成员简介
该成员提交的意见和建议涉及：
-
-
-
Solutions from the Land response to call for submission to FAO
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition* FSN Forum call for submission # 199
From Foresight to Field: Exploring regional and multistakeholder perspectives to implement a foresight on emerging technologies and innovations in agrifood systems
The Harvesting Change: Harnessing emerging technologies and innovation for agrifood system transformation (FAO/CIRAD, 2023) global synthesis report released in 2023 identifies and assesses emerging and maturing high technologies and innovations that will affect local, national and global agrifood value chains and transform agrifood systems. This report does a good job of synthesizing 20 selected innovations, broadly discussing strengths and potential pitfalls, and developing five future scenarios where these technologies and innovations might take global agrifood systems. This discussion is not only timely but necessary if we are to understand changes taking place, deeply evaluate their potential and articulate shared visions for local and global healthy food and agricultural systems. In the development of a full report key underlying questions for UN FAO are:
1) how might technologies and innovations transform and affect the capacities of under-developed, developing and developed countries to achieve individual national economic, environmental and social goals?
2) how will these technologies and innovations increase capacities to achieve globally shared UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in ways that treat them as interconnected challenges in need of system approaches and concurrent solutions?
Solutions from the Land (SfL), a 501c(3) nonprofit led by farmers and scientist partners focuses on land-based solutions to global challenges. We appreciate the invitation to review the Background Document and the Harvesting Change synthesis report, contribute to the call for comments in the development of a full report on technologies and innovations in agrifood systems, and the opportunity to make a number of observations that we hope will be of value of the report authors.
The Harvesting Change synthesis report seems to primarily call for repurposing of research and development of programs, policies and investments to accelerate and prioritize emerging technologies and innovations in agrifood systems. It appears much of the data are drawn from a “back-casting exercise with multistakeholder audience from the World Investment Forum 2023” (pg 53) which would be congruent with findings that focus on “high tech” AI, drones, quantum computing, biotechnologies, gene engineering and other technologies and innovations that reflect investor interests. It is unclear the extent to which end users of these technologies which are transforming global agrifood systems were involved in the framing, assessments and rankings presented. Farmers, ranchers, foresters and fishers are the beginning of the food system and major targets of technology innovations and applications. Were any farmers, men and women; large, mid-sized and/or small holders participants in contributing data or helping to synthesize the meanings and applications to future food and agricultural systems?
Several Key Findings of the synthesis report are congruent with SfL’s core values and operating principles:
- No single technology can address all challenges in all geographies or cultures. A combination of context-specific solutions, tools and approaches tailored to specific conditions in specific locations is necessary;
- Policy, nature and dataintegration. Policy changes, nature-based solutions and data-driven technologies have high potential to improve agrifood system production efficiencies per unit of land and water concurrently with ecosystem/habitat enhancing production and management;
- Investment gap. There is a potential imbalance between investment in emerging technologies and the perceived versus real impacts on agrifood systems, the environment and larger society.
Many Recommendations are congruent with SfL high priority actions:
- Alignment. Research and innovation agendas should be aligned with solutions that provide value—an array of tools and approaches- to farmers, ranchers, foresters and fishers and their communities who are cornerstones of successful, productive, nature-positive, and profitable local and global agrifood systems
- Stakeholder capacity. Strengthen technical and functional capacities of diverse stakeholders across different geographies and cultures to manage complexity, change and uncertainty in their section of the value chain; and increase understanding of the roles they play in national and global agrifood systems.
- Contextualization. Technologies and innovations should be adapted to local context and challenges.
- Continuous monitoring and evaluation of technologies and innovation enable adjustments to real world needs based on performance and outcomes under diverse local/regional conditions
- Co-creation/co-innovation. Scaling of solutions across production systems and agrifood value chains will require collaborative innovation involving diverse stakeholders and partners
What’s missing?
.
- Circular biosystems. There is no mention of circularity of systems in this report. Yet system circularity approaches 1) offer unlimited opportunities to integrate multiple technologies in diverse contexts-discouraging the silver bullet technology trap; 2) build in naturally continuous feedbacks to monitor/adjust/redesign innovations and emerging technologies that work at specific locales/regions, and varying scales; 3) reuse outputs as inputs via technologies creating new co-products while reducing waste and pollution to the environment; 4) can be implemented at any scale- integrating a variety of low, mid and high technologies allowing “priority” technologies to emerge that are useful and affordable at all scales; and 5) can be utilized in the context of diverse climate, topography, resources and cultures associated with foods and agrifood production. Circular biosystem approaches are continuous improvement systems that respond to change, reflect the circularity of natural systems and enable nature-based and ecosystems innovations and new technologies to be evaluated, modified, adjusted and expanded to landscape applications.
