Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

Member profile
Browse all members

Mr. Subhash Mehta

Member since
Organization: Devarao Shivaram Trust
Country: India
I am working on:

Farmer/ Producer Company interventions of, for and by the rural smallholder farmers and other producers, staffed by professionals to take over all risks and responsibilities other than on farm activities

This member contributed to:

    • I am qouting Olivier De Schutter, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, 

      speaking at the 64th session of the UN General Assembly as upscaling of community seed banks, upholding ‘Farmers' Rights’ is even more relevant today with the serious effects of climate change being faced by our planet

      “All States should: Support and scale-up local seed exchange systems such as community seed banks and seed fairs, community registers of peasant varieties, and use them as a tool to improve the situation of the most vulnerable groups,..”

      BANKING FOR THE FUTURE: SAVINGS, SECURITY AND SEEDS

      A short study of community seed banks in Bangladesh, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, Honduras, India, Nepal, Thailand, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

      The Development Fund/ Utviklingsfondet

      http://www.planttreaty.org/sites/default/files/banking_future.pdf

      CHAPTER V: UP-SCALING COMMUNITY SEED BANKS TO IMPLEMENT FARMERS’ RIGHTS AND TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE FOR AGRICULTURE

      To fully reap the benefits of community seed banks in enhancing farmers’ access and control of seeds, as well as their contribution to the conservation and sustainable use of crop genetic diversity, we will end this report with a set of policy recommendations.

      Governments should:

      • Establish and/or support community seed banks as part of their obligations to implement Farmers’ Rights and other provisions of the Plant Treaty, such as sustainable use and conservation of crop genetic diversity. Parties should support the up-scaling of community seed banks in order to reach as many farmers as possible, especially in marginalised areas.
      • Integrate community seed banks in broader programmes on agricultural biodiversity, where the local seed banks should serve as a storing place for results of participatory plant breeding and participatory variety selection, and make such results accessible to farmers. Seed banks should also be venues for seed fairs for farmers to exchange and display their seed diversity.
      • Include community seed banks in governments’ agricultural development strategies as a vehicle for adaptation to climate variability. Agricultural extension services would provide the best institutional infrastructure to embark on a scaling up of local seed bank experiences to a national level.
      • Revise seed regulations and provisions on intellectual property rights to seeds to ensure Farmers’ Rights to save, use, exchange and sell farm-saved seeds.
      • Redirect public subsidies from promoting modern varieties to fund the above mentioned activities.

      Agricultural Research Institutions should:

      • Ensure that farmers are given an informed choice between traditional and modern varieties. Extension services and government agricultural policies should be reviewed as to ensure this balance. There is a need to democratise agricultural extension systems so that it provides all kinds of information (e.g. about the role of formal and informal seed systems) in a transparent way without putting farmers’ varieties to a disadvantage.
      • Extend their expertise and services for free to assist and support communities and NGOs in setting up and maintaining community seed banks. Their assistance and support should be based on the actual needs and capacities of the communities and local organisations seeking their expertise.
      • Facilitate the access of communities and NGOs setting up community seed banks to other in situ as well as ex situ sources of seeds, if necessary and when required. They should help provide linkages among communities engaged in community seed banking and relevant institutions and organisations that may be able to support such efforts. Community seed banks are the bridge between in situ and ex situ conservation. Through them, national gene banks should make their acquisitions available to farmers.

      Commercial seed sector should:

      • Contribute to the Benefit Sharing Fund of the Plant Treaty, which in its turn should make sure that sufficient funds for supporting community seed banks are in place. The cost of conserving crop genetic diversity should not be borne by resource poor farmers in the Global South, but be shared by all who benefit from the commercialisation of this diversity.
      • Multiply and produce farmers’ varieties for increased availability of locally adapted seeds.

      NGOs should:

      • Adopt a mechanism to share their skills and knowledge in establishing and maintaining community seed banks to interested communities, farmers’ organisations and other NGOs in and around the countries where they are based. The main role of NGOs is to promote community seed banks until governments have incorporated such banks in their formal systems like agricultural extension services.
      • Strengthen community based management of agricultural biodiversity and avoid using community seed banks for promoting only modern varieties.

