Dear HLPE-FSN Secretariat,
Please find attached a short submission from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, on "“Preserving, strengthening and promoting Indigenous Peoples’ food and knowledge systems and traditional practices for sustainable food systems to achieve FSN” as a key means of achieving the CFS vision, SDG2, and an array of other SDGs, including SDGs 1, 10, 12, 13 and 15." Please note that our submission requests that the HLPE report include a focus on specific aspects of conflict between the broad range of commitments to Indigenous people’s food sovereignty on the one hand and commercialization and/or trade policies on the other hand.
Best wishes,
Shiney Varghese, Sr. Policy Analyst,
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, USA
(Member of the UN HLPE St. Committee (2017-2019) and Contributing author to the CFS-HLPE report on Water for Food Security)
Comments Submitted by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP)
The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) commends the UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS) on its request to its High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE-FSN) to produce a report on “Preserving, strengthening and promoting Indigenous Peoples’ food and knowledge systems and traditional practices for sustainable food systems to achieve FSN” to help inform this workstream to help create a set of focused, action- oriented policy recommendations on the topic. IATP also welcomes this opportunity to contribute towards developing the scope of the HLPE-FSN Report.
We find the proposed research questions to be valid and relevant.
However, in order to ensure that the report provides comprehensive analysis, IATP considers it important to focus on an aspect that is currently missing: trade policy (perhaps it is an issue that can be addressed under principle 7, which stresses that in this HLPE report ““Current disparate, conflicting, contradictory, and controversial issues will be addressed, along with ramifications, repercussions and unintended consequences for Indigenous Peoples from unrelated, and/or well-meaning policies and processes.”).
We suggest that the HLPE report consider the intersection/ conflict between the broad range of commitments to Indigenous people’s food sovereignty and trade policies; and develop recommendations to ensure that trade agreements and trade partnerships are adapted to honor these commitments.
We suggest that U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) offers a starting point to consider the broad range of commitments to Indigenous peoples and food sovereignty and on adapting trade policy to meet those important goals. (We do this in the context of the ongoing trade dispute over Mexico’s restrictions on genetically engineered (GE) corn and glyphosate, a pesticide that GE corn is designed to resist.) In support of this suggestion, IATP wishes to draw attention to the Indigenous Rights general exception clause in the USMCA.
The joint comments submitted to the official USMCA dispute resolution process (by IATP with our partners the Rural Coalition in the USA and the Alianza Nacional de Campesinas in Mexico), provide legal arguments in support of this kind of clause on Indigenous Rights.
Article 32.5, on Indigenous Peoples Rights, a new provision in the USMCA, allows USMCA parties (member governments) to adopt or maintain measures “necessary to fulfill its legal obligations to Indigenous peoples,” provided the measures are not unjustified discrimination or disguised restrictions on trade. The language of the USMCA general exception is bolstered in the Environment chapter, which elaborates on the links between Indigenous rights and biodiversity protection and conservation.
These provisions were the direct result of pressure by First Nations communities on the Canadian government, which at the time hailed the inclusion of the Indigenous rights exception as historic.
Our analysis established that Mexico’s policies regarding glyphosate and GE corn are necessary to fulfill its legal obligations to Indigenous peoples, including protecting biodiversity and ensuring access to safe, healthy and culturally appropriate food. Mexico’s Constitution includes multiple provisions recognizing Indigenous peoples and rights specific to them. Indigenous rights are also protected through national legislation, executive decree and international treaties to which Mexico is a signatory, including International Labor Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, the Convention on Biological Diversity and other United Nations conventions ensuring Indigenous peoples’ rights.
In the context of this case, it is important to note that within the U.S. too the issue of Indigenous rights have come up, including in Minnesota, where IATP is based. The Ojibwe (Anishinaabe) people are based in the Great Lakes region, including in Northern Minnesota. Manoomin (wild rice in the Ojibwe language), in addition to being a food staple, has tremendous cultural and spiritual significance to their people. In the late 1990s, as commercial interest in the plant increased in the U.S., the University of Minnesota began genetic studies of Manoomin germ plasm, including research potentially to develop genetically modified wild rice. After a long campaign by a number of Indigenous nations for legislation to protect Manoomin, finally, in 2007 the Minnesota legislature passed a law restricting the release and sale of GE wild rice in Minnesota and requiring consultations with Minnesota Ojibwe. Please read our blog respecting-rights-usmca-corn-dispute for more details.
For more information on USMCA Dispute Resources including Policy Briefs, Reports and Press Materials please visit https://www.iatp.org/food-sovereignty-trade-and-mexicos-gmo-corn- policies#home (We expect to see the USMCA corn case decision later this week, and please let us know if the HLPE would like an update.)
Among all the other questions we find that the question, “How can the report ensure the inclusion of marginalized groups, sustainability, and protection against commercialization risks for Indigenous Peoples' food and knowledge systems?” is most pertinent. This question closely mirrors question 2 (“Should the objectives include mainstreaming Indigenous Peoples food and knowledge systems, and lessons learned from them, for the benefit of all, or solely for the benefit of Indigenous Peoples as rights holders?”).
Even though Question 3 (“What are the challenges related to Free, Prior and Informed Consent and Access and Benefit Sharing when widely promoting and/or mainstreaming Indigenous Peoples food and knowledge systems?”) points to internationally accepted language such as FPIC and ABS, to help address the challenges, its premise assumes that mainstreaming Indigenous Peoples food and knowledge systems is a given.
Clearly, there is a need to value Indigenous Peoples food and knowledge systems, and learn from them; ideally the lessons could be for the benefit of all. However, it is of utmost importance that it is not be at the cost of Indigenous Peoples as rights holders. Nor should non-Indigenous Peoples’ desire to benefit from these knowledge systems shift our focus away from the everyday livelihoods of indigenous peoples as has happened in the case of Andean quinoa farmers, a real risk associated with global scale commercialization.
Thank you,
Shiney Varghese, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
Shiney Varghese