Andrieu N Kebede

Y 2020 Climate

Dr Philip Thornton

Dr Peter Laderach

Dr Osana Bonilla-Findji

Dr Stephen E Zebiak

Rose Alison

Dr Lini

Keywords: Agroecology, climate change, FAO 10 elements of agroecology

Climate change is challenging the sustainability of agricultural systems. Some authors argue that only an agroecological transformation of agricultural systems is the appropriate response to climate change issues. CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), aims to catalyze positive change towards climate-smart agriculture (CSA), food systems and landscapes to meet the triple goals of food security, adaptation and mitigation. In this paper, we present agroecological principles as defined by various authors or

About the authors

Nadine Andrieu (Email: nadine.andrieu@cirad.fr) is a Senior scientist at UMR Innovation CIRAD in Montpellier, France and a Decision and Policy Analysis at the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) in Cali, Colombia.

Yodit Kebede (Ph.D) (Email: yodit.kebede@ird.fr) is a Post-doctoral researcher at IRD, UMR Eco&Sols in Montpellier, France.

Introduction

Today, 32% to 39% of the variability in crop yields around the world is due to the climate and translates into annual production fluctuations of 2 to 22 million tones for crops such as maize, rice, wheat and soybeans (Ray et al. 2015). This is expected to increase given climate change [START_REF] Mbow | food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems[END_REF]. At the same time, agriculture and livestock contribute between 19% and 29% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Vermeulen et al. 2012). In addition, FAO anticipates that by 2050, 60% more food will be needed for a world population that is growing and changing its consumption patterns through the consumption of more protein [START_REF] Alexandratos | World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision. Rome, Italy: Food[END_REF]. Some authors argue that an agroecological transformation of agricultural systems is the only appropriate response to issues caused by climate change [START_REF] Altieri | Agroecology and the design of climate change-resilient farming systems[END_REF][START_REF] Sinclair | The Contribution of Agroecological Approaches to Realizing Climate-Resilient Agriculture[END_REF]. Agroecology is one of the options of sustainable land management [START_REF] Hlpe | Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition[END_REF]. It is the application of ecological sciences to the study, design and management of sustainable agriculture [START_REF] Altieri | Agroecology: The Science of Sustainable Agriculture[END_REF]. Integrated land-use systems that maintain species diversity, agrobiodiversity, the improvement of ecological processes and delivery of ecosystem services, the strengthening of local communities and recognition of the role and value of indigenous and local knowledge are core elements of agroecology (FAO 2018;[START_REF] Mbow | food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems[END_REF].

There are two overall purposes of CGIAR's Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS); one is to marshal the science and expertise of the CGIAR System Organization and partners to catalyze positive change towards climate-smart agriculture (CSA), food systems and landscapes. The second is to position the CGIAR to play a major role in bringing to scale practices, technologies and institutions that enable agriculture to meet food security, adaptation and mitigation goals. CSA aims to find synergies between its three goals or pillars (sustainable productivity, climate change adaptation, and greenhouse gas mitigation) from local to global levels. Adopting a synergistic view to the three pillars of CSA facilitates improved distinction of CSA from other conventional agricultural production systems (FAO 2013).

There are controversies on whether CSA and agroecology are aligned. For [START_REF] Sinclair | The Contribution of Agroecological Approaches to Realizing Climate-Resilient Agriculture[END_REF], while many agroecological practices are classified as climate-smart because they contribute to adaptation and mitigation, not all climate-smart practices follow agroecological principles. For example, no or minimum tillage practices, combined with the use of herbicides rather than mechanical options to destroy weeds, may be considered climate-smart but not agroecological. For [START_REF] Altieri | Agroecology and the design of climate change-resilient farming systems[END_REF], CSA pays too much attention to innovations and not enough to traditional practices and the underlying mechanisms that allowed existing systems to resist or recover from droughts, storms, floods, or hurricanes.

Additionally, there is not enough consideration for these authors to the social resilience of the rural communities that manage such agroecosystems.

There is also skepticism about the efficacy of agroecology as a systematic approach that can sustainably feed a growing population. For [START_REF] Mugwanya | Why agroecology is a dead end for Africa[END_REF], the practices that agroecology promotes are not qualitatively different from those currently in use among smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. However, others question the added value of new frameworks such as agroecology rather than the improvement of existing principles for sustainability. But for [START_REF] Wise | Opinion in sustainable agriculture: Agroecology as Innovation[END_REF], this argument is a defensive response to the failures of Green Revolution practices since agroecology promotes innovations around biological pest control, push-pull technology using specific crop mixes, participatory plant breeding, agroforestry and legume crop with a careful selection of tree varieties and density.

However, for some authors, these debates lead to an impasse between policy makers, implementers, and scientists and call for a pragmatic use of these concepts in order to go forward (Mockshell et al. 2019). [START_REF] Saj | The way forward: An agroecological perspective for Climate-Smart Agriculture[END_REF] proposed to explore the complementarity between both concepts, agroecology having produced extensive literature on the resilience of farming systems and climate-smart agriculture on the role of institutions that support change in agricultural systems.

In this paper, we present agroecological principles and how they address climate change issues. We then examine to what extent CCAFS is aligned with agroecological principles. We conclude with recommendations for improving the application of agroecological principles in a future climate change research program for agricultural development.

Agroecology and climate change framework

Agroecology core-shared principles

There is no one universal definition for agroecology, however concepts of complexity, context-specificity, bottom-up and territorial or landscape processes are at the core of shared agroecology principles. Indeed, recent years have seen the multiplication of definitions of agroecology with nuances depending on the authors, institutions or organizations, highlighting its dynamic aspect (HLPE 2019). Nonetheless, there is a consensus that agroecology embraces three dimensions: a transdisciplinary science, a set of practices and a social movement [START_REF] Wezel | Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A review[END_REF][START_REF] Wezel | Agroecology and agroecological cropping practices. Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture: principles, applications, and making the transition[END_REF][START_REF] Hlpe | Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition[END_REF]FAO 2018) The HLPE (2019) report defines an agroecological approach to sustainable food systems for food security and nutrition as follows:

"Agroecological approaches favor the use of natural processes, limit the use of purchased inputs, promote closed cycles with minimal negative externalities and stress the importance of local knowledge and participatory processes that develop knowledge and practice through experience, as well as more conventional scientific methods, and address social inequalities. Agroecological approaches recognize that agri-food systems are coupled socialecological systems from food production to consumption and involve science, practice and a social movement, as well as their holistic integration, to address food security and nutrition."

Thus, agroecology provides possible transition pathways towards more sustainable food systems, based on a holistic and systemic approach (IPES-Food 2016). During its historical evolution, agroecology's focus went from the field, farm and agroecosystem scales to encompass the whole food system over the last decade.

Bridging ecological and social dimensions, and rooted in sustainability, agroecological approaches aim to transform food and agriculture systems, and address the root causes of problems. Proponents believe it is people-centered, knowledge-intensive, and will provide holistic and long-term solutions as aimed by the 2030 Agenda (FAO 2018). Agroecology particularly contributes to no poverty (SDG1), zero hunger (SDG2), good health and wellbeing (SDG3), decent work and economic growth (SDG8), responsible consumption and production (SDG12), climate action (SDG 13) and life on land (SDG 15) (FAO 2019).

Encompassing aspects related to the three pillars of sustainable development (environment, social and economic), several sets of agroecological principles were developed by different actors to characterize inherent properties of agroecology.

Building on the scientific foundation of [START_REF] Altieri | Agroecology: The Science of Sustainable Agriculture[END_REF] and [START_REF] Gliessman | Agroecology and agroecosystems[END_REF] and complemented by workshop discussions during multi-actor regional meetings (governments, civil society, research and the private sector) on agroecology from 2015 to 2017, FAO developed the 10 elements of agroecology. The 10 elements of agroecology give member countries a framework for understanding and operationalizing agroecology. The 26th Session of the Committee on Agriculture (COAG) supported the Ten Elements of Agroecology, as presented by FAO, as a guide to one of the ways to promote sustainable agriculture and food systems (FAO 2019). They provide an overall framing of important properties of agroecological systems and approaches, as well as key considerations in developing an enabling environment for agroecology.

1. Six elements relate to the description of common characteristics of agroecological systems, foundational practices and innovation approaches: Diversity; synergies; efficiency; resilience; recycling; co-creation and knowledge sharing.

