Foro Global sobre Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición (Foro FSN)

The HLPE and the CFS have, with this discussion on agro-ecology, been handed an excellent opportunity to reorient the wavering direction they have been providing FAO for the last three-odd years. I cannot recall a more ringing endorsement of socially just, culturally grounded, ecologically sound cultivation methods as we have read during this consultation.

The writing is very clearly on the wall for the proponents of industrial, chemically intensive monocultures which have harmed biological habitats as much as they have harmed animal species and humans. The demand that FAO recognise and unequivocally support agro-ecology (as defined by the many excellent contributions provided) is widespread, from both 'South' and 'North'.

Therefore, members of the HLPE Steering Committee - Patrick Caron (France), Martin Cole (Australia), Louise O. Fresco (the Netherlands), Mahmoud El Solh (Lebanon), Alex Godoy-Faúndez (Chile), Maria Kadlecíková (Slovakia), Eileen Theresa Kennedy (United States of America), Muhammad Khan (Pakistan), Xiande Li (People's Republic of China), Paul Mapfumo (Zimbabwe), Mohammad Saeid Noori Naeini (Islamic Republic of Iran), Elisabetta Gioconda Iole Giovanna Recine (Brazil), Shiney Varghese (India), Martin Yemefack (Cameroon), Rami Zurayk (Lebanon) - grasp this opportunity and return FAO and the CFS to the true meaning of the principles embodied in "fiat panis".

To aid your task, here are some of the contributions towards a report which will win very much more goodwill and cooperation by being instead 'Agroecological approaches for sustainable cultivation and the provision of culturally appropriate food':

Maywa Montenegro University of California, Berkeley, USA

Phil Tuite United Kingdom

Leidy Casimiro Rodríguez Universidad de Sancti Spíritus, Cuba

Nout van der Vaart, Hivos, Netherlands

Miguel A Altieri

Teresa Maisano, Civil Society Mechanism of the CFS

Annie Shattuck, University of California, Berkeley, USA

Emile Frison, International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food), Italy

Georges Félix, Cultivate!, Netherlands

IPES-Food

Susan Haffmans, Pestizid Aktions-Netzwerk e.V, Germany

Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, Pesticide Action Network North America, USA

Maria de Fatima Fajardo Archanjo Sampaio Rede Brota Cerrado de Cultura e Agroecologia, Brasil

Marian Simon, Madrid Agroecologico, Spain

Massimiliano Sanfilippo, COSPE, Italy

Samantha Mullender, The Organic Research Centre, United Kingdom

Meriel Watts, PAN Asia Pacific, New Zealand

Saúl Vicente Vázquez, Consejo Internacional de Tratados Indios (CITI), USA

Carline Mainenti, C2A - Coordination Sud, France

Marijana Todorovic, German NGO Forum on Environment and Development

Claudio Schuftan, Viet Nam

Walter Alberto Pengue, Area de Ecologia - Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento, Buenos Aires

Tarek Soliman, Egypt

Lal Manavado, Norway

Rahul Goswami, Centre for Environment Education Himalaya, India

With best wishes

The Nyahode Union Learning Centre (NULC) was established in 1986 to assist newly settled communities in literacy and numeracy, then in education and training, then in skills development, then in community extension, building sustainable livelihoods. In April 1990 NULC hosted a Land Use Design Workshop, and was awarded UN funding to implement the design that emerged from that Workshop for the 52 ha of NULC. In 1993 NULC was awrded the UN Global 500 prize for this implementation. In 1995, NULC separated into two: the Nyahode Union High School, and the Nyahode Union Technical College, still under NULC, and ownership was vested in a local Community Trust.

NULC (NUHS, NUTC) remains focussed on under-entitled youth and on peasant homesteads and associations. An initial focus on Permaculture Land Use Design led to a focus on PELUM (Participatory Ecological Land Use Management), which led to a focus on 'Sustainable Agriculture', which led to the current focus on Agroeology: Integrated Land Use Management through Participatory Approaches.

The NUTC has formally evolved and negotiated accreditation with HEXCO (the Zimbabwean Higher Education Council) two entry level, National Foundation Syllabuses, with handbooks: 'Agroecology: Integrated Land Use Management: Soil', and 'Agroecology:  Integrated land Use Management: Water'. These two syllabuses were piloted at NULC, all the way through external examination and moderation to issuance of HEXCO NFC Certificates.

This was followed by a new syllabus, again with a handbook: a National Certificate, 'Agroecology: Agrarian Reform through Particiaptory Methodologies'. This too was piloted at NUTC through implementation, external examination, moderation, and the award of HEXCO-accredited National Certificates to the pioneer trainees.

