Foro Global sobre Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición (Foro FSN)

@Jonica Otarra 's comment of 6 April.

Jonica writes that "there has been a decline in global agricultural  production of Maize, Wheat and Rice".

But she is actually referring to a decrease in the GROWTH RATE of output. Cereal output of itself (all three plus several other species like oats or barley) has been growing steadily since 1961, and in fact cereal production in 2014 is an all-time record, overcoming the previous all-time record of 2013, which in turn overcame the previous all-time record of 2011, and so on. Data up to 2013 are all in FAOSTAT, for 2014 preliminary estimates see FAO's Cereal Supply and Demand Brief, http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/csdb/en/.

Now, the growth rate is not equivalent to the potential production growth allowed by technology and natural resources, but to the amount dictated by demand. As incomes grow, demand for staple food (like cereals) tends to stagnate while demand increases for other foods (fruit, vegetables, vegetable oils, meat, dairy products and so on). Per capita output of cereals is in fact stagnant since the 1980s, and food consumption of cereals is actually declining, while overall food consumption improves steadily in terms of calories, protein and micronutrients. Per capita output of those other foods correspondingly increases too.  As population growth further decelerates as expected in coming decades, and per capita incomes continue to grow, this process is expected to continue. Even if the proportion of cereals going to other uses, such as animal feed or feedstock for biofuels, have been (slightly) increasing, per capita output of cereals is stalling, due to (slightly) declining per capita human consumption of cereals as food. One may promptly find this out by going to FAOSTAT production section to get the series of cereals (total), and to the population section to get population, copy both to a spreadsheet and do the division. For human food consumption of cereals one has to go to FAOSTAT's Food Balances section, choose Commodity Balances - Crop primary equivalent, and then select "Cereals (excluding beer)" in the Items box (while selecting "World" and the years desired). Per capita cereal output has been oscillating between 320 and 350 kg/year since about 1980 (the higher figure was only achieved in 2013 and 2014, but slightly lower figures were common in the 1980s). Per capita food consumption of cereals has gone from 127 kg/yr in 1961 to 148 in 1986 and 144 in 2011 (latest year available). Calories per capita at world level have grown from 2194 in 1961, to 2568 in 1986 and 2868 in 2011, but calories from cereals are much more sta­ble: 929, 1124, 1115 in the same years. The substitution of other foods for cereals is going on in all regions, including the more poorly fed like Sub Saharan Africa or South Asia. At world level, all the very significant increase in calories since 1990 came from non-cereal foods, and this is also the tendency for all major regions of the globe. So basing the analysis on cereals alone is bound to be misleading.

Jonica also writes: "I really do not see why climate change has beneficial implications for agriculture."

In fact, it does not have to be beneficial, on the whole. Most projections show a global (small) negative effect. But that small negative effect on total agricultural production (which in turn results from rather pessimistic and precautionary assumptions about the future) applies to the output that would be achieved in the future in the absence of climate change, not to the output achieved today. In the absence of climate change, that future output would be much larger than today's, so the small negative effect of climate change would not matter much. Anyway, just to respond to Jonica's implied question: climate change beneficial effects on agriculture arise from several sources; one is the improved agricultural conditions in temperate zones: new lands become cultivable in North America and Eurasia due to a warmer climate, and many lands in temperate regions improve their productivity due to lengthening of growing period, and the like. Secondly, more CO2 in the atmosphere increases photosynthesis (especially for C3 crops like wheat) and reduces water needs for C4 crops (like maize). Thirdly, global warming means also more global rainfall, albeit some regions would get drier (e.g. Northern Mexico or Southern Africa); increased rainfall is in general beneficial for agriculture by increasing the flow of irrigation water and improving conditions for rain-fed cultivation, especially in semiarid zones. The increase in CO2 in recent decades is already having that effect on crops and natural vegetation, as shown by several studies such as the Donohue article I cited in a previous post to this forum.

With the expected growth in population and income, demand for food and hence the required food output by 2050 is estimated to be 50-70% larger than in 2000. These figures imply an annual growth rate between 0.81% and 1.06% per year from 2000 to 2050; food output grew already by 39% in 2000-2013 at an annual 2.56%, so the required growth in the remaining years to 2050 should be just 22.6%, at annual 0.55%.