    • Dear colleagues

      Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) on the lives and livelihoods of Asia's indigenous peoples and farmers as well as food safety and security in the region covers a larger group since it binds the 10-member ASEAN and six non-ASEAN countries - including China - with a combined population of over 3.5 billion while the well known 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) signed on 4 February this year only covers the region's 800 million people,

      Represetatives of developing countries need to be aware that RCEP be made friendlier to their needs, as negotiations for the RCEP like the TPPA – are  also taking place behind closed doors and without the participation of all stakeholders (farmers, unions, indigenous peoples, health advocates, and other members of civil society, etc.) who must be invited and given a voice and full say in the deliberations for long term sustainability of rural urban communities.

      Texts leaked from the RCEP negotiations indicate a strong push is being made to further increase the power of MNC seed companies, in contrast the rural poor needs:

      ·      criminalise seed saving and exchange also

      ·      restrictions on seed saving and exchange at a time when, under the extreme pressures of climate change, farmers need more diversity in their fields, not less;

      ·      increase farmers' dependence on external inputs and raise their risks and costs of production, as well as result in increased seed prices and non availability of locally adapted seeds

      ·      if seeds or traditional knowledge are compiled into databases and made available, MNCs like Monsanto and Syngenta could appropriate the knowledge and genetic resources of farming and indigenous communities.

      The full GRAIN report can be read and downloaded here: https://www.grain.org/article/entries/5405-new-mega-treaty-in-the-pipeline-what-does-rcep-mean-for-farmers-seeds-in-asia,

      also at: www.grain.org/e/5405

    • A peer-reviewed study published last year in the British Journal of Nutrition, a leading international journal of nutritional science, showed that organic crops and crop-based foods are between 18 to 69 percent higher in a number of key antioxidants such as polyphenolics than conventionally-grown crops. Numerous studies have linked antioxidants to a reduced risk of chronic diseases, including cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases and certain cancers. The research team concluded that a switch to eating organic fruit, vegetable and cereals – and food made from them – would provide additional antioxidants equivalent to eating between one and two extra portions of fruit and vegetables a day, full report at:

      http://www.globalresearch.ca/poisoned-food-poisoned-agriculture-getting-... dmill/5485076

      I have provided the required evidence to support Jomo's presentation, contributed earlier.

      Warm regards

      Subhash

      Attached is a report of Dec 5, 2015, putting soil degradation on par with the effects of climate change.

      See the attachments:

    • I am taking the liberty to reproduce Jomo's presentation in Rome, Nov 2015, as Nutrition through agriculture needs to be our focus if we are to achieve the development goals this time around.

      Better nutrition for better lives

      Rome, 26 Nov (IPS/Jomo Kwame Sundaram*) -- Food systems are increasingly challenged to ensure food security and balanced diets for all, around the world.

      Almost 800 million people are chronically hungry, while over two billion people suffer from "hidden hunger," with one or more micronutrient deficiencies.

      Meanwhile, over two billion people are overweight, with a third of them clinically obese, and hence more vulnerable to non-communicable diseases.

      Overcoming hunger and malnutrition in the 21st century does not simply involve increasing food availability, but also improving access, especially for the hungry.

      Creating healthy, affordable and sustainable food systems for all is the most effective way to achieve this.

      Since 1945, food production has tripled as average food availability per person has risen by 40 per cent. But despite abundant food supplies, almost 800 million still go hungry every day, of whom most live in developing countries.

      Many more go hungry seasonally or intermittently. Hunger affects their ability to work and to learn. Clearly, the problem is not just one of food availability, but also of access.

      The health of over two billion people is compromised because their diets lack essential micronutrients, which prevents them reaching their full human potential.

      "Hidden hunger," or micronutrient deficiencies, undermine the physical and cognitive development of their children, exposing them to illness and premature death.

      Ironically, in many parts of the world, hunger co-exists with rising levels of obesity. Over two billion people are overweight, with a third of them deemed obese.

      This, in turn, exposes them to greater risk of diabetes, heart problems and other diet-related non-communicable diseases.

      FOOD SYSTEM: PROBLEM AND SOLUTION

      Food systems must become more responsive to people's needs, including food insecure, socially excluded and economically marginalised households.

      Mothers, young children, the aged and the disabled are especially vulnerable. Adequate nutrition during the "first thousand days," from conception to the child's second birthday, is especially critical.