Currently, NUTC is drafting a syllabus and handbook for a 'National Diploma in Agroecology', for presentation to the HEXCO Board, and for piloting at NUTC.

The overall programme is post O-Level (matriculation) and runs for three years: the two NFCs in one year, the NC in the second year, and the National Diploma in the third year. HEXCO qualificatons are valid across SADC.

The focus of the whole training programme is on young adults who have and farm a smallholding, who are basically literate and numerate, and who aspire to be 'Farmer Facilitators' in their own Communities.

Each trainee, from day one, initiates a Project at his or her own home. In the first year, they introduce basic soil and water innovations in their own fields, to manage their local watershed, and to build soil fertility. Their Project is marked and contibutes to their accreditation. In the second year, each trainee involves a few neighbours in watershed management and soil fertility improvement, while further developing their own Project. This involvement by neighbours is assessed and marked. In the third year, each trainee involves his or her broader community, still with a focus on watershed management and soil fertility, but introducing local processing and packaging and marketing of local products. Again, this extension is assessed and marked, as is the continued development of the trainees own homestead as a living working example.

Considearble impact is visble in the community of the Nyahode Valley, where basic agroecological principles have been taken up on a large scale, and sustainable livelhoods are developing. Literally hundreds of groups of smallholder farmers, mostly women, have over the decades come to NULC for training and facilitation in garoecological concepts and methods.

Once the full Agroecology Curriculum is complete, and has been finally validated by HEXCO, the intention is to introduce the Agroecology Curriculum at Rural Service Providers across Zimbabwe, such that each Rural Service Provider can identify potential Farmer Facilitators within their own communites, provide them with the training and faciliation, and conrinued support as they develop their own communites, from below and from within.

On its 52ha, NUTC operates an intensive set of agroecology working examples, in an extensive watershed management system, in fields and gardens and orchards. NUTC in principle does not train in an agroecological technology in which it is not itself involved in practice. Trainees are thus able to hear theory in the classroom, and see and experience reality on the ground.

Funding, and the political climate, have been  and continue to be restraining factors, but progress is being made, slowly but surely. Brot fuer die Welt of Berlin, and Tudor Trust of London, have been the main supporters of the NUTC Agroecology Training and Facilitation programme.

I wish to make the following comments on the CFS HLPE scope for the report “Agroecological approaches and other innovations for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition”

1) The topic of the planned report (agroecology) is highly relevant, reflecting the request and priority of great majority of CFS stakeholders.

2) However, as a consequence of efforts to reach a compromise, the wording of the title could be misleading, needs some clarification.

3) It should be made clear that agroecology is not simply one of the various specific technologies or innovations. These techniques and innovative solutions are therefore not comparable to but might be considered as part of agroecology provided that these technologies are compatible with the basic principles of agroecology. Having this clarification in mind it is clear that the polarisation between agroecology and biotechnology has no sense or foundation.

4) Agroecology is much wider and more complex than simple techniques it is an ecosystem-based, integrated and cross-sectoral approach and as such it is not limited to agriculture, it applies a holistic, food system approach.

5) Agroecology provides adequate responses to the big challenges we are facing in our food system such as rural poverty, hunger, malnutrition, GHG emissions, soil degradation, biodiversity loss, environmental pollution, public health problems, etc.

6) Agroecology embraces all pillars or dimensions (economic, environmental, social, cultural) of sustainability and therefore contributes to achieving the SDGs. This should be duly reflected in the HLPE agroecology report.

a) Economic dimension: sufficient space should be dedicated to presenting the true costs of agriculture and food production, translating the externalities (or hidden costs) of industrial, input-intensive monoculture agriculture (soil depletion, biodiversity loss, impacts on human health, loss of rural employment and livelihood, etc.). If all these hidden costs are internalised, it could be clearly demonstrated that agroecology is competitive. (Reference could be made in this respect to the KPMG study, translating externalities of industrial food production in figures. The results show that these costs reach the level of 224 (!) percent of the profit of food producing industrial  corporations.) There are mistaken perceptions of agroecology such as it is old fashioned, it has low productivity, or rejects innovations. These misperceptions should be addressed in the report in an appropriate way. Concrete examples of best practices, compatible modern technologies and innovative solutions (such as soil sensors, farm management and agricultural software and apps, etc.) could be mentioned and solid evidence of achievements (such as more balanced yields due to greater biodiversity; bigger added value per hectare; higher- food quality) could be presented in the report.