This expected growth is not all that scary: production is increasing already much faster than required to reach that goal, as it has been doing for more than half a century. The rate of growth of food output has been almost permanently around 2.5% per year in every decade since the sixties. By all accounts it is extremely unlikely that the average growth rate for 2013-50 falls so precipitously as to fall be just 0.55% per year. But even in that unlikely case, and with such minuscule annual growth, the output in 2050 would indeed be 70% greater than in 2000, thus responding to the expected demand from an expected population of about 9.5 billion as per the latest UN projections (on which more below). Notice, furthermore, that projected demand by 2050 includes the excess demand of obese and overweight people, which are expect­ed to increase in numbers and fatness in the intervening years, in both rich and developing countries, under the pessimistic assumption that nothing stops or slows down the wave of over-eating that pervades the world today and is reaching emerging countries very fast.

Even if no further technological innovation occurs in agriculture from here to 2050 (another implausible assumption in the century of biology), the mere process of diffusion of existing technology throughout developing and emerging countries, which is already taking place, would cause an annual increase in production far greater than 0.55% per year. 

Jonica also writes that "it is predicted that we will be 10 billion by 2050".

Not quite. The latest UN figure (medium variant) for 2050 is 9.55 billion, a bit above previous projections of 9.2-9.3 bn. This slight increase is in turn only due to an apparently innocuous change in assumptions introduced in recent UN updates: up to 2010 it was assumed that fer­tility rates would converge to a common value of 1.85 children per woman; since 2010 it was suddenly assumed that they would converge to replacement level (2.1 children), thus increasing the projection for 2050 (and even more for 2100). There is no sign of such convergence of all countries (at different pace) to a common value; changes in fertility are a function of income and education, but the UN demographers did not take those factors into account, nor the fact that incomes and education are rising fast throughout the developing growth, and are expected to keep rising, thus putting the brakes on fertility. A regression model over all countries, with those variables set at the values observed in recent decades, and then projected to the future with the expected growth in per capita incomes adopted for the IPCC climate change projections, would predict continuing low (and decreasing) fertility at world level. I won't bet the farm on mothers in China or Brazil starting to bear more children any soon. 

Improving the lot of the poor, so they can afford their daily bread (and also their daily cheese, chicken, peaches, and all other foods they may care about, plus all other necessaries of life) is the main priority and challenge, not the production of food which is already more than enough for everybody, and is expected to keep being so in the foreseeable future.

Dear FSN Forum members,

1.       What are the main issues for policy-makers to consider when linking climate change on the one hand and food security and nutrition on the other, in particular when designing, formulating and implementing policies and programmes?

Sustainably managed forests can play a key role in climate change mitigation and adaptation. Therefore, Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) practices are important and relevant to this particular discussion.

Despite the seemingly obvious causal link between climate change and FSN, there is still a lack of comprehensive understanding on the nexus. Negative impacts of climate change on natural resources bring an immediate effect on food availability and access, thus urgent attention is required. However, we should also not forget other remaining aspects of FSN, which are directly dependent on healthy forest resources. Some of the examples include the potential deterioration on: i) safe cooking practices due to a lack of fuelwood, ii) human health led by disappearing local non-wood forest products and a lack of access to clean water and air, iii) long-term environmental health and resilience to shocks based on overall forest ecosystem services, as well as many other elements which are essential to ensure sustainable FSN.

In dealing with Climate Change and Food Security and Nutrition, there is generally a lack of cross-sectoral policies. For example, while SFM policies and policy-makers take certain aspects of livelihoods into consideration when addressing climate change adaptation practices, the Food Security and Nutrition (FSN) objectives are usually not properly reflected nor adequately incorporated in the SFM practices. SFM policy-makers do not necessarily confer about climate change and FSN in a cross-sectoral manner involving actors from FSN-related sectors. In turn, opportunities to enhance FSN through SFM, in the context of climate change, are not fully captured at policy level.

2.       What are the key institutional and governance challenges to the delivery of cross-sectoral and comprehensive policies that protect and promote nutrition of the most vulnerable, and contribute to sustainable and resilient food systems?

As discussed above, the lack of understanding on the extensive nexus between SFM and FSN yields limited efforts to plan and implement cross-sectoral and comprehensive policies. Consequently, there is relatively little knowledge including best practices on effective design and implementation of such policies by different sectors.

Cross-sectoral collaboration can be particularly difficult among the “competing” sectors in some cases. As an example, sectoral dynamics among the forestry, the agriculture and the environment sectors can vary depending on the national institutional context, and in some challenging contexts, such dynamics can act as a bottleneck in spite of the sound understanding on the link between SFM and FSN.

3.       In your experience, what are key best-practices and lessons-learned in fostering cross-sectoral linkages to protect and improve nutrition while preventing, adapting to climate change and reducing and removing greenhouse gas emissions in projects?

It has been evident that Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) policies and programmes which are better integrated into other sectors, such as rural community development, not only ensure generation of greater socio-economic benefits including food security and nutrition but also enlarge the number of beneficiaries.

