Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Zero Draft of the HLPE report on ‘Agroecological approaches and other innovations for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition’. We welcome that the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) has decided to play an important role in advancing this important topic and we see this as an opportunity to further strengthen CFS’s contribution to the UN Decade of Action on Nutrition over the next years until 2025 and contribute to the achievements of the SDG targets by 2030.

I would like to provide the following overall comments (as per attachment).

Best regards,

Marzella

This HLPE’s presentation on agroecology is remarkable, especially in its ability to place the agro-ecological transition in a more global approach in which it directly contributes and shows clearly its critical contribution to the sustainable food systems.

I would suggest developing further the three ideas:

- The importance of agroecology in the different forms of agriculture, regardless of their level of intensification,

- The need to develop new approaches to system performance evaluation to support agroecology, and

- Analyze and document the triggering factors of the agro-ecological transition at a significant scale

I suggest here some inputs for these 3 ideas :

1) The importance of agroecology in the different forms of agriculture, regardless of their level of intensification:

CIRAD thinks that, given the magnitude and urgency of the challenges posed by the global changes that the majority of Southern production modes, regardless of their degree of intensification, must evolve based on the concepts of agroecology

The following table (see attachement)  expresses the potential contribution of agroecology to this different forms of agriculture in the South

2) The need to renew approaches to system performance evaluation to support agroecologial transition

One of the priorities is improving and developing new comprehensible, robust and widely adoptable methodologies and tools for common reference in performance assessment of production and processing systems. The economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainability are multiple and can act synergistically or antagonistically. The different development actors have a different vision of the weight given to each sustainability indicator. Evaluation is also largely dependent on the spatial and temporal scales at which this evaluation is performed. These few notes reveal the complexity and the challenge of evaluating the sustainability of production and the need to invest this research field. Evaluating a set of services obviously raises the question of the search for acceptable compromises between them and arbitrations that can be carried out. There are unequal levels of methodological development between the environmental, economic and social assessment of sustainability: while environmental evaluation remains a complex exercise, we already have a set of methods and tools to assess this performance, whereas the methods and tools enabling the evaluation of the economic and mainly social performances of the agro-ecological transition are much less developed.

3) Analyze and document the triggering factors of the agro-ecological transition at a significant scale

The expression "change of scales" echoes a concept that is not well adapted to agroecology. It’s based on the assumption that a solution could be tested locally and then replicated. Indeed, in the case of - transition, contexts of production are different each time, therefore replication is often difficult or impossible without adaptation. Technical change can be experimented at the scale of the farm but the ecological transition takes shape only if there is an organizational change in the territories and at the political level. The long period of time necessary to evaluate the transition should also be emphasized. This long period of time is especially important to develop the capacities of the different actors of the agro-ecological transition.

I also inform you that CIRAD and AFD will publish in december a book of their experiences of agroecological transition in partnership in different contexts in the South : "Supporting the agro-ecological transition in the global south". Côte F.-X., Poirier-Magona E., Perret S., Rapidel B., Roudier P., Thirion M.-C. (eds), 2018, Agricultures et défis du monde, AFD, Cirad, Éditions Quæ, Versailles.

Regards, françois

There are many key contributions in here and I have collaborated with a broader collective of scholars to offer a synthesis of detailed comments. Here I would like to focus on one key theory that could be useful for revisions.

I will start with Figure 11, which addresses an important question regarding the determinants of food insecurity. However, much is missing. What about access to land, income/poverty, and assets/wealth? It strikes me that an exchange entitlements and capabilities framework would be useful here. I find this figure to be misleading and recommend changing it.

The focus on reviewing the best evidence to date regarding the determinants of food and nutritional security in different contexts is key, and I it is excellent to see colleagues engaging this challenge. Along these lines, I was surprised to see that Amaryta Sen is only cited a couple of times starting on page 67, and then briefly referenced in lines 27 to 30 on page 68. These lines are useful in the way that they address several of the frequently cited driving causes of food and nutritional insecurity (e.g., income, conflict, and inequality at multiple scales (e.g. gender or racial inequality) etc.” If the reader skims the figures, they will miss the broader interpretation and discussion in this subsequent part.