b) Environmental dimension: comprehensive analysis should be prepared on the environmental impacts of agroecology and the various agronomic and other techniques applied (those compatible with agroecology). These should include a clear reference to the role of agroecology in adaptation to and mitigation of climate change and in contributing to achieving countries NDCs. Agroecology is climate-smart by definition but clear distinction should be made with the concept of Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA). CSA is narrower in scope and might sometimes include techniques not compatible with agroecology, such as genetic engineering. Agroecology goes well beyond being climate smart. Its role in preserving biodiversity, improving soil conditions, respecting  animal welfare, lowering ecological footprint of food (by using less chemicals less transport due to short supply chains, etc.) should be assessed and presented in the report.

c) Social dimension: Among the social impacts of agroecology the concept of inclusive rural transformation should be considered. While increasing productivity is essential to improve rural livelihood, this should go hand in hand with the need of preserving and creating jobs in rural areas. Special attention should be paid to make rural life more attractive for the Youth. Rural employment is particularly important, as far as no alternative employment opportunities are available, to prevent migration and displacement. Agroecology’s impact on human health and wellbeing has to be analysed as well. As a consequence of efforts to keep food prices low, industrial, highly processed foods are many times of low quality foods with negative impacts on human health.

d) The cultural value of keeping traditions as “fourth dimension” of sustainability could be mentioned as well. Agroecology contributes to preserving and improving the knowledge on traditional production systems and techniques, also by applying local, autochthone varieties and pass these on to future generations. Agroecology also has a role in preservation and maintenance of rural landscape and viable countryside. This approach is very much in line with the GIAHS (Globally Important Agricultural Heritages Systems) initiative launched by FAO, highlighting the importance of dynamic conservation. Agroecology is well placed to maintain the ’indigenous communities’ traditional knowledge on agriculture and integrate it with the results of scientific research, thus contributing also to improving livelihood of indigenous communities.

7) The HLPE report should keep focus on agroecology as described above. Innovations should be considered not as alternative to but as important components of agroecology. (As described above, if compatible with the principles of agroecology.)

p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }a:link { }

Queridos colegas,

Para empezar me gustaría agradecerles los interesantes aportes que han ido surgiendo en este foro de debate.

Creo que para poder debatir sobre agroecología y seguridad nutricional es importante definir qué es lo que entendemos por dichos términos, es decir ¿de qué hablamos cuando hablamos de Agroecología? Mi enfoque se realiza bajo la comprensión de la agroecología como teoría y como práctica, cuyo objetivo es incrementar la sostenibilidad de los sistemas agrarios. Según Altieri (1999) “la agroecología es una disciplina que provee los principios ecológicos básicos para estudiar, diseñar y gestionar agrosistemas que sean productivos y conservadores de los recursos naturales, y que también sean culturalmente sensibles, socialmente justos y económicamente viables”. Para ello se fundamenta en tres pilares básicos que son el aspecto ecológico, el social y el económico (Francis et al., 2003), combinando disciplinas que abarcan desde las ciencias sociales y económicas, a la ecología y la agronomía.

La crisis ambiental y socioeconómica de la agricultura industrializada a escala global ha llevado a la aparición de la Agroecología como enfoque teórico y metodológico que tiene como objetivo aumentar la sustentabilidad agraria desde una perspectiva ecológica, social y económica (Francis et al., 2003).

Actualmente, la Agroecología tiene dos unidades básicas de análisis e intervención: el agroecosistema y el sistema agroalimentario. No obstante, el agroecosistema como unidad de análisis y transformación es insuficiente para encarar los fuertes problemas de insustentabilidad de la agricultura actual, ya que ésta se desarrolla en un contexto socioeconómico, normativo y político determinado que condiciona en gran medida las posibilidades reales de transformación de los agroecosistemas a niveles de mayor sustentabilidad. Por ello, a la hora de abordar esta cuestión desde el punto de vista de la Agroecología se considera no sólo el “agroecosistema” como unidad de análisis, sino también al “sistema agroalimentario” como un todo (Gliessman, 2013).

La propuesta agroecológica sin embargo, pasa por analizar no sólo lo que ocurre a nivel productivo o ecológico en una finca, sino ha hacer un análisis más complejo (y completo) del sistema agroalimentario, cuya regulación y control ha pasado en los últimos 20 años a estar cada vez más en manos de grandes multinacionales en detrimento de los estados-naciones (Sevilla Guzmán et al., 2012). Consideramos además que para poder entender y analizar el sistema agroalimentario es necesario tener en cuenta la historia y las relaciones de poder (a todos los niveles, ya sea a escala global, local o individual) que operan, situando el análisis en el contexto histórico-político y cultural al que pertenece.