A good example of best practices is the one of the the Republic of Korea (RoK). RoK is one of the few countries who succeeded in forest rehabilitation at national level with the aim, amongst others, to improve FSN. The national forest cover of today has reached 63% of the total land cover while in the 50s it was less than 35% in a severely degraded condition. As such, it demonstrated that restoration of forests and prevention of consequential climate change impact were possible and led to substantial FSN improvement.

The Republic of Korea’s National Forest Rehabilitation Plans have been implemented since 1973 in ten-year cycles. Especially in the 70s and 80s, RoK’s National Forest Rehabilitation Plans were implemented under a bigger framework of “Saemaeul Undong” (New Community Movement in Korean). “Saemaeul Undong” began with an objective to “improve the living and agricultural environments, solve food problems, increase profits for farmhouses, reduce the income gap between urban and rural communities, and improve morale of the populace” (Ministry of Strategy and Finance, 2013). RoK’s experience is, therefore, a very good example of the integration of forestry policy with community development policies including some key elements of FSN.

The National Plans were implemented in conjunction with a broader “Saemaeul Undong” programme, covering activities related to income generation, fuelwood plantation and fruit tree plantation. Successful implementation of the plans not only made forest and landscape restoration possible at national level but also, contributed to the country’s food security and rapid economic development through the rehabilitation of ecosystem services.

Among many of the success-factors, the presidential leadership at the time ensured a sound cross-sectoral collaboration among the concerned ministries (e.g. Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Internal Affairs, Ministry of Transportation, Ministry of Defense etc.). Last but not least, it should also be highlighted that the policies were able to reinforce the role of communities as illustrated by their strong participation and the sense of ownership.

Dear all,

I hope some of you had a well-deserved break, but many have been working hard. Let me try and summarize some of the key issues that have emerged in the last days:

• Climate change must be seen in the context of – and as an addition to – major changes in farming systems and lifestyles. “Modern” agriculture techniques have focussed on use of fertiliser and weed/pest control which have increased production costs.  Schooling of children and migration in search of urban employment has led to increased labour constraints in family farms, which does not allow any longer risk-spreading (e.g. combining animal and plant production) and delivery of environmental services (for both sustainable management and mitigation of natural disasters).
• The narrow approach often taken to prevent “natural disasters” such as floods, has had a negative impact on the food and agriculture system. It is important to adapt to nature and not fight it.  Societies have a long record of managing the impacts of weather- and climate-related events and there may be a lot to learn from “community resilient traditional systems and practices”. It is important to revive indigenous varieties for climate change mitigation and nutritional security.
• Sustainable agriculture must nurture healthy ecosystems and support the sustainable management of land, water and natural resources. It must meet the needs of present and future generations for its products and services, while ensuring profitability, environmental health and social and economic equity. It must be adapted to local conditions and ensure decent livelihoods. The focus must be on local food chains, diversification of household production and direct sale to the consumer, with a view to ensure family consumption first and local food availability, while reducing carbon footprints. The complementarity of wild foods for food security and nutrition can be very important, and help to mitigate the impact of climate change.
• Agro-ecology can contribute to preventing and adapting to climate change, and can benefit all farmers from large scale commercial agriculture to subsistence farmers. It is urgent to upscale communication, extension, education (from primary school to university). Peer-learning starting from local experience should be given priority. A wealth of material has already been developed.
• More on governance Policy makers must be more aware of local people's needs and constraints and ensure coherence of messages. The policy agenda and mechanisms for production and resource conservation are mostly disjointed. There is no clear integrated management of ecosystems and/or landscapes. The current architecture of public service delivers various government schemes with people as mere recipients and inadvertently weakens rural communities which are essential to sustainability. Policies and financial resources in both developed and developing countries should focus on building leadership, cooperation and coordination and developing collaborative governance systems at all levels which can help navigate trade offs. Support to sustainable agriculture should go hand in hand with appropriate nutrition interventions and social protection.

Looking forward to the next round of contributions. Have a nice week.

Florence

To FSN Forum Team,

As a complement to the online event Climate Change, Food Security and Nutrition I wish to publicize this crowdsourcing campaign. I am conducting this initiative in the framework of a research project funded under the EU-Egypt Innovation Fund, aiming at promoting knowledge transfer networks that bring together the various actors of the agro-food value chain.

Our objective is to build a community of interest on climate change, food and nutrition security and, especially, to promote active sharing of resources among its members.

The free software we are using is called "Magicrowd". It is allowing us to curate thematic boards displaying all sorts of contributions and not only comments (written insights, links, images, files).