It could be useful to continue developing from Sen’s scholarship after the 1981 famine paper to think about the different types of entitlements (e.g.,, production, trade, income-based, and transfer / gift entitlements) (Sen, 1987) relevant to the determination of food security and vulnerability to increasingly frequent hazards (Sen and Dreze, 1989; Devereux et al., 2018; Watts and Bohle, 1993; ).

Devereux, S., Vaitla, B., Swan, S.H., 2008. Seasons of Hunger: Fighting Cycles of Quiet Starvation Among the World’s Rural Poor. Pluto Press.

Watts, M.J., Bohle, H.G., 1993. The space of vulnerability: the causal structure of

hunger and famine. Progress in Human Geography 17 (1) 43–67.

Sen, A., Dreze, J., 1989. Hunger and Public Action. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Sen, 1987. Hunger and entitlements. World Institute for Development Economics Research. United Nations University.

Dear members of the HLPE Project Team and Steering Committee,

We appreciate the much-needed focus on agroecology for food security and nutrition. As noted by other commenters, agroecology, the right to food and food sovereignty should be the foundations of agriculture and food policies. We share concerns over climate smart agriculture that is raised in a joint submission by CIDSE and those raised in several other submissions on the need for greater clarity in this report on the definitions of agroecology and the dilution of and diversion from agroecology under the wide-open rubric of “other innovations” that undermine rather than complement agroecology and the right to food.

It is unclear to us why in the context of Sustainable Food Systems (SFS) and Food Security and Nutrition (FSN), “innovation” is emerging as the central criterion with which to assess the utility of agroecology as well as other agricultural approaches. Such an approach tends to marginalize community based agricultural practices and knowledge that have evolved and fed communities for generations, even without the support of governments and international agencies. Innovation prizes the new and patentable product, even if such products are sub-optimal means to realizing FSN and SFS targets in poor countries. Other parameters such as agricultural resilience, adaptation, equity, empowerment as well as the precautionary principle might even be more relevant lenses with which to assess the utility of agricultural technology and practices as they help fulfill food security and nutritional needs in an era of climate change. Rather than expanding the report to cover numerous unrelated technologies and practices, a more useful contribution of the HLPE report would be to maintain a central focus on agroecology.

In addition, we would like to raise these specific concerns:

• A glaring omission in the report is the assessment of agroecology and other “innovations” in the context of a climate vulnerable world. The new IPCC Special Report on 1.5 degrees highlights that for human systems to survive, including food systems, we must limit global warming to 1.5 degrees by 2050. This means that our production estimates must be significantly revised to incorporate the imperative for a serious assessment of global food supply chains and a dramatic cut in consumption of GHG intensive foods in quantities that are not necessary for nutritional needs.
• In addition, food production will be vulnerable to climate change. Rather than a simplistic focus on whether agroecology can feed the world, it is thus critical that FSN strategies prioritize regional, site-specific analysis on agriculture’s vulnerability and ensuing production, food, nutrition and distribution gaps. Global aggregate figures will be less helpful in such a scenario. The merits of agroecology are central to this adapting nutrient dense food production to climate change and should be assessed in this light. The merits of agroecology are central to adapting agriculture and food production to climate change and should be assessed in this light.
• A powerful research and policy bias against agroecological approaches must be rectified. Despite ample empirical evidence that food, feed and forage crop production using agroecological methods leads to substantially better social and environmental outcomes and are much more climate-resilient than industrial monocultures, scientific research and, often, agricultural development aid, is biased towards a handful of industrial approaches that limit our ability to deal SFS and FSN holistically.
• Sustainable intensification is not an adequate solution for FSN, as it understates true costs and requires externalization of a number of relevant factors to perform environmentally on a per unit of production basis. Such externalization and the subsidies available to intensified production make them poor candidates for applying to countries and producers without such subsidies.
• The HLPE report should illustrate the problem of comparative technology assessment and application with case studies, including those for which scalability is an important factor in technology selection.
• Recommendation 8 on the need for reforms of global trade and financial institutions should be supported in the text by evidence of the FSN impacts of trade liberalization on agricultural markets and revised to clearly state that governments must maintain the ability to apply import disciplines and support domestic production for goods critical to FSN.