- Human and social dimensions. The synthesis report leaves the human and social aspects of new technologies and innovations as a “black box.” For a “foresight” document to be truly useful, to guide strategic planning and move to action, it must include an assessment of where humans are in relation to technologies and innovations and how they perceive these innovations will affect their futures. This means there is a need for ideas/words/experiences/foresights of on-the-ground stakeholders…the farmers, ranchers, foresters and fishers from Africa, Asia, Pacific, South America, Europe and North America, the producers, processers and distributors- the value chains that are feeding the world and want to continue to make a living in a “new” agrifood world.
A key element missing in all this discussion is the “human” capacity to adapt, adjust, innovate to survive. Where is the assessment of human skills, knowledge, cultures, attitudes and perceptions of all these innovations and technologies that will “save” the world? Is it a black box “wild” card? Or are these intelligent, intuitive, skilled, agriculture- nature smart people that “somehow” will make the “right” moves toward adoption IF they have access to the tools of the future and a willingness to learn new ways of providing food and agricultural products to themselves and society.
SfL RESPONSE TO CALL FOR SUBMISSION
Q1. From the 20 innovations identified in the Harvesting Change synthesis report, select the three key technologies and innovations that have the potential to accelerate each of the following: a) inclusion; b) sustainability; and c) resilience.
* Nature-based ecosystem innovations
* Agricultural innovation labs. 1) Experimental research tested via practice in different
regions, cultures and biophysical conditions (soil, water, climate etc) and 2) policy
development, hypothetical testing and real world evaluations
* Regional-landscape level value chains
The 20 technologies and innovations in the synthesis report focus on “high” technologies such as AI and digital innovations which have huge potential to be transformative but will not necessarily lead to “inclusion, sustainability, and/or resilience” of agrifood systems. Many high tech innovations are data and energy intensive, costly to end users in ways that limit accessibility to low income regions/countries and are of limited value and affordability to small holder farmers, ranchers, fishers and other end users in ALL countries. There is a need for a mix of technologies and innovations including “high, low and mid-tech” tools and approaches for ALL producers, including but not limited to small holders in low income countries and women to choose from to make their production systems more efficient, effective, nature positive and profitable.
The category label “Frugal Innovations” does not well represent the potential of mid and low tech technologies to also be of value to ALL farmers and agrifood value chain enterprises. Further, the term “frugal” and the stated focus of targeting rural development [e.g. limited income countries and their farmers and end users] implies that small holders and those who do not chose [either by cultural value, accessibility, affordability or some other reason] are being allocated lesser quality technologies. Does this mean rural places and people are only entitled to the limited model of innovation and technologies? This of course is not our intent, but this kind of language only increases the divide between resource rich and resource poor.
Please rethink the use of the terminology “frugal innovations”. The category “frugal innovation” in the report is described as a way to simplify, reuse and redesign products and services/processes to provide high quality/affordable solutions under limited resource conditions. Reuse-redesign-simplify are worthy and practical intents that should be pursued but under a different set of assumptions about income. Would not “circular biosystems innovations” that design out waste and pollution while providing efficiencies and efficacy, encourage reuse, and repurposing of resources within and beyond the rural region (Morton and Shea 2022) without regard for incomes be a more fruitful “label” that could apply to multiple agrifood enterprises, geographies, and adoption readiness with nature positive locale-global circularities?
Q2. What would be the trade-offs and for whom if we advance: a) inclusion; b) sustainability; and c) resilience? How to minimize them while maximizing the benefits?
There will always be trade-offs. The goal should be to try to minimize the risks and downsides. But the real question is “who” gets to make the trade-off decision; and is policy structured to favor one technology over another? Approaches that focus on integrated end goals and outcomes (e.g.rather than maximizing one innovation) should encourage uses of innovations and technologies that limit undesired outcomes (e.g. pollution, profit loss, food and nutrition insecurity etc.) and concurrently deliver multiple SDGs. This removes the focus on individual technologies as single solutions. Provide a suite of tools-high, mid, low-tech innovations and let the end user at the country/region and farm/enterprise level choose which of these innovations work best for them. The comment from Viet Nam by Dr. Schuftan says this well, let rural communities “decide the technologies most suited for their specific needs. Yes, an interface is needed with science, but ultimately it is the communities that know what level of complexity they can manage and need for sustainability. Nothing wrong with learning from trial and error.”
SfL would expand this statement to include individual men and women as well as their collective communities: “let farmers, ranchers, foresters, fishers and their rural communities decide”….”ultimately, it is farmers, ranchers, foresters and fishers and the communities in which they live that know what level of complexity they can manage.”
