the other hand, the use of the word “agroecology” or “agroecological” is actually also restricted or regulated by public authorities in different countries, and are generally mediated through participatory processes.

The processes are known as “participatory guaratee systems”, in which different stakeholders are involved, from farmers, consumers, NGOs, universities, public research centers, etc., to bring the label or certificate.

The example shown in the proposal is of a farm with this kind of certificate:
Mapillary

There are examples in different countries:

Villarino, Argentina
Luján, Argentina
Building a Knowledge Commons: Evidence from the Participatory Guarantee System for an Agroecology Label in Morocco

Then the agroecology=yes tag should be added to farms or shops selling products that are labelled after agroecology participatory guarantee systems.

Andrés

7

That farm sign has “organic”. The journal article you cited is all about “organic farming”.
There are labels of PGS with “organic” only, not including “agroecology” in the logo. Any difference between such organic or agroecology PGS labels? https://ali-sea.org/regional-workshop-about-participatory-guarantee-systems-pgs-to-promote-agroecology-in-the-mekong-region-vientiane-laos-1-3-october-2018/
In either case, they will be confused with organic= . This seems there should be something for organic PGS first.

  • organic:participatory_guarantee=yes
  • organic:participatory=yes
  • organic:guarantee= =participatory / =participation
  • organic:cerficiation= =participatory / =participation vs =third_party : “participatory certification” Participatory Guarantee Systems - Wikipedia

The front page of that Agro-ecology Learning alliance in South East Asia uses 6 categories. Unless the other practices are carried out together, organic*= is sufficient.

  • AF: Agroforestry
  • CA: Conservation Agriculture
  • IPM / ICM: Integrated Pest Management / Integrated Cropping Management
  • VAC: Integrating Farming
  • OA: Organic Agriculture
  • SRI: System of Rice Intensification
2 Likes
8

Is it correct to affirm that all agroecological farms are “organic farms”, but not all “organic farms” are agroecological farms?

If yes, then I support this new proposal.

From what I understand, agroecological is a big umbrella that includes many activities, such as Agroforestry, Nutrient recycling, Organic farming etc. So, in my view, organic=* cannot be used to describe an agroecological farm, for example.

1 Like
9

In general it is correct, considering the concept defnition of agroecology given by FAO, and following the idea of the “big umbrella”.

The proposal is intended to fill a gap in the tagging schemes for places labeled as “agroecological” or “agroecology farms”, “agroecology shops” that could also, but not necessarily be labeled as “organic” or sell organic products.

Andrés

10

Considering the comments of @Kovoschiz the farm shown as an example in the proposal has the legend “Almacén orgánico”. This means “a shop that offers some organic products” and tagging of this feature is covered by the available tags, for example with: shop=convenience + organic=yes.

But also has the legend “Huerta Agroecológica” “Establecimiento Agroecológico” “Sistema Participativo de Garantía” that refers to the farm itself. This new proposal covers cases such as those where there are farms or stores that have been labeled by a third party or participatory system as “agroecological” or “agroecological” farms or products.

The article cited

refers to a problem that exists in many countries and is mentioned in the introduction:

“Third-party certification (TPC) for organic farming labels represents a significant financial outlay for many family farms. As a result, in many parts of the world, farmers’ communities are developing their own private labels and participatory guarantee systems (PGS) to certify their socially responsible eco-friendly practices. PGS is a new form of association whereby a label is governed by the community.”

Then, this new proposal allows to label places, it could be farms, shops, that have obtained an “agroecology label” either through a third party or a participatory guarantee system.

A consequence of this proposal and the suggestions and comments may be to add more detail to this new tag and the organic=* tag. This should lead to a better representation of places on the map.

For example, adding the method by which the place have obtained the certificate:

  • organic:certification=participatory/third_party
  • agroecology:certification=participatory/third_party

This system will cover the situation that we actually find in the territory where a farm has one or both labels or certificates.

Thanks!

Andrés

11

In the proposal you write something that seems to suggest the opposite:

"The proposed tag attempts to be as general as possible, choosing the key “agroecology” to represent a variety of map elements that are identified with its principles. The places could make agricultural management decisions, sell products, be registered in public databases, or develop research topics related to agroecology. Compared to “agroecologic”, another possible alternative, the proposed one is preferred because of its generality. The value “yes” is suggested, encouraging its use to positively identify the elements of the map.