Please find our detailed comments and proposals on these issues in the attachment.

Best regards,

Karen Hansen-Kuhn

Director, Trade and Global Governance

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

Hello,



I would like to focus my contribution on Point 9 of the consultation (case study representativeness and adequacy)

Obviously the diversity of subjects makes complicated to find adequate examples to illustrate correctly all the dimensions of the interactions between Agroecology and FSN.

Nevertheless I have the feeling of a certain imbalance in the geographic representativeness. The big majority of the case studies are concentrated in Africa (normal because of the challenges) and Latin America (Normal because of the history of this region in Agroecology).

I have been surprised not to find any example from South East Asia or Indian Ocean.

I think that there is a big challenge in improving more sustainable production systems in SEA where the chemical inputs based intensification is reaching its limits in regard to the huge risks on environment and health it creates. It would be great to send a "message" using local agroecological experiences as case studies in this report.

Furthermore, in Madagascar food security is a crucial challenge, in particular regarding to rice production and availability for the very poor rural households. In this case, because of a very low access to external inputs of those farmers, Agroecology represents an option to try to partly intensify rice production.

If it is of interest for the panel, Cirad has been involved in two case studies from these two regions, one from Laos (Giving support to local actors to Agroecological transition) and the other one from Madagascar (Agroecology in the Highlands of Madagascar: from plant to landscape).

I'm joining two book chapters almost finalised that illustrate these case studies. Summaries could be adapted in function of the dimension to illustrate.

It would be a pleasure for us to develop quickly these case studies if necessary.

In the same way, it could been argued on the fact that there is no example from developed countries where there are challenges around food safety, food systems and consumption patterns. But obviously it is out of the scope of Cirad to develop case studies for such countries.

Best regards

Eric

Wide greetings and thanks for the helpful information of other colleagues

It is different from the one in which food security policy is implemented in each country

There are many obstacles to implementing the holy goals of this humanitarian project.

Although in the two periods of the project (independently and independently), we were very successful and welcomed by many

We had people, but unfortunately, not only did the necessary cooperation by the municipality and ... not prevent the continuation of the work.

Therefore, a solution can not be used for different countries, but in each country and even region, a strategy is more applicable to the same region.

And we convince the rulers to believe in these goals in their heart to prevent progress

Thanks

Naghmeh Mohammadiee

golpakhsh sobhemrooz

--------------

لوگیری از پیشرفت

با عرض سلام و تشکر از اطلاعات مفید دیگر همکاران 

در مورد اینکه سیاست های اجرایی در زمینه امنیت غذایی در هر کشور متفاوت است و 

جهت اجرایی کردن اهداف مقدس این پروژه انساندوستانه با موانع بسیاری روبرو می شوید،  

با این که در دو دوره اجرا شده این طرح (به صورت مستقل و بدون وابستگی) بسیار موفق بودیم و استقبال فراوانی نیز از طرف

 مردم بود، اما متأسفانه نه تنها همکاری های لازم از طرف شهرداری و ... اما مانع ادامه کارنیز شد،

بنابراین نمی توان راهکار را برای کشورهای مختلف استفاده کرد اما در هر کشوری و حتی منطقه راهکار مشخص به آن منطقه کاربردی تر است.

و اینکه حاکمان به باور قلبی این اهداف متقاعد می شوند تا مانع پیشرفت کارشانوند 

با تشکر

نغمه محمدی

گلپخش صبح امروز

Hello,

The report is very interesting with a lot of information. I was very interested in the innovation part. I fully agree with the discussion regarding innovation processes and innovation system. However, there is a need to better understand and strengthen how to support innovation (not only understand how innovation occur and develop) (Faure et al. 2018). I would like to provide some inputs regarding this dimension which is missing in the report.