Q4. What are the most important triggers of change…?
From agricultural and food producers’ perspectives key drivers of change (presenting both challenges and opportunities) are: 1) population dynamics and urbanization;
2) increased extreme events and variability in intra-seasonal weather and longer term year-to-year weather patterns; i.e. climate change; 3) market shifts and uncertainties especially structural transformations and consolidations; and 4) innovation and science
SfL CLOSING THOUGHTS
- Strategic Planning. A light touch might be more productive rather than heavy handed “planned” incentives for specific priority technologies and innovations we “think” will solve the world problems? Change will continually happen, and technologies and innovations will change; we need to have structures that can retain stability but allow emerging innovations to mature or sunset.
- Beyond a Blue Sky report, how do we get to action that fosters co-creation/co-innovation and collaborative efforts that involve all scales of agriculture and food systems, both women and men in local & regional geographies and cultural spaces and enables embracing continuous change?
- Polycrisis. Every change and challenge is NOT a crisis. We have many complex and urgent challenges to address if we are to have agrifood systems that serve society well. However, we have to stop treating the SDGs with crisis language and emergency policies and just get to work building the flexible structures and institutions capable of managing change--co-creating collaborative strategies that address current, anticipated and unanticipated challenges. These are opportunities for our leaders to take fresh looks at the local, regional and global worlds around us, what’s working and what is not; and consider where we should individually and collectively invest our resources of time, energy, and material goods to survive and thrive.
-
-
-
Solutions from the Land offers three key overarching recommendations we would like to see incorporated into V0 priority actions that we believe will build a more robust roadmap that can effectively meet country-level multiple goals:
1) Concurrent agricultural production of biodiversity and multiple SDGs. Farmers, ranchers, fishers, foresters and those that manage agricultural lands for their livelihoods can concurrently produce biodiversity, food and nutrition security, ecosystems well- being, farmer livelihoods and other SDGs when supportive policies, incentives, and resources are available. See:
a) The role of agriculture in concurrently delivering ecosystem services and food and nutrition security. https://www.solutionsfromtheland.org/blog/sfl-proposes-an-eighth-critical-and-enduring-issue-to-ensure-global-food-security-and-nutrition-priorities
b) 21st Century Agriculture Renaissance https://www.solutionsfromtheland.org/renaissance-report
2) Agricultural circular biosystems approaches and models are important strategies to accomplish transformative changes within and across sectors, countries, and industries. These solution pathways promote circularity of farm and regional agrifood enterprise inputs, outputs, retained value, and SDG outcomes at farm and landscape levels; encourage biodiversity; reduce pollution and waste by recycling and reuse of resources; and utilize multi-species livestock and plants. Investments in agricultural circular biological systems research, on-farm and regional experimentation and practice can accelerate the effectiveness and adoption of circular pathways that protect and promote biodiversity. See:
a) See Morton, L.W. & E. Shea. 2022. Beyond productivity: Rebuilding circles of life to deliver multi-benefit goals via circular systems. Circular Food and Agricultural Systems. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE) 65(2):411-418 https://doi.org/10.13031/ja.14904 NRES14904 (asabe.org)
b) Iowa Smart Agriculture: Circles of Life: https://www.solutionsfromtheland.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Iowa-Smart-Agriculture-Circles-of-Life-Report.pdf
3) A major constraint faced by agrifood systems producers and value chain are the increasing impacts of invasive species that affect nearly all aspects of the natural and man-made environment. Degradation of forests, deserts and wetlands due to invasive plants, insects and animals is occurring at an unprecedented level as phytosanitary infrastructure for prevention, exclusion, detection and eradication remains woefully underfunded in most countries. This is a national and global problem that will require coordinated, cross boundary jurisdictional cooperation and investments.Please read our full submission prepared by SfL Board member and farmer Lois Wright Morton.
-
-
-
Solutions from the Land[i] (SfL) Farmer Leaders’ Perspectives and Recommendations on V0 draft of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) report on urban and peri-urban food systems
Topic: Strengthening urban and peri-urban food systems to achieve food security and nutrition in the context of urbanization and rural transformation – V0 draft of the HLPE-FSN report #19
Submitted by A.G. Kawamura on behalf of SfL. A.G. is a produce/specialty crop grower and shipper; Former Secretary, California Department of Food and Agriculture; Founding Partner, Orange County Produce, LLC; Indian Wells, CA.
1. The V0 draft introduces a conceptual framework informed by key principles established in previous HLPE-FSN reports (HLPE, 2017; HLPE, 2020). Do you find the proposed framework effective to highlight and discuss the key issues concerning urban and peri-urban food systems?
