The Agroecology and Safe Food System Transitions (ASSET) project worked across Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia from 2020 to 2025, aiming to transform agricultural systems toward sustainability, safety, and equity. Funded by AFD, EU, and FFEM, the project partnered with government agencies, research institutions, and farmer organizations to promote agroecology from individual farms to national policy dialogues.

The outcome evaluation conducted across the three countries showed that the same project achieved markedly different outcomes depending on the innovation ecosystem it addressed. These differences offer critical insights. Technical interventions interact with existing institutions, networks, policies, and farmer practices built over decades. Understanding these interactions matters for anyone working on agricultural transitions in Southeast Asia and beyond.

The Outcome Evaluation Framework

ASSET's evaluation strategy employed Outcome Harvesting, a comprehensive methodology designed to assess transformative impact on agricultural and food systems across multiple scales and contexts. This approach reflects the project's commitment to understanding complex systemic changes rather than relying solely on predetermined indicators, capturing both intended and unintended outcomes that emerged from interventions across Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.

Outcome Harvesting operates through a four-phase process that acknowledges the inherent complexity of agricultural system transformations and the diversity of actors, interests, and roles involved in agroecological transitions.

The first phase involved comprehensive outcome identification, where change agents, i.e. primarily ASSET project partners, collaborated with documentary review processes to identify all outcomes materialized during implementation. This inclusive approach ensured that the evaluation captured the full spectrum of changes emerging from project activities.

The second phase prioritized the most significant areas of change, focusing evaluation resources on outcomes demonstrating substantial shifts in key agricultural and food system dynamics. Rather than attempting to document every change uniformly, this prioritization enabled deeper investigation of the most consequential transformations.

The third phase engaged in detailed trajectory mapping, where evaluators characterized the pathways leading to each prioritized outcome. This illuminated complex causal relationships between ASSET interventions and observed changes, revealing both direct and indirect contributions to agroecological transitions. This phase involved evidence collection from knowledgeable informants, i.e. farmers, extension officers, government officials, and civil society representatives, to ensure identified outcomes were significant and ASSET's contributions were adequately characterized.

ASSET's outcome evaluation operated across multiple intervention levels: flagship programs in specific territories, national policy advocacy, and regional network development through ALiSEA (Agroecology Learning Alliance in Southeast Asia - https://ali-sea.org). This multi-scale approach enabled capturing outcomes ranging from household-level practice changes to national policy transformations, with particular emphasis on qualitative evaluation over quantitative measurement.

By focusing on outcomes, i.e. changes in practices, behaviors, and interactions emerging from project activities, this evaluation approach provides valuable insights into enabling conditions for transformative change, informing policy frameworks at local, national, and regional levels.

Understanding Agroecology: Toward Shared Definitions

Through the outcome evaluation process, stakeholders revealed that they conceptualized agroecology differently across contexts, though with signs of convergence.

In Vietnam, environmental protection dominated, followed by integrated systems approaches and technical practices like cover crops. Vietnamese implementers referred to agroecology principles as extending beyond techniques to encompass socio-economic dimensions.

In Cambodia, farmers primarily focused on practical elements—cover crops, reduced chemicals—drawing from direct ASSET experience. Government officials equated agroecology with conservation agriculture, revealing the conceptual heritage of this practice in the country.

However, the term "agroecology" is becoming more readily understood and accepted than "conservation agriculture," particularly because its modern framing attracts greater interest from relevant stakeholders. This contemporary terminology helps to mitigate concerns that these practices merely involve reverting to old or traditional farming methods, thereby lowering the institutional barrier to mainstreaming agroecology from policy-making (upstream) to implementation (downstream).

In Laos, several respondents defined agroecology as benefitting simultaneously society, environment, and economic development, emphasizing a dimension of national and local ownership.

While some respondents noted that "every project has their brand" or that there are "currently more than 19 different definitions of agroecology (see AKH)," responses from the three countries showed an evolution toward shared understandings, suggesting that dialogue and practice are gradually building a common ground.