In learning theories, building innovation capacities of individual and organizations is the core of the accompaniment approaches. The managerial perspective helps establish principles of action and create useful tools for innovation to support practitioners. Research into management of innovation helps draws attention to the complexity of innovation situations at different levels, individual, organizational and inter-organizational (or collective). In some cases, individuals or organizations need primarily to modify their practices and strategies for action incrementally, without questioning the values ​​that guide their actions. It is a matter of simple learning, which can be supervised or facilitated through experimentation or decision-making support. In other cases, in contrast, a change in the reference framework is required. This type of learning, called ‘transformative’ requires a different type of support, which focuses on the ability to collectively give sense into action. That is fully the case of agroecological innovation because we talk about systemic innovation or radical innovation.

Managing the emergence of innovation communities is crucial in all innovation situations (including agroecology), especially for creating design spaces, organizing deliberations and exchanges of ideas, identifying partners to involve, and monitoring collective activities (Toillier et la. 2018). More specifically, the literature on support for innovation allows us to distinguish two scales of intervention to reflect on and organize support for innovation: the local scale of innovation situations and the global scale – sectoral, regional, or national depending on the context – in which they evolve. Innovation communities have specific needs for support depending on the stages of the innovation process, the capacities of the actors

to support innovation play a critical role in innovation processes in various ways (Faure et al. 2018). During the first phases of a given innovation process (initial idea, inspiration and planning), the actors willing to support innovation mainly need to provide the space and resources for key actors to innovate. During the final phases of the innovation process (development, realization, dissemination and embedding), service provision is more standardized and many services are oriented to farmers to ensure the scaling and institutionalization of the innovation. However, Innovation Service Support (ISS) needs in terms of diversity and intensity seem to depend on two dimensions: the level of technological change required to enhance the innovation process, and the level of new coordination mechanisms needed among actors (including service providers). ISS are provided by a large range of service providers and depend on the characteristics (governance, funding, etc.) of the service providers. The mechanisms to align the ISS, and thus to fully support innovation, largely depend on the degree of concentration as opposed to fragmentation of the Innovation System. Finally, “networking, facilitation, and brokerage” functions are crucial across all the phases of the innovation process. There are a variety of mechanisms to operationalize an ISS and a diversity of organizations which may fulfil this role.

However, the ISS remain case-specific, and no ‘silver bullet’ can be provided to support innovation in agriculture. The cross-cutting recommendation for innovation support practitioners and policymakers is, therefore, that targeted diagnoses with regard to innovation phases and types, together with the characteristics and functions to be fulfilled by the support systems, may precede proposals for improving innovation support services.

Faure G. (ed.), Chiffoleau Y. (ed.), Goulet F. (ed.), Temple L. (ed.), Touzard J.M. (ed.). 2018. Innovation et développement dans les systèmes agricoles et alimentaires. Versailles : Ed. Quae, 263 p. (Synthèses : Quae).

http://www.quae.com/fr/r5282-innovation-et-developpement-dans-les-syste…

Toillier A., Faure G., Chia E. 2018. Penser et organiser l'accompagnement de l'innovation collective dans l'agriculture. In : Faure Guy (ed.), Chiffoleau Yuna (ed.), Goulet Frédéric (ed.), Temple Ludovic (ed.), Touzard Jean-Marc (ed.). Innovation et développement dans les systèmes agricoles et alimentaires. Versailles : Ed. Quae, p. 123-137. (Synthèses : Quae).

http://www.quae.com/fr/r5282-innovation-et-developpement-dans-les-syste…

Faure G., Knierim A., Koutsouris A., Ndah HT, Audouin S., Zarokosta E., Wielinga E., Triomphe B., S. Mathé, Temple L., Heanue K. (2018) How to strengthen innovation support services in agriculture with regard to multi-stakeholder approaches. Journal of Innovation Economics & Management, accepted

Dear HLPE – Project Team,

Congratulation to the immense effort to prepare the V0 Draft about „Agroecological approaches and other innovations….…..to enhance Food Security and Nutrition“. You did a very good job.