Yes, the long overdue discussion and assessment of how urban and peri-urban agriculture can significantly contribute to food and nutrition insecurity will help open the global imagination on how we accomplish multiple SDGs through these innovative collaborations.
Is this a useful conceptual framework to provide practical guidance for policymakers?
It is a useful conceptual framework for policy makers new to the subject and issue areas, however it falls short in diluting the actual role for agriculture and for farmers by reducing their inclusion in most of the language and descriptive overview of the opportunities and threats.
Can you offer suggestions for examples to illustrate and facilitate the operationalization of the conceptual framework to address issues relevant for FSN?
Focusing on true proof of concept examples of already successful agricultural collaborations taking place across the urban and peri-urban landscapes helps people fully visualize the impacts of edible landscapes at all scales and dimensions.
2. The report adopts the broader definition of food security (proposed by the HLPE-FSN in 2020), which includes six dimensions of food security: availability, access, utilization, stability, agency and sustainability. Does the V0 draft cover sufficiently the implications of this broader definition in urban and peri-urban food systems?
The broader definition provided by the “six dimensions” of food security seems to exclude the key aspect of any food system…who produces the food, how and with what resources? Pretending there are “actors” who are going to fill this role ignores the actual predicament of where are the real “farmers” who can actually grow out a crop whether on a roof top, a vacant lot or inside a re-configured sea container.
3. Are the trends/variables/elements identified in the draft report the key ones to strengthen urban and peri-urban food systems? If not, which other elements should be considered?
There are excellent and far-ranging parts of the draft report which cover many of the ‘bureaucratic’ difficulties of producing, processing, and selling food in an urban environment. These go a long way towards exposing some of the weaknesses and chronic problems inherent in city after city that has no sense of its food future…or an imagined ideal about what its food future might be. It is at least refreshing to note that the report is less prescriptive and seems to understand that there can be no one, best system for these transformational suggestions. And yet, the fact that the writers of the report are stuck with a negative framing of the food system as it exists is worrisome. The idea that fast food cannot be happy food. The complaint that processed food is poor for the health. The encouragement of food police. These types of exhortations that we need an urgent “radical transformation” of our global food system fails to acknowledge that we are already experiencing an urgent, radical transformation of our food system in a remarkable span of time and that it has been going quite well, despite some mistakes and good intentions that have created foreseen and unforeseen problems (like food deserts) going forward. We can use the COVID pandemic to daylight so much of what is going right with urban and peri-urban agriculture (rural agriculture too) and our food system and where we have vulnerabilities and significant areas of improvement for greater resilience. Showcase examples of civil society and industry adaptation and innovation under crisis.
Are there any other issues concerning urban and peri-urban food systems that have not been sufficiently covered in the draft report?
The need for critical infrastructure for growing crops and livestock was not well covered. Water, soil, energy, cooling, cold storage, transportation pest control, and skilled labor. So many of these are vital for perishable fruit and vegetable production at any scale.
Are topics under- or over-represented in relation to their importance?
Some topics seem very over-represented, specifically the multiple references for funding support for more studies, more measurements, more ‘thinking’ about the problems that we have faced for centuries. What is under-represented is that that funding for non-productive activity could go a very long way to build out the capacity and talent to end food/nutrition insecurity. Why not focus on replication and scaling up of successful models creating greater and more immediate impact with available and new funding?
4. Is there additional quantitative or qualitative data that should be included?
What more do you need to know? That kids with a lousy diet are health risks…that kids that come to school hungry are not the best students…that babies that are nutrient deficient will suffer irreparable damage both cognitive and physical (stunting). How many more grants and dollars will be used for job security for an army of non-productive but very well-educated individuals?
Are there other references, publications, or traditional or different kind of knowledges, which should be considered?
The good recommendations in the report speak to the need for an accessible catalog of all the best practices and innovative collaborations taking place around the world.
5. Are there any redundant facts or statements that could be eliminated from the V0 draft?
If the goal is to create a guidebook/roadmap that might help accomplish multiple SDGs within the urban/peri-urban landscape…through an edible landscape re-thinking of the resource base that exists in cities, then there are quite a few redundant passages that seem more focused on what’s already obvious and what’s perceived to be wrong with the food system
6. Could you suggest case studies and success stories from countries that were able to strengthen urban and peri-urban food systems? Yes…In particular, the HLPE-FSN would seek contributions on:
- evidence-based examples of successful interventions in urban and peri-urban food systems with the principles behind what made the process work;
Farm to Family Food Box projects; Farm to Food Bank projects; Edible Landscape projects at all schools and universities; Farm Academies for newly arrived immigrants with agricultural background; Veterans to Farmers projects; Youth Farm projects from FFA to 4-H and international equivalents.