Four Pathways of Agroecological Change

Farmer Practices

In Vietnam, the project achieved a significant transformation from burned by-products and free-range livestock to closed-loop integrated systems. All 14 interviewed farmers adopted forage cultivation, silage production, and composting. Results included rice production up 50%, cattle reaching market two years faster, and coffee yields jumping 50%. According to respondent’s estimates, the project achieved substantial reach (900-1,280 households) and critically, practices integrated into provincial policy and the National Target Program.

In Cambodia, the project centered on cover crops (300-400 households) and weaver ant pest control in cashew. To prevent damage from roaming cattle, farmers created fences at personal cost for soil conservation. However, market instability created challenges: when buyers broke contracts, some farmers abandoned practices despite recognizing soil improvements. The ASSET project has been instrumental in supporting the Cambodia Conservation Agriculture and Sustainable Intensification Consortium (CASIC), integrating and supporting its current target provinces to implement agroecology practices. This has been primarily achieved through interventions led by the Provincial Departments of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (PDAFF), focusing especially on the application of cover crops. Building on this success, CASIC is now actively working to extend these activities to another province, Banteay Meanchey. Currently, approximately 90 new households across 10 target provinces (excluding the initial intervention areas) have actively adopted agroecological practices, particularly the use of cover crops, demonstrating a successful and expanding uptake of these sustainable techniques.

In Laos, the project supported transitions to diversified systems (288 households total) with increased farmer confidence. Geographic concentration of agroecology practices remained in specific areas of project intervention and did not significantly spread beyond, with varying levels of continued engagement.

Extension and Capacity Building

Extension officers in Vietnam evolved from trainees to coordinators. Non-participants sought their guidance, making them training resources beyond project boundaries, evidence of spillover effects and professional development. In Laos, the focus shifted from broad commune training to farmer-specific planning with "pass the knowledge" commitments, building confidence through locally adapted approaches. In Cambodia, there was "more systematic" knowledge delivery, establishing stronger technical foundations.

ALiSEA Network: Platform for Dialogue

All three countries strengthened the ALiSEA network, creating important spaces for civil society-science-policy exchange. In Vietnam, the network saw rapid growth over the country with improved articulation of agroecology by authorities and communication about agroecology to society. In Laos, the network created a valuable civil society-public sector "safe space" for dialogue. In Cambodia, the network has achieved meaningful policy access through regular invitations to government meetings and by successfully establishing a clear connection with existing policy platforms like CASIC. Sustainability remains a work in progress across contexts, with ongoing attention needed to maintain momentum and deepen member engagement beyond project support.

Policy Recognition and Integration

In Vietnam and Laos, the project made meaningful contributions to policy through evidence-based multi-stakeholder dialogue, translating commitments to agroecology into National Action Plans for Food System Transformation by 2030. In Laos, agroecology was explicitly included into the Agricultural Development Strategy 2030 and the Agricultural Land Management Strategy 2030 Vision 2040. In Cambodia, agroecology gained formal recognition in climate and agriculture plans through the CASIC initiative, with government actors seeking additional evidence of scalable outcomes. The oversight role played by CASIC regarding the ASEAN Guidelines for Agroecology holds significant weight for national and regional adoption of sustainable practices. This involvement ensures a direct and authoritative link between regional policy frameworks and national implementation strategies.

Who Adopts? Differentiated Outcomes

Age emerged as the most consistent differentiator across all countries, however in all countries respondents recognized that youth do engage less and less in agriculture. Vietnamese respondents noted younger farmers adapted faster to technology while older farmers required hands-on guidance. Composting proved physically demanding for elderly farmers, who creatively adapted by collecting manure daily rather than managing the full process.

Gender patterns proved complex and context dependent. In Vietnam, respondents reported mixed assessments, with several noting "tasks were relatively easy for all." In Laos, assessments were consistently positive regarding gender, with respondents describing women as "faster learners, more engaged than men, and better at knowledge transmission."