Nevertheless, there are some comments from the side of an animal nutritionist. May be, I did not understand in all cases the ways of thinking of agroecologists or I am wrong in some cases. Nevertheless, I will write my comments.

• To the headline of the Draft: „and other innovations“ is not clear to me? What means „other innovations“ and what is the borderline to agroecology? Do you cover also the animals (breeding, keeping, nutrition etc.)?

• The objective of the report: The cover letter gives many information, but a short information about the objective of the report is not clear to me. The authors should try to give an understandable short defination.

• The authors used many abbreviations. Therefore, it is hard to read the paper and to understand it. A list of abbreviations should be before the Table of Content or afterwards to make the paper more understandable for interested readers. To avoid any abbreviations would be another alternative and the acceptance/the interest in reading the paper outside from the agrarecologists would be increased.

• p. 13, l.36): „Agroecological approaches and other innovations for… that the global food system is not meeting the needs of the current world population…“ Is this situation a problem of food production or a problem of food distribution or it Is a problem of rich (countries and people) and poor (countries and people)?

• The four chapters to explain Agroecological principles and objectives are well done and contribute to the understanding of Agroecological principles and research to people from outside. But „Other innovations“ are still open.

• p. 34 ff.: Box 7 and Table 3 shows the 17 key aspects. Why do you only consider meat in your topics? Why not milk and eggs? Which meat do you mean (cattle, pork, poultry or total meat)? Meat is not equal to meat concerning all footprints. Poultry meat is much more favourable than beef.

• p. 36; Table 3 is not easy to understand
• p. 58 ff.; Chapter 2.5: Another point concerning human nutrition from agricultural production may be also the so-called „human edible fraction“ (hef) from all the food plants, such as cereals, legumes, oilseeds, potatoes, sugar beet and sugar cane etc. (see CAST (1999); Wilkinson (2011) Animal 5; 1014-1022; Ertl et al. (2015) 137, 119-125). These authors give values about substantial amounts of potentially human edible feeds. These values may help to assess food : feed competition between man and animals. As animal nutritionist, we use also the values for a better quantification of the food/feed competition.
• p. 76 ff.: I am surprised that the authors describe in short some study results and do not use in general the results from the NSA or NASEM („National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine“, 2016) report (420 p). For my understanding, this is a very critical and comprehensive material after 20 years GMcultivation under farm conditions. I reviewed this book as Book Review Editor of the Elsevier-journal „Animal Feed Science and Technology“ (see Attachment). The authors of NASEM (2016) give also some clear comments for GM-research in the future. For example, they conclude that „The genetic basis of complex traits, such as drought tolerance, water use efficacy and nitrogenuse efficiency is presently not yet fully understood. Only continued public founding of basic research will enable further advances in understanding of the physiological, biochemical and molecular basis of these important traits.” I think this is a clear statement for independent fundamental research. Companies are not interested to solve such problems. It is very expensive and they do not expect any profit. Personally, I consider the plant breeding as the starting point for the whole food chain and I am convinced that all „forms“ or methods of plant breeding have large importance for sustainable agriculture and finally, for food security and nutrition.

Also p. 76 ff.: Since 1998, we carried out at our Institute of Animal Nutrition 18 feeding studies with food producing animals (from laying quails upto dairy cows). GM-plants were cultivated on our experimental farm. In 2013, I edited a textbook „Animal Nutrition with Transgenic Plants“ (234 p.) in the CABI Biotechnology Series and we summerized many results of feeding studies (150) alover the world available for us during this time (see flyer attached). By the way, we made also the first study to follow the fate of tDNA-fragments in animal bodies (Einspanier et al. (2001); European Food Research and Technology 212, 129-134).

