TAPE is an innovative and holistic framework and process that can support projects (among other uses) to include an agroecological approach to ensure that transformational contextualized practices for regenerated landscapes and sustainable livelihoods are developed and spread throughout targeted areas.

TAPE has already been tested in more than 30 countries by different actors for different purposes and has recently been used to support IFAD’s Regeneration of Landscapes and Livelihoods (ROLL) project development in Lesotho.

In this document, the results of the implementation of TAPE in Lesotho for the baseline assessment of the ROLL project are presented. The framework was implemented in 200 production systems across 4 agro- ecological zones, 5 districts and 19 distinct landscapes. The use of TAPE in these territories provided important data and key information about the overall sustainability of farms measured by different indicators of performance. It also provided insights on how the level of agroecological transition measured with the 10 Elements of Agroecology links with the multidimensional performance of the evaluated systems.

Highlights on the results

• Average production systems in Lesotho have overall low scores on the 10 elements of agroecology. Most of these farms have not begun (or are not in the conditions to begin) their process of transition to agroecology and have low levels of sustainability with low productivity, harsh conditions of poverty and in a degrading environment.

• Disaggregated results per category of agroecological transition (CAET) indicate that the great majority of farms in the sample (84 percent) can be considered non-agroecological, while 11 percent can be considered “at an incipient transition”, and only 4 percent are in an actual process of transition to agroecology. Only one full agroecological farm out of 200 has been found in the target territories.

• The implementation of agroecological practices and principles is very low, because most farmers in the sample are not aware of the possible strategies and activities that they might implement to improve their livelihoods and resilience, and they lack the resources for diversifying and enhancing their production. At the same time, the natural, social, and economic environment is not favorable for supporting agroecological transitions.

• In terms of practices implemented in the field, more advanced agroecological farms all have higher levels of diversity of production (crops, animals, and economic activities), more implementation of practices for recycling of biomass and nutrients, and higher overall productivity.

• Even if more advanced agroecological farms are more resilient, the element of Resilience is low or very low everywhere, showing the economic, environmental, and social vulnerability of local producers. Moreover, Resilience is linked with dietary diversity and expenditures on food for self-consumption, which indicates that the most resilient households are those that have the ability to spend more for the purchase of food.

• More advanced agroecological systems are strictly linked to more sustainable marketing practices, more decent work in agriculture, and more organized and empowered producers.

• There is a clear link between agroecological transition of farms in Lesotho and their economic performance: more advanced agroecological farms have higher (and/or more valuable) agricultural outputs and produce globally more wealth through their agricultural activity. Furthermore, the global value of their production per hectare is considerably higher, as well as the value of their production per worker.

• Despite having more expenditures for the purchase of external inputs, more advanced agroecological farms generate more revenue from agricultural production, they are more market oriented, have a more positive perception of the evolution of their income, and less people in poverty.

• The animal component is essential for improved economic performance and for the overall sustainability and agroecological transition of farms.

• Diversified farms (mixed crops, livestock, and vegetables) tend to be better off, more productive, and more rentable than other types, especially compared to farms in monoculture.

• In the environmental dimension of sustainability, indicators are low everywhere, even if more advanced agroecological farms tend to have slightly better soils, to use fewer pesticides and fertilizers, and to have more biodiversity in terms of crops and livestock. The amount of natural vegetation and pollinators on farm is low everywhere.

• In the social dimension of sustainability, despite a lower percentage of women employed on farm, more advanced agroecological farms present more empowered women that participate more in the processes of decision-making.

• Secure land tenure is low among all the typologies and women tend to have worse levels of access to land than men.

• Average levels of youth empowerment are low or very low and their proneness to emigration is high, with slight differences among the different regions of the country. More diversified types of farms present more empowered youth less prone to emigrate.

• In terms of nutrition, dietary diversity is low among all the typologies, despite differences in the consumption of different groups of food. More advanced agroecological farms tend to have slightly better results in terms of diversified diet and food self-sufficiency.