      Our challenge then is not simply to produce and supply more food, but to ensure that better food is consumed by all, especially those most in need. And this has to be sustainable in terms of the environment and natural resources to ensure the capacity of future generations to feed themselves.

      Increasingly intensive industrial farming systems and massive food wastage are often simply unsustainable.

      Food production has often put great stress on natural resources - exhausting fresh water supplies, encroaching on forests, degrading soils, depleting wild fish stocks and reducing biodiversity.

      We need to recognize and deal with these challenges urgently. Fortunately, we also have the means to transform food production systems to make them more sustainable and healthy by empowering local communities.

      HEALTHY FOOD SYSTEMS FOR HEALTHIER PEOPLE

      Strong political commitment is required to prioritize nutrition and to improve food systems.

      Food system policies, programmes and interventions should always strive to improve diets, nutrition and people's access to and consumption of foods adequate in quantity and quality - in terms of diversity, nutrient content and safety.

      Food production research and development should focus on ensuring more diverse, balanced and healthy diets, including more nutrient-rich foods, as well as ecological and resource sustainability.

      Natural resources must be used more efficiently, with less adverse impacts, by getting more and better food from water, land, fertilizer and labour.

      Nutrient dense foods, such as milk, eggs and meat, are improving diets for many, while livestock continues to provide livelihoods for millions. Yet, livestock production and consumption need to be more sustainable, with far less adverse effects on climate change, disease transmission and overall health.

      Such food system reforms need to be accompanied by needed complementary interventions, including public health, education, employment and income generation, as well as social protection to enhance resilience.

      Governments, consumers, producers, distributors, researchers and others need to be more involved in the food system.

      SMART INVESTMENT

      Better nutrition also makes economic sense. About five per cent of global economic welfare is lost due to malnutrition in all its forms owing to foregone output and additional costs incurred.

      Expenditure to address malnutrition offers very high private and social returns. Yet, only about one per cent of the total aid budget is allocated for this purpose.

      The follow-up to the Second International Conference on Nutrition (ICN2) in Rome late last year provides a historic opportunity for political decisions and concerted interventions to enhance nutrition for all through better policies and international solidarity.

      Currently, less than one per cent of foreign aid goes to nutrition. It is hard to justify not making the desperately needed investments in better nutrition for better lives.

      [* Jomo Kwame Sundaram is the Coordinator for Economic and Social Development at the Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, and received the 2007 Wassily Leontief Prize for Advancing the Frontiers of Economic Thought.]

    • Dear Colleagues,

      You will agree that the Green Revolution's dramatic increase in crop production of the past 50 years has come at high Environmental costs - Soils Degradation, Mal Nutrition, Hunger, Poverty, Climate Change and Suicides, in the 'Long term'.

      According FAO, Twelve million hectares of agricultural soils are lost globally through soil degradation every year. Currently, about 33 percent of world soils are moderately to highly degraded. Forty percent of these soils are located in Asia, South America and Africa and most of the remaining amount are in areas afflicted by hunger, mal nutrition poverty.

      2015 is the FAO’s International Year of Soils. The FAO has released a template on “Agro ecology as it Reverse Soil Degradation and Achieves Nutrition and Food Security” in the long term. Agro ecology is part of FAO's Strategic Framework and states that agro ecology has proven to be an effective strategy to meet the global challenge of how to produce the increasing requirements of safe and nutritious food for a growing population in the context of climate change, guaranteeing environmental restoration whilst contributing to economical development and growth.

      Following the Agro ecology of the area, integrating forestry, multiple crops and livestock, restores soil health as it increases soil organic matter year after year, facilitates soil biodiversity, by building on successful farmers’ knowledge and season after season research and adaptation, thus reducing hunger, Mal nutrition, poverty, .suicides and the effect of climate change whilst improving net incomes/ purchasing power and livelihoods of the rural poor producer communities.

      Link to Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO):

      http://www.fao.org/soils-2015/news/news-detail/en/c/317402/

      also reproduced below.

      Agroecology, which restores ecosystem functioning by maintaining soil health, is an effective strategy to achieve food security in the areas of the world where it is most needed.

      The challenge

      The dramatic increase in crop production of the last 50 years has reduced the number of chronically undernourished people. However, these massive production gains have come at high environmental costs, which have affected soil and ecosystem health.