- efforts made to enhance agency in urban and peri-urban food systems;
Multiple agency collaboration and budget contributions that achieve multiple benefits from environment, health, hands-on education, cultural sharing and training; waste to energy; climate resilience.
- efforts made to enhance the right to food in urban and peri-urban settings;
The right to food comes with an assumption that you have an abundance of food…or enough food for everyone. Yes, the challenge of calories versus nutrition is the expanding focal point of food system strategies…as we look to embrace concepts of food as medicine and the food/health nexus. The more daunting challenge is getting food from the farm to the table and all the support and infrastructure needed to accomplish that day after day. That’s where this report seems to fall short in daylighting the reality that farming or gardening is not easy and quite unpredictable if we haven’t built in more resilience in the form of infrastructure from food safety to invasive pests/species protocols.
- examples of circular economy and urban and peri-urban food system and climate change adaptation and mitigation, preferably beyond issues of production; and
Another area that is barely described or mentioned is the incredible opportunities to re-imagine the ‘urban forest’ and urban landscaping that mostly looks nice, is costly and creates tons of biomass and employment for an army of folks who might otherwise be farmers & farmhands.
- examples of national and local government collaboration on urban and peri-urban food systems.
Plenty of new interventions and innovations from the top down and hopefully from the bottom up that can receive funding streams from unusual partners and collaborators. Cross agency investment in annual budgets could ‘radically’ shift to create more (yes measurable) ‘bang for the buck’.
[i] The mission of Solutions from the Land, a farmer-led organization, is to inspire, mobilize and equip agricultural, forestry and fishery leaders to advance pragmatic, proven and innovative agricultural solutions that benefit producers, the public and the planet in a new era where sustainably managed farms, ranches, fisheries and forests are at the forefront of resolving food system, food and nutrition security, energy, environmental and climate challenges to concurrently achieve global sustainable development goals (SDGs).
-
-
-
Lois Wright Morton, small holder farmer and board member of Solutions from the Land, a farmer-led NFP organization representing all scales of agriculture and food systems concurrently producing food and nutrition security, healthy ecosystems, rural livelihoods and other SDGs.
Thank you for the invitation to take part in the online consultation regarding the new Food System Integrated Program. On behalf of Solutions from the Land (SfL), I wish to present farmer perspectives on the proposed Change of Theory diagram, the draft Results Framework, and some overarching observations:
Overarching Observations:
First of all, SfL is very pleased to see the concept of “integrated” in the title of this new program. We fully support this important integrated effort for farmers, ranchers, fishers, and foresters to improve agricultural and food production per unit of land and water and ecosystem/habitat enhancing production and management practices while concurrently delivering biodiversity, quality ecosystem services; increased food and nutrition security; robust rural livelihoods and a host of other SDGs.
To guide the development of this new 21st Century program, a traditional Theory of Change planning model is being proposed. However, the enormous challenges local and global agriculture and food systems are now facing and the outcomes we seek require that we adopt a new approach, a change of theory. The keystone of this new theory is the placement of farmers, ranchers, fishers, and foresters at the center of all discussions and placing much greater emphasis on enabling policies, programs and market mechanisms that incentivize and reward them financially for delivering not just abundant high-quality nutritious food but concurrently the full range of ecosystem services that well managed farms can deliver. See SfL recs for HLPE Vo- Reducing inequalities for food security and nutrition and Candidate submission for V0 draft of the HLPE 3rd Note on Critical Emerging and Enduring Issues SFL 2022.05.17
A 21st Century integrated program acknowledges that incentives, policies, and investments with “transformation” goals must utilize multiple strategies to integrate natural, human and financial resources, knowledge, and activities to accomplish the 17 SDGs (which include nature-positive, resilient and pollution-free systems). The Sustainable Development Goals are interdependent, the reduction of poverty and ensuring food and nutrition security that accompany transformed food systems are dependent on abundant and high quality water and soil resources, and producers who can make a living from farming using a variety of science-based technologies, innovations and approaches that can be used to adapt to local conditions while allowing the producer to pivot and quickly adjust and change management under increasingly variable weather and accelerated climate change conditions. The SDGs cannot be achieved unless agricultural contributions are fully enabled. For agriculture to be successful, farmers must be successful in sustainably intensifying production of the full range of goods and services that come from well managed farming operations.