Unos de los aspectos vinculados a la agroecología y que tienen especial relevancia en este call, es la lucha por la soberanía alimentaria. Este término fue introducido en 1996 por la Vía Campesina (en la Cúpula Mundial sobre la Alimentación de la FAO, en Roma) y consiste en “el derecho de todos al acceso regular y permanente de alimentos de calidad y en cantidad suficiente, sin que se comprometa el acceso a otras necesidades, teniendo como base las prácticas alimentarias fomentadoras de la salud que respeten la diversidad cultural y que sean social, económica y ambientalmente sostenibles” (Vía Campesina, 1996).

Así, la soberanía alimentaria defiende un modelo de producción y consumo ligado a la proximidad y a la temporalidad de los productos. Reconoce derechos por parte del campesinado sobre sus medios de producción, y de los países respecto a sus políticas agrícolas y alimentarías, en especial el derecho a defenderse de las importaciones alimentarias subvencionadas.

La soberanía alimentaria se basa en 4 ejes fundamentales:

1) Derecho a la alimentación: Promover la adopción de políticas de alimentación y agricultura con un enfoque basado en derechos. Para implementar completamente el derecho a la alimentación adecuada, todas las personas necesitan tener acceso físico y económico a cantidades suficientes de alimentación inocua, nutritiva y culturalmente aceptable y a recursos para la producción de alimentos, incluidos acceso a tierra, agua y semillas.

2) Acceso a recursos productivos: Promover el acceso continuo de los productores/as de pequeña escala, pastores/as, pescadores/as artesanales y pueblos indígenas al uso sostenible de sus tierras, aguas, recursos genéticos y otros recursos naturales utilizados para la alimentación y producción agrícola, y a compartir equitativamente los beneficios derivados de su uso.

3) Enfoque agroecológico de la producción: Promover modelos agroecológicos familiares y comunitarios de producción de alimentos, en la práctica y a través de políticas, investigación y desarrollo, a fin de ayudar a garantizar la seguridad alimentaria de los pueblos por medio de la gestión sostenible de agroecosistemas locales para la producción de alimentos predominantemente para mercados locales. Desde diferentes organizaciones se promueve cada vez más el enfoque

agroecológico de la producción como una respuesta eficaz a la inseguridad alimentaria y de medios de vida, principalmente pero sin carácter exclusivo, de productores/as familiares y comunitarios de todo el mundo.

4) Comercio y mercados locales: Prioridad de la producción agrícola local para alimentar a los pueblos localmente. Promover políticas de comercio equitativas que permitan a las comunidades y a los países la producción de cantidades suficientes de alimentos inocuos y seguros. Políticas de precios para que éstos estén vinculados a los costos de producción, así como derecho de los países a protegerse de importaciones agrícolas y de alimentos tasados por debajo de su valor (dumping).

Creo que los programas de desarrollo basados únicamente en la productividad han demostrado ampliamente su ineficacia y muchas veces han sido contraproducentes. Integrar una visión social en ellos es fundamental. Los programas han de estar basados en un enfoque multidisciplinar donde se tengan en cuenta el aspecto económico, el ecológico y el social. En este aspecto, la agroecología encaja perfectamente, pues tiene en cuenta estos tres pilares. Pero creo que hay que ir aún mas lejos, ya que no se trata de hacer un cambio de modelo, sino de valores.

¡Seguimos debatiendo!

Referencias:

Altieri, M. A., 1999. Agroecología. Bases científicas para una agricultura sustentable. Montevideo: Nordan-Comunida.

Francis, C., et al., 2003. Agroecology: The Ecology of Food Systems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 22(3): 99-118.

Gliessman, S.R. 2013. Agroecology and Food System Transformation. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 37: 1-2.

Sevilla Guzmán, E. et al., 2012 Canales cortos de comercialización alimentaria en Andalucía. Centro de Estudios Andaluces. Sevilla

Vía Campesina www.viacampesina.org

Based on available scientific literature and reports, bottom-up informations and my personal experience and knowledge, I feel that agroecology approaches have the potential to fill the long-standing gap between chronic undernutrition and malnutrition, poverty and present ressources/environmental challenges. While the present proposal seems to cover a large spectrum to handle the topic, I would suggest to consider in a more explicit way two important points. One is the crucial need for a "sustainable food system" approach in line with the last CFS-HLPE report and the 10 y FAO-UNEP Sustainable food system programme, ie a necessary holistic view of the various key components driving the whole food system, at local and global levels. This supports the second point : food consumption, including food access, food quality, culinary skills and dietary patterns, is one of the key components of the food systems, and is directely linked to the healh and disease status of most inhabitants. As a nutritionist, I really feel that diet sustainability, as defined by FAO in 2010, is a key element of a sustainable food system to consider. Indeed, we know that various dietary patterns can have different impacts on ressources and environment, indicating that positive changes in dietary patterns could play a key role in sustainability development.