Habiba Hassan-Wassef, MD

Health and Nutrition Policy in Development

Research Consultant, National Research Center, Cairo

Head, National School Feeding Program Preparatory Committee

HORIZON-2020 NCP (Food)

Independent EU Expert in Food and Health

Trustee, African Nutrition Society

Trustee, Knowledge for All Foundation

Adviser, UN High Level Panel of Experts on Food and Nutrition Security

Member of the EU Knowledge For Innovation Group 

Prof Amar Nayak’s paper, abstract and introduction as trailed below, full paper attached, focuses on ‘Achieving sustainable development for food, nutrition and livelihood security through low cost low risk climate friendly agriculture and using the producer company/ org (PC) intervention but staffed with professionals’. The paper highlights sustainable approaches to agriculture, ensuring access to food, nutrition and cash for producer communities through agriculture and also meeting the increasing nutritious food needs of the growing population. Value addition for increase shelf life of farm produce to reduce post harvest losses and waste, also trade in the vicinity and opportunities, without compromising the climate, economic, environmental and social bases of the rural poor producer communities. The paper identifies barriers to change, including in present institutions, organizations, policies and governance, and potential options to overcome them and covers the enabling environment necessary for  transition to agriculture systems contributing to economic development and growth but sustainable in the long term.

Asymmetries in Organizations, Institutions and Policy Signals in the context of Sustainable Governance in India

                          Amar KJR Nayak[1]                                                                                                                                                                   Abstract:

This article focuses on the present asymmetries in community organizational design, institutional architecture of these organizations and signaling effect of multiple development policies and schemes of the government and consequences of these asymmetries on effectiveness of programme delivery and overall sustainability of rural producer communities in the Indian context.  

While these three aspects of community organizational design, their institutional architecture and policy signals are the critical pillars of sustainable local governance, the article based on eight years of an action research and empirical studies across India, argues that at present they are neither symmetric within nor symmetric across each other. The present institutional architecture of the government and community organizations at the last mile are serving as mere agents to deliver various government schemes with people as mere recipients. Further, deployment of multiple institutions at the community level to deliver these schemes tends to increase asymmetries in information in the system leading to opportunistic behavior among both the agents and the beneficiaries. In other words, the current design, architecture and mechanism of public service delivery inadvertently weaken the coordination processes of rural community producer organization/ companys that are crucial for governance in India and long term sustainability of rural producer communities.      

                                Key Phrases

Organizational design, institutional architecture, policy signals, coordination failure, local governance, long term sustainability of rural producer communities

Asymmetries in Organizations, Institutions and Policy Signals in the context of Governance in India for Long Term Sustainability

 Introduction:

There has been increasing appreciation among the policy makers and development professionals in India that demand side institutions viz., people’s organization/ companys and institutions at the producer community level are critical for efficient and effective delivery of public services for an equitable society.  That better local governance is the foundation to better governance at higher levels of the society is very well understood as has been reflected in the 73rd and 74th Amendment of the Indian constitution.   

In the above light, this article discusses the issues of community organizational design, their institutional architecture and the nature of signals that multiple development policies implemented through multiple institutions of the government have on people and their community organizations. Following the exposition of the issues at the heart of local governance, the article proposes some thoughts on how to redesign producer community organization/ companys, their institutional architecture and development policy strategy that can minimize information asymmetry, opportunistic behavior by community members, especially the elite and reduce transaction costs for sustainable governance in the long term at the grass root level viz. the Gram Panchayat.    

First, the article delves on the context of smallholder farmers/producers, in terms of their asymmetric disadvantages in resource base, capability base and traditional institutional base in relation to those in the current market economic system. It highlights how this context has shaped the various community organization based development interventions of the government over the last six decades. Second, based on the empirical evidences, it analyses the deficiencies in the supply side institutional and organizational arrangements of the governments and the significance of developing demand side institutional architecture of the producer community organizations.

Third, based on the empirical observations, it highlights the conceptual gaps and theoretical challenges in guiding state policy on optimal design of community organizations and optimal boundary limits of institutional architecture of these organization for better local governance. Fourth, it discusses the dysfunctional signaling effect of development schemes and programmes implemented by multiple agencies of the government on the efficacy of coordination processes in community organizations arising out of high information asymmetries in the present system. Fifth, the article discusses optimal design of rural producer community organization/ company and optimal institutional architecture for these community organizations for the long term sustainability sustainability of their members.

