Program Report | Soil health agroecological framework review | Page 1 of 20 Soil-health framework designs in agroecological and agri-food systems. A review December 2025 Working Paper, Pre-print Program Report | Soil health agroecological framework review | Page 2 of 20 Contents 1 Introduction 3 2 Methodology 4 3 Results and Discussion 7 4 Conclusion 12 5 Acknowledgements 13 6 Declarations 13 7 References 14 Acknowledgements 19 Authors: Powell Mponela1, Vimbayi Grace Petrova Chimonyo2,3, Mazvita Chiduwa2,4, Righteous Kachali4,5, Joyce Grevulo-Minofu6, Cleopatra Kawanga7, Santiago Lopez-Ridaura8, Sieglinde Snapp8 1CIMMYT, NARC Khumaltar, Lalitpur, P.O. Box: 5186. Kathmandu, Nepal 2CIMMYT, 12.5km Peg, Mazowe Road, Mount Pleasant Harare, Zimbabwe 3Centre for Transformative Agriculture and Food Systems, University of Kwazul-Natal, Scottsville, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa 4CIMMYT, P.O. Box 1096, Chitedze Research Station, Mchinji Road, Lilongwe, Malawi 5Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources (LUANAR), Bunda Campus, P.O. Box 219, Lilongwe, Malawi. 6Mwapata Institute, Lundu Street, Area 10/386, P.O. Box 30883, Capital City, Lilongwe, Malawi 7CIMMYT, Plot # 4108, Mwinilunga Road, Sunningdale, Lusaka - Zambia 8CIMMYT, Carretera Mexico-Veracruz, Km. 45, El Batan, 56237 Texcoco, Mexico Program Report | Soil health agroecological framework review | Page 3 of 20 1 Introduction Agricultural policies globally strive to balance two critical goals: producing enough food to meet the needs of a growing population while safeguarding environmental integrity (Foley et al., 2011; Godfray et al., 2010; Rockström et al., 2009). Central to this challenge is soil health, a key determinant of agroecosystem productivity and resilience (Kibblewhite et al., 2008). Healthy soils sustain agricultural productivity, regulate water and nutrient cycles, and store carbon thereby underpinning climate mitigation, food security, biodiversity conservation and environmental sustainability (Amundson et al., 2015; IPCC, 2019; Lal, 2004). Yet, soil degradation is a critical global challenge, now affecting over a third of the global agricultural land, largely due to unsustainable farming practices, deforestation, and urbanization (FAO-ITPS, 2015; IPCC, 2019). Apart from biophysical significance, soil health is also foundational to One Health and Planetary Health, including antimicrobial resistance, zoonotic disease emergence, and terrestrial pollution (Montgomery et al., 2024). Despite this recognition, guidance on how to operationalize soil health within agroecological and agri-food system designs remains fragmented. Numerous frameworks - ranging from soil-quality diagnostics and management tools to agroecological and landscape approaches - exist, but they differ widely in design logic: purpose, scope, and application. Across the globe, farming systems face soil health challenges that have severe implications for regions where agriculture is the backbone of livelihoods, supporting over 60% of the population; poor soil health exacerbates food insecurity, reduces agricultural productivity, and increases vulnerability to climate shocks (Amundson et al., 2015; IPCC, 2019; Sanchez, 2002). While the fundamental science of soil processes is well established, much of the existing research remains overly theoretical, fragmented, or insufficiently contextualized to local socio-ecological realities. As a result, knowledge is often not systematically catalogued or translated into actionable interventions, limiting its utility for decision-making and policy design. Science-based frameworks for soil management offer promising tools to guide planning, implementation, and evaluation, yet gaps remain in ensuring these frameworks are comprehensive, inclusive, and applicable (Cowie et al., 2018; Utter et al., 2021; Wezel et al., 2020). Addressing these gaps requires critically appraising existing frameworks to develop more robust, and context-sensitive strategies (Sayer et al., 2013; Wezel et al., 2020). Within agroecological and agri-food system transitions, frameworks act as organizing tools that connect knowledge, practices, and outcomes. They can guide diagnostics and management (as in soil-health assessment frameworks), structure decision-making (as in input efficiency or sustainability standards), or support policy alignment and accountability. These tools provide a shared language for diverse stakeholders and align priorities across technical, social, and ecological domains (Utter et al., 2021; Wezel et al., 2020). There are a number of frameworks that focus more explicitly on soils and soil health, reflecting the growing recognition of their foundational role in ecosystem functioning and agricultural productivity. These include assessment and management tools such as the Cornell Soil Health Framework (Moebius-Clune et al., 2017), which centres on physical, chemical, and biological indicators to guide management decisions, and the soil health assessment protocols (USDA-NRCS, 2021), which provide practical benchmarks for evaluating soil function in farming systems. While such tools offer valuable, soil-specific guidance, they are often applied in isolation from broader sustainability planning, limiting their integration into multi- scalar land-use and food system strategies. However, as frameworks proliferate, inconsistencies in scope and design hinder their collective utility. As some emphasize measurable soil functions, we observe an increase in frameworks that aim to capture the complexity of agri-food systems by integrating multiple, interlinked domains and scales – from biodiversity and water to livelihoods, climate, and governance (Sanchez, 2002; Sayer et al., 2013). Notwithstanding, the systems-oriented focus of many frameworks often results in soil health being treated indirectly, positioned as a secondary outcome of land use planning, ecosystem service delivery, or sustainability transitions rather than as a primary objective. On one hand, FAO’s voluntary guidelines for sustainable soil management provide a global standard emphasizing practices such as crop rotation and organic matter retention but lack granularity for heterogeneous landscapes (FAO-ITPS, 2015, 2017). On the other hand, data-driven surveillance frameworks excel in mapping soil-risk patterns but can overweight biophysical metrics while under-addressing socio-economic barriers to adoption, such as gender-based land tenure disparities (Amundson et al., 2015; Utter et al., 2021). Similarly, objective-oriented frameworks such as carbon-focused initiatives underscore climate benefits and planetary health but can miss near- term food-security and management needs unless coupled to agronomic decision-support (Lal, 2004; Minasny et al., 2017; Montgomery et al., 2024). Among these frameworks, limitations reveal a persistent gap between conceptual integration and practical transformation, which the current framework design and use have yet to bridge effectively Although current frameworks provide strong conceptual foundations, inconsistent implementation across contexts has constrained their ability to achieve transformative change at farm and landscape scales. The absence of integrative analysis, deeper contextualization, integration across scales, and meaningful engagement with social and institutional dimensions often limits their effectiveness in complex, dynamic smallholder systems. These critical gaps further restrict the effectiveness of these frameworks: limited contextualization for variable climates and depleted soils; weak alignment with local governance and knowledge systems; and difficulties scaling from fields to landscapes (Cowie et al., 2018; IPCC, 2019; Sayer et al., 2013). As climate and markets become more volatile, Program Report | Soil health agroecological framework review | Page 4 of 20 adaptability and real-time learning become essential (Foley et al., 2011; IPCC, 2019). To address these gaps, future frameworks must prioritize integration, scalability, and adaptability, not as abstract design principles, but as essential conditions for embedding soil health at the center of agri-food system transformation. This means moving beyond single-dimension indicators and instead adopting hybrid metrics that link soil biological, chemical, and physical properties with socio-economic outcomes such as productivity, labor dynamics, and equity. Participatory design processes are critical to ensure that soil management strategies are grounded in local knowledge and responsive to context-specific challenges, from nutrient depletion to land tenure insecurity (Utter et al., 2021; Wezel et al., 2020). Strengthening cross-sectoral linkages between agriculture, climate resilience, and social equity policies is likewise vital, as these policy domains shape the enabling environment for investments in soil stewardship and long- term soil health outcomes (Godfray et al., 2010; Rockström et al., 2009). Agroecology provides a powerful lens through which to understand and reframe the positioning of soil health within wider agri-food systems. It views system components not as isolated entities but as interdependent elements whose significance and function emerge from their relationships and the specific ecological, cultural, and socio-economic contexts in which they operate (A. M. Dumont et al., 2021). With this perspective, agroecology conceptualizes soil health, albeit a discrete biophysical domain, as foundational to the ecological integrity, social functioning, and economic viability of agri-food systems (HLPE, 2019). As a systems approach, AE integrates ecological principles with social, cultural, and economic dimensions - emphasizing diversity, resilience, resource efficiency, and co- creation of knowledge (Nicholls et al., 2020; Wezel et al., 2020). Agroecology positions soil health as not merely a factor of food production, but a provider of vital ecosystem services, including water regulation and biodiversity conservation – while foregrounding justice, governance, and community connectivity (Sayer et al., 2013; Utter et al., 2021). For smallholders managing diverse and fragile environments with limited external inputs, agroecological