• Some minor comments:
• p. 11: 8 recommendations, but only 6 are given.
• p.13, l. 45, Figures 1 and 6 (p. 37) and some other places: Ecological Footprint should be defined/expained. I know many footprints, such as Carbon Footprint, Land footprint, Water footprint etc, but what means Ecological Footprint?
• p. 14, l. 2: Jones et al. 2015; sometimes cited, but I could the references not find in the list of references.
• p. 33; Figure 5: is not clear to me; should be more/better explained
• p.68: Box 11 seems to be not very informative. Furthermore, the figures are not in the SIsystem (Joule) and may much more vary as given there.
• p.73, Figure 12 is difficult to follow and to understand.
• p. 77, l. 23 – 27: The areas of cultivated GMplants should be updated (2017: about 188 mio. ha.).
• p. 81 and ff.: It is difficult to comment Chapter 4, because most boxes and also conclusions are not finished yet.
• p. 93: Figure 13: HLPE project cycle needs some explanation.
• p. 111, l. 44: References begining with Goergen et al. need some systematic/structur according ABC.

Gerhard Flachowsky

Institut of Animal Nutrition

Federal Research Institute of Animal Health

Bundesallee 37

38116 Braunschweig

Germany

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am enclosing our thoughts on the need for systematic sustainable farming standards to enhance agroecological approaches and sustainable agriculture and food systems innovations. I hope you will find them helpful.

Warm Regards,

Paul

Paul Shrivastava, Ph.D.

Chief Sustainability Officer, The Pennsylvania State University, & Director, Sustainability Institute

Recognizing the right to food and nutrition of waged agricultural workers

1. Who are waged agricultural workers?

These are the over 450 million women and men who are employed as waged agricultural workers, and who are at the very heart of the food production system. They are waged workers, and distinct from farmers, because they do not own or rent the land on which they work nor the tools and equipment do they use. They are employed on small- and medium-sized farms, including family farms, as well as large industrialized farms and plantations.

They work for some kind of 'wage' which can include payment 'in kind', under a variety of work arrangements, defined by a farmer, farming or plantation company, or agricultural contractor or subcontractor. These work arrangements are not always recognised as employment relationships, and often entail relationships of subordination and dependency. As a result, waged agricultural workers lack many rights and access to social protection, thereby increasing their vulnerability. Beyond forming the core of the rural poor, this workforce is disadvantaged in other respects. It is among the most socially vulnerable, the least organized into trade unions, is employed under the poorest health, safety and environmental conditions, and is the least likely to have access to effective forms of social security and protection.

2. Recognition in the HLPE V0 Draft Report

These waged agricultural workers - who account for over 40% of the total agricultural workforce - remain largely invisible to policy- and decision-makers in governments, agricultural and rural development agencies, intergovernmental organizations, science and research institutions, agricultural banks and credit institutions as well as to many civil society organizations and groups. They remain unrecognised in terms of goals, policies, programmes and activities to eliminate poverty, to strengthen labour standards and human rights, and to strengthen the role of civil society groups in promoting sustainable agriculture and Food and Nutrition Security (NFS) as part of the general process towards Sustainable Development Goals. (SDG).

They are hardly ever mentioned in United Nations documentation outside of the

International Labour Organization and is conspicuously missing in HLPE V0 Draft Report.

It is therefore important to include their concern in the Final Report.

3. Vulnerability

Agricultural workers play a critical role in achieving food security and fulfilling the universal human right to adequate food. They are, however, among the most food insecure, facing formidable barriers to the realization of their right to food and nutrition, often working without labour and employment protections and under dangerous conditions.

Despite this vulnerability to food insecurity and human rights violations, the right to food and nutrition of agricultural workers has not been sufficiently addressed.

International human rights law recognizes the interdependence among the rights to decent work, adequate living conditions, social protections and the right to food, as outlined in article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.

4. Fair Employment

Fair employment mentioned in the V 0 Daft Report should be defined based on the International Labour Organization (ILO) Decent Work Agenda and the ILO Declaration Fundaments Principle and Rights at Work (1998)

 The agricultural sector is among the most dangerous industries others are mining and construction.

The majority of agricultural workers are excluded from national legal protective frameworks, leaving them unable to exercise their fundamental rights to associate or access to remedies.

These are some of the challenges that undermine the ability of agricultural workers to realize the right to food and nutrition.