I also wonder what are the "other innovative approaches, practices and technologies".

Biodiversity and agro-ecology - reducing risk in food systems?

Around three-quarters of the world’s cultivated plants and 690 livestock breeds have been lost since the middle of the 19th century and around 20% of livestock breeds now thought to be at risk of extinction[1]. An FAO report in 2011, with particular reference to Africa’s biodiversity, pointed to threats mentioned above on habitat losses etc. while highlighting the added impact of displacement of wild land races by genetically uniform crops and the long-term effects of relief food (often maize) on the local gene pools. In an emergency, local seeds are sold or eaten by local communities, and imported seeds are subsequently used in subsequent crop cycles.[2]  Genetic diversity is an anchor in climate change adaption in terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems. Species extinction, even of a single species, impacts ecosystems, including agro-ecosystems. Intermediate levels of extinctions (21-40% loss) can reduce plant productivity and decomposition in the associated ecosystem by 5-10%, comparable to results from global warming and raised ultra-violet radiation. Vulnerability to extinction varies among species. As extinction rates grow to between 41-60%, the effects were comparable to those of acidification, ozone, elevated CO2 and nutrient pollution.[3] Vulnerability and risks in food production systems cause food insecurity and malnutrition. Food access, utilization and stable supply are each affected with local or wider production constraints and uncertainties.

The following highlights some additional points on the role of an agro-ecological approach and genetic diversity in stabilizing food security and nutrient diversity and the value of understanding the biodiversity-DRR-climate change interaction in this process.

1.       Maintenance of diversity within and among species and breeds stabilizes production and food availability and builds resilience within the eco-system (such as cropping, fisheries, livestock) against stresses - including pressure exerted by humans and climatic variability and its extremes. Availability of diverse nutrient-rich foods improves health and well-being. For communities living around or within forests, they derive up to 85% of their protein intake through consumption of edible mammals, reptiles, birds and insects living in trees and forests.

2.       Vulnerability and risk of long-term food insecurity is considerably raised through reliance on a small number of species and varieties often with a narrow genetic base. Crop varieties with a narrow genetic base can be destroyed by diseases and not even advanced genetic technology can replace genetic variation, as it is irretrievable[4]. We rely heavily on cereals worldwide, maize, rice, wheat, millet and sorghum. One outcome of ‘development’ driven by globalization in food production and its trading, by urbanization and changing lifestyles and genetic engineering is a simplification in human and livestock diets – across race, gender, age, religion and wealth classes.

3.       In Thailand, the number of rice varieties cultivated has fallen from >16,000 to 37 with up to 50% of the area cultivated supporting only two varieties. Apart from widespread loss of wild relatives in the wild, it can take up to 10 years to breed a new crop variety. Wild crop relatives are known to hold essential traits crucial for effective adaptation to heat, drought, salinity, pests, diseases including climate change. In the wild, they must adapt to varying climatic and other conditions. A one degree rise in temperature can cut yields of high-yielding rice varieties by 10 per cent. The critical stage is at flowering and high-yielding varieties flower during the day. Wild varieties flower at night-time giving them an advantage in the event of raised temperatures[5]. Yet, natural populations of many wild crops are at risk of extinction through habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation[6].

4.       That biodiversity has a direct measurable value for food security and nutrient diversity is well exemplified through the role of pollinators. Up to 100,000 species of insects, birds, mammals and reptiles pollinate around 2/3 of food plants and are responsible for around 35% of global crop production. Up to 85% of all known Angiosperms (flowering plants) are pollinated by wild pollinators (e.g. bumblebees, wasps, wild bees, solitary bees, moths, butterflies, bats, lizards, birds, flies, beetles and ants). While the honey-bee is “the species charged with protecting global food security”, there are risks associated with over-reliance on honey-bee colonies due to disease losses. In addition, a single species cannot adapt well to changing environments and shocks. Wild pollinators are known to be at least twice as effective as honey-bees as they use a wider variety of pollination techniques and they visit more plants, ensuring effective cross-pollination – honey-bees tend to carry pollen from one flower to another but most commonly on the same plant. The effectiveness of wild pollinators was proven in a study across all the continents for 40 crops in 600 farms for crops such as almond, coffee, tomato, onion and strawberry[7]. Wild insects and other pollinators are in decline however as habitats are lost through deforestation and fragmentation, expansion of intensively managed agricultural area and  climate change, placing food security and nutrition at risk.[8] One element of climate change worth noting is that flowering times and time for optimum bee activity is increasingly showing a mismatch.