practices – nutrient recycling, diversified rotations, and organic amendments – offer practical, locally rooted pathways to regenerate soils and enhance climate resilience (Altieri et al., 2015; Sanchez, 2002; Tittonell, 2014). Against this backdrop, this study seeks to advance understanding of how soil health is embedded within agroecological and agri-food system designs. Recognizing that existing frameworks vary widely in scope, scale, and utility with some narrowly focused on biophysical indicators and others embedding soils within broader sustainability goals there is a pressing need for a more integrated perspective that can inform policy design and implementation. By employing agroecology as both a conceptual and analytical lens, this research aims to explore how soil health indicators align with, support, or are shaped by the ecological, social, cultural, and economic dimensions articulated by agroecological principles. This approach moves beyond evaluating soil health in isolation to examine its systemic roles and interdependencies, offering a more holistic evidence base to guide policies that link land management with climate action, food security, and rural development. Ultimately, the study seeks to reframe soil health not as a secondary outcome of agricultural policy, but as a central determinant of equitable, resilient, and sustainable food systems and, in doing so, to support the development of policy instruments and governance mechanisms that embed soil stewardship at the heart of transformation agendas. 2 Methodology 2.1 Theoretical foundations We adopt the dictionary definition of a framework as a supporting structure around which something can be built: a system of rules, ideas, or beliefs that is used to plan or decide on something (Cambridge University Press, 2025). The diversity of frameworks observed in agri-food, agroecology, and soil-health literature reflects more than disciplinary or methodological differences; it arises from distinct institutional logics and normative orientations that guide how problems are framed, and how solutions are designed. Institutions aim to maximize collective benefit while minimizing costs through theoretical and empirical constructs that guide the design of context-relevant interventions (Ostrom, 2011). From this perspective, different frameworks emerge and represent competing bundles of principles, practices, and evaluation indicators. An institution is assumed to behave rationally by formulating or selecting the framework that yields the highest utility in terms of policy coherence, operational feasibility, and alignment with its technical, societal, and environmental goals (Aleskerov et al., 2007; Moullin et al., 2020). However, where indifference exists, multiple frameworks may be treated as functionally equivalent or complementary. Notwithstanding, the utility-maximization process is not value-neutral. Institutional decisions are also shaped by embedded belief systems and normative commitments, as described by the Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) theory of environmentalism (Oreg & Katz-Gerro, 2006). The VBN posits that values influence environmental beliefs, which in turn shape behavioral norms and decisions - such as selecting frameworks that prioritize equity, ecosystem integrity, or inclusive governance. The convergence of utilitarian logic and normative values forms the theoretical basis for institution’s framework selection, shaping how agroecological transitions are conceptualized, implemented, and evaluated. This theoretical framing provides the basis for interpreting patterns observed in the frameworks-by- principles matrix. It reveals that the diversity of frameworks and the uneven representation of agroecological principles is not merely methodological but reflects distinct institutional logics shaped by both utilitarian reasoning and normative commitments. Recognizing these underlying drivers is essential for designing future frameworks that balance technical effectiveness with social legitimacy and contextual relevance. Therefore, diverse frameworks with Program Report | Soil health agroecological framework review | Page 5 of 20 a variety of disciplinary and sectoral foci were included to represent a range of possible depictions and determinants of soil health. 2.2 Framework review A Boolean document search was conducted between October 2024 to January 2025 to provide an initial mapping of relevant literature and frameworks. The aim was not to undertake a systematic review, but rather to develop a structured approach to identify key conceptual and analytical framings that link soil health with broader agricultural, ecological, and environmental contexts. To ensure that frameworks in the agriculture, ecology and environmental sectors were included, the foundational query was constructed as follows: (Soil health OR “landscape”), (“framework” OR “analytical framework” OR “conceptual framework” OR “theoretical framework” OR “empirical framework”), (“agroecology” “sustainable intensification”, “regenerative agriculture”, “conservation agriculture”). Search was conducted on Google Scholar, Scopus and grey literature of institute databases. Because databases differ in how they interpret Boolean logic and search operators, derivatives of this syntax were adapted to align with the specific search requirements and functionalities of each platform. As the compendium compilation progressed, the search process evolved iteratively. Additional keywords and combinations were incorporated to capture emerging concepts and related frameworks. Although the exact sequence of search terms was not recorded in full, the Boolean structure above represents the guiding logic that informed the identification of frameworks throughout the review. This exploratory and adaptive approach provided a foundation for mapping the diversity of frameworks in use and situating soil health within wider systems-oriented approaches. 2.3 Classification of frameworks Frameworks are reference materials that provide shared visions between multiple stakeholders and serve as a communication tool throughout the project life cycle from planning, execution to evaluation. We reviewed and classified existing soil health, agroecology and agri-food system frameworks into three tiers theoretical, conceptual, and analytical to capture how soil health is understood, represented, and operationalized across different knowledge domains and applications (Table 1). This approach allowed us to systematically compare frameworks that range from abstract theory-building to practical tools for data collection and decision-making within agroecological systems. We defined theoretical ones as those that synthesize existing theories, related concepts and questions current knowledge to develop a foundation for new theory; conceptual as those that describe the practices and their impacts; and analytical ones as those that provide a structured approach for gathering, analyzing and interpreting data (Luft et al., 2022; Rocco & Plakhotnik, 2009; UNHCR, 2017). Table 1 List of frameworks included in the review organized by design domains. Domain Author Abbreviated Author Abbreviated Soil management and input stewardship (10) (Moebius-Clune et al., 2017) cornell-cash (Nestle, 2024) nestle-raf (EEA, 2023) eea-smeitsha (FAO, 2018) fao- agroecology (Faber et al., 2022) ejp-siren (Musumba et al., 2017) ftf_gsiaf (Vanlauwe et al., 2023) ifdc-fsha (European Commission, 2021) eu-ss2030 (FAO-ITPS, 2017) fao-vgssm (Neßhöver et al., 2012) teeb Soil Health Assessment Frameworks (16) (Deel et al., 2024) deel-semwise (Govindakrishnan et al., 2021) covind-dus (IFA, 2009) ifa-g4rnutstewf (Ros et al., 2022) ros-oshafssm (Andrews et al., 2004) andrews-smaf (FAO-ITPS, 2020) fao-passm (Ghimire et al., 2023) ghimire- sham4wle (Nunes et al., 2021) nunes-shape (Lehmann et al., 2020) lehmann-fpsh (Apfelbaum et al., 2019) steve-aesshf (Stockdale et al., 2019) stockdale-cfmsh (USDA-NRCS, 2021) usda-cfshag (Arshad & Martin, 2002) arshad-sqi (Jian et al., 2020) jian-dgsha (Devine et al., 2021) devine-rscfish (Montgomery et al., 2024) montg-shohph Agroecological and Ecosystem- Based Frameworks (12) (Sanginga & Woomer, 2009) ciat-isfm (FAO and INRAE, 2020) fao-esfsi (Holmgren, 2017) permaculture (FAO, 2019) fao-tape (Tittonell, 2023) tittonel-sysageco (NEPAD, 2003) caadp (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005) mea (Alcamo et al., 2003) wri-ehwb (Commonland et al, 2024) common_4returns (FAO, 2017b) fao-almsfa (Cowie et al., 2018) unccd-ldn Integrated Landscape and Livelihood Frameworks (23) (SKI, 2021) ski-lstoolkit (Sayer et al., 2013) sayer_la (FAO-OEWG, 2022) fao-gspaf (Pinstrup-Andersen & Hazell, 1985) ifpri-gr (Haines-Young & Potschin, 2018) cices (Johnston & Bruulsema, 2014) 4rns-inue (Cowie et al., 2018) ldn_cf_journal (Birner & Resnick, 2010) birner-pepsa (Plieninger et al., 2020) la4aa (AGRF, 2020) si4af (López-Ridaura et al., 2002) mesmis (Wezel et al., 2020) wezel-tape Program Report | Soil health agroecological framework review | Page 6 of 20 Domain Author Abbreviated Author Abbreviated (Scoones, 1998) ids-srlf (FS-TIP, 2021) fsat (Posthumus et al., 2021) posthumus-fsdst (Thaxton et al., 2017) unccd-ilm (Triomphe et al., 2022) cgiar-ll (Rhees et al., 2024) mn-shaf (1000 Landscapes for 1 Billion People, 2022a) ilm-practical (iPES, 2015) ipes-food (UNEP-WCMC, 2021) cbd-nea (van der Ploeg, 2021) ploeg-peae (1000 Landscapes for 1 Billion People, 2022b) ilm-tool-guide Policy-outcome oriented frameworks (4) (Matson et al., 2024b) ejp-shttas (NEPAD, 2015) caadpresult (SAI Platform, 2023) sai-raag (UNEP, 2011) cbd NB: (n) number of frameworks; abbreviated based on title for graphical presentation in Figures 1 and 2. 