1. The Context

The overall context of a small producer or a smallholder farmer in a rural agricultural setting is well understood. The current globally accepted description of producer includes not only small farmers engaged in agriculture but also hunters, gatherers, fishing folk, artisan, crafts persons, tenants, etc. S/he could be characterized as someone who holds or owns very little private property in terms of resources/asset/land with little liquid capital.  S/he engages in large number of production activities in low volumes and little product specialization. S/he has bare formal education, has limited access to information, knowledge and adopts rudimentary methods and techniques of production and value addition (processing). S/he has little accesses to good basic infrastructure on health, education, water, electricity, and roads.    

While the internal conditions of small famer or landless smallholder producers, who form over 70% of total producers, is rather weak and vulnerable, the external conditions are highly unfavorable for their existence. The agricultural input market is better organized and prices of inputs have been rising. The players in the product market are better endowed with information, resources, capital and are better organized to bargain hard with small farmers/producer communities.

Further, at the village level, sahukars/money lenders/local traders have indeed been on an advantageous position to exploit the small producers. It is indicative of the fact that while prices of agricultural products have multiplied several times in recent years, farm gate prices that the farmers get have hardly increased over these years.  In the light of the modern market economic system, the small farmer and the landless small producer is indeed in a highly asymmetric disadvantageous position.

In addition, the uncertainty in weather and climate, especially in rainfall leads to incorrect assessment on timing of sowing by small farmers; makes the situation challenging and highly risky. Further, poor health, lack of knowledge/ primary education in the rural areas and reducing, net incomes from agricultural activities has lead to out-migration of people from rural agricultural communities. Not only has the overall climate of liberalization, privatization, and globalization exposed small agricultural producers to global commodity markets and industrial economic system, the culture of access to own requirement of nutritious food through agriculture has been adversely affected especially with respect to agricultural production of scale. Even in the best agricultural districts, nearly 30% of farmers are making net losses and another 20% are barely making profits from their agricultural activities (Nayak 2013d). While most farmer parents wish that their children stay in their villages; most of their children instead are forced to out migrate from their villages in search of alternate livelihood.     

 2. Institutional Architecture of the Government

During the last sixty years, the central government and the state governments have experimented and tried with various institutional and organizational arrangements to improve the situation of smallholder farmers and producers as well as the rural agricultural communities. As against the Tata-Birla Plan of industrialization, 1944, that had only 10% provision for the agricultural sector (Nayak 2011), the Government of India since 1947 have been allocating significant budgets towards agriculture and rural development.  The central government and the state governments have created constitutional provisions in terms of institutional arrangement and organizational arrangements to resolve the various asymmetries of farmers in general and smallholder producer communities in particular. 

The formal cooperative activities began with the enactment of Cooperative Credit Societies Act, 1904, later it was revised in 1912.  Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies were formed from around this period. The Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Act 1956 and the formation of organization like National Agricultural Cooperative Agricultural Marketing Federation in 1958 were some of the earliest initiatives. Similarly, the state governments have also formed state level departments, independent organizations and institutions to resolve these issues of small farmers. 

Subsequently, the government initiated several provisions and institutions viz., Integrated Rural Development Programme (1978), NABARD (1982), PRI through 73rd Amendment of the Indian Constitution, Swarnajayanti Gram Swarojgar Yogana (1999), Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (2005), Right to Information Act (2005), and National Rural Livelihood Mission (2010). Specifically in the area of marketing, Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee was formed in 1956. Accordingly, the state governments created several provisions like formation of State Agricultural Marketing Boards, Regulated Market Committees, Check Gates, etc. In addition several institutions like the Farmers’ Commission, expert committees on rural credit, cooperatives, etc have been formed to assess and improve the well being of small producers in rural agricultural communities in India.

Not only has the government tried to create institutional arrangement and organizations, it has also been pumping a lot of resources through these institutions and organizations for improving the situation of small farmers/producers and rural agricultural communities. One may look at the number of development schemes and programmes that are directed at the district and Gram Panchayat level to appreciate this point.

The annual budgetary provision of only the Ministry of Rural Development is over INR 100,000 crores. As per the NRLM guidelines, the provision per family below the poverty line is INR 100,000 per year. Provision for various types of support viz., credit support, marketing support, livelihood support, natural resource management, watershed development, rural infrastructure, primary health, primary educations, basic infrastructure, etc have been created.

However, the existing institutions and organizations have not fared well in terms of delivery of these provisions to the resource poor and smallholder producer communities. The capacity to absorb, internalize and create long term assets and value by people and community at the grass root level from these public investments have been far from expectations. Indeed, there seems to be a weak link between the public investment and long term impact on well being of the people and the community.