5.       Genetic depletion in centres of origin compromises future food security for millions of people. Widespread genetic erosion of maize diversity in Mexico was reported in 2014.[9] This is an important finding, as Mexico is the centre of origin of maize (Zea mays) that is used by millions of people as a staple food. Furthermore, through such genetic erosion, the option of ‘falling back’ on a diverse gene pool to maintain important food crops is compromised. It is essential to increase the number of relevant agricultural/forest crop species and animal breeds and to maintain variability within species. With one-fifth of the world’s plants threatened with extinction, “..there is a two-fold race against time – the race to adapt agriculture to climate change and the race to collect biodiversity before it is lost forever..”[10].

6.       An inverse relationship between intensive agriculture and biodiversity invalidates the sustainability of large-scale and intensive food production systems in food security and nutrition. Small farms almost always have higher yields per unit area than larger intensively-managed farms. Smaller farms commonly feature multiple crops and crop biodiversity, quality labour and supervision, lower input costs and more efficient use of resources[11]. Research in Tigray (Ethiopia) on 10 barley landraces cultivated by small-holders found that maintaining crop diversity reduced risk exposure and its costs while boosting crop productivity. Significantly, benefits were most notable on farmland where soils were degraded and fertility levels were low[12].

7.       Agricultural biodiversity[13] is fostered by the principles and practice of ecological agriculture with considerable potential in mitigation and adaptation to drivers such as climate change in addition to addressing food insecurity and malnutrition at local levels. It builds resilience and provides for in situ conservation of genera, species, varieties and breeds. It allows for a continuous adaptation process through cross-pollination for example from the wild, while maintaining a broad gene pool in a varied production mosaic e.g. woodland, orchards, fallows, home gardens, niche areas or fields. The role of local communities and their knowledge are naturally close to agro-biodiversity principles and practice although the merging of new information and germplasm is important for the future. One interesting development in this area is the Potato Park Project in Cusco, Peru in which local communities have successfully returned 400 local potato varieties to ensure food security in the light of climate change.[14]

8.       Biological pest control is underpinned by wild biodiversity. Species abundance and richness tends to be higher in more diverse farming systems and diverse landscapes incorporating mosaics with natural, semi-natural (including fallow, rotational pasture, protected areas) and cultivated or grazed lands.

9.       Soil biodiversity and health is essential for stable and productive farming systems. The higher the crop and non-crop diversity (flora and fauna), decomposition and nutrient cycling are enhanced increasing yield status and soil fertility levels. Agro-biodiversity allows for growth in soil organic matter which in turn captures CO2 through sequestration while enhancing soils structure and crop performance.

10.    Biodiversity works against invasions by alien species, an important attribute, given that the IPCC Assessment Report 5 (IPCC AR5, 2014) indicated that increasing climate change and elevated CO2 levels enhance the competitiveness and distribution of obnoxious weeds in farming systems.[15]

11.    Healthy ecosystems ncluding agro-ecosystems are known to reduce the potential for human and wildlife conflict[16]. Protected areas, while safeguarding biodiversity, can contribute to eco-peace initiatives and strengthened socio-ecological resilience within and between communities, between communities and commercial stakeholders with enhanced partnerships with Governments and others[17]. 

I write specifically to endorse and corroborate submissions by the organizations IPES-Food, Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA), and USC-Canada. Taken together, these organizations have highlighted the importance of taking a non-reductive approach to agroecology, specifically avoiding equating agroecology with a set of tools or technological innovations.

To summarize, I hope the HLPE will strongly consider the following in the scope, governance, and execution of the report:

Agroecology is an ecosystems-based approach to the design of sustainable food systems. Combining indigenous, practitioner, and scientific knowledge, it develops through their mutual learning and experimentation. As it has developed over time – from 1930s dovetailing of agronomy and ecology to 2017 ecology of ‘food systems’ – agroecology has become more than simply farm-level or land-scape level change. Now understood as the interplay of science, practice, and social movements, it’s a framework, in the words of Dr. Steven Gliessman, that has evolved because we need food systems that “once again empower people, create economic opportunity and fairness, and contribute to restoring and protecting the planet’s life-support systems.”