Ethnicity shaped adoption in Vietnam. Respondents revealed Thai communities showed stronger adoption than Hmong communities, who grew forage but not silage, preferring free-grazing traditions and cultural preferences in terms of coordinated work.

Market Access as Critical Challenge

Despite technical achievements, all three countries identified market access as the critical constraint requiring continued attention. Vietnamese farmers consistently asked, "How can we sell our products?". The ALiSEA network identified needs for product identification and labeling systems to strengthen market linkages.

In Cambodia, farmers faced high fencing costs making cover cropping expensive, and market reliability challenges. One farmer explained: "The cooperative promised to buy our cover crop seeds, but when harvest came, the buyer disappeared. We had seeds but no market." In Laos, farmers reported price instability and opportunities for stronger value chain integration despite improved production.

This market dynamic reveals an important pattern: economic viability fundamentally shapes practice continuation. In Cambodia, evaluators documented high initial adoption but discontinuation when economic incentives disappeared. As one Cambodian farmer stated: "I know the cover crops are good for my soil. I can see the difference. But when I can't sell the seeds and the fertilizer company gives me credit, what choice do I have?"

Critical Implications to Catalyze Change

The ASSET experience illuminates several insights into agroecological transitions:

Technical success creates foundations but social, economic and policy change are needed for sustainable scaling. All three countries demonstrated that farmers can quickly adopt agroecological practices when provided appropriate support. Technical feasibility has been established; the frontier now involves economic and institutional changes to achieve outreach.

Markets require explicit strategy. The persistent gap between technical success and economic viability suggests agroecological transitions benefit from explicit market development strategies—certification systems, processing infrastructure, farmer organization-controlled marketing channels, and price premiums that reach producers.

Institutional capacity shapes sustainability prospects. Where government extension systems have adequate resources (as seen more in Vietnam than in Cambodia or Laos), project-initiated changes have stronger prospects for continuation. Strengthening these systems enhances sustainability beyond project timeframes.

Geographic concentration and gradual expansion. All three countries demonstrated depth in selected areas, establishing proof of concept. Moving from pilot demonstrations to broader adoption requires different strategies, resources, and timeframes than initial implementation—a natural progression requiring patient investment.

The Need for Continuity

The evaluation illuminates productive tension: ASSET successfully demonstrated what is technically possible and built human and institutional capital. A five-year project fostering agroecological transitions can catalyze change, demonstrate possibilities, and create platforms for collaboration. However, transforming market systems, strengthening extension services, and redirecting national policies require sustained political commitment, adequate public investment, and multi-decade timeframes.

ASSET Project functioned as catalyst within broader policy changes, making meaningful contributions to multi-stakeholder dialogue, and translating policy commitments into scaled implementation. ASSET's contribution was incremental, building upon decades of prior engagement in all three countries to strengthen existing momentum. Beyond demonstrations of technical feasibility and building human capital, achieving broad-based, lasting transformation requires parallel market development and supportive economic policies enabling farmers to balance sustainability and profit.

The question for the future is whether the capacity, mechanisms, networks, and frameworks that ASSET helped strengthening can maintain momentum as external support transitions. The answer depends on whether governments, farmers’ organizations, and other stakeholders continue investing resources in sustaining and scaling agroecology, through strengthening market access and economic viability, sustaining institutional capacity for continued support, and expanding geographic reach beyond initial intervention areas. 

____________

With special acknowledgement for their insights and review to

• H.E Yeou Asikin, Under Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Vice Chair of CASIC Steering Committee, Cambodia
• Dr Thatheva Saphangtong, Deputy Director of Lao Department Land Management (DLAM), Lao PDR / LICA regional coordinator, Lao PDR
• Dr Dao The Anh, Chair of the Agroecology Learning Alliance in South East Asia (ALiSEA) board in Vietnam and former Vice President of the Vietnam Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Vietnam