2.4 Indicator selection The identification of indicators was initially conducted by the authors, who compiled a preliminary list based on three key agroecology related frameworks: the agroecology principles and elements (HLPE, 2019; Wezel et al., 2020), and the tool for agroecology performance evaluation (TAPE) (FAO, 2019; Mottet et al., 2020), and the characterization of agroecology transformation (CAET) procedure (Bicksler et al., 2023; Lucantoni et al., 2023; Mottet et al., 2020). This process was further informed by existing literature, particularly the element on co-creation of knowledge (Utter et al., 2021), on human and social values (Bezner Kerr et al., 2022) , on diversity (Nicholls et al., 2020), on animal health (Ceppatelli et al., 2025; B. Dumont et al., 2025) and on soil health (Apfelbaum et al., 2019; FAO-OEWG, 2022; Moebius-Clune et al., 2017; Montgomery et al., 2024). To validate and refine the initial list, a snowball exercise was employed, engaging six researchers with expertise in agronomy, agroecology, economics and sociology. The research team independently reviewed the proposed indicators, assessed their relevance within the identified frameworks, and suggested additional indicators where necessary. This iterative approach ensured broad-based validation, integrating diverse perspectives and reinforcing scientific rigor and practical applicability. The collaborative nature of this exercise emphasized a participatory and transdisciplinary approach, ensuring that the selected indicators effectively captured the complexities of agroecological transitions and their implications for sustainable livelihoods. 2.5 Data extraction The r package ‘pdf tools’ was used to extract the indicators, grouped by the 13 agro-ecology principles that include soil health and checked for context in which it is used using an extract of terms within proximity of the indicator, an extended sentence. 2.6 Evaluation To quantify and compare the representation of agroecological principles across diverse frameworks, we constructed a multi-tiered composite agroecology index (Nardo, Michela; Saisana,Michaelaௗ; Saltelli, Andrea; Tarantola, Stefano; Hoffman, Anders; Giovannini, 2005) by first applying z-score standardization to indicator counts, followed by unweighted aggregation (mean) at principle-level, transition pathway and overall, AE index. A three-stage strategy was developed to reduce complexity while capturing system-level relationships (Polites et al., 2012). The constructs were made reflectively, based on the assumption that observed indicators are manifestations of underlying soil health and agroecological principles (MacKenzie et al., 2011). We opted for aggregation and averaging rather than dimensionality reduction methods like Principal Component Analysis (PCA) or factor analysis because, while such techniques reveal latent structures, they often reduce interpretability and rely on statistical assumptions (e.g., orthogonality, linearity) that may not align with multidimensional sustainability constructs (Greco et al., 2019). Aggregation and averaging maintain a transparent, additive framework directly aligned with the conceptual design, enhancing clarity for stakeholders and decision-makers (Mazziotta & Pareto, 2016). Consistent with literature (Bicksler et al., 2023; HLPE, 2019; Wezel et al., 2020), we treated soil health as embedded within a web of agroecological elements rather than as a stand-alone domain with both synergies and trade-offs and scaffolded by enabling conditions of co-creation, equity, and governance. For pattern analysis, we employed a row–column hierarchical clustering (i.e., simultaneous clustering of frameworks and principles). This choice surfaces co-occurring indicator constellations and design logics without imposing a priori structure, while producing dendrograms and heatmaps that decision-makers and practitioners can read at a glance. The method aligns with the study’s systems lens - revealing how soil-health indicators are positioned across agroecological principles - yet remains visually and conceptually accessible for program design and policy dialogue. Program Report | Soil health agroecological framework review | Page 7 of 20 3 Results and Discussion 3.1 Design features of soil health, agroecology and agri-food system frameworks 3.1.1 Formulation and application From the compendium of 66 agro-food system, soil health and related frameworks, (Figure 1a), almost half focus explicitly on informing either the theory, approaches or analysis, one-fourth focus on two dimensions and one-tenth, on all three. We observe higher coverage of theories and principles at 68% and analytics at 60 %, while only 36 % focus on practical approaches. The explicit focus on theory and analytics signals increased intents to analyze linkages between organizational objectives, design concepts and outcomes. There is a debate on whether the institutional and program design should focus on the outcomes, interventions, principles or all. Although the common approach has been to prioritize specific interventions (Derpsch, 2003; Giller et al., 2015; Thierfelder et al., 2018; Vanlauwe et al., 2014) or adhering to core principles such as sustainability (Pretty, 2008), some argue focusing on clearly defined, measurable outputs or outcomes (Musumba et al., 2017). However, the lesson from human health indicate that frameworks do not only aid policy development and tactical decision-making but also jointly guide application of practical approaches and support communication with the larger audience (CCSDH, 2015). Noteworthy, some organizations develop and/or deploy a set of frameworks depending on use. For instance, the African Union’s Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) developed in 2003 (NEPAD, 2003) focused on theory and practice but shifted towards measuring impact with the 2015 CAADP results framework (NEPAD, 2015). Figure 1.b shows four waves: (1985–2009) early conceptual foundations of soil-quality and efficiency (Andrews et al., 2004; Arshad & Martin, 2002) along with ecosystem service framing (Alcamo et al., 2003) and farm/soil fertility guidance (Sanginga & Woomer, 2009); (2010-2016) a landscape/food-systems turn shifting from fields to territories with landscape and political economy (Birner & Resnick, 2010; Sayer et al., 2013); (2017- 2020) rapid operationalization - agroecology and landscape guidance are formalized (FAO, 2017b, 2019), and land- degradation neutrality anchors restoration targets (Cowie et al., 2018) with reframing and synthesis of soil-health concepts (Lehmann et al., 2020; Wezel et al., 2020), reflecting growing demand for comparable indicators; and (2021-2024) outcome monitoring and corporate alignment paradigm - policy roadmaps and results frameworks scale up (European Commission, 2021; FAO-OEWG, 2022), while national/continental monitoring guidance emerges (EEA, 2023), private-sector develops outcome-based tools (Nestle, 2024), and scoring/data infrastructures expand (Deel et al., 2024; Jian et al., 2020). Peaks in these years align with climate- and biodiversity- goal setting (e.g., SDGs era), pandemic-era resilience debates, and input-price shocks - further reinforcing attention to monitoring, due diligence, and diversified, landscape-scale solutions. 0 1 2 3 IF P R I- G R _ 1 98 5 A rs ha d- S Q I_ 20 0 2 P er m a cu ltu re _ 20 02 T E E B _2 0 09 B irn er -P E P S A _2 01 0 S a ye r_ LA _2 01 3 4 R N S -I N U E _2 01 4 C A A D P re su lt_ 2 01 5 C o rn el l-C A S H _2 0 16 F tF _ G S IA F _ 20 1 7 F A O -T A P E _2 01 9 S te ve -A E S S H F _ 2 01 9 D e vi n e -R S C F IS H _2 0 20 F A O -P A S S M _ 2 02 0 F A O -E S F S _2 02 0 F A O -a g ro e co lo gy _2 0 20 L A 4 A A _2 0 20 Le hm an n- F P S H _2 02 0 N u ne s- S H A P E _2 0 21 S K I- Ls to ol ki t_ 2 0 21 P lo eg -P E A E _ 20 2 1 IL M _ T oo l_ G ui d e_ 2 02 2 R o s- O S H A F S S M _ 20 2 2 IL M -P ra ct ic a l_ 2 02 2 cg ia r- ll_ 20 22 F A O -G S P A F _2 0 22 S IA F _ 20 2 3 F A O -T G S N _ 2 02 3 S A I- R A A G _2 0 23 D e e l-S E M W IS E _2 0 24 E JP -S H T T A S _2 0 24 M on tg -S H O H P H _2 02 4 C B D _1 9 92 ID S -S R L F _ 19 9 8 C A A D P _ 20 03 A n d re w s- S M A F _ 2 00 4 W R I- E H W B _2 0 04 IF A -G 4R N ut S te w F _2 00 9 IP E S -F O O D _2 01 5 U N C C D -I L M _2 0 17 F A O -A L M S F A _ 2 01 7 F A O -V G S S M _2 01 7 L D N _ C F _j o u rn al _2 0 18 U N C C D -L D N _ 20 1 8 Ji a n- D G S H A _ 20 2 0 U S D A -C F S H A G _2 0 20 W ez el -T A P E _ 20 2 0 S I4 A F _2 0 20 C B D -N E A _ 2 02 1 F S A T _ 20 2 1 P os th u m us _F S D S T _2 … E U -S S 2 03 0 _2 0 21 go vi nd -D U S _2 02 2 G w im ir e- … IF D C -F S H A _2 02 3 C o m m on _ 4r et u rn s_ 20 24 M N -S H A F _ 20 2 4 M E S M IS _ 20 02 M E A _ 2 00 5 C IA T -I S F M _2 00 9 C IC E S _ 20 1 8 S to ck da le -C F M S H _2 0 18 E E A -S M E IT S H A _ 20 22 E JP -S IR E N _ 20 2 2 T itt o n el -s ys ag e co _2 0 23 n e st le -R A F _ 2 02 4 Theoretical/Principles Practical approaches Analytical (a) (b) Program Report | Soil health agroecological framework review | Page 8 of 20 Figure 1 (a) Roles of frameworks from research design, implementation to analysis and (b)the progression of framework develop from 1985-2024. 