Thus, efforts to transform local and global food systems require active participation and leadership from farmers, fishers, ranchers, foresters—the keystone to abundant food systems and healthy agroecosystems. To this end we urge that this global document and recommended country-specific development and implementation actions at the country level pro-actively invite and engage their farmers, fishers, ranchers, foresters—those people (women, men, small holders, producers of all ethnicities and scales of agriculture) who are at the beginning of the food system-as they develop their own country specific policies, programs, projects, and investments.
Suggested edits/modifications to the Change of Theory Diagram and Results Framework for Food Systems Integrated Program are in the attached file.
-
-
-
Solutions from the Land is pleased to provide the following response to the invitation to review, comment and make recommendations for strengthening CFS HLPE Vo Draft Report on reducing inequalities for food security and nutrition. The mission of Solutions from the Land, a farmer-led organization, is to inspire, mobilize and equip agricultural, forestry and fishery leaders to advance pragmatic, proven and innovative agricultural solutions that benefit producers, the public and the planet in a new era where sustainably managed farms, ranches, fisheries and forests are at the forefront of resolving food system, food and nutrition security, energy, environmental and climate challenges to concurrently achieve global sustainable development goals (SDGs).
Ernie Shea, President
Solutions from the Land
-
-
-
Dear FSN Moderator-
The seven critical, emerging and enduring HLPE issues included in the V0 draft of the HLPE 3rd Note on Critical, Emerging and Enduring Issues are well articulated and high profile concerns. Thank you for the opportunity too provide input into the development of this document.
Attached for your consideration is an 8th key issue- The role of agriculture in concurrently delivering ecosystem services and food and nutrition security. While aligned with other issues in the V0 draft, the delivery of quality ecosystem services in support of robust local and global food systems, is essential and a distinct emerging and critical issue.
Please feel free to reach out to us if you have any questions or need any additional information.
Kind regards,
Ernie
-
先生 Ernie Shea
Solutions from the Land, a farmer/scientist led not-for-profit NGO focused on agricultural solutions to global challenges, is pleased to provide comments and input on the draft Guidance for Target 10 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
Our submission is below and attached.
--------------------------------------------------------
SOLUTIONS FROM THE LAND (SfL) COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and input on the draft Guidance for Target 10 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework1. Target 10 commits to managing agriculture, aquaculture, fisheries, and forests in sustainable ways that increase biodiversity and meet people’s needs through sustainable uses and benefit-sharing. This Guidance Framework offers action-
oriented recommendations directed toward increasing country level capacities to integrate sustainable agriculture and biodiversity friendly approaches to ensure food and nutrition security, healthy ecosystem functioning, and the livelihoods of producers at all scales and systems.
Farmers, forest managers, forest-dependent people, land and water resource managers, herders, fisherfolk, aquaculturists, beekeepers, and Indigenous Peoples are primary producers of food and nutrition essential to all human life.
Solutions from the Land (SfL)2 is a farmer/scientist led nonprofit organization focused on land- based solutions to local, regional, and global challenges. SfL promotes an agricultural
renaissance through which innovative and entrepreneurial farmers, ranchers, aquaculutralists and foresters produce nutritious food, feed, fiber, clean energy, healthy ecosystems, quality livelihoods and strong rural economies.
The comments below reflect our reading and perspectives on the Biodiversity and Agrifood Systems Guidance document. Text in red is suggested language to be inserted into the guidance document; see also excel comments template for additional comment detail.
We find much in this guidance document of great value. We recognize and appreciate the anchoring of biodiversity in agriculture and food systems in the context of global efforts to achieve UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and agriculture’s capacity to concurrently deliver multiple SDGs ranging from food and nutrition security, healthy soil,
clean water, enhanced biodiversity, regenerated ecosystem services to rural livelihoods. We commend you for the inclusion and alignment with the UNFCCC Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture (KJWA) which our farmers have been intimately involved in co-creating over the past few years.
2. Embed biodiversity into sustainability of agriculture and forestry. SfL concurs with the explicit assumption that biodiversity is an element of landscape and ecosystem resilience and sustainability; and must be integrated into agrifood systems strategic design, planning and implementation (Section 1.4 Mainstreaming biodiversity in agricultural sectors, pg7). Biodiversity conservation and management safeguards and enhances the environment as well as sustains into the future economic and social benefits.3 Biodiversity (genetic, species abundance and richness, and ecosystem community diversity) are key indicators of sustainability and resilient earth systems. Concrete action plans must set goals and develop policies and biodiversity-friendly practices and approaches that account for the diverse mosaic of land uses and the multifunctional capacities of agriculture and forestry to concurrently deliver multiple SDGs when conservation, efficiency and productivity goals, resources and policies align. We recommend you insert in this section a statement that proposes to “embed biodiversity into sustainability of agriculture and forestry” definitionally and as a measure/indicator of resilience and sustainability.