2. Two relate to context features: Human and social values; culture and food traditions.

3. And two relate to the enabling environment: Responsible governance; circular and solidarity economy.

In the next section, we explain how climate change is taken into consideration into these principles.

Climate change in agriculture: Core-shared principles

The relationship between climate change and agriculture has been framed in terms of both the threat of climate change impacts on agriculture and the role agriculture can play in adaptation to and mitigation of climate change impacts. For comparison with agroecology principles, we focus here on the principles of climate-smart agriculture (FAO 2017): 4. sustainably increase agricultural productivity and the incomes of agricultural producers; 5. strengthen the capacities of agricultural communities to adapt to the impacts of climate change, including disaster risk management; 6. reduce and/or remove greenhouse gas emissions.

While CSA ideally seeks to meet all three objectives, there may be more focus on mitigation or adaptation. Understanding the impacts of CSA at multiple scales requires knowing whether plot, farm, household, village, landscape, national or international value chains are relevant to managing agricultural outcomes.

Transformations for climate change adaptation need to consider the current climate as well as a range of future possible climate scenarios. Interactions with other agricultural and livelihood risks (e.g. pests and diseases, market failure, pandemics) and natural resource sustainability also should be considered. Transformations for climate change mitigation usually require mitigation to be a co-benefit of agricultural practices that deliver improved yields, adaptation or other benefit to be attractive to farmers.

The UNFCCC Paris Agreement includes countries' pledges to reduce and adapt to climate change. The Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to the Paris Agreement showed that countries view agriculture as a priority sector for adaptation and disaster risk management. More than 100 countries also included mitigation targets in the agriculture sector [START_REF] Richards | How countries plan to address agricultural adaptation and mitigation: An analysis of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions[END_REF].

Correspondence between elements of agroecology and climatesmart agriculture

Various authors have highlighted that each of the FAO elements is relevant to respond to the challenges posed by climate change [START_REF] Hlpe | Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition[END_REF][START_REF] Sinclair | The Contribution of Agroecological Approaches to Realizing Climate-Resilient Agriculture[END_REF].

Diversity: diversity in agroecological systems includes crop diversification, maintaining local genetic diversity, animal integration, soil organic matter management, water conservation and harvesting, and livelihood diversification that reduces vulnerabilities to climate variability is key to address climate change.

Synergies: agroecological practices aim to enhance positive ecological interaction, synergy, integration, and complementarity among the elements of agroecosystems (plants, animals, trees, soil, water) that give opportunities to build synergies and manage trade-offs across the multiple objectives of food security and climate change adaptation and mitigation.

Efficiency: this principle aims to a gradual reduction in the use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, which are replaced by biological methods. This avoids the climate-damaging emissions that arise when these substances are produced and used.

Resilience: it is a key outcome of agroecological systems based on the implementation of a various other principles in particular spatial and temporal diversity but also all the traditional knowledge of smallholders, family farmers, or indigenous people and their associated social networks that helped them to manage past and recent climate risks.

Recycling: the recycling of biomass, with a view to optimizing organic matter decomposition and nutrient cycling over time plays a key role to improve the efficiency in the use of resources; it also decreases wastes and costs of production with co-benefits in terms of limitation in GHG. Recycling delivers multiple benefits by closing nutrient cycles and reducing waste. Recycling also permits producers to save costs on inputs, reducing their vulnerability to price volatility and climate shocks.

Co-creation and sharing of knowledge: ancestral knowledge is seen as the foundation for actual and future agricultural innovations and technologies to deal with climate change given in particular the ability of traditional farming systems to recover from recent and past climate challenges, new knowledge is necessary, but attention is paid on power asymmetries between scientists and farmers.

Human and social values: agroecology pays attention to social lock-ins and power relations.

By building autonomy and adaptive capacities to manage their agro-ecosystems, agroecological approaches empower people and communities to become their own agents of change and overcome the various challenges they must deal with poverty, hunger, malnutrition including climate change.

Culture and food traditions: agroecological systems are based on the culture, identity, tradition, of local communities that provide culturally, healthy, diversified, seasonally appropriate diets. There are consequently the foundations for the design of innovative systems able to cope with climate change.

Responsible governance: Aims at establishing supportive national and local frameworks that reduce lock-ins at local level, recognize and support the needs and interests of family farmers, smallholders, in order to avoid maladaptation to climate change.

Circular and solidarity economy:

This principle aims to reconnect producers and consumers and provide innovative solutions for living within our planetary boundaries while ensuring the social foundation for inclusive and sustainable development. Particularly this means to promote fair solutions based on local needs, resources and capacities, creating more equitable and sustainable markets. Strengthening short food circuits can increase the incomes of food producers while maintaining a fair price for consumers; increasing the economic resilience of both producers and consumers. Applied to question of climate change this means tackling technical innovations (e.g., decreasing wastes) and organizational innovations (labels, short circuits) that will improve resilience to climate change with cobenefits in terms of mitigation.

Climate change poses multiple threats to the food system and at different stages of the food chain. To tackle these complex set of risks, the principles of agroecology are not only relevant but are necessary to achieve the goals of adaptation and mitigation. Particularly, from a technical perspective, the diversity principle (both in term of crop production and economic activity) is fundamental to improve the resilience of farming systems and livelihoods; whereas the recycling and efficiency principles can have clear co-benefits in terms of mitigation. Additionally, the management of synergies between components of agrobiodiversity will also ensure synergies between adaptation and mitigation. However, neither adaptation nor mitigation will be successful without building on human values, culture and food traditions or working on the enabling environment (responsible governance, and circular and solidarity economy).

Agroecology is a dynamic process

Some authors emphasized the pathways from conventional to agroecological systems. For example, [START_REF] Hill | Redesigning agroecosystems for environmental sustainability: a deep systems approach[END_REF] proposed a conceptual framework called "Efficiency-Substitution-systems. This framework makes the distinction between:

1) the efficiency stage, characterized by changes in conventional systems to reduce the consumption and waste of costly and scarce resources (e.g., optimal timing of operations or by banding fertilizers), 2) the substitution stage, where environmentally disruptive inputs are replaced by those that are more environmentally benign (e.g., purchase of organic fertilizers instead of mineral fertilizers), and 3) the redesign stage where design and management approaches are used to rely more strongly on ecological processes and ecosystem services instead of external inputs. Duru et al. (2014) used this framework to make the distinction between a weak agroecology (efficiency and substitution stages) and a strong agroecology (redesign stage). [START_REF] Gliessman | Transforming food systems with agroecology[END_REF] proposed two additional steps to this ESR framework which correspond to changes in consumption patterns, civilization and development; these steps are set as necessary for the transformation of the food systems (Figure 2). Primary target beneficiaries are climate-vulnerable and food insecure groups, including smallholder men and women, and (via national to global policy influence) the urban poor and broader populations in target countries.

Methods

Overview of CCAFS program

Flagship Program 2: Climate-Smart Technologies and Practices

FP2 will work with partners to test, evaluate, promote and scale up CSA technologies and practices that meet the needs of farmersincluding women and marginalized groups. Its purpose is to build adaptive capacity and resilience to climate variability and change, while increasing food availability and generating mitigation co-benefits. This will be achieved by integrating and applying the best and most promising methods, tools and approaches for equitable local adaptation planning and governance and developing innovative incentives and mechanisms for scaling up.

The primary target beneficiaries of FP2 are climate-vulnerable, food insecure and poor groups (smallholder farmers and women in particular). Research will also benefit development agencies from grassroots through to national scales, as well as local and subnational institutions involved in agricultural planning, and the private sector that can support scaling up. Climate-smart villages (CSVs) have been established as platforms where adaptation plans and supportive institutions and policies are tested (Figure 1).

Flagship Program 3: Low-Emissions Development

Gender and social inclusion (GSI)

CCAFS cross cutting GSI program seeks positive development outcomes for men, women, and youth to ensure households and communities are more resilient under climate change.