3.1.2 Constellations of agro-ecological principles and pathways Hierarchical clustering (Figure 2) groups frameworks into five row-level branches and splits the agroecological elements into two high-level groups. On the biophysical side, the decision tree yields five sub-branches (i) recycling and biodiversity being closely related, then (ii) animal health, (iii) input reduction, (iv) synergy and (v) soil health. This branching contrasts with Wezel et al., (2020), who aggregated the biophysical principles into two pathways (resource efficiency vs resilience). The dendrogram indicates finer, non-binary structure in which several principles form stable micro-constellations rather than collapsing neatly into the two macro-pathways: recycling and biodiversity share lower branching consistent with resilience pathway, while animal health, input reduction and synergy branch at incrementally higher node heights – constructed more like cross-cutting enablers standalone principles. We observe district constructs of social-economic and biophysical principles. On the socio-economic side: first order constructs aggregate into three pathways: (i) co-creation of knowledge and participation, (ii) fairness, connectivity, and land and natural resource governance, and (iii) economic diversification, and social values and diets. Pathways (ii) and (iii) merging at higher node, indicating a common governance-market orientation. We posit that biophysical convergence reflects the historical evolution of evaluation paradigms. Following a prolonged period of productivism, yield-centric evaluation, “second-wave” frameworks standardized field-level soil and agronomic metrics - soil organic matter, erosion control, nutrient use - because they were relatively tractable to measure and had clear plot-scale causal links (Andrews et al., 2004). Socio-economic dimensions were integrated later as attention shifted from plots to farms, landscapes, and food systems, where operationalization requires deliberation, institutional arrangements, and context-specific value choices (HLPE, 2019; Wezel et al., 2020). Consequently, most frameworks share a common biophysical core but diverge along a social–economic axis. This asymmetry has direct implications for design, action and monitoring. Because biophysical “indicators” are broadly similar, strategic distinctiveness - and much of the impact variance - arises from socio-economic choices. Effective designs pair the shared biophysical core with context-appropriate socio-technical bundles: emphasize co- creation where legitimacy and uptake are binding; strengthen fairness, connectivity, and land/resource rules where coordination and inclusion are weak; and promote diversification, value addition, and diet-quality incentives where demand and profitability are low (A. M. Dumont et al., 2021). As a rule of thumb, measure what you design and practice: bundle indicators so each practice set is paired with enabling-environment and market metrics - avoiding “orphan” practices that cannot persist. Keep plot-scale agronomic indicators to capture short-run change, and add governance and market metrics at farm, landscape, and food-system scales to track sustainability, diffusion, and equity. Program Report | Soil health agroecological framework review | Page 9 of 20 Figure 2 Comprehensiveness and convergence of frameworks and agroecological elements. Program Report | Soil health agroecological framework review | Page 10 of 20 3.2 Framework design domains for advancing soil health The row clustering of Figure 2 delineates five framework design domains - soil health and resource efficiency, soil health assessment tools, agroecological and ecosystem-based approaches, integrated landscape and livelihood frameworks, policy/target-oriented frameworks. 3.2.1 Soil management and input stewardship A cluster of frameworks foregrounds farm-level resource efficiency, providing operational guidance and measurement routines - soil health practice guidelines (SOM maintenance, pH/salinity correction, compaction avoidance, aggregation/infiltration, cover and erosion control) are linked to scoring/threshold approaches that make outcomes measurable (FAO-ITPS, 2017; Moebius-Clune et al., 2017). Public guidance and standards reinforce due-diligence and monitoring for sustainable soil management (EEA, 2023; Faber et al., 2022), with broader strategies framing soil protection to meet regional policy targets (European Commission, 2021). Within farms, nutrient stewardship emphasizes rate–timing–placement–source (4R) decisions and integrated organic inputs to raise uptake while curbing losses and protecting water quality (Musumba et al., 2017; Vanlauwe et al., 2023), while private-sector frameworks align incentives toward restoring SOM, improving nutrient cycling, and lowering synthetic inputs, with co-benefits for climate resilience and farmer livelihoods (Nestle, 2024). Although sustainable intensification frameworks supply cross-domain indicators to verify efficiency gains without ecological or social backsliding, enabling conditions are thinner: biodiversity and recycling typically enter as due- diligence items or co-benefits of practice (rotations, cover, and organic amendments) rather than primary design features (Neßhöver et al., 2012). Fairness, connectivity, and animal health appear where standards or reporting instruments are included (FAO-ITPS, 2017; Moebius-Clune et al., 2017), but co-creation, participation, and diet/consumption elements are comparatively muted across this efficiency-oriented set. Emphasis remains at micro level; landscape hydrology and cross-farm coordination are rarely integral. 3.2.2 Soil Health Assessment Frameworks The soil health assessment frameworks are mixed and bimodal. One pole comprises agronomic toolkits that centers on soil health, input efficiency, and management synergies while remaining weigh participation and fairness. These include indicator suites, scoring systems, and field protocols that translate the soil triad into operational diagnostics - biology (active/total carbon, enzymes, microbial biomass), chemistry (pH, macro-/micronutrients), and physics (bulk density, penetration resistance, aggregate stability, available water capacity) - with scoring curves, critical limits, or minimum data sets to flag constraints and guide remediation (Andrews et al., 2004; Arshad & Martin, 2002; Deel et al., 2024; FAO-ITPS, 2020; Govindakrishnan et al., 2021; USDA-NRCS, 2021). Conceptual underpinnings and nutrient-stewardship guidance supply the process logic that link diagnosis to practice change (IFA, 2009; Lehmann et al., 2020; Stockdale et al., 2019). The other pole takes social-ecological and health framings, focusing on fairness/participation, connectivity, and diversification while treating biophysical metrics as contextual. Regional or context-specific frameworks and open databases enable adaptation monitoring and evaluation (Devine et al., 2021; Jian et al., 2020; Ros et al., 2022), with variants focused on water-limited environments and soil organic carbon (Ghimire et al., 2023; Nunes et al., 2021). Recent works position soil health within one-health/planetary-health agendas, broadening the purpose of diagnostics beyond agronomy (Lehmann et al., 2020; Montgomery et al., 2024). Across the design domain, recycling is limited while biodiversity tends to appear as a co-benefit rather than a design feature. The main contribution is a diagnostic spine (thresholds, scores, protocols, datasets) that other domains can mobilize for monitoring, learning, and course-correction. 3.2.3 Agroecological and Ecosystem-Based Frameworks Agroecological and ecosystem-based frameworks pivot from plot-level practices to landscape and system governance, emphasizing co-creation/participation, connectivity and tenure/governance, and multifunctional outcomes. It couples agroecological practice with territorial coordination, ecosystem-service accounting, and participatory performance tools, moving the locus of change from fields to food systems. One subset focuses on landscape articulation of spatial coordination through stakeholder platforms (FAO, 2017a, 2017b), restoration and long-term value creation (Commonland et al, 2024), and system-level feedbacks (Tittonell, 2023). The food-systems sub-block locates farm practices within enabling policy and market settings (FAO and INRAE, 2020) and within regional development agendas (NEPAD, 2003). Another subset consolidates environmental targets to anchor soil and land stewardship in accounting and planning (Cowie et al., 2018), while ecosystem-service framings provide the benefits ledger and trade-off criterion for design and evaluation (Alcamo et al., 2003). Participatory performance tools operationalize co-creation and learning - from plot to biomes - through context-specific diagnostics and indicators (FAO, 2019). Relative to efficiency-oriented frameworks, soil functions are secured indirectly - through diversity, ground cover, water regulation, and circular nutrient flows. Agroecological and ecosystem-service approaches promote permanent Program Report | Soil health agroecological framework review | Page 11 of 20 cover, intercropping, N-fixing species, integrated crop–livestock systems, and reuse of organic resources (Alcamo et al., 2003; FAO, 2019; Holmgren, 2017). Landscape instruments strengthen erosion control and hydrological regulation via mosaics of land uses, riparian buffers, terraces, and restoration zones, and they institutionalize cross- farm coordination (Commonland et al, 2024; Cowie et al., 2018; FAO, 2017b; NEPAD, 2003). Within this domain, farm-level nutrient guidance is retained but is explicitly embedded in system design - as one lever among diversification, agroecological redesign, and social organization (Sanginga & Woomer, 2009; Tittonell, 2023). Biodiversity, recycling/circularity, and land and natural-resource governance dominate, while farm-scale input- reduction and within-farm “synergy” register weakly. Fairness, connectivity, tenure, and coordination are expressed through collective rules and planning (Cowie et al., 2018; FAO and INRAE, 2020; NEPAD, 2003), co-creation/participation appears where participatory performance tools structure co-learning across scales (FAO, 2019), while diet/consumption elements are secondary and often contingent on food system policies rather than field protocols (FAO and INRAE, 2020). 3.2.4 Integrated Landscape and Livelihood Frameworks Emerging, this set groups broad, integrative frameworks that address multiple dimensions (environmental, social, economic) and multiple scales (from farm to landscape to national) in a systems perspective. These frameworks fuse food-system indicator suites with landscape/governance instruments. Agriculture and natural resource management are considered as part of a complex socio-ecological system – factoring in livelihoods, governance, equity, and long-term system change. The unifying characteristic is a holistic view that bridges traditional sectoral silos, aiming for simultaneous progress in productivity, poverty reduction, and environmental sustainability. Co-creation, participation, fairness, and connectivity are built in via livelihoods and food-system lenses (FS-TIP, 2021; iPES, 2015; López-Ridaura et al., 2002; Scoones, 1998; Triomphe et al., 2022). Land- and natural-resource governance is formalized through integrated landscape management and restoration planning (1000 Landscapes for 1 Billion People, 2022b, 2022a; Cowie et al., 2018; Sayer et al., 2013). Biodiversity and ecosystem-service accounting anchor benefit accounting and monitoring benchmarks (Haines-Young & Potschin, 2018; UNEP-WCMC, 2021). Diets and economic diversification appear through food-systems analysis and agroecology reviews rather than design features (FS-TIP, 2021; iPES, 2015; Wezel et al., 2020). Animal health is sparsely covered (AGRF, 2020; FAO-OEWG, 2022; Johnston & Bruulsema, 2014; Rhees et al., 2024). Soil outcomes are secured indirectly - via diversified land use (e.g., agroforestry), ground cover at scale, reduced erosivity, and improved infiltration - while technical specifics (pH/salinity correction, traffic management, nutrient timing) are typically delegated to complementary agronomic toolkits (Plieninger et al., 2020; Sayer et al., 2013). 