3. “Stakeholders” in the agrifood system. In the Executive Summary and throughout, the term “stakeholders” in agrifood systems is used liberally. However, it is not until page 17 that the “primary producers” of food, forestry and agricultural products are explicitly identified as “farmers, herders, fisherfolk, and foresters.” Yet these are the people and occupations that are engaged in agriculture and are central to implementing “concrete action for practices for sustainable agriculture” (499, line 505-508). The language in Target 10 of the CBD/COP decision 15/4 is explicit, “Ensure that areas under agriculture, aquaculture, fisheries and forestry are managed sustainably in particular through the sustainable use of biodiversity, including….application of biodiversity friendly practices.” It is farmers, herders, fisherfolk and foresters who are the target of change and primary “custodians of biodiversity” (p.7 Section 1.4.4). Would it not make sense to be explicit “who” these primary producers are? They are farmers, herders, fisherfolk, and foresters who must be involved at local and country level discussions in the construction of policies and regulations, and experiential and science-based implementation that affect their capacities to embed biodiversity in their management systems to produce food and nutrition and livelihoods that pull them out of poverty.
Farmers are more than simply “stakeholders” and should be explicitly referenced upfront and throughout the document. A second agrifood stakeholder group seems to be missing from the text of this document, that of scientists that are helping to produce new knowledge and technologies. Recommend text on page5, (line 114-115) the “whole of government and whole of society approach involving all stakeholders, including primary producers, scientists, practitioners, implementers and holders of rights and knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.”
Fig 2 is a useful stakeholder mapping graphic. Wonder if the high-level bolded categories ought to be called out sooner than page 18? in the Executive Summary and perhaps page 5 discussion of stakeholders. Recommend text: “Agrifood stakeholders encompass primary producers, consumers, business and industry, government at local and national levels, industry and food associations, academic, scientific and medical communities and research centers.”
Please see the attached excel spreadsheet for places in the document where these primary producers might be explicitly identified. They are the local people who will be expected to implement recommended approaches and biodiversity-friendly practices in ANNEX I and their livelihoods depend on their success and support they receive from other stakeholders as mapped in Figure 2.
4. Target10, agrifood systems relationships with other Biodiversity Targets. Table 1 Relationships between Target 10 and other KMGBF Targets is an excellent start in connecting biodiversity with the complexity of constructing sustainable and resilient agriculture and forestry systems. For example, we as a farmer organization have producers who are facing invasive alien species (Target 6) challenges and associated state and national policies that are undermining conservation, efficiency, productivity and efforts to be sustainable and resilient. Our farmers are also deeply involved in the use of data to guide management decisions (SfL Data Policy). Target 21 focuses on making data, information and knowledge accessible to guide biodiversity actions of small holders. mid- and larger scale operations. As noted above, # 2, biodiversity-genetic, species, and ecosystem community diversity- are important metrics for quantification and monitoring of ecosystem well-being and sustaining agrifood systems. We recommendbuilding out and elaborating these Target 10 relationships in more detail as a next step in the development of country-level Biodiversity Guidance.
5. Whole-of-government and whole-of-society (p 17, lines 485-496). SfL fully supports and applauds this high-level intent. However, the complexity of implementing this approach must not be underestimated. We recommend strongly to insert the text: Design and planning at the national level should involve many stakeholders but must include at the core and be accountable to local primary producers-- farmers, herders, fisherfolk and foresters at all scales and genders including indigenous people—and their cultural values, capacities and resources needed to operationalize and profitably implement a national plan.
6. Translating commitment to concrete action. This is the heart of the Guidance document and the authors have done an excellent job of being purposeful in offering country-level guidance options on “how” to improve, incentivize, energize, and invest in their agrifood systems to achieve multifunctionality. We especially appreciate the articulation of the range of approaches and biodiversity-friendly practices available to improve resilience and sustainability of agrifood systems.
We recommend an additional general principle, Systems approaches inthe Implementation Section 3, general principles (line 626, pg 21)
3.1. Systems and systems-of-systems approaches. Forestry, aquaculture, and agriculture land and water management are not linear production structures but complex systems. It is complexity that gives these systems the capacity to provide multiple benefits. For example, biodiversity in agricultural cropping systems promotes circularity within and among systems, creating complexity that gives the system unique capacity to deliver ecosystem services and a variety of food and agricultural products.4 Different combinations or sets of sustainable and biodiversity friendly approaches will create new systems as they interact. Systems, including systems of systems approaches offer useful feedback loops and data for evaluating individual and combinations of practices/approaches and serve to guide adjustment and redesign as needed.