This includes informing, catalyzing and targeting solutions for women, men, and youth in communities to increase their control over productive assets and resources (e.g., climate information, novel climate finance), and increase participation in decision-making (e.g., in local and national climate adaptation strategies). The GSI program assesses the impacts of climate change on livelihood strategies and food systems with women, men and youth to enhance their knowledge and capacities; promotes the transformation of gender roles and relations, and women's greater equality; and strengthens institutions to increase the agency of women, men and youth. Examples include research on agroecology and resilience in Nicaragua (Gumicio 2017; 2018), joint farmer-led technology development (Waters-Bayer 2015) and working with women's groups on baobab management Daga-Birame, Senegal [START_REF] Ouédraogo | Mainstreaming gender and social differentiation into CCAFS research activities in West Africa: lessons learned and perspectives[END_REF].

A multi-regional program CCAFS focuses on five regions: Latin America, West Africa, East Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia. The regional hubs, with regional program leaders, remain the central mechanism for connecting research and policy engagement across all FPs. Regional program leaders have developed outcome targets for each of the countries with CCAFS projects and engagement strategies. For outcomes related to organizational and institutional change, this included listing specific organizations that the CCAFS theory of change will target and estimating the likelihood of achieving change. Similarly, they examine the likely countries where flagships can achieve a specified outcome.

Literature review

To have a first overview of the diversity of CCAFS research outcomes and be able to locate agroecology in this panorama we conducted a literature review. We used Scopus database searching for all articles with a CCAFS affiliation. We found 315 peer-reviewed scientific articles (these do not include working papers, policy brief, reports) over the period 2009-2020. We exported the title, abstract, key words and cited references of those articles and analyzed using cortex manager (www.cortext.net) text mining software. We selected the first 300 most occurring terms, merged identical terms appearing in different spelling and performed a network analysis with the first 75 most occurring terms within the titles, key words and abstracts. The result is shown in Figure 3.

Survey to CCAFS leaders

For an in-depth description of the alignment between CCAFS activities and agroecological principles, we interviewed the four CCAFS Flagship Leaders in charge of coordinating the strategic implementation of the project and two regional leaders in charge of implementing the various dimensions of CCAFS on the ground.

An open-ended discussion was conducted around seven questions: 7. What is agroecology for you? 8. Have you considered agroecological principles in the design of your flagship? 9. How has your flagship contributed to agroecological principles? 10. Identify 2-3 projects/papers that contributed to agroecological principles 11. What could be done in the future to better contribute to agroecological principles: e.g. key research questions, key partners, outcome and impact monitoring, priority systems? 12. Did grassroots/civil society organizations or NGOs play a role in the activities of your flagship?

13. If yes, in which way? If not, why?

The projects or articles that project leaders found most aligned with CSA principles were reviewed (Question 4) and further analyzed according to the FAO 10 elements of agroecology (Table 1).

Conceptual framework

We analyzed the inputs of the surveys using the combined lens of the 10 elements proposed by FAO and the 5 steps proposed of [START_REF] Gliessman | Transforming food systems with agroecology[END_REF] as represented in Figure 2.

Results

Results of the systematic review

The results are provided in Figure 3 In the brown cluster, the term 'future climate' is the dominant term linking other terms together such as 'soil erosion', 'genotype adaptation'; and connecting to the cluster about breeding via the term "phaseolus vulgaris" and to the blue directly via the term 'fertilizer application' and indirectly via the term 'management practices'.

The blue cluster (climate change, farming systems) is linked to the red one via the term 'smart agriculture.' The terms in the grey cluster are very close to each-other, reflecting the that these terms are very related to each-other; it links to the blue cluster (climate change, farming systems) via the terms 'nations/framework/conventions' and indirectly via the term 'Paris agreement'.

The term 'participatory approach' (low occurrence) is found at the bottom of the red (CSA) and is weakly linked to 'climate risks' and 'climate services.'

In-depth analysis of regional and flagship activities and results

The survey conducted with the flagship and regional leaders highlighted their various conceptions on agroecology: from a very technical vision to a broader recognition of its socio-political dimension. They all confirmed that agroecology was not a guiding principle in the design of their flagships. The guiding principle was clearly CSA. Other concepts were key such as resilience or risk management. For some of them agroecology is broader than CSA because it includes nutrition issues. Conversely, for others it is more restricted, because it focuses on the local level. They explained part of the distance between their flagship and agroecological principles by their scale of intervention or their main entry point. However, they all identified alignments between their activities and some of the agroecological concepts. Particularly the platforms that were built to involve a diversity of stakeholders at Practices based on the recycling of crop residues and manure change), targeted location of activities within the landscape to improve flows of biomass or maintain critical carbon stocks [START_REF] Harvey | Climate-smart landscapes: opportunities and challenges for integrating adaptation and mitigation in tropical agriculture[END_REF]. In some specific CSVs such landscape arrangements have been explored (example of forest reserve in the Kaffrine CSV, Figure 1); however, the focus was mainly on experiments at plot and farm scale.

The principle of human and social values was mainly considered through the lens of gender inclusion. [START_REF] Eriksen | Can climate interventions open-up space for transformation? Examining the case of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) in Uganda[END_REF] showed that gender inclusion can potentially open spaces for transformation of farming systems across personal, practical and political spheres. However, other social lock-ins and associated power relations could be better explored such as access to land or other natural resources, access to knowledge, access to networks (networks driven by civil society actors, such as producer organizations, communities, and social movements) since they play a key role in agroecological transition [START_REF] Anderson | From transition to domains of transformation: Getting to sustainable and just food systems through agroecology[END_REF]).

The responsible governance principle was addressed through various platforms (sciencepolicy dialog, multidisciplinary working groups for the co-creation of agroclimatic information, multi-stakeholder workshops on MRV) and favored exchanges between a plurality of stakeholders at national and local levels and led to success stories in terms of climate policy design [START_REF] Zougmoré | Science-policy interfaces for sustainable climate-smart agriculture uptake: lessons learnt from national science-policy dialogue platforms in West Africa[END_REF]). However, a remaining challenge (for CCAFS and more generally for most climate change research programs) is how to improve synergies between climate change and economic development policies that may use diverging incentives for agriculture.

Culture and food traditions were addressed in CCAFS activities, since food security is one of the key pillars of CSA. However, it was mostly considered from a production perspective and many of the tested practices aimed to improve the supply of food through improved varieties, better management of soil and water resources, new crops, and plant-based alternatives to meat, etc. The implication of these changes on nutrition or modes of consumption were barely assessed.

Circular and solidarity is an emerging topic in CCAFS activities that was mentioned in one project of Flagship 3. In parallel, through the involvement of some NGOs, particularly in Latin America, some activities have contributed to the development of short circuits; such activities could be strengthened by exploration of the benefit of participatory labelling involving civil society to incentivize transformation of agricultural systems.

Regarding the different levels defined by [START_REF] Gliessman | Transforming food systems with agroecology[END_REF] and taking into account the focus made on production, the work conducted by CCAFS mostly considered levels 1 to 31 . The involvement of NGOs in some CSVs permitted to take into account other issues than production (e.g. health, consumption) and some policy analyses have also addressed issues such as diet change and nutrition. However, there is room to improve CCAFS' activities and to support transformation of agricultural systems. [START_REF] Gliessman | Transforming food systems with agroecology[END_REF] suggested reestablishing a more direct connection between those who grow our food and those who consume it. Food system transformation occurs within a cultural and economic context, and this transformation must promote the transition to more sustainable practices.

Farmers need support to move through Levels 1-3 by citizen prioritizing locally grown and processed food (such as food citizenship 2 movement) and by countries (public procurement of locally grown and transformed food for canteens of schools and governmental agencies).

This support becomes a kind of "food citizenship" and is a force for food system change.

Communities of growers and eaters can form alternative food networks around the world where a new culture and economy of food system sustainability is being built. Food once again must be grounded in direct relationships. An important example is the current food "relocalization" movement, which grows networks of farmers' markets, supports community agriculture schemes, consumer cooperatives, and other more direct marketing arrangements that shorten the food chain.

Propositions to better contribute to agroecological principles

The mapping of CCAFS activities according to the agroecological principles and the discussion with the flagship and regional leaders allowed us to identify specific areas for improvement or reorientation of on-going or future CCAFS activities to better align to agroecological principles. These five areas of improvement need to be handled in parallel to support the transition to agroecological systems addressing climate change. CCAFS activities occur across broad and heterogeneous agroecosystems settings (Figure 1) giving the ability to synthesize across them. From this body of work, one can build on CCAFS' strengths particularly on CSVs, science-policy dialog or digital climate information services for pursuing and including strengthening an agroecological agenda.