3.2.5 Policy and outcome-oriented frameworks The high-level policy frameworks and outcome-based standards set targets, indicators, or broad principles to guide sustainable agriculture and resource management. They are often driven by governments, international bodies, or industry coalitions and serve as “reference frameworks” for aligning strategies and monitoring progress toward sustainability goals. The common thread is establishing measurable goals or commitments – whether for soil health, biodiversity, or agricultural performance – and creating accountability through indicators and reporting. Policy and convention instruments provide the anchor for tracking global obligations, continental agendas and national commitments while sectoral standards translate these into soil health target/threshold and regenerative outcome metrics (Matson et al., 2024b, 2024a; NEPAD, 2011; SAI Platform, 2023; UNEP, 2011). Soil health is framed via high-level targets, thresholds, or minimum safeguards (e.g., indicator “floors” for organic carbon, erosion risk, or basic biodiversity). The emphasis is on measurable goals, indicators, and reporting - mainstreaming biodiversity and soil health through key performance indicators - rather than on detailed, farm-level practice and measurement guidelines. In this configuration, soil health, input reduction, and biodiversity function mainly as baseline safeguards (e.g., indicator floors); recycling, synergy, co-creation/participation, and consumption-side elements are largely absent. The domain’s value is the enabling spine - monitoring–reporting– verification and comparability across programs - through which other domains’ agronomic tools can be aligned and incentivized. This strengthens the enabling layer for soil health, creating incentives and comparability across programs. 3.3 Soil health and agroecology The five design domains of frameworks discussed above align with distinct soil health and agroecological principles (Table 2). We can observe that the appraised frameworks are complementary in design, focus on keeping agricultural soils healthy and productive (including organic-matter dynamics and nutrient retention; chemical balance in terms of pH, salinity, and contaminants; physical structure, compaction and infiltration; biological activity and biodiversity; erosion control and water regulation), which is supported by the enabling conditions that make these gains durable (including recycling, synergy, input reduction, knowledge and co-creation, economic diversification and equity; as well as tenure and governance). Program Report | Soil health agroecological framework review | Page 12 of 20 Table 2 Design loci (Percent) of soil heath indicators or conditioning agroecological principles across domains of frameworks Soil managenet & stewardship Soil-health assessment tools Agroecology & ecosystem Integrated landscape & livelihoods Policy/ outcome & standards Soil health elements Biological 4.6 6.9 5.0 6.8 1.0 Chemical 5.6 8.1 6.8 7.4 1.0 Physical 5.0 7.9 5.3 7.2 0.9 Management 4.6 5.9 4.8 4.9 0.4 Agroecological conditioning Input reduction, synergy, recycling, biodiversity 24.0 2.4 9.3 2.3 1.1 Co-creation & participation 17.5 1.1 4.9 2.4 1.1 Economic diversification & social values 13.1 0.8 3.5 1.4 0.6 Fairness, connectivity & governance 9.6 0.6 2.6 1.3 0.5 Across the domains of frameworks, our results show that the framework design domains cover mostly the soil elements (biological, chemical and physical), reflecting their diagnostic orientation. Soil management frameworks are more balanced, while agroecology and ecosystem frameworks embed soil health within broader ecological relationships. Integrated landscape and livelihood frameworks also emphasize soil elements, viewing soil as a foundation for productivity and ecosystem services. Policy and standards frameworks, by contrast, give limited attention to soil parameters. Within the agroecological conditioning domain, efficiency and soil management frameworks again receive more attention, emphasizing input reduction, recycling, biodiversity, and co-creation, while agroecology and ecosystem frameworks are evenly balanced across ecological and social principles. Integrated landscape frameworks moderately cover coordination and inclusion, whereas assessment tools and policy frameworks remain narrower in scope, with emphasis on measurement or strategy rather than systemic integration. 4 Conclusion A synthesis of 66 frameworks reveals five design domains that integrate soil health within agroecological and agri- food systems. Efficiency-oriented soil management and input stewardship concentrates the practice levers for the soil triad (chemical, physical and biological), translating efficiency and stewardship into concrete field choices. Soil health assessment frameworks provide the diagnostic frame - indicators, thresholds, scoring, and protocols - that make limiting factors visible and progress measurable. Agroecological and ecosystem-based frameworks and integrated landscape and livelihood frameworks supply the social and territorial framings - co-creation, tenure and resource governance, multi-stakeholder coordination, and food-system perspectives - through which on-farm gains scale. Policy and target-oriented frameworks add the assurance layer - targets, thresholds, and reporting - that aligns actors and global targets. Content analysis and clustering shows that framework designs follow a complementary architecture rather than competing paradigms. Although framed as distinct, we give a first indication that the biophysical agro-ecological principles converge, provide clarity on the ongoing debate of indicator ambiguity for socio-economic principles (A. M. Dumont et al., 2016), and we highlight three pathways differentiating socio-economic principles. Hence, we argue against focusing on a predetermined set of or stage of framework. Instead, we propose a programming guide with integrating capabilities (Figure 3) for different contexts. For instance, for a new intervention, we propose beginning by diagnosing with soil health assessment frameworks, then acting through efficiency-oriented soil management and input stewardship. This could be followed by setting and reporting goals using policy and outcome-oriented frameworks and embed interventions in landscapes and value chains via agroecological and ecosystem-based frameworks together with integrated landscape and livelihood frameworks. Then, the program designers and implementers can loop back to diagnostics to learn and adjust. This integration closes predictable gaps: landscape and livelihood approaches gain precision when paired with soil health analysis and management from the agronomic toolkits; efficiency and diagnostics are more durable when anchored in governance and collective rules; outcome frameworks translate to field change when coupled to context-specific agronomy and participatory delivery. Built in this way, soil-health programs are more likely to lock in lasting improvements in organic matter, structure, nutrient cycling, infiltration, and erosion control - while meeting fairness and connectivity expectations that sustain the gains within the agri-food systems. Program Report | Soil health agroecological framework review | Page 13 of 20 Figure 3 Framework domains for designing integrated soil-health program In addition to aiding design and implementation, the five design domains of frameworks provide policymakers with a roadmap for aligning soil-health strategies with both national priorities and global sustainability targets, ensuring coherence between field-level action and higher-level commitments. They also clarify for donors and development partners the areas where investments can generate the highest leverage, such as strengthening diagnostics, fostering participatory governance, and enabling scaling mechanisms. Practitioners and extension agents are offered a sequencing logic that links practical interventions at the farm level to wider system transformation, thereby improving the durability of outcomes. For researchers, the design domains highlight the importance of bridging agronomic precision with socio-economic and governance considerations to advance solutions that are both scientifically rigorous and socially legitimate. Overall, the integrated domains demonstrate that soil-health interventions are most effective when embedded in integrated, multi-level frameworks that connect technical rigor with social legitimacy and policy alignment. Several limitations necessitate cautious interpretation of the results and conclusions. First, we note that indicator presence may not be related to measurement quality. For instance, socio-economic indicators mostly vary in construct clarity and reliability. Secondly, frameworks are living documents and may shift emphases over time, requiring updating. Third, geographic coverage is uneven; frameworks originating in the Global North can encode institutional assumptions distinct from those co-designed in smallholder contexts. These caveats require not just focusing on developing new frameworks, but building choice sets of existing ones coupled with deliberation with stakeholders to enhance transferability and local validation. Given the myriads of framework disciplines and purposes, the study is the first to establish an approach for appraising and establishing choice sets, the five design domains. 