      Currently agricultural policy is increasingly expected to face the combined challenge of producing sufficient food for a growing population while guaranteeing environmental restoration. Therefore, policy-makers are more frequently asked how to address the urgent need for soil and environmental restoration when millions of people are still hungry.

      Food security and soil degradation

      “The world produces more than enough food to feed every member of the human family, yet 1 in 9 people do not have enough to eat”. This was the opening sentence by the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, for the launch of EXPO 2015 in Milan, Italy.

      Despite hosting almost all food production, rural areas also hold the majority of the world’s food insecure people. Soils that are well managed by family farmers help ensure the four dimensions of food security: availability, delivering nutrients for crop growth; access, by improving family farm income through more reliable harvests; stability, by conserving water to support nearly year-round cropping; and utilization, by harvesting healthy nutritious food from healthy soils.

      Soil degradation consists of biological, chemical and physical degradation. Currently, about 33 percent of world soils are moderately to highly degraded. Forty percent of these soils are located in Africa and most of the remaining amount are in areas that are afflicted by poverty and food insecurity. The strong relationship between soil health and food security calls for strategic and immediate actions especially at the local level to reverse soil degradation, in order to increase food production and alleviate food insecurity in the areas where it is most needed and in the context of climate change.

      Agroecology as a strategy to reverse soil degradation

      By understanding and working with interactions among soil, plants, animals, humans and the environment within agricultural systems, agroecology encompasses multiple dimensions of the food system, including ecological restoration, political and social stability and economic sustainability. The agroecological approach starts by restoring soil life in order to re-establish and/or enhance the multiple soil-based biological processes. This requires:

      * Increasing and monitoring soil organic matter: Soil organic matter is considered the most common deficiency in degraded soils and the main indicator for soil quality. Practical, accessible indicators can support local decisions and larger landscape monitoring and analyses for district level implementation.

      * Facilitating and monitoring of soil biodiversity: Soil biological communities are directly responsible for multiple ecosystem functions.

      * Build on local farmers’ knowledge: Participatory scientific approaches to soil ecosystem management, such as Farmer Field Schools, are of great importance to inform farmers’ knowledge with researchers’ scientific principles in order better locally adapt agroecological systems.

      Farmers: The Ecosystem managers for soil restoration

      Degraded soils have lost their capacity to sustain food production as many ecological processes provided by soil biological communities such as maintenance of soil structure, soil-born pest regulation, nutrient and water cycling, have been overlooked or replaced by the use of external inputs. Many farmers across the globe have deep, experiential knowledge of their local soils. They have tested, adapted and discovered agricultural practices that restore soil life and the associated ecosystem services. These farmers are the main ecosystem managers and are at the centre of agroecology.

      Agroecology as a strategy to restore soils and ecosystem stability

      Agroecology applies specific strategies based on temporal and spatial diversity, which guarantee local, stable and diverse year-round production and income. These strategies include:

      Polycultures and agroforestry systems: The design of appropriate crop mixtures is more stable than monocultures as polycultures build on diverse crop resistance to soil pests and diseases and complementary uptake of soil nutrients and water in order to facilitate recycling of biomass and nutrients. The complementary traits of trees and crops enhance the efficiency of the whole systems, while litter mulch and the position of the trees along contour lines reduce erosion and soil degradation potential.

      Sloping Agricultural Land Technology (SALT) is a specific agroforestry strategy in which annual and perennial crops are grown between contoured rows of leguminous species. SALT has been extensively tested and implemented in farmers’ fields and experimental plots in Southeast

      Asia and has proven effective for reversing soil degradation while improving crop yields and farm’s profitability.

      Cover crops: Cover crops are usually leguminous crops grown to improve soil health by guaranteeing permanent soil cover, adding organic matter to soil and fixing atmospheric nitrogen. These help reverse soil degradation even in densely populated areas where long term fallows are simply no longer possible.

      The use of Mucuna spp. as a cover crop in different African locations has increased soil organic matter, improved nitrogen availability in soils and positively affected yields.

      Crop-livestock integration: Integrating livestock with crop production can tighten up nutrient cycles and diversify production, especially for smallholder family farms. In mixed farming systems, crop by-products are fed to livestock while manure is applied to cropland to sustain benefits from soil organic matter and nutrients availability.

