A growing body of research is calling for a fundamental shift in how agrifood system performance is measured, warning that conventional metrics risk undervaluing agroecology and other sustainable approaches.
According to a recent report on “Holistic performance measurement for food systems transformation: Scoping the potential of holistic assessment for supporting agroecological transitions”, current evaluation systems often fail to capture the full range of social, environmental and economic outcomes associated with food systems.
The report, published by the Center for International Forestry Research and World Agroforestry (CIFOR-ICRAF) and partners in 2026, argues that widely used performance indicators tend to prioritize productivity and short-term economic returns, overlooking broader system dynamics such as resilience, equity and ecological health.
This creates an uneven playing field when comparing agroecology with more conventional agricultural models.
The authors highlight that agroecology, by design, delivers multiple co-benefits — including biodiversity conservation, improved soil health and strengthened community agency — which are often not reflected in standard measurement frameworks. As a result, its true contribution to food systems transformation remains under-recognized.
According to the report, there is an urgent need for “more holistic approaches to measuring agrifood system performance” to ensure agroecology is fairly assessed alongside alternative approaches.
Beyond narrow metrics
Traditional assessment tools typically focus on single dimensions, such as yield or income, despite increasing recognition that agrifood systems are inherently complex and multifunctional.
Earlier research shows that while many frameworks claim to be holistic, most still emphasize a limited set of indicators and fail to capture interactions, trade-offs and synergies within the system.
The new report builds on this critique, noting that true holistic assessment should go beyond measuring multiple indicators in isolation. Instead, it should incorporate diverse stakeholder perspectives, system-level interactions and long-term outcomes.
For instance, farmers, policymakers and consumers may each value different aspects of food system performance, from profitability to nutrition or environmental sustainability. Ignoring these perspectives can lead to incomplete or biased assessments.
Key gaps identified
Drawing on case studies from Burkina Faso, Ghana and Tunisia, the report identifies several barriers to effective measurement. These include a lack of harmonized metrics, limited technical capacity and insufficient guidance on how to implement holistic frameworks in practice.
It also points to the persistent neglect of social dimensions such as equity, gender inclusion and local agency — factors that are central to agroecological transitions but rarely captured in conventional evaluations.
“Measuring and monitoring the performance of food and agricultural systems is common, but do we really capture what matters?” the report asks, underscoring the disconnect between existing tools and real-world outcomes.
Towards context-sensitive approaches
Rather than proposing a one-size-fits-all solution, the authors advocate for context-sensitive metrics that can be adapted to different agroecological, cultural and economic settings. This flexibility is critical given the diversity of agrifood systems globally.
The report also emphasizes the importance of co-producing knowledge with local stakeholders, ensuring that measurement frameworks reflect on-the-ground realities and priorities. This participatory approach is seen as key to improving both the relevance and legitimacy of assessments.
In addition, stronger coordination among governments, researchers, NGOs and funders is needed to align efforts and scale up the adoption of holistic measurement tools. Strategic investments in data systems and capacity building will also be essential.
Implications for policy and investment
The push for holistic performance measurement comes at a time when countries and development partners are seeking pathways to transform food systems in the face of climate change, biodiversity loss and rising food insecurity.
By providing a more comprehensive picture of system performance, holistic metrics could help policymakers make better-informed decisions, direct funding more effectively and support transitions towards sustainability.
Ultimately, the report concludes that without improved measurement frameworks, agroecology risks being undervalued despite its potential to deliver resilient, inclusive and sustainable food systems.
As the global debate on food systems transformation intensifies, the adoption of holistic assessment approaches may prove crucial in ensuring that what gets measured truly reflects what matters.