Strengthening agroecology in nationally determined contributions (NDCs)

At COP 23 in 2017, the collaborative process of the Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture (KJWA) gave priority to the objective to "develop and implement new strategies for adaptation and mitigation within the agriculture sector" [START_REF] St-Louis | The Koronivia Joint Work on agriculture and the convention bodies: an overview. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)[END_REF]). This decision is opening opportunities for future activities integrating agriculture and climate change issues, including funding by donors and private sector initiatives (Biovision and IPES-Food 2020).

At the national level, an analysis of the NDCs by [START_REF] Darmaun | The potential of agroecology to build sustainable livelihoods and resilient food. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)[END_REF], showed that out of 136 NDCs analyzed, 17 countries3 (12.5 %) explicitly mention agroecology. For these 17 countries, 15 of them see agroecology as an intended adaptation strategy while only 6 countries see it as contributing to mitigation. In addition to the 17 countries explicitly mentioning agroecology as either an adaptation or mitigation strategy or both, many countries mention agroecological approaches by highlighting some of the elements of agroecology. The elements of agroecology highlighted most prominently are related to production aspects (diversity, efficiency, recycling, resilience and synergies), [START_REF] Darmaun | The potential of agroecology to build sustainable livelihoods and resilient food. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)[END_REF]. CCAFS actively supported various countries in the formulation of their NDCs. A specific investment could be done to incentive countries to align their NDCs more explicitly with agroecological principles and support the development of metrics for assessment of performance. Also, CCAFS' expertise in the analysis of climate finance could be aligned with and assessed for agroecological principles.

Strengthening system thinking for transformation of food systems

Climate change affects not only the production but the entire food system while agroecological principles support integrative thinking between biodiversity, nutrition, climate change, and more globally various environmental challenges (e.g. health, energy).

Both concepts invite consequently to system thinking for transformation of food systems.

This requires the inclusion of all actors of the food system that have potential role in addressing climate change (or in taking on new opportunities such as more transformation of food at local and national level, renewable energy services) and actors from other sectors (biodiversity, soil health, nutrition, energy). This system thinking must be applied at sociopolitical level but also at technical level.

At socio-political level, on-going work in CCAFS aims to understand policy mixes or the combination of policy instruments [START_REF] Howlett | Design principles for policy mixes: Cohesion and coherence in 'new governance arrangements[END_REF]) across scales and among economic sectors [START_REF] Cash | Scale and Cross-Scale Dynamics: Governance and Information in a Multilevel World[END_REF], to tackle climate change (Le [START_REF] Coq | Comparative dynamics of integration of climate change issue in policies for agricultural sector in Latin America and Caribe[END_REF]) and the trade-offs and synergies between climate change, risk management, agriculture or food security policies. More ambitious policy mixes could be tackled to favor synergies between various environmental challenges (health, climate, biodiversity) and the various actors/sectors of the food systems at national and local scales. The existing science-policy dialog platforms could then rely on such analyses to identify how to improve this system thinking in policy implementation.

At technical level, this implies for CCAFS to:

1. broaden the activities and practices tested beyond the focus on production/availability of food, in particular to nutrition and health issues.

2. ensure the sustainability of production base: biodiversity, soil, water, land, energy.

3. integrate natural resources concerns related to landscape planning.

4. promote local and short food circuits to better connect food production and consumption.

This could eventually build on the existing multi-stakeholders platforms developed in the CSV [START_REF] Jagustović | Contribution of systems thinking and complex adaptive system attributes to sustainable food production: Example from a climate-smart village[END_REF].

built on the extensive work already addressed in Flagship 3) from production to consumption (technologies to decrease harvest and post-harvest wastes or that permit better storage of grains, improved recycling of wastes for organic fertilizer production or energy, distribution of food surpluses for aid). This also means investing further in cities and peri-urban agriculture that have the potential to shorten food circuits but that have specific challenges (vertical agriculture, services and disservices (noise) for urban citizen).

Digital climate information services to support agroecological transition

Agroecology is knowledge intensive and require information and data to be specific to the local context. Therefore, digitalization may play a key role for democratization of knowledge and for reaching many actors of the food system. Climate change is an issue that requires a global perspective to solve local problems; hence, decentralizing digital tools can be crucial for collecting and sharing locally pertinent information in transparent ways. Improving access of women and the most vulnerable farmers to digital resources and integrating climate information services (CIS) with other digital platforms will be important. Building on CCAFS work, which has brought together institutions at the national and local levels, but also scientific knowledge on climate forecasts and endogenous knowledge (bioindicators) to produce (CIS), we propose examining the use of digital climate-informed advisories to meet the knowledge needs of agroecology. To really embrace an agroecological approach, the use of CIS should go beyond improving the efficiency of conventional agriculture. In fact, CIS should be used to guide the implementation of agroecological practices adapted to different contexts: as an example, CIS could be used to define the amount of mulch or the level of farm diversification according to the seasonal climate forecasts, the management and application of manure using ten-day forecast. The work also done by CCAFS to widespread these CIS using TICs could be a relevant contribution to on-going literature on agroecology that is barely exploring the use of TICs to support decision-making.

Conclusion

Agroecology promotes fundamental changes in the way we produce and consume food.

Putting people at the center, it asks for fair economic conditions for all actors in the value chain and requires political governance that fosters the balance between ecological, economic and social components of food production. Agroecology promotes a system thinking approach to meet the complexity of climate change adaptation and mitigation within the food system. FAO's 10 elements of agroecology give a framework for understanding and operationalizing agroecology.

Although CCAFS activities were not designed following the principles of agroecology, on the ground many promoted practices were agroecological and several of the 10 FAO elements were addressed. Efficiency, recycling, co-creation and sharing of knowledge were the agroecological elements most addressed and explored in CCAFS activities. Resilience, diversity, human and social values or responsible governance were also included, but with a different perspective, focusing mostly on the agricultural production phase without considering the overall food system. The socio-economic resilience of existing farming systems through the exploration of synergies between on-farm and off-farm activities, the resilience of agroecosystems to pests and diseases are key gaps. Diversity was mostly considered at plot and farm scales without fully exploring diversity at the landscape scale or the diversification of economic activities. The principle of human and social values was mainly considered through the lens of gender inclusion and participatory and multistakeholder processes. It was also indirectly taken into account by the strong participatory approach of CCAFS. The work conducted by CCAFS, focusing mostly on the production side of the food system mostly considered levels one to three of Gliessman's five levels of transition towards sustainable food systems (2016).

To better align alignment CCAFS activities with agroecological principles a set of interventions are proposed to improve or reorient on-going activities. We recommended 5 main areas of intervention at policy level: a better integration of agroecological principles in the implementation of NDCs, system thinking for food system transformation, strengthening landscape-level activities, developing projects on circular and solidarity economy and using CIS to support the implementation of agroecological practices.

Flagship Program 1 :

 1 Priorities and Policies for CSA FP1 aims to assess how enabling policy environments and priority setting for targeted investment can support the scaling of interventions, contributing to food and nutritional security and poverty reduction under climate change. Objectives are: a) improved priority setting, trade-off analyses, and foresight; b) improved understanding of effective enabling policy environments; c) more evidence as to how CSA at scale can contribute to food security; and d) effectively informed investment decisions.

FP3

  's overall goal is to test the feasibility of reducing agricultural GHG emissions at large scales while ensuring food security in developing countries. Objectives are to provide evidence and tools for (1) improved estimates of emissions from Low Emissions Development (LED) in smallholder farming; (2) impacts of LED on emissions, food security and other outcomes and resulting priorities and (3) conditions enabling LED at large scales among smallholder farmers and in major supply.The primary beneficiaries of FP3 are smallholder farmers for whom LED practices can contribute to food security and climate resilience by increasing yields, reducing inputs and improving natural capital. Research will also benefit national LED efforts through better emissions estimates, technical capacities to implement and monitor LED, and policy development.Flagship Program 4: Climate services and safety netsFP4 aims to work with partners to develop climate information and advisory services that support farmers, weather-related insurance that protects farmers and increases investment in CSA, food security early warning and safety net systems that protect livelihoods from extreme events, and climate informed planning by governments and by development organizations. These services will provide an enabling environment for smallholder farmers to transition towards more climate-smart production systems and climate-resilient livelihood strategies, while protecting them from climatic extremes. Research will develop the knowledge, methods, capacity and evidence needed to design, target and implement these interventions effectively at scale.