We recommend adding the following 5th bullet point to the “general principles” list on page 21 (Line 633)
Adapt system and systems-of-systems approaches that utilize circularity, diversification and complexity to mimic the natural
complexity of earth systems that use, recycle and reuse resources.
3.3 Key elements to create an enabling environment (pg 23; lines 699-714) Congruent with the Systems Approach guiding principle recommended above in 3.1, we recommend an additional (8th) element, “circular bioeconomies” to create enabling environments that would precede current elements, (3) regulatory framework and (4) financial framework
We suggest the following text:
7. ANNEX I. Approaches and biodiversity-friendly practices
We recommend the addition of Circular Bioeconomy to the list of approaches and biodiversity-friendly practices in ANNEX 1. Draft text below:
Circular Bioeconomy6. Circular bioeconomies recycle, renew and regenerate resources, reduce waste and pollution, keep products and materials in use as long as possible, increase efficiency and provide economic benefits. Circular economies integrate bioeconomies which preserve and enhance natural capital, including biodiversity by balancing renewable resource flows with renewable natural resources and finite earth materials and stock resources with management goals of recycling, refurbishing, reuse/redistribution and maintenance that prolong utility of resources. Country-level bioeconomies7 can promote grow-make-use-restore/regenerate activities of farm level circular systems to produce multi-benefit products that: 1) Retain on-farm value as inputs within the farm system as substitutes for off-farm resources; 2) Retain on-farm and landscape level value as recirculated and regenerated ecosystem resource inputs and outputs returned to the ecosystem; 3) Expand circular biosystems networks as off-farm inputs and resources utilize raw, recycled and regenerated coproducts from regional and national circular economy networks, science and technologies, and public/private infrastructures; 4) Are off-farm outputs for consumption beyond the farm gate as consumer end products (eg food) and inputs to other farms and value chains; and 5) Lead to farmer household outcomes such as improved livelihoods, health and wellbeing, biodiversity and environmental gains, and more robust economies. Adaptations, adjustments, modifications, and redesign can target farm systems a) physical components, material and energy flows, b) system feedbacks on the interactions among farm systems using observation and data tracking systems, c) farm system design, the structures, information flows, that help the farmer manage parameters and feedbacks, and d) the farmer/forester/fisher/community underpinning goals, values and expectations for outcomes.
8. See also Solutions from the Land Online consultation 2024 March 11, FAO Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum) Agriculture, Biodiversity and Food Security: From Commitments to Actions Draft Version Zero
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Kunming-Montral Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) adopted CBD/COP15 of Convention on Biological Diversity, Decision 15/4 19 December 2022
2. The SfL mission is focused on the future of agriculture, forestry and conservation. SfL seeks to inspire, educate, equip, and mobilize agricultural thought leaders to advocate, at local, state and global levels for integrated policies, practices and projects that will enable farmers, ranchers and foresters who manage local and landscape scale resources, to produce food and nutrition security, fiber and energy needed to support growing populations and economies while simultaneously enhancing biodiversity, ensuring quality livelihoods, protecting and improving the environment and delivering high value ecosystem services. Home - Solutions from the Land.
3. M. Laurila-Pant, A. Lehikoinen, L. Uusitalo, and R. Venesjarvi. 2015. How to value biodiversity in environmental management. Ecological Indicators 55:1-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.02.034
4. LW Morton and E Shea. 2022. Frontier: Beyond productivity-recreating the circles of life to deliver multiple benefits with circular systems. ASABE (American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers) Vol 65:2:411-418 https://doi.org/10.13031/ja.14904
5. LW Morton and E. Shea. Circular bioeconomies as solution pathways to SDGs: Farm-level circularity networked into regional and national circular economies (under review ASABE).
6. FAO (United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization). 2024. Guidelines on the role of livestock in circular bioeconomy systems. For Public Review.
LW Morton and E Shea. 2022. Frontier: Beyond productivity-recreating the circles of life to deliver multiple benefits with circular systems. ASABE (American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers) Vol 65:2:411-418 https://doi.org/10.13031/ja.14904
Jones, J., Verma, B., Basso, B., Mohtar, R., & Matlock, M. 2021. Transforming food and agriculture to circular systems: A perspective for 2050. Resource, 28(2), 7-9. St. Joseph, MI: ASABE.
Rodias, E., Aivazidou, E., Achillas, C., Aidonis, D., & Bochtis, D. 2021. Water-energy-nutrients synergies in the agrifood sector: a circular economy framework Energies 14, 159 doi.org/10.3390/en14010159 LW
7. LW Morton and E. Shea. Circular bioeconomies as solution pathways to SDGs: Farm-level circularity networked into regional and national circular economies (under review ASABE).