To improvise its delivery capacity, the governments have also increasingly used the services of Non Government Organizations (NGOs) and civil society organizations (CSOs). Thousands of NGOs and CSOs have mushroomed in this process. The social impact of the public investment still remained below par. Additionally, the organizational arrangement with NGOs often lead to capacity building of the NGOs more than the capacity building of the communities. Once the NGOs stop getting funds from a project, the initiatives undertaken in a community also ceases and ironically all the investment made in the NGOs also moves away from the community.

In recent years, governments have been collaborating with industrial organizations especially the large private corporations for improving delivery efficiency of public services. Individual farmers and small producer groups like SHG, CIG, FPO, small producer cooperatives, etc are being linked to large private corporations in the hope to improve the well being of small farmers/producers. The institutional arrangement in some states seems to be gradually moving from a welfare state mechanism to market mechanism under the broader framework of inclusive capitalism. Contract Farming, Public Private Partnerships, Crop Insurance, Agri-business model as per the traditional industrial organizational design, etc., are some examples of the orientation and attempts made by both central and state governments. In recent years, large venture capitalists and large corporations have been seeking support from the governments to undertake grass root level community development as part of their corporate social entrepreneurship.   

The government and policy advisers little realize that the basic grain of a traditional industrial organizational design is totally different from that of community organizations at the grass root level. While the former is built on the paradigm of competition, the later is built on cooperation.  The position of design variables and the purposes of these two organizational types are so far apart that in the long run, large industrial enterprises will gain at the cost of community organizations in a competitive market economic system (Nayak 2010, 2014a).            

In the above milieu of development approaches and challenges, the bright ray of hope to improve the well being of small producer communities including the psychological-social-economically weak communities appears to be the provision of National Rural Livelihood Mission (NRLM) 2010 of the Government of India. The emphasis on building local institutional platforms of the poor and converging all the resources to build and strengthen this local institution is indeed a wise and sustainable way forward for the well being of the poor communities.  There are however several questions that need to be answered for the new mission to make a sustainable impact and in the long term. 

How will the multiple local institutions interact with each other? Will there be duplication of resources & efforts because of multiple people’s institutions?  What will be the cost of operating each of these institutions? Will each of these institutions be optimally designed for operational efficiency? Will the challenges of capacity building, marketing and value addition of the small producers be handled through these institutions? What will be the steps & sequences of implementation? Is it designed for sufficient local resource persons for successful implementation? How long will it take to implement and exit? What is the overall strategy? What will be the total cost of implementation at the GP level? Will these institutions for livelihood cater to other needs of the community viz., health, education, basic infrastructure, etc? Although individual organizations are attempting to resolve some of these questions as they work in the complex setting of Indian rural communities; these questions still remain largely unanswered by NRLM.  

The latest attempt of the Government has been to promote Farmer Producer Organizations as Producer Companies as per section IXA of the companies Act 1956. Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Agriculture through NABARD have made a provision to promote 2000 farmer producer companies in the next two years (2014-16). While the Act came into being in 2002, development agencies have been struggling to stabilize the few hundred producer companies that have already been set up during the last twelve years. 

Across the board, the institutions of the government for implementing these programmes are highly hierarchical, bureaucratic, centralized and top heavy with high transaction costs. While the supply side institution of the government seems to be well defined and overwhelming, the demand side institutions viz., people’s organizations or community organizations have not been well conceived. Figure 1-2 are sample institutional architecture of the Odisha Livelihood Mission and Karnataka Watershed Development.

I want to share with everyone some insights with regards to the climate change and food production issues written by Dr. Hector Malleta. I do agree with him on the fact that a lot needs to be done today. However, we might have very different perspectives and data on the following points:

 A. It is predicted that there will be a massive rise of the economic growth till the end of century. Moreover, according to the ICCG Webinar “Water Challenges in the Agricultural Sector”( http://www.iccgov.org/EventDetails.aspx?IDEvento=360&IDSM=59&IDM=75) last March 6, 2015,there has been a decline in global agricultural  production of Maize, Wheat and Rice. Figures for Maize are from 1961-1990, there is a total growth rate of 2.33 and from 1991 -2010, the growth rate was  1.82. For wheat, from 1961-1990, the world growth rate was 2.73 and from 1991-2010, it was at 1.03. For Rice, from 1961-1990, the total global growth rate was at 2.14, while from 1991-2010, it was at 1.09. These data coincide with FAO’s Webinar last  March 31, 2015 (http://www.fao.org/climatechange/micca/88950/en/),that there is a continuous decline in  agricultural production if the problem of climate change continues.