Figure 1 .

 1 Figure 1. Location of the climate-smart villages (CSVs) agricultural research for development sites. This shows the CCAFS-facilitated CSV sites. There are also partnerfacilitated sites, numbering in their hundreds, where partners bring together various climate-smart solutions.

Figure 2 .

 2 Figure 2. Conceptual framework used in this study: the 10 elements of agroecology from FAO and the 5 levels of transition towards SFSs (Gliessman, 2007). Source: Biovision 2020, https://www.agroecology-pool.org/, inspired by (HLPE 2019).

  . Network mapping revealed six clusters of terms with varying sizes reflecting their importance and representing the main areas of CCAFS' work. Each cluster of terms is embedded within a circle of different colors, the dominant terms in clusters are in bold and the terms linking different clusters between them are in bold and italic. The thickness of the lines joining the terms reflects the level of the link between the terms (thick line = strong link). With descending importance, we can observe the following clusters: i) blue: climate change, farming systems; ii) grey: climate change mitigation, GHG emissions; iii) brown: future climate, cropping systems; iv) red: climate-smart agriculture; and v) green: two small clusters around breeding and crop/genetic resources.

Figure 3 .

 3 Figure 3. Network analysis of the 75 most recurrent terms in CCAFS publications in Scopus database.

Table 1 . Mapping of CCAFS activities to the FAO 10 elements

 1

		Flagship 1	Flagship 2	Flagship 3	Flagship 4	Regional leader West Africa	Regional leader Asia
	Diversity	Enabling policies to	Portfolios of	Improving agroforestry	Tailored climate	portfolio of practices with a
		promote diversity	practices promoted	Cattle and coffee	information promotes	focus made on the farm
		(e.g., seed systems)	in the different sites	certification in Brazil	diverse management	diversification
					practices and livelihoods
	Resilience	Enabling policies to	Used to assess the	Criteria developed for	Used to measure the	Used to assess the adaptation	Used to assess the
		promote resilience	adaptation pillar of	climate bonds criteria.	effectiveness of climate	pillar of CSA	adaptation pillar of
		(seed systems,	CSA		services		CSA
		insurance, etc.)
	Synergies	Enabling policies to	Between the three	Analysis of adaptation and	Between climate	Between the three pillars of	Between the three
		promote	pillars of CSA	mitigation synergies	information, advisories,	CSA	pillars of CSA
					inputs, loans, insurance
	Efficiency		Efficient use of	N and water efficiency in	More efficient	Efficient use of organic and	Efficient use of organic
			organic and mineral	rice and cereal systems	management practices	mineral fertilizers	and mineral fertilizers
			fertilizers		based on trainings on	Efficient use of water	Efficient use of water
			Efficient use of		climate information
			water
	Recycling		Practices based on	Animal waste recycling for		Practices based on the
			the recycling of	horticulture		recycling of crop residues and
			crop residues and	Food loss and waste		manure
			manure	reduction

Level 1: Increase the efficiency of industrial and conventional practices to reduce the use and consumption of costly, scarce, or environmentally damaging inputs. Level

2: Substitute alternative practices for industrial/conventional inputs and practices. Level 3. Redesign the agroecosystem so that it functions on the basis of a new set of ecological processes.2 Food Citizenship is a movement of individuals and organizations across the food system. It is rooted in an increasingly widely shared belief that people can and want to shape the food system for the better, given the right conditions (https://foodcitizenship.info/about/).

Burundi, Comoros, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Seychelles, Tunisia, Gambia, Togo, Côte d'Ivoire, Nigeria, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Honduras, Venezuela, Afghanistan.

Acknowledgements

CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). CCAFS The CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) is led by the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), part of the Alliance of Bioveristy International and CIAT, and carried out with support from the CGIAR Trust Fund and through bilateral funding agreements. For more information, please visit https://ccafs.cgiar.org/donors. This work was implemented as part of the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), which is carried out with support from the CGIAR Trust Fund and through bilateral funding agreements and the Government of France Ministry of Foreign Affairs. For details please visit https://ccafs.cgiar.org/donors. The views expressed in this document cannot be taken to reflect the official opinions of these organizations.

farm, especially in the climate-smart villages. They identified gaps in the current CCAFS research such as the lack of consideration of the entire food systems and, in particular, the lack of analysis of linkages between farmers and consumers at territorial scale, nutrition issues and circularity. They also expressed some criticisms on agroecology such as the lack of evidence on the performances of agroecological practices or the lack of clear definition.

The deeper analysis of the document shared by these leaders allowed us to map CCAFS activities under FAO 10 agroecological elements (Table 1).

Co-creation and sharing of knowledge

Science-policy dialog platforms involving a plurality of actors (NGOs, Science, Donors, Policy makers)

CSV approach as a space to co-design

Circular and solidarity

Circular bio-economy on peri-urban agriculture proposal for 2-Degree Initiative

Processing by women groups of non-timber forest products (e.g. baobab fruits, tamarind fruits) for local/internal markets

Discussion

What are the linkages between CCAFS' activities and agroecological principles?

If agroecology was not a key concept in the design of CCAFS activities, on the ground many promoted practices where agroecological practices and several of the 10 FAO principles were addressed. However, it is not a surprise to find overlapping practices between CSA and agroecological approach given the diversity of activities that has been conducted under this program. Furthermore, the way to address each of these principles by the CCAFS program presents some convergence and divergence with the proponents of agroecology.

Efficiency, recycling, co-creation and sharing of knowledge were the most prominent principles of the FAO agroecological framework in CCAFS activities. Indeed, many of the tested practices tried to improve the efficiency of water and nutrient usage (soil and water conservation technologies, microdosing of fertilizers, etc.). Compost was one of the most promoted practices across sites based on the recycling of crop residues or manure production. Co-creation and sharing of knowledge at various scales was quite present with the different platforms that have been supported at local and national levels for the codesign of innovative practices in CSV, the design of agro-climatic information, improved decision-making, CSA indicators or measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) approaches.

Resilience, diversity, human and social values or responsible governance were also included, but with a different perspective than the one promoted in the literature on agroecology. Indeed, even if the concept of resilience was key and used as a metric of adaptation, it was mostly considered from its environmental and engineering components [START_REF] Antwi | Developing a community-based resilience assessment model with reference to Northern Ghana[END_REF]).

The socio-economic resilience of existing farming systems through the exploration of synergies between on-farm and off-farm activities and the resilience of agroecosystems to pests and diseases were not fully addressed. For the diversity principle, it was mostly considered at plot scale through the design of portfolios of practices or crop diversification.

Diversity was not taken into consideration at landscape scale: maintenance of habitat connectivity to ensure pollination and pest control (that will be exacerbated with climate

Strengthen existing works at landscape scale

Building on current work on climate-smart landscapes [START_REF] Harvey | Climate-smart landscapes: opportunities and challenges for integrating adaptation and mitigation in tropical agriculture[END_REF][START_REF] Scherr | From climate-smart agriculture to climate-smart landscapes[END_REF] we propose to expand the work at landscape scale. This scale is relevant to take into account both the socio-technical and socio-ecological systems in which farming systems are embedded at local level and that are key to promote agroecological transition.

The socio-technical system can be defined as the set of actors and rules (e.g. user groups and practices, markets, industry structure, policy), of social values, and ideologies that influence the emergence or not of a radical innovation [START_REF] Geels | Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multilevel perspective and a case-study[END_REF][START_REF] Geels | Processes and patterns in transitions and system innovations: Refining the co-evolutionary multi-level perspective[END_REF]. Considering the sociotechnical system at landscape scale permits research to consider the various actors involved not only in the production stage but also in the value chain (transport and marketing of food production); and to define a broader set of solutions to address climate change, including incentives for private sector transitions to agroecology.

