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.)
Zoltan Kalman