A related tag is organic=*, defined as: “A tag to describe if a shop offers organic and/or fair trade products”. Organic products can also come from farmers who practice agroecology, but the use of the word organic is legally restricted to products that have received organic certification."

So, I would have expected that organic=yes (in the meaning: selling certified products etc.) would always imply agroecologic=yes.
And I read that agroecologic=yes does not imply that everything there would be certified.

Also, I’m not really sure if it’s a legal issue using organic=yes, even for tagging non-certified map features. I would think that the laws apply product labeling in sales. And the laws may differ substantially from country to country.

Finally, I see a major issue with the proposed key: it is prone to misunderstandings and fragmentation of tagging schemes, which could reduce the usability and reliability of the data.

2 Likes
12

I am against any scheme that would mean that mappers have to decide whether a farm/shop/… is “good enough” to qualify as agroecology. I would suggest that the “yes” value should only be used where a place explicitly advertises itself as “agroecology” (and not “organic”, “bio”, or whatever), OR that the proposal be amended with a clear and exhaustive list of what self-advertisement will yield an agroecology=yes tag.

5 Likes
13

What if it is simplified to, for example (quick thought here): if a farm or a place describes itself as agroecological, add agroecology=yes.

I don’t think it’s up to the mappers to:

1 - verify if the owner is 100% telling the truth
2 - discover which type of certification was done

I expect a mapper passing by a store/farm, seeing some type of advertisement in the front (such as “We sell agroecological products here”), opening EveryDoor in the phone and adding agroecology=yes. I think the same rationale is used with organic=*.

Finally, the proposal for organic and fair trade follows a similar path: Proposal:Organic - OpenStreetMap Wiki (very simple proposal, actually!).

2 Likes
14

They are losing focus by recycling the tag “organic=yes/only”, our world out there is complex, we must help reduce conventional crops (which do not pay any kind of certificate, nor report on pesticides used; and to our surprise, they are already mapped).

Agroecology depends on the region and the people who live immersed.
It covers many activities, research, education, dissemination of ways to recover soil lost by conventional farming or a human disaster. (several things that cannot be seen from an aerial image).

That is why I liked the idea of ​@Kovoschiz to add

  • “agroecology:certification=participatory/third_party”

Although it does not always depend on a single certification, as in the case cited by Andres who has 2 certifications, they could even have a third one! “gluten-free!” a fourth one! “smoke free / we don’t set fire to the grassland to save money”

so even a suffix should be added to determine the source/s of the certification, something that is currently public (and should be) and findable, in which a list of approved producers/stores would be found:

  • “agroecology:certificacion_source = certification_organization_1_name;certification_organization_2_name;glutenfree_approved_association”

or a suffix to determine the scope of each source:

  • “agroecology:country:subdivison1:subdivison2=certification_organization_name”
  • “agroecology:country=national_approved_organization_name”

in this way, not only would it take into account the agroecology tag, but it would also take into account the organizations that will have their ways of determining and inspecting, setting renewal deadlines for their certifications, and certificates/seals, making their research public in that place.

If you think about it, an organization puts an effort (which could be paid or not), in a place. And in most cases, they try in many ways to advertise themselves to bring about a change in our society and reintroduce the thought of land use.

You should see those maps:

https://osmlanduse.org/

15

Hello!
I will review all suggestions made in this post and on the talk page and make the necessary improvements to the proposal page in the next few days.
Regards!
Andrés

16

Hello!
After our fruitful discussion, I introduced some changes and improvements to the proposal. So, after considering other comments, we could move on to the voting phase.

As a summary of improvements,

  • The values no, yes, certified was added after comments in the talk page (Proposal talk:Agroecology - OpenStreetMap Wiki
  • The subkey agroecology:certification was added after comments here and in the talk page.
  • The definition of the tagging scheme was added showing when the key can be used. Here was considered the suggestions of @matheusgomesms for simpliy the decision:

and of @woodpeck :

Regards! Andrés

1 Like
17

Hello,

From the point of view of certification, “organic” and “agroecology/agroecologic” are different systems or standards that coexist in several countries. The reason is documented in the proposal and is introduced to support the proposal of the new tag and to provide a method to decide if a location can have this tag with a clear and simple criteria that can be verified.

Also, I would like to ask what do you mean with

I’d like to consider this concern in the proposal.

Thanks!

Andrés

18

apparently voting was started on Proposal:Agroecology - OpenStreetMap Wiki

1 Like