The socio-ecological system can be defined as the interactions between a socio-technical system and the natural resources (Duru et al. 2015). Therefore, strengthening existing work at landscape scale will allow designing not only practices that improve outcomes at plot and farm scales, but also practices that maintain habitat connectivity (to ensure pollination and pest control), that favor biomass flows, or that maintain critical carbon stocks with benefits in terms of resilience and mitigation. For CCAFS, this also means investing further in activities that aim to improve both technical innovation at landscape scale (corridors, forests reservoirs, etc.) and organizational innovation (farmer groups, land-use planning, etc.) aiming to improve networking, equitable access to local natural resources, and governance.

Circular and solidarity economy

We have seen that the circular and solidarity economy principle is relatively new in CCAFS activities. Expending current work means co-designing with stakeholders technical and organizational innovations permitting to support circularity. This means developing organizational innovations (participatory labels, short circuits) permitting fair linkages between producers and consumers that could be supported using Information and communication technologies (ICTs). This also means technical innovations at farm and landscape scale aiming at decreasing biomass, energy and food waste (this last aspect can be CCAFS research is supported by: CCAFS is led by: Science for a food-secure future


Ph.D Dr Frederik Dhondt

'Bring this mad woman to reason !' Elisabeth Farnese as a female ruler in 18 th Century Europe

"Bring this mad woman to reason ! " Elisabeth Farnese as a female ruler in 18th Century Europe

Public International Law: the irrational tyrant queen

At first sight, this might read as a traditional story of dynastic European politics, where personal and public interest were mixed. Philip of Anjou (1683-1746) was Louis XIV's second grandson, and thus the greatgrandson of the Spanish King Philip IV (1605-1665), as well as the grandson of Elector Ferdinand Maria of Bavaria (1636-1679). Elisabeth was the granddaughter of Philip William, Elector of the Palatinate (1615-1690) and descended from both the Farnese9 and the de'Medici. 10 If we put Elisabeth's action into a horizontal perspective, that of politics (and legal rules) between sovereigns, a quite different picture emerges. Her Bourbon-Farnese successes in Italy were antithetic to the general rules of the international system in the aftermath of Louis XIV's wars. From 1701 to 1714, Europe was rocked by the War of the Spanish Succession. [START_REF] Dhondt | Op Zoek naar Glorie in Vlaanderen. De Zonnekoning en de Spaanse Successie[END_REF] At the decease of Charles II, the last Habsburg king of Spain (1661-1700), Bourbon and (Austrian) Habsburg disputed each other's right to the Spanish throne. After fourteen years of fighting, the Spanish monarchy was partitioned between Philip of Anjou, grandson of Louis XIV, who obtained Spain and its colonies, on the one hand, and Charles VI (1685-1740), Holy Roman Emperor, on the other, who was allotted the Spanish Netherlands and most of the Italian possessions. [START_REF] Van Gelder | l'héritage anjouin" dans les Pays-Bas méridionaux (1716-1725)[END_REF] This peace, although multilateral, expressed in a myriad of bilateral treaties between European powers, had been worked out in private between Louis XIV and Britain. 13 Although none of the parties foresaw this effect, the bilateral deal became the blueprint for three rather stable decades, in contrast to the violent and bloody 17 th century. [START_REF] Dhondt | Legal Discourse between Integration and Disintegration: The Case of the Peaceful Succession Struggles, 1713-1739[END_REF] The legal framework behind these 'Trente Heureuses' (Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie [START_REF] Le Roy Ladurie | Régime. II: L'absolutisme bien tempéré[END_REF] ) consisted of two maxims. First, the separation of the crowns of France and Spain (which belonged to two branches of the Bourbon family). This rule served as a species of a more general one: no fusion between two big European powers. Practice had shown that an automatic coalition of the remaining players in Europe against a potential hegemon would lead to war. [START_REF] Vattel | ] considérent les deux principales Puissances, qui, par-là même, sont naturellement rivales, comme destinées à se contenir reciproquement, & ils se joignent à la plus foible, comme autant de poids, que l'on jette dans le bassin le moins chargé, pour le tenir en équilibre avec l'autre.' On the significance and legal interpretation of this concept[END_REF] Consequently, the 'Balance of Power' [START_REF]Un Equilibre et des limites politiques entre les Etats; dont les intérêts respectifs avoient fait le sujet de la guerre, de sorte que leurs forces ne fussent point doresnavant à craindre, et ne pussent causer aucune jalousie[END_REF] established at the Peaces of Utrecht, Rastatt and Baden18 was guaranteed by multilateral intervention. In case of a breach of the peace committed by one of the players, France and Britain would side with the injured party and stop the aggressor 19 .

Second, these separations could not be achieved otherwise than by renunciation declarations issued by physical persons, such as Philip V of Spain (who had to drop his claims to his grandfather's crown) 20 or Philip of Orléans (1674-1723; Louis XIV's nephew, who held claims on Spain via his late grand-mother, Anne of Austria, Louis XIII's wife). However, according to the French loi fondamentale of indisposiblity of the crown, this was impossible. [START_REF] Bourbon-Parme | Le Traité d'Utrecht et les lois fondamentales du royaume[END_REF] Consequently, diplomats had to establish the primacy of treaties over internal law. Otherwise, constitutional problems could never be overcome, which would have resulted in a serious threat to the pacta sunt servanda-principle and, thus, the stability of the international system as a whole. [START_REF] De | over his kingdom was inapt to the conduct of international relations: 'De ce qu'un Souverain a le droit de faire la guerre & celui de conclurre la paix, il suit que toutes les cessions qu'il fait, lient & ses sujets & ses successeurs[END_REF] Nowadays, this principle is enshrined in art. 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. 23 In the 18 th century, it was the subject of a considerable internal political battle in France, [START_REF] Baudrillart | Examen des droits de Philippe V et de ses descendants au trône de France, en dehors des renonciations d'Utrecht[END_REF] but was gradually established through subsequent practice.

Elisabeth Farnese is often blamed personally for turnarounds in Spanish foreign policy. Alfred Baudraillart, author of the most elaborate study on the Spanish court in the early 18 th century, attributed the conclusion of the 1725 Treaty of Vienna to the queen's stubborn refusal to follow the guidance of French ambassador Tessé. 25 Philip V is her 'docile époux', whereas Farnese pursues her Grand Design or 'rêve grandiose'. 26 The King is the victim of his 'folles manies', Elisabeth of her 'dévorante ambition'. [START_REF] Baudrillart | 28 Act of Abdication, 10 January 1724[END_REF] The Queen convinced her husband to abdicate on 10 January 1724, 28 to… return to power at his son Luis I (born in 1707)'s decease on 31 August of the same year. If things turned out better for the Franco-Spanish relationship, Baudrillart ascribes this to the talent of José Patiño y Rosales (1666-1736), a (male) politician, rather than to the queen's management of Maritime Powers' intervention to have her son installed in Italy. In 1733, however, Spain declared war on the Emperor and teamed up with France. 42 Once she had don Carlos installed as King of Naples and his brother, don Felipe (1720-1765) as Duke of Parma, France deserted her again, to sign a new alliance in 1743 against the Emperor.

Elisabeth's behaviour irritated foreign courts. Its (external) incoherence was frequently invoked as an ultimate explanatory factor for what was in fact well-considered and consistent furthering of Spanish interests, e.g. the following report by British diplomat Stephen Poyntz (1685-1750) in Paris to the Duke of Newcastle (1693-1768), George II (1683-1760)'s Secretary of State for the Southern Department:

'The Cardinal [Fleury] is firmly convinced, that the Queen of Spain still retains an entire ascendant over her Husband, and will not be persuaded, that the King is capable of bearing the least fatigue or business, or even of forming an opinion or resolution of his own, and pursuing it with steddiness for half an hour together […] His Eminence, in speaking of that Prince, constantly represents him as more grossly indolent and supine than any man that ever was born.' 43 Philip is seen as a weak husband, with Elisabeth's supposedly natural uncontrollable character as a woman as the natural cause for exaggerated claims:

'l'entière confiance que S.M. [Brittannique] a toujours eu en la Cour de France, et […] la satisfaction que lui ont donné la mission du comte de Rottembourg et les ordres précis qu'on lui a envoyés, qui ont enfin produit un si bon effet que d'engager l'Espagne à se desister de ses Objections frivoles et pretensions deraisonnables.' 44

To foreign envoys in Madrid, there was no doubt that the queen was in charge, as illustrated in the words of Benjamin Keene, George II's minister plenipotentiary and envoy extraordinary:

'but not to tire your Ex cy with proofs of this nature, the timidity and irresolution of the King and immaturity of the Prince, the want of courage and capacity in the Grandees and the formality of the Court and the jealous prying temper of the Queen, will not allow me to doubt of the impossibility, that a negotiation of what nature soever can be carried on here without her knowledge' 45 Put short, for Fleury, Elisabeth was a tyrant:

'that the King of Spain was an Imbecile & had frenzys, that he was absolutely under the government of the Queen, who did whatever she would & was more Mistress than ever' [START_REF] Stanhope | British ambassador in Madrid) and Horatio Walpole to Newcastle, very private[END_REF] The figure of Elisabeth as a woman explained her husband's stubbornness. Philip delayed his acceptance of the attribution of Italy and the Southern Netherlands to Charles VI for twelve years, counting from the Peace of Utrecht (11 April 1713) to the 'Ripperda' Treaties (30 April/1 May 1725). 47 The latter, an overt violation of the Balance of Power-principle as a metaphor for Europe's new horizontal legal infrastructure, [START_REF] Dhondt | Law on the Diplomatic Stage: the 1725 Ripperda Treaty[END_REF] struck European diplomats as a bombshell. As the text had been kept secret, the wildest speculations circulated. Charles VI would have promised the Imperial throne for don Carlos, potential heir to that of Spain as well, and thus revive the spectre of Charles V's Universal Monarchy. 49 Seeing Elisabeth as the motor of her husband's seemingly irrational foreign policy allowed outside observers to cast Spain's behaviour as an exceptional and thus temporary parenthesis in the system of peace treaties. Luring the Emperor away from Philip V did not turn out to be difficult at all. Charles VI integrated the Utrecht system -although the reverse is true for his stance on matters of Imperial feudal law, cf. infra-for his major dynastic claim: the guarantee that his daughters would be able to inherit the Habsburg hereditary lands.

Spanish public law: Philip V's renunciation and return (January-September 1724)

Second, when Luis I died, the crown ought to have passed on to his brother Ferdinand. Philip V had renounced his rights to the throne at his abdication. Yet, Elisabeth used all possible means to convince her husband to return. [START_REF]'plus de choses pour obliger le Roi Catholique à remonter sur le trône qu'il n'en aurait fallu pour en faire descendre un autre' (Tessé to Morville[END_REF] Whereas he had renounced solemnly before the Council of Castille in 1723, the King could be convinced to judge his own declaration void by the same Council. [START_REF]Consulte du Conseil de Castille sur la reprise de possession du Trône par Philippe V[END_REF] The latter pointed out that at don Ferdinand's installation, he ought to accept the previous declaration by his father, as his elder brother Louis had done in January 1724 at the age of seventeen. [START_REF]Declaration of Acceptance by Luis I[END_REF] Don Ferdinand, still minor, 53 was legally incapable to perform the same act. Conversely, Philip V could not accept in his son's stead, since he had already renounced his rights to the Spanish throne. 54 However, Philip attached more value to theological than to legal grounds. His confessor, Bermudez, saw the King's coming back on an earlier solemn vow as a cardinal sin and threatened to withhold him the communion. [START_REF] Baudrillart | 56 'production de monstres sortis de l'Enfer[END_REF] This put the ball in the camp of a junto of theologians, which assembled on 5 of September in the Imperial College in Madrid. To Elisabeth's anger, the ad hoc assembly stated that the King could only take up the Regency, until don Ferdinand would have come of age (i.e. for two more years). The Queen, as well as the French ambassador, 56 were furious 57 and asked the Council of Castille to overcome the theological stumbling block of the solemn renunciation. In a new consult, [START_REF] Philip | Council of Castille on the renewed request for a consult[END_REF] the Council pointed out that Philip had already foreseen a Regency council in case don Ferdinand would come to inherit the Spanish throne before the age of thirteen. 59 Consequently, the theologians' point of view, according to which the King could respect a more balanced political landscape. James Stanhope, Secretary of State for the Northern Department, [START_REF] Williams | A Study in Eighteenth-Century War and Diplomacy[END_REF] and abbot Dubois, the French Regent's main counsel in foreign affairs, had been conducting trilateral negotiations for a year between Paris, London and Vienna. [START_REF] Dhondt | Balance of Power and International Law. European Diplomacy and the Elaboration of International Order[END_REF] Looked at from an Imperial feudal law perspective, the duchies of Parma-Piacenza and the grand-duchy of Tuscany, occupied by relatives of Elisabeth, would have to return to the Emperor as overlord (Heimfall) at the extinction of the ruling male line. [START_REF] Von Schönberg | Recht der Reichslehen[END_REF] Consequently, Charles VI's legal position in the quarrel was not that of an equal contracting party. He had the competence to appoint another vassal of his choice, and thus to tighten Austria's grip on Italy even more. Yet, as the Emperor needed French and British help against Philip V's invasion, he had to accept the latter powers' choice: don Carlos, born two years earlier (20 January 1716). In other words, international legal obligations superseded national law, as had been the case in the Treaties of Utrecht and Baden. Nevertheless, although labelling Parma, Piacenza and Tuscany as 'Sacri Romani Imperii feudus masculinis', implied recognizing the Emperor as overlord (something which had been disputed against the Pope or the Florentine Senate), [START_REF]l'occasion de se faire reconnoitre aussy automatiquement et aussy solidement les Etats de Toscane et de Parme pour fiefs imperiaux[END_REF] the material solution obliged Charles VI to abide by the solution set forth by France and Britain: admit Elisabeth Farnese's son as a vassal.

The execution of this core article of the Quadruple Alliance dominated European inter-state relations from 1717 to 1735 on. Eventually, don Carlos was installed in Parma and Piacenza by November 1733. [START_REF] Newcastle | Treaty of Alliance between Charles VI and George II[END_REF] As her cousin Antonio Farnese passed away early in 1731, Elisabeth's claim on behalf of the 15-year old don Carlos turned into an actual and immediate demand. Although Charles VI had formally recognized Spanish rights in 1718 (Quadruple Alliance) and 1725 (Ripperda Treaties), it took a new confirmation to witness the physical installation of the new duke. Britain and the United Provinces secured Charles VI's consent again in exchange for their guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction (19 March 1731). 74 Al along this process, diplomats thought the Queen was in the quarrel for her own very private interests, and suggested she could be bought off. Installing Elisabeth as 'sovereign or administratrix' [START_REF]An Idea for accommodating the Succession of Tuscany[END_REF] in Italy would do the trick. Security in case of widowship, when the fragile Philip V would come to die, was all she was looking for… A similar case had popped up during the Utrecht Peace conference, where Princess Orsini -a French confident of Philip V's first queen-had tried to secure a principality for herself in the Southern Netherlands. [START_REF] Bély | Espions et ambassadeurs[END_REF] Don Carlos having arrived in Parma, his mother's claims seemed satisfied. Spain had subsequently lined up with France and Britain, the Emperor, France and Britain, ultimately with the Maritime Powers and the Emperor. This did not prevent Elisabeth and Philip from going to war in November 1733, [START_REF] Philip | Treaty of Alliance between Louis XV and[END_REF] in a coalition with the French Bourbons (isolated only two years earlier). Tenuous as the connection with the War of the Polish Succession (1733-1735), [START_REF] Sutton | The King's Honour and the King's Cardinal. The War of the Polish Succession[END_REF] formally fought over the election of Louis XV's father-in-law Stanislas to the throne in Poland, had actually been, Spain assaulted Habsburg Italian possessions with the aid of Savoy-Sardinia and France. In the compromise negotiated bilaterally between the French secret envoy La Beaune and the Imperial ministers, Charles VI abandoned Naples for don Carlos, who would henceforth rule as King Charles III of Naples and Sicily (3 October 1735). 79 In exchange, Parma and Piacenza were abandoned to Vienna, and the Grand-Duchy of Tuscany befell on the Emperor's son-in-law, duke and future Holy Roman Emperor Francis Stephen of Lorraine, [START_REF] Zedinger | [END_REF] as a compensation for the attribution of the latter's ancestral duchy to Stanislas, who had to abandon his claims to Poland. It would take another war, that of the Austrian Succession (1740-1748) [START_REF] Browning | The War of the Austrian Succession[END_REF] for Elisabeth to see not a third, but a fourth Bourbon branch installed in Parma with her second son, don Felipe (°1720), who had married Louis XV's and Maria Leszsczyńska's eldest daughter Elisabeth in 1739. [START_REF] Bély | La présence des Bourbons en Europe, XVI e -XXI e siècle[END_REF] The Queen of Spain had triumphed. Not through the law, but by right of conquest ! She finally showed herself more masculine than any of her negotiating partners would have desired.