B. If we are aiming for a world and sustainable future for all then I believe that we must look at the issues holistically- that is both at a micro and macro level of analysis. We have to take into the account the surrounding issues of the consequences of using lands especially those that are used for commercial  purposes. we already have exceeded the planetary boundary for biodiversity loss (http://www.stockholmresilience.org/21/research/research-programmes/planetary-boundaries.html). Biodiversity loss is a result also of the fact that when lands are being converted into mono-cropping plantations or for commercial purposes, such as factories, etc. we basically cut down trees, alter soil composition, etc., which leads to the displacement of a lot of species in the forest. When they are displaced, when these species are deprived of their natural habitat, sooner or later, they die especially when they do not have food to eat.  We do also have to take care of them because they also provide us a lot of ecosystem services. Added to this is the fact that the indigenous peoples are being displaced away from their lands. This is a major issue that still remains true especially for those large commercial mono cropping plantations and large commercial mining companies. Often times, politics play a role on this issue. If countries are to adopt the SDGs this year, then policy makers should also address this issue.

C. I really do not see why climate change has beneficial implications for agriculture when we have also exceeded this planetary boundary.  Exceeding planetary boundaries have negative impact and that means an alteration on earth’s system processes that leads to a high possibility of loosing the earth’s resilience.  It is sad to think but really true that scientists predict that the temperature of the planet is getting warmer that can reach 4 degrees Celsius, the temperature of the civilization before the last ice age, Humans could become 6th mass extinction of the species and it is predicted that we will be 10 billion by 2050. Moreover, the scientific data of the great acceleration (http://www.igbp.net/globalchange/greatacceleration.4.1b8ae20512db692f2a680001630.html ) shows that everything is rising today. There are no signs to show that there is a decoupling or a decrease among the data. Aside from that, basic science would tell us that in order for plants to survive, they do need a good amount of sunlight and water.

I hope this helps: -)

The climate change is in the centre of the news. It concerns all of us. It affects our lives and has devastated our economies. The price to pay is becoming too high .Today do we need small scale change or a revolution against this scourge with affects more and more starving people every day? We must fight against poverty and the conditions that create it. One of which is climate change. Today more than ever, we must act faster.

Combination of land management and land administration would be very best significant to combat climate change. In the Philippines political will with technical capabilities must be combined in order the land use policy should properly be implemented on the use of our natural resources. Land use or natural resource must be conceptually and carefully study on the use of the natural resources according to the needs, desire, aspirations of the men’s need for sustainable development...

>>English version below<<

Buenas tardes

En primer creo que la agricultura debe cumplir con los objetivos y principios de la agricultura sustentable, por ello debe ser: 1. adaptable a las condiciones cambiantes de cada agricultor, 2. debe garantizarse al agricultor que lo que estamos ofreciendole funciona y da resultados y 3. Debe garantizar su mejora en la economía familiar y calidad de vida, entiendase bien calidad de vida NO subsistencia.

Los objetivos de toda actividad, igual para la agricultura es que sea: económicamente viable, socialmente justa, localmente autosuficiente y amigable con el ambiente(cambio climático), por tanto no podemos meter a todos los agricultores en un saco, desde que FAO, ONU impulsan en 1992, el desarrollo sostenible, las practicas y propuesta van y vienen y no se definen y confunden cada día más a los agricultores. 

Cambio Climático: Relación entre cambio climático vs Desertización y Desertificación, hay diferencia, es lo mismo, en 1995 en un curso superior de especialización en agricultura ecológica, agricultura sostenible, impartido por la Junta de Andalucía y el Gobierno español, veiamos con gran profundidad el impacto generado por la acción del homre y la naturaleza, para mi el famoso cambio climático de hoy

En relación a sus preguntas:

Cuáles son las principales cuestiones:  Pregunto respetuosamente que significa para ustedes cuestiones?

Con 32 años trabajando en campo al lado de los agricultores día a día en el diseño y establecimiento de sistemas agropecuarios sostenibles como agronegocios y últimamente ajustando el área mínima necesaria para que una familia campesina viva, coma sana y nutritivamente y tenga calidad de vida, puedo decirles esas"cuestiones", por las que uetdes preguntan lo que necesitan es acción, no de políticas, ni de programas, hay que actuar yá, y actuar con profesionales con experiencia práctica, en campo, no en escribir y dictar políticas. Teconologías hay, de bajo costo, de fácil acceso, y viables económicamente. Lo que no tenemos es capacidad técnica, los profesionales hoy día se bajan de un avión y se suben a otro y se mal informan de lo que sucede en la realidad poruqe es más importante viajar que atender directamente las ncesidades de los productores/as.