This implies that “other innovations” – a term now included in the title – should be bracketed within the principles of agroecology, and should not be a loophole through which non-ecosystem approaches enter in. The Report should only consider specific innovation practices, approaches, and technologies that are consistent with agroecological tenets, as defined by key and recognized sources in the field (Altieri 1995, Francis et al. 2003; IAASTD 2009, Perfecto et al. 2009; Vandermeer 2011; Gliessman 2015, IPES-Food 2016).

In terms of project team, I urge the HLPE to assemble a team that reflects the transdisciplinary nature of agroecology as a science, practice, and social movement. This implies including a range of relevant natural scientists as well as social scientists. Human geography, political ecology, rural sociology, anthropology, ethnic studies, education, philosophy, and indigenous studies all offer critical insights that could strengthen the scientific rigor of the report – and better reflects the non-dualistic dynamics of socio-ecological systems. Practitioners should also be invited as experts. A range of agroecological practitioners should include (but not be limited to) farmers of different scales, fishers, pastoralists, and urban agriculturalists. Farmworkers (not just farm owners) merit representation, and women and men should be given equal voice. The committee should strive for a diverse cross-section of race, ethnicity, faith, and class in assembling the project team – but should strive to particularly represent those who may be most vulnerable (because they live close to the land) and who have the most experience in agroecology (reflecting accumulated knowledge and practice).

In line with PANNA’s recommendations, I strongly encourage transparency in governance, and in all steps of creating and disseminating the report. Oversight provided by an independent governance body could help avoid conflicts of interest. A public comment period should be provided, during which drafts can be widely circulated for commentary and feedback. Any dissenting opinions – differing evaluations of evidence or ‘conclusions’ by authors – are more fruitfully described as points of ongoing debate rather than compacted into a winner-takes-all analysis. All of these steps will help ensure that the resulting report achieves credibility across a wide constituency.

Finally, I endorse IPES-Food’s recommendation to pay attention to obstacles that affect the scaling up (or scaling out) of agroecology. These ‘lock ins’, identified in the Panel’s 2016 report are vital insofar as, if left undisturbed, they will preclude the success of any agroecology transitions strategy. Specifically, these obstacles underscore issues of political economy and power. They call attention to dominant narratives about perceived lack of production (“must double food production by 2050”) that continues to pervade mainstream understandings of food security.

Also for this reason, I urge the HLPE to consider broadening the scope beyond “food security” to include food sovereignty and food justice. Food sovereignty is “people-centered” as per the HLPE’s committed focus, and food justice strives for equity in food production and consumption across race, class, gender, nationality, and other social lines.

Thank you,

Maywa Montenegro

Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on the scope of the report on Agroecological approaches and other innovations for sustainable agriculture and food systems. I would like to provide the following comments on the scope of the report.

• Revival of traditional forms of small-scale local food productions in the new context needs to be given attention. One such practice that is suggested in this context is the revival of home gardening practices in both rural and urban areas for food production, as taking place in Kerala (India). The following link gives some insights in this regard. https://steps-centre.org/blog/kerala-making-transition-towards-healthy-home-grown-food/

• With regard to the above mentioned point, it is further suggested that traditional small-scale food production systems, based on agroecological practices, such as home-gardening or kitchen gardening are often ignored in the policy agenda. They are not considered in the agricultural census in many countries and hence does not receive adequate attention for its protection and further expansion.

• With regard to filling the technology gaps, emphasis should be given to shaping from bottom up approaches that are part of the local culture and traditions, rather than mere import of capital-intensive technologies from a different context. Furthermore, developing “context-specific solutions, adapted to local food systems and local ecosystems” should also be based on reinforcing the existing practices in the area, rather than completely altering it.

• The local biodiversity should be protected while adoption of new technologies and practices.

• The bottom-up actors also should receive a place in the decision making and governance processes regarding the choice and implementation of agroecological innovations.

• In addition to the types of agricultural practices and food production systems that are sustainable and nature friendly, it also need to give emphasis on finding new and innovative spaces for food production, or to shift the idea of food production from farms to other arenas such as backyards, school compounds, compounds or rooftops of government and private buildings etc. However, such interventions should be based on agroecological principles rather than techno-managerial solutions.

• Adoption of agroecological practices should not end in a situation where it takes the unsustainable paths of conventional agri-food systems. This has to be taken care of especially when it comes to the scale-up of agroecological practices. Therefore, in addition to adoption of agroecology and other innovative measures to ensure sustainability in agri-food systems, it also needs to think about a new way of delivering the services in the journey from production to the table.