5 Acknowledgements We would like to thank the Kate Wellard of McKnight Foundation and Laurie Drinkwater of Cornell University for initiating the discussion on integrated soil health framework, bringing together their expertise and teams on biophysical and political economy to Lilongwe Lilongwe McKnight Foundation and CIMMYT Soil Health Workshop in October of 2024, where this work was born and shaped. We also extend our thanks to all workshop participants. 6 Declarations 6.1 Availability of data and material The indicator datasets extracted and/or analyzed during the study are available in the Zenodo repository, https://zenodo.org/records/17453617. soil management and input stewardship Integrated Landscape & Livelihood Agroecological & Ecosystem-Based Soil Health Assessment Policy- and outcome- based Program Report | Soil health agroecological framework review | Page 14 of 20 6.2 Code availability The R code used for PDF parsing, term proximity extraction, indicator matrix construction, and comparative framework analysis is available on corresponding author’s GitHub repository, https://github.com/powellmponela/soilhealth_ae_framework_review 7 References 1000 Landscapes for 1 Billion People. (2022a). A Practical Guide to Integrated Landscape Management. EcoAgriculture Partners. https://landscapes.global/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/ILM_Practical_Guide_DEC22.pdf 1000 Landscapes for 1 Billion People. (2022b). Integrated Landscape Management Tool Guide. Companion to “A Practical Guide to Integrated Landscape Management.” EcoAgriculture Partners. https://landscapes.global/wp- content/uploads/2022/10/ILM_Tool_Guide.pdf AGRF. (2020). Soil Initiative for Africa: Framework Document. Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa Forum (AGRF) and African Union Commission (AUC). https://au.int/sites/default/files/newsevents/workingdocuments/43470-wd- 3._EN_Soil_Initiative_for_Africa_Framework_VI_170523.pdf Alcamo, J., Bennett, E. M., & (Program), M. E. A. (2003). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment. In Island Press. Island Press. https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf Aleskerov, F., Bouyssou, D., & Monjardet, B. (2007). Utility Maximization, Choice and Preference. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Altieri, M. A., Nicholls, C. I., Henao, A., & Lana, M. A. (2015). Agroecology and the design of climate change-resilient farming systems. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 35(3), 869–890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015- 0285-2 Amundson, R., Berhe, A. A., Hopmans, J. W., Olson, C., Sztein, A. E., & Sparks, D. L. (2015). Soil and human security in the 21st century. Science, 348(6235). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1261071 Andrews, S. S., Karlen, D. L., & Cambardella, C. A. (2004). The Soil Management Assessment Framework. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 68(6), 1945–1962. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2004.1945 Apfelbaum, S. I., Mcelligott, K., Thompson, R., & Tiller, E. (2019). AES White Paper: Defining Soil Health Within the Context of Ecosystem Health-A Framework. Applied Ecological Services. https://uhcc.uh.edu/outreach/practitioners-forum/2022/Steve-Apfelbaum--AES-Soil-Health-Framework.pdf Arshad, M. A., & Martin, S. (2002). Identifying critical limits for soil quality indicators in agro-ecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 88(2), 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00252-3 Bezner Kerr, R., Liebert, J., Kansanga, M., & Kpienbaareh, D. (2022). Human and social values in agroecology. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, 10(1), 00090. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2021.00090 Bicksler, A. J., Mottet, A., Lucantoni, D., Sy, M. R., & Barrios, E. (2023). The 10 Elements of Agroecology interconnected: Making them operational in FAO’s work on agroecology. Elem Sci Anth, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2022.00041 Birner, R., & Resnick, D. (2010). The Political Economy of Policies for Smallholder Agriculture. World Development, 38(10), 1442–1452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.06.001 Cambridge University Press. (2025). FRAMEWORK | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary. Cambridge University Press & Assessment. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/framework CCSDH. (2015). A Review of Frameworks on the Determinants of Health. Canadian Council on Social Determinants of Health. http://ccsdh.ca/images/uploads/Frameworks_Report_English.pdf Ceppatelli, A., Cremilleux, M., Michaud, A., & Sturaro, E. (2025). Indicators for animal health on agroecological dairy farms in mountain areas. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 24(1), 2013–2028. https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2025.2554933 Commonland et al. (2024). The 4 returns framework in practice: a guidebook for holistic landscape restoration. Commonland. https://www.wetlands.org/publication/the-4-returns-framework-in-practice-guidebook/# Cowie, A. L., Orr, B. J., Castillo Sanchez, V. M., Chasek, P., Crossman, N. D., Erlewein, A., Louwagie, G., Maron, M., Metternicht, G. I., Minelli, S., Tengberg, A. E., Walter, S., & Welton, S. (2018). Land in balance: The scientific conceptual framework for Land Degradation Neutrality. Environmental Science and Policy, 79, 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.10.011 Deel, H. L., Moore, J. M., & Manter, D. K. (2024). SEMWISE: A national soil health scoring framework for agricultural systems. Applied Soil Ecology, 195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2024.105273 Derpsch, R. (2003). Conservation Tillage, No-Tillage and Related Technologies. In Conservation Agriculture (pp. 181– 190). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1143-2_23 Devine, S. M., Steenwerth, K. L., & O’Geen, A. T. (2021). A regional soil classification framework to improve soil health diagnosis and management. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 85(2), 361–378. https://doi.org/10.1002/saj2.20200 Dumont, A. M., Vanloqueren, G., Stassart, P. M., & Baret, P. V. (2016). Clarifying the socioeconomic dimensions of agroecology: between principles and practices. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 40(1), 24–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2015.1089967 Program Report | Soil health agroecological framework review | Page 15 of 20 Dumont, A. M., Wartenberg, A. C., & Baret, P. V. (2021). Bridging the gap between the agroecological ideal and its implementation into practice. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 41(3), 32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-021-00666-3 Dumont, B., Barlagne, C., Cassart, P., Duval, J. E., Fanchone, A., Gourdine, J.-L., Huguenin-Elie, O., Kazakova, Y., Klötzli, J., Lüscher, A., Oteros-Rozas, E., Pomies, D., Rivera Ferre, M. G., Rossing, W. A. H., Stefanova, V., Swartebroeckx, A., & Zagaria, C. (2025). Principles, barriers and enablers to agroecological animal production systems: a qualitative approach based on five case studies. Animal, 19, 101367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2024.101367 EEA. (2023). Soil monitoring in Europe࣯: indicators and thresholds for soil quality assessments. Publications Office of the European Union. https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/publications/soil-monitoring-in-europe European Commission. (2021). EU Soil Strategy for 2030: Reaping the benefits of healthy soils for people, food, nature and climate. European Commission. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52021DC0699 Faber, J. H., Hanegraaf, M., Gillikin, A., Hendriks, C., Kuikman, P., Cousin, I., Bispo, A., Obiang-Ndong, G., Montagne, D., Taylor, A., Bengtsson, J., Ten Damme, L., Meurer, K. H. E., Viketoft, M., Faber, J. H., Meurer, K. H. E., Hendriks, C. M. J., Bispo, A., Viketoft, M., … Bengtsson, J. (2022). Stocktaking for Agricultural Soil Quality and Ecosystem Services Indicators and their Reference Values (SIREN). www.ejpsoil.eu FAO. (2017a). Climate-Smart Agriculture Sourcebook - Second Edition 2017 (2nd ed.). FAO. https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/i7994en FAO. (2017b). Landscapes for Life: approaches to landscape management for sustainable food and agriculture. FAO. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/ff1e6259-a55d-4a79-b239-81d18e243538/content FAO. (2018). The 10 elements of Agroecology: Guiding the transition to sustainable food and agricutural systems. FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/I9037EN/i9037en.pdf FAO. (2019). TAPE Tool for Agroecology Performance Evaluation 2019- Process of development and guidelines for application. Test version. FAO. https://openknowledge.fao.org/items/8511c796-c7d1-4a04-895d-a28115731ce0 FAO and INRAE. (2020). Enabling sustainable food systems: Innovators’ handbook. In Enabling sustainable food systems. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9917en FAO-ITPS. (2015). Status of the World’s Soil Resources. FAO. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/6ec24d75-19bd-4f1f-b1c5-5becf50d0871/content FAO-ITPS. (2017). Voluntary Guidelines for Sustainable Soil Management. FAO. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/9a5b9373-3558-43b3-b732-f69326a7314d/content FAO-ITPS. (2020). Protocol for the assessment of Sustainable Soil Management. https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload//GSP/SSM/SSM_Protocol_EN_006.pdf FAO-OEWG. (2022). Global Soil Partnership Action Framework 2022-2030 - Healthy soils for a healthy life and environment: from promotion to consolidation of sustainable soil management. FAO. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/8428f509-cadf-48c8-845a-58fac410e11e/content Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., Mueller, N. D., O’Connell, C., Ray, D. K., West, P. C., Balzer, C., Bennett, E. M., Carpenter, S. R., Hill, J., Monfreda, C., Polasky, S., Rockström, J., Sheehan, J., Siebert, S., … Zaks, D. P. M. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478(7369), 337– 342. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10452 FS-TIP. (2021). Food Systems Analysis Toolkit A Tool to Accelerate Food Systems Transformation By the Food System Transformative Integrated Policy (FS-TIP) initiative. Ghimire, R., Thapa, V. R., Acosta-Martinez, V., Schipanski, M., Slaughter, L. C., Fonte, S. J., Shukla, M. K., Bista, P., Angadi, S. V., Mikha, M. M., Adebayo, O., & Noble Strohm, T. (2023). Soil Health Assessment and Management Framework for Water-Limited Environments: Examples from the Great Plains of the USA. Soil Systems, 7(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems7010022 Giller, Ken. E., Andersson, J. A., Corbeels, M., Kirkegaard, J., Mortensen, D., Erenstein, O., & Vanlauwe, B. (2015). Beyond conservation agriculture. Frontiers in Plant Science, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00870 Godfray, H. C. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S. M., & Toulmin, C. (2010). Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People. Science, 327(5967), 812– 818. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1185383 Govindakrishnan, P. M., Ganeshamurthy, A. N., Krishna Kumar, N. K., Beggi, F., Bhaskar, S., & Rana, J. C. (2021). DUS(Soil)—A Framework for Developing a Minimum Data Set of Soil Health Indicators and Management Guidelines for Farmers. Journal of Agricultural Science, 14(1), 41. https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v14n1p41 Greco, S., Ishizaka, A., Tasiou, M., & Torrisi, G. (2019). On the Methodological Framework of Composite Indices: A Review of the Issues of Weighting, Aggregation, and Robustness. Social Indicators Research, 141(1), 61–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1832-9 Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. (2018). Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. CICES. www.cices.eu HLPE. (2019). Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. FAO. www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe Holmgren, D. (2017). Permaculture: Principles & Pathways Beyond Sustainability (Revised). Melliodora Publishing. https://au.permacultureprinciples.com/product/principles-and-pathways/ IFA. (2009). The Global “4R” Nutrient Stewardship Framework: Developing Fertilizer Best Management Practices for Delivering Economic, Social and Environmental Benefits. International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA). https://www.fertilizer.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/2009_ifa_agcom_FBMPs.pdf IPCC. (2019). Climate Change and Land: An IPCC special report. IPCC. https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/ Program Report | Soil health agroecological framework review | Page 16 of 20 iPES. (2015). THE NEW SCIENCE OF SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS: Overcoming Barriers to Food Systems Reform. International panel of experts on sustainable food systems. https://www.ipes- food.org/_img/upload/files/NewScienceofSusFood.pdf Jian, J., Du, X., & Stewart, R. D. (2020). A database for global soil health assessment. Scientific Data, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0356-3 Johnston, A. M., & Bruulsema, T. W. (2014). 4R Nutrient Stewardship for Improved Nutrient Use Efficiency. Procedia Engineering, 83, 365–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.09.029 Kibblewhite, M. G., Ritz, K., & Swift, M. J. (2008). Soil health in agricultural systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363(1492), 685–701. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2178 Lal, R. (2004). Soil Carbon Sequestration Impacts on Global Climate Change and Food Security. Science, 304(5677), 1623–1627. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1097396 Lehmann, J., Bossio, D. A., Kögel-Knabner, I., & Rillig, M. C. (2020). The concept and future prospects of soil health. In Nature Reviews Earth and Environment (Vol. 1, Issue 10, pp. 544–553). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-0080-8 López-Ridaura, S., Masera, O., & Astier, M. (2002). Evaluating the sustainability of complex socio-environmental systems. The MESMIS framework. Ecological Indicators, 2(1–2), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470- 160X(02)00043-2 Lucantoni, D., Sy, M. R., Goïta, M., Veyret-Picot, M., Vicovaro, M., Bicksler, A., & Mottet, A. (2023). Evidence on the multidimensional performance of agroecology in Mali using TAPE. Agricultural Systems, 204, 103499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2022.103499 Luft, J. A., Jeong, S., Idsardi, R., & Gardner, G. (2022). Literature Reviews, Theoretical Frameworks, and Conceptual Frameworks: An Introduction for New Biology Education Researchers. CBE Life Sciences Education, 21(3), rm33. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.21-05-0134 MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: Integrating new and existing techniques. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 35(2), 293–334. https://doi.org/10.2307/23044045 Matson, A., Fantappiè, M., Campbell, G. A., Miranda-Vélez, J. F., Faber, J. H., Gomes, L. C., Hessel, R., Lana, M., Mocali, S., Smith, P., Robinson, D. A., Bispo, A., van Egmond, F., Keesstra, S., Saby, N. P. A., Smreczak, B., Froger, C., Suleymanov, A., & Chenu, C. (2024a). Four approaches to setting soil health targets and thresholds in agricultural soils. Journal of Environmental Management, 371, 123141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.123141 Matson, A., Fantappiè, M., Campbell, G. A., Miranda-Vélez, J. F., Faber, J. H., Gomes, L. C., Hessel, R., Lana, M., Mocali, S., Smith, P., Robinson, D., Bispo, A., van Egmond, F., Keesstra, S., Saby, N. P. A., Smreczak, B., Froger, C., Suleymanov, A., & Chenu, C. (2024b). A framework for setting soil health targets and thresholds in agricultural soils. https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-20664 Mazziotta, M., & Pareto, A. (2016). On a Generalized Non-compensatory Composite Index for Measuring Socio- economic Phenomena. Social Indicators Research, 127(3), 983–1003. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-0998-2 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being࣯: synthesis࣯: a report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press. https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf Minasny, B., Malone, B. P., McBratney, A. B., Angers, D. A., Arrouays, D., Chambers, A., Chaplot, V., Chen, Z.-S., Cheng, K., Das, B. S., Field, D. J., Gimona, A., Hedley, C. B., Hong, S. Y., Mandal, B., Marchant, B. P., Martin, M., McConkey, B. G., Mulder, V. L., … Winowiecki, L. (2017). Soil carbon 4 per mille. Geoderma, 292, 59–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.01.002 Moebius-Clune, B. N., Moebius-Clune, D. J., Gugino, B. K., & Idowu, O. (2017). Comprehensive Assessment of Soil Health - The Cornell Framework (3rd ed.). Cornell University. https://www.css.cornell.edu/extension/soil- health/manual.pdf Montgomery, D. R., Rabinowitz, P., Sipos, Y., & Wheat, E. E. (2024). Soil health: A common focus for one health and planetary health interventions. In One Health (Vol. 18). Elsevier B.V. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2023.100673 Mottet, A., Bicksler, A., Lucantoni, D., De Rosa, F., Scherf, B., Scopel, E., López-Ridaura, S., Gemmil-Herren, B., Bezner Kerr, R., Sourisseau, J.-M., Petersen, P., Chotte, J.-L., Loconto, A., & Tittonell, P. (2020). Assessing Transitions to Sustainable Agricultural and Food Systems: A Tool for Agroecology Performance Evaluation (TAPE). Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.579154 Moullin, J. C., Dickson, K. S., Stadnick, N. A., Albers, B., Nilsen, P., Broder-Fingert, S., Mukasa, B., & Aarons, G. A. (2020). Ten recommendations for using implementation frameworks in research and practice. Implementation Science Communications, 1(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-020-00023-7 Musumba, M., Grabowski, P., Palm, C., & Snapp, S. (2017). Guide for the Sustainable Intensification Assessment Framework Acknowledgments. Kansas State university. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/90523 Nardo, Michela; Saisana,Michaelaௗ; Saltelli, Andrea; Tarantola, Stefano; Hoffman, Anders; Giovannini, E. (2005). Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators (2005/03; OECD Statistics Working Papers). OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/533411815016 NEPAD. (2003). Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme. African Union. https://www.nepad.org/file- download/download/public/15904 NEPAD. (2011). The Abuja Declaration on Fertilizers for an African Green Revolution - Status of Implementation at Regional and National Levels. African Union. https://nepad-caadp.net/pdf/Progress on Abuja Declaration July 2011 (2).pdf NEPAD. (2015). The CAADP Results Framework 2015-2025. NEPAD. https://www.nepad.org/file- download/download/public/14299 Program Report | Soil health agroecological framework review | Page 17 of 20 Neßhöver, C., James Aronson, James Blignaut, Florian Eppink, Alexandra Vakrou, Heidi Wittmer, & Clare Shine. (2012). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity in National and International Policy Making (P. ten Brink, Ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849775496 Nestle. (2024). The Nestle Agriculture Framework. Nestle. https://www.nestle.com/sites/default/files/2022-07/nestle- agriculture-framework.pdf Nicholls, C. I., Altieri, M. A., Kobayashi, M., Tamura, N., McGreevy, S., & Hitaka, K. (2020). Assessing the agroecological status of a farm:a principle-based assessment tool for farmers. Agro Sur, 48(2), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.4206/agrosur.2020.v48n2-04 Nunes, M. R., Veum, K. S., Parker, P. A., Holan, S. H., Karlen, D. L., Amsili, J. P., van Es, H. M., Wills, S. A., Seybold, C. A., & Moorman, T. B. (2021). The soil health assessment protocol and evaluation applied to soil organic carbon. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 85(4), 1196–1213. https://doi.org/10.1002/saj2.20244 Oreg, S., & Katz-Gerro, T. (2006). Predicting proenvironmental behavior cross-nationally: Values, the theory of planned behavior, and value-belief-norm theory. Environment and Behavior, 38(4), 462–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916505286012 Ostrom, E. (2011). Background on the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00394.x Pinstrup-Andersen, P., & Hazell, P. B. R. (1985). The impact of the green revolution and prospects for the future. Food Reviews International, 1(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/87559128509540765 Plieninger, T., Muñoz-Rojas, J., Buck, L. E., & Scherr, S. J. (2020). Agroforestry for sustainable landscape management. In Sustainability Science (Vol. 15, Issue 5, pp. 1255–1266). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00836-4 Polites, G. L., Roberts, N., & Thatcher, J. (2012). Conceptualizing models using multidimensional constructs: a review and guidelines for their use. European Journal of Information Systems, 21(1), 22–48. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.10 Posthumus, H., Bosselaar, J., & Brouwer, H. (2021). The Food Systems Decision-Support Toolbox- a toolbox for food system analysis. KIT Royal Tropical Institute and Wageningen Economic Research. https://edepot.wur.nl/541410 Pretty, J. (2008). Agricultural sustainability: concepts, principles and evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363(1491), 447–465. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2163 Rhees, S., Lewandowski, A. M., Cates, A., Roth, S., & Gile, T. (2024). Minnesota Soil Health Action Framework. University of Minnesota. https://hdl.handle.net/11299/261252 Rocco, S. T., & Plakhotnik, S. M. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions. Human Resource Development Review, 8(1), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309332617 Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., Lenton, T. M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H. J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C. A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P. K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., … Foley, J. A. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472– 475. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a Ros, G. H., Verweij, S. E., Janssen, S. J. C., De Haan, J., & Fujita, Y. (2022). An Open Soil Health Assessment Framework Facilitating Sustainable Soil Management. Environmental Science & Technology, 56(23), 17375– 17384. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c04516 SAI Platform. (2023). Regenerating Together: A global framework for regenerative agriculture. https://saiplatform.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/sai-platform_-regenerating-together_september-2023.pdf Sanchez, P. A. (2002). Soil Fertility and Hunger in Africa. Science, 295(5562), 2019–2020. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1065256 Sanginga, N., & Woomer, P. L. (2009). Integrated Soil Fertility Management in Africa: Principles Practices and Development Process. In Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Institute of the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture. Nairobi. http://ciat-library.ciat.cgiar.org/articulos_ciat/tsbf/pdf/tsbf_isfm_book09_contents.pdf Sayer, J., Sunderland, T., Ghazoul, J., Pfund, J.-L., Sheil, D., Meijaard, E., Venter, M., Boedhihartono, A. K., Day, M., Garcia, C., van Oosten, C., & Buck, L. E. (2013). Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(21), 8349–8356. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1210595110 Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis. Institute of Development Studies. https://www.ids.ac.uk/publications/sustainable-rural-livelihoods-a-framework-for-analysis/ SKI. (2021). Agroecology at a landscape level - Toolkit for facilitators. https://www.seedandknowledge.org/wp- content/uploads/2022/12/SKI-AE-Landscape-Toolkit.pdf Stockdale, E. A., Griffiths, B. S., Hargreaves, P. R., Bhogal, A., Crotty, F. V., & Watson, C. A. (2019). Conceptual framework underpinning management of soil health—supporting site-specific delivery of sustainable agro- ecosystems. Food and Energy Security, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.158 Thaxton, M., Shames, S., & Scherr, S. J. (2017). Integrated landscape management: an approach to achieve equitable and participatory sustainable development. Global land outlook working paper. UNCCD. https://www.unccd.int/sites/default/files/2018-06/4. Integrated+Landscape+Management__Thaxton_Shames_Scherr.pdf Thierfelder, C., Baudron, F., Setimela, P., Nyagumbo, I., Mupangwa, W., Mhlanga, B., Lee, N., & Gérard, B. (2018). Complementary practices supporting conservation agriculture in southern Africa. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 38(2), 16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-018-0492-8 Tittonell, P. (2014). Ecological intensification of agriculture—sustainable by nature. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 8, 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.08.006 Tittonell, P. (2023). A Systems Approach to Agroecology. In A Systems Approach to Agroecology. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42939-2 Program Report | Soil health agroecological framework review | Page 18 of 20 Triomphe, B., Bergamini, N., & Fuchs, L. E. (2022). Engaging with stakeholders for initiating agroecological transition in Living Landscapes Six guiding principles On behalf of the WP1 team CGIAR Initiative on Agroecology. CGIAR. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/127414 UNEP. (2011). Convention on Biological Diversity -text and annexes. UNEP. https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf UNEP-WCMC. (2021). National ecosystem assessments to support implementation of the convention on biological diversity. UNEP. https://www.ecosystemassessments.net/content/uploads/2021/11/CBD-NEA-2021.pdf UNHCR. (2017). Needs Assessment Handbook. UNHCR. https://www.unhcr.org/handbooks/assessment/sites/assessment/files/2023-10/UNHCR USDA-NRCS. (2021). Soil Health Technical Note No. 450-06 Cropland In-Field Soil Health Assessment Guide (450– 06). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2023-03/In-Field Assessment 2021 Complete ND.pdf Utter, A., White, A., Méndez, V. E., & Morris, K. (2021). Co-creation of knowledge in agroecology. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, 9(1), 00026. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2021.00026 van der Ploeg, J. D. (2021). The political economy of agroecology. Journal of Peasant Studies, 48(2), 274–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2020.1725489 Vanlauwe, B., Amede, T., Bationo, A., Bindraban, P., Breman, H., Cardinael, R., Couedel, A., Chivenge, P., Corbeels, M., Dobermann, A., Falconnier, G., Fatunbi, W., Giller, K., Harawa, R., Kamau, M., Merckx, R., Palm, C., Powlson, D., Rusinamhodzi, L., … Groot, R. (2023). Fertilizer and Soil Health in Africa: The Role of Fertilizer in Building Soil Health to Sustain Farming and Address Climate Change. https://ifdc.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Fertilizer- and-Soil-Health-in-Africa-The-Role-of-Fertilizer-in-Building-Soil-Health-to-Sustain-Farming-and-Address-Climate- Change.pdf Vanlauwe, B., Wendt, J., Giller, K. E., Corbeels, M., Gerard, B., & Nolte, C. (2014). A fourth principle is required to define Conservation Agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa: The appropriate use of fertilizer to enhance crop productivity. Field Crops Research, 155, 10–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2013.10.002 Wezel, A., Herren, B. G., Kerr, R. B., Barrios, E., Gonçalves, A. L. R., & Sinclair, F. (2020). Agroecological principles and elements and their implications for transitioning to sustainable food systems. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 40(6). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-020-00646-z Program Report | Soil health agroecological framework review | Page 19 of 20 Acknowledgements The CGIAR Sustainable Science Program forms a part of CGIAR’s new Research Portfolio, addressing key challenges in agri-food systems by fostering efficient production of nutritious foods and safeguarding the environment to create fair employment opportunities, as we simultaneously tackle climate change, soil degradation, pests, diseases, and desertification. Its research is being implemented by CGIAR researchers from CGIAR Research Centers CIMMYT. We would like to thank all funders who supported this research through their contributions to the CGIAR Trust Fund: https://www.cgiar.org/funders/ We would also like to express our sincere appreciation to Muhammad Nurul Amin Siddiquee, Chief of Party, USAID Feed the Future Livestock Activity and Country Representative of ACDI/VOCA, for his valuable support and guidance. Disclaimer This working paper has not been peer reviewed. Any opinions stated herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the policies or opinions of CIMMYT, donors, or partners. This publication is copyrighted by CIMMYT It is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution – Non-commercial 4.0 International License. To view this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0. Unless otherwise noted, you are free to share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format), adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) for any purpose, even commercially, under the following conditions: ATTRIBUTION: The work must be attributed, but not in any way that suggests endorsement by CIMMYT or the author(s). Photos: CIMMYT NOTICE: For any reuse or distribution, the license terms of this work must be made clear to others. Any of the above conditions can be waived if permission is obtained from the copyright holder. Nothing in this license impairs or author’s moral rights. Fair dealing and other rights are in no way affected by the above. The parts used must not misrepresent the meaning of the publication. CIMMYT would appreciate being sent a copy of any materials in which text, photos, etc., have been used. ©2025 CIMMYT Program Report | Soil health agroecological framework review | Page 20 of 20 About CGIAR Sustainable Science Program This research was conducted as part of the CGIAR Sustainable Farming Science Program. This research is being implemented by CGIAR researchers from CIMMYT. CGIAR is a global research partnership for a food-secure future. Its science is carried out by 13 Research Centers in close collaboration with hundreds of global partners. For more information, visitௗwww.cgiar.org.