2. Desafíos: enfrentar la situación y atacar el problema de la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional trabajando al lado del agricultor, no dirigir desde oficinas centrales laas acciones, desarrollar encadenamientos y cadenas de valor local, enfatizar en la importancia de la producción primero para el autoconsumo, diversificar la unidad de producción familiar, dejar de andar inventando nombres raros a lo que hacen y ponerse a trabajr de verdad en la parte productiva, el vincular al agricultor en una venta directa productor-consumidor es lo ideal y adecuado en este momento, desde todo punto de vista, económico, social, ambiental y reduce la huella de carbono además,

3. Lecciones aprendidas: Personalemente no las veo,    a nivel intersectorial, no existen, tal vez existan en un papel, pero de ahí a la realidad en campo dista Km de Km de distancia, en el papelito encuantran la solución a todo pero la realiddad es otra, un grave problema es el beneficio directo alas mismas familais en los últimos 20 años, todo se lleva a un mismo lugar, lugar que no da resultados, el aporte económico brindado es para que vendadn comida a las personas que llegan a capacitarse a sus espciso, estos espacios llamadas vitrina tecnológicas no ESTAN FUNCIONANDO,

Esta es mi oipinión, basada en mi experiencia entre México y centroamérica como consultora y en mi país Costa Rica, de lo dicho a lo hecho, solo en el papel.

Un cordial saludos 

Good afternoon,

First of all, I believe agriculture must comply with the objectives and principles of sustainable agriculture. Therefore, agriculture should: 1. Adapt itself to the changing conditions of each farmer; 2. Guarantee the farmers that it works and yields results; and 3. Ensure an improved household economy and quality of life (NOT subsistence) to the farmers.

Any activity, agricultural or of any other nature, should be economically feasible, socially fair, locally self-sufficient and environmentally friendly (climate change). Therefore we cannot lump all the farmers together. Since FAO and the UN started promoting sustainable development in 1992, diverse practices and proposals have followed, lacking consistency and increasingly confusing the farmers.

Climate Change: Relationship between Climate Change and Desertification. Differences exist. In 1995, in an advanced specialized course in organic farming and sustainable agriculture conducted by the Regional Government of Andalucía and the Spanish Government, we studied the impact caused by the action of man and nature in depth. In my opinion this is what nowadays is called climate change.

Regarding your questions:

What are the main issues? I would respectfully like to ask what does the term “issues” mean to you.

After 32 years working daily in the field, side by side with farmers, on the design and development of sustainable agricultural systems such as agribusiness and, more recently, on the optimization of the minimum surface area required for the everyday life, healthy and nutritious diet and quality of life of a farming household, all I can say is that these “issues” need action. They do not require policies or programs, but immediate action led by professionals with practical experience in the field, not by policy-makers. Low-cost technologies -easily accessible, and economically feasible- do exist. What we do not have is technical capacity. Nowadays, the professionals step off an airplane and hop on another one. They are not properly informed about the reality, because travelling becomes more important for them than meeting the producers’ needs.

2. Challenges: To address the situation and tackling the problem of food and nutrition security in cooperation with the farmers, avoid remote operational management from the headquarters, develop linkages and local value chains, emphasize the importance of production primarily for own consumption, diversify the household production unit, stop creating weird terms for whatever is being done, and work productively. Right now, engaging the farmer in a direct sale to the consumer seems to be ideal and appropriate from an economic, social, environmental –carbon footprint reduction as a bonus– point of view.

3. Lessons learned: Personally, I think no lessons have been learned at the intersectoral level. Maybe they have been reflected in a document, but they are very distant from the reality in the field. Solutions to every problem can be found in a document, but the reality is different. A serious problem is that the same families have been benefited over the past 20 years. All the resources are allocated to the same places yielding no results. Economic support is provided to sell food to people who receive training in these areas. These places, called technological showcases, are NOT WORKING.

This is my opinion, based on my experience as a consultant in Mexico, Central America and Costa Rica, my country.

Kind regards.

My answer:

1) To undesrstand the nature is a first thing; then the attitude to control it. If we abate this type of approaches then the nature is friendly.

2) I dont have faith on government & its bureaucrats. A body of international & national with expat for policy & implimentation with a definite fund from budget then it can be worked.

3) When its cross-sectoral then everything is mixup & we all thing that we are the best & our policy is the solution. So Maintaining this is tough.

Like flood is a blessing for flood plain but we misunderstand this also we made structure after structure to resist flood; so when it comes it destroy everything. But if we let it flow to land then land will be furtile with fish spawning & many.

This is we make blessing a curse-so lots of on structural function.