Conclusion

Looking back at British and French diplomat's judgement of Elisabeth as an unstable, irascible and emotional, rather than rational or predictable partner in deal-making, it is hard to deny the inconsistency of her legal argumentation strategies, or 'unaccountable and irregular proceedings'. [START_REF] Walpole | [END_REF] Breaking treaties on the pretext others did it as well, forcing her husband to renege his declaration of abdication… Elisabeth clearly forced her will upon the others. Irrespective of legal argument or even crude power relations. Her political morals were an abomination to them: 'We may with great probability conclude that all our force used against Spain only & its dominions, even though it should go to the depriving them of their possessions in the E[ast] & W[est] Indies, would not bring this mad woman to reason.' 84 Yet, the gendered explanation, as clearly expressed by Charles Townshend, the impetuous Secretary of State for the Northern Department, during the negotiations of the League of Hanover against Spain and the Emperor [START_REF] George | Treaty of Alliance between[END_REF] , seems not as much valid as a description of her undertakings, but rather as a mental construct. Verbally invoked solidarity against an irrational woman failed to obscure the geopolitical objectives behind diplomatic discourse. Elisabeth's judgment was not any more or less detached of moral values: both France and Britain gradually oriented their diplomacy to gear up for confrontation with the Emperor and Spain in the late 1730s, factually unbinding the European system 86 . The Queen's soundness, determining her pseudo-Machiavellian attitude, can be judged by the effectiveness of her judgment in an arena where contingent elements triggered the respect or violation of legal principles. Against this background, the inaptness of a woman to show respect for treaty law can be seen as a form of framing. If law is a product of society, law between princes must be read within the codes of that very interaction between crowned heads. Positioning Elisabeth as unreliable is an implicit affirmation of the operation of binding norms between sovereigns. Moreover, the combination with assumptions of feminine behaviour affirmed the usefulness of legal discourse, fragile and optional as it might seem to a XXI st century reader, and its embedding in broader mental conceptions 87 . 86 F. DHONDT, Balance of Power, 325-380. 87 Cf. D. HEIRBAUT, A Tale of Two Legal Histories: Some Personal Reflection on the Methodology Legal History, in Reading Past Legal Texts, ed. D. Michalsen, Oslo, 2006, 94: 'For contextual legal historians the autonomy of law is anathema: law is anything but an isolated phenomenon, it is a product of a society that in its turn influences that same society.'

Elisabeth's cousins Francesco (+ 1727) and Antonio (+ 1731) ruled the duchies of Parma-Piacenza. They were both unable to produce surviving heirs.

The Medici link through her great-grandfather Duke Odoardo I of Parma-Piacenza (1616-1646), who married Margaretha de'Medici (1612-1679) in 1628. Margaretha was the second daughter of Grand-Duke Cosimo II de'Medici (1590-1621), the great-grandfather of the ultimate Grand-Duke of Tuscany, Gian Gastone. The latter's succession was in suspense for a very long period, from around 1718 to 1737, although he only replaced his father Cosimo III in 1723 and still ruled for fourteen years afterwards.

On the Peace of Utrecht, by far the best work remains L. BÉLY, Espions et ambassadeurs au temps de Louis XIV, Paris,

 19 In the eyes of late nineteenh-century French historiography: A. BAUDRILLART, Philippe V et la Cour de France, Paris, 1890, III; 4: 'Gouvernée par un prince de l'Église romaine, la France, comme au temps de Richelieu et de Mazarin, fait une fois de plus cause commune avec l'Europe protestante.' Note the contrast with Fleury's assurance to Horatio Walpole (British ambassador in Paris) in 1726: 'Engagments once plighted not only may but ought to be strictly performed with Protestants, & even with infidells & that the wisest, & most pious Princes in France have acted upon this principle' (Horatio Walpole to Charles du Bourgay, Paris, 12 July 1726, NA, SP, 78, 184, f. 52v°). This demonstrates once again how careful we should be applying convictional or religious schemes to the field of 18 th Century international relations.20 Renunciación jurada de Felipe Duque de Anjou como Rey de España a la Corona de Francia por el y todos sus Descendientes perpetuamente, a favor del Duque de Berri, y otros Principes de la Sangre de Francia, cadauno según su grado, con clausula de incompatibilidad entre los dos Coronas, de fuerte que jamás puedan ballarse unidos en una misma persona; Madrid, 5 November 1712 in front of the Cortes, CUD, VIII/1, CXXXVI, 310-312.

In reality, the Austrian commitment was far from sincere: Charles VI never specified which archduchess would marry don Carlos. To quote the British opposition newspaper The Craftsman: '[The chances of Don Carlos becoming

his intention to definitely abandon the throne by occupying the Regency for two years, was invalidated. [START_REF]Il ne faut pas que Votre Majesté s'arrête à des subtilités Théologiques, puisqu'il appartient au Conseil de sçavoir fondamentalement ce qu'il convient à Votre Majesté de faire en justice[END_REF] Either the whole of the renunciation, whereby Philip had abandoned his 'domination, possession et administration' 61 was null, or the document counted in all its aspects. [START_REF]pas & ne peut être Gouverneur, mais Roi & Seigneur naturel de cette Couronne, dont elle a obtenu par toute sorte de droits la domination & la propriété […] Votre Majesté est de droit Roi & Seigneur naturel de ces Etats, & que sans avoir égard à la diversité d'opinions Théologiques, Votre Majesté est obligée de rentrer dans le gouvernement de la Monarchie[END_REF] The Queen, encouraged by this success, saw a division in the theologians' camp and summoned her husband to ask the papal nuntio, Aldobrandini, for arbitration. 24 years earlier King Charles II had done the same concerning the validity of his Testament, allotting the whole Spanish composite monarchy to Philip of Anjou. [START_REF] Maquart | Le réseau français à la cour de Charles II d'Espagne: jeux diplomatiques de fin de règne[END_REF] Convinced by this analogical reasoning, Philip contacted the nuntio, who persuaded the theologians to issue a second, more docile, opinion. [START_REF]Consulte d'une assemblée de Théologiens sur le même sujet[END_REF] On 7 September 1724, the King issued a decree stating he had returned to rule, as natural lord and possessor of the crown. 65

Imperial succession law: from treaty to conquest (1718-1735)

Whereas one could argue that Elisabeth was acting in the interest of Spain in its horizontal relations with the other European powers (section 1), or when she Philip V's return to power (section 2), Elisabeth's wished concerning the succession in the Italian dominions of Parma and Piacenza placed her children in the middle of the game. The intertwining of dynastic and state interest is of course a commonplace. Advancing one's offspring or relatives contributed to the attainment of both personal and geopolitical ends. Spanish presence in the Mediterranean went back to the take-over by the Kingdom of Aragon of Naples and Sicily in the thirteenth century. The combination of local interest (keeping the Emperor at bay by balancing his power with Savoyard or Spanish presence) went together with a Spanish desire for a 'renovation' or 'Spanish Risorgimento'. [START_REF] Storrs | The Spanish Risorgimento in the Western Mediterranean and Italy 1707-1748[END_REF] The Peace of Utrecht had confirmed the situation brought about by eviction of the French and Spanish armies of Italy during the War of the Spanish Succession. [START_REF] Benedikt | Das Königreich Neapel unter Kaiser Karl VI[END_REF] English attempts to install Duke Victor Amadeus as a counterweight clashed with Imperial interests. Consequently, Victor Amadeus had to swap the (more prosperous) Kingdom of Sicily for that of Sardinia. The specific need for an extra player on the peninsula, which was also felt by the Pope in his position as a secular ruler in the Centre of Italy, was inscribed in article V of the Treaty of the Quadruple Alliance. 68 This legal document of paramount importance was a compromise between, on the one hand, the emergency to repress Spanish aggression on then Imperial Sardinia (Summer 1717) and Savoyard Sicily (Summer 1718), and, on the other hand, the middle-run need for