• Food production should also be a responsibility of the consumer. So where ever it is possible, even production of a small portion of one’s own food should be encouraged by the government. It can be through community gardening, allotment gardening, kitchen gardening, rooftop gardening etc. Just like ornamental gardening, food gardening also needs to become an agenda to be considered while designing any building for the residential or commercial purpose.

• Development of agroecological technologies and practices are required to promote urban food production. If urban food production is not incorporated into the policy agenda, the urban systems would continue to be sites of consumption and exporting wastes to its hinterlands, creating an unsustainable metabolism.

• There should be an adequate mechanism from the government side to properly document such initiatives and incentivise such initiatives.

• Promotion of local co-operatives amongst small food producers those who follow agroecology, even from kitchen/rooftop gardens, should be promoted to ensure sustainability of these production systems with regard to supply chains.

Dear colleagues,

Agroecology can certainly be deemed as some sort of innovation. In many ways, it leads contemporary agriculture-related scientific advancement, but its main potential, in my view, stems from its advocacy prowess.  In this sense, the current scope for the study could be strengthened by explicitly addressing, at least, two somewhat neglected issues, namely: (i) the main tensions and bottle necks for upscaling agroecology; and (ii) the alternative land ethic behind this approach. A global study on agroecology-based food production and sustainability in times of climate change might well devote a chapter to answering the following question: what tensions in current globally oriented agricultural policy making most significantly hinder the upscaling of agroecology and which agenda gains from it? This question is indeed related to the second issue. Solidarity-based economy and the formation of a non-utility-maximizing subject lie at the core of a land ethic in agroecology where food production is understood, first and foremost, as a social process whose main goal is guaranteeing human life in dignity while preserving the ecological processes needed for territory viability. When confronted with economic choices, agroecology-based producers often choose whatever is closer to their principles with less regard to profitability levels. Some are even willing to take on additional burdens insofar as a greater common good is achieved. This study entails a brilliant chance for addressing the value-laden rationale behind agroecology. In this sense, another chapter, for instance, could also answer the following questions: how is the subject formation process brought about by the practice of agroecology and what sort of social ethos derives from it? How does agroecology resonate in established ethical traditions and which are its main tenets?

With best regards,

Pablo Prado

Slash and burn is a subsistence farming method used by 300 million families in the tropics that contributes over two billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere every year. Families cut down and burn a patch of rainforest in order to create an area of fertile soil on which they can grow their food. The fertility of the soil, however does not last. This crop failure and subsequent erosion forces families who depend on slash and burn to keep clearing fresh areas of rainforest every few years just to survive. Inga alley-cropping is a simple, proven alternative to slash and burn. Different potential options investigated by Dr. Mike Hands in conjunction with Cambridge Univ. (with research and development projects in Costa Rica and later in Honduras), yielded vital insights into why slash and burn works in the short term, but then fails so quickly. The findings are held to be applicable to a wide range of soil types across much of Latin America. The only sustainable system to emerge from Dr. Hands 20 years of scientific research was Inga’s system of alley cropping, which uses nitrogen-fixing tree species from the genus Inga. The Inga trees maintain soil fertility and good harvests every year, breaking the cycle of slash and burn and allowing families to gain long-term food security on one piece of land. Inga alleys outcompete the aggressive, invasive weeds so no pesticides or herbicides are needed. In their second year, the pruned Inga trees’ foliage and trunk provides mulch for the alley and firewood for the families’ kitchens—saving native trees from being harvested. This closed system is a revolutionary cycle – sustainable, organic food for the families, cash crops like pepper and pineapple – all grown organically; a resilient system which also protects water sources and prevents erosion, thus protecting reefs. Inga alley cropping in Honduras has dramatically transformed the lives of 240+ subsistence farming families, planted over 1.75 million trees, and effectively serves as a model for environmental sustainability and ecological resiliency. We are in year 6 of our 10 year "Land for Life" program  which was recognized by MIT in 2017 as the only agroforesty system to be selected for SOLVE for carbon reduction. Our system eliminates the need for farmers to slash and burn and ends this devastating cycle. No one else in the world is implementing this kind of proven, complete, and integrated ecosystem regeneration which can be scaled to the entire tropics with indigenous or analog tree species. Healthy forests are key to the planet’s survival and Inga alley cropping can protect and preserve rainforests while providing sustainable food and income to millions of people around the world.