      In Ethiopia and Tanzania the design of mixed farming systems, which include multi-purpose legume species such as Cajanus cajan (pigeon pea)–a drought tolerant multi-purpose legume–or Faidherbia albida –an indigenous leguminous nitrogen–fixing species with pods palatable for livestock, and leaves used as fertilizers-are well known to be effective in reversing soil degradation by controlling erosion, providing nitrogen-rich residues and increasing soil organic matter.

      Time for action

      The design of diverse agroecological systems rooted in local ecological knowledge and based on system diversity and ecological synergies can significantly improve soil quality and reverse soil degradation while increasing the production of nutritious food.

      Agroecology has already proven to be an effective strategy to address the global challenge that agriculture is facing as it accommodates the socio-political characteristics of food security with the need for restoring ecosystem functions.

      Agroecology is part of the Strategic Framework of FAO, in particular the Strategic Objectives of making agriculture, forestry and fisheries more productive and sustainable, increasing the resilience of livelihoods and reducing rural poverty. To facilitate a dialogue about Agroecology, its benefits, challenges and opportunities focusing at regional and national level, FAO is involved in regional conferences (held in 2015 in Latin America and the Caribbean, sub-Saharan Africa and Asia and the Pacific). Furthermore, FAO supports farmers’ research networks to integrate scientific innovations with traditional farmers’ knowledge.

      Key facts

      • 12 million hectares of agricultural soils are lost globally through soil degradation every year.

      • Soils with soil organic matter content lower than 0.8 percent are unproductive and often abandoned.

      • Agroforestry systems can reduce soil erosion by as much as 100 times in steep slopes.

      • Growing Faidherbia albida in association with millet (Pennisetum glaucum) increased grain yields by 50 percent in Burkina Faso and Senegal.

      • In Honduras, the adoption of soil conservation practices tripled or quadrupled maize yields for 1,200 families.

    • First let me wish you good health and happiness during 2016 and hope that the extraordinary effort being made by FAO (FSN) during 2015 to put in place 'Sustainable low cost low risk systems (Agro ecology) in the long term and farmer producer orgs/ company on top of the table and ensure their access to nutritious food at little or no cost, will hugely reduce the subsidy burden and contributing hugely to growth and development of the developping world.

      An important step towards achieving the above is creating capacity among school children and college students by introducing this subject as part of their curriculum, thus ensuring that only those who are really interested apply for admission in Agriculture colleges, not because they are unable to get admission elsewhere, as is in most cases.

      Prof Dr Amar Nayak has developped a curriculum for colleges/ universities, attached.

      Here are links to courses for schools with a brief write up by Nyla Coelho, the author of the curriculum.

      Our Land Our Life - An educational programme for children in India

      Nyla Coelho, http://www.peakoilindia.org/resources/,

      is the curriculum framework for an educational programme for children with specific emphasis on farming and farm related activities. It’s design provides a hands on approach to learning both academic and farm related topics. The document was prepared by the Organic Farming Association of India, Taleemnet and the Natural Farming Institute with other collaborators to serve the needs of the rural and the farming communities of India. Although the emphasis is on the above, others too, specially home schooling children and alternative schools will find the document useful. The programme is the outcome of a yearlong research based on inputs from pioneer educators, organic farmers and academicians from across the country.

      Download PDF http://www.peakoilindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Our-Land-Our-Life...

      Also links to workbooks prepared by The Uttarakhand Seva Nidhi, with the same title as our book. These work books are teacher guides as well as student workbooks that can be used for teaching in India with modification/adaptation as applicable to the local soil and agro climatic conditions.

      http://www.ueec.org.in/in_english.htm

      Our Land, Our Life, 6-8 class workbooks in English currently running in Government Schools of Uttarakhand

      6TH CLASS: 7TH CLASS: 8TH CLASS:

      CLASS 6 CLASS 7 CLASS 8

      Our Land, Our Life, 6-8 class workbooks in English VI to X class

      6TH CLASS , 7TH CLASS , 8TH CLASS , 9TH CLASS , 10TH CLASS

      Tending a Schoolyard Garden: Nyla Coelho, is a teacher handbook that attempts to encourage educators to use available land for school gardens . Written in an easy to follow style with step-by-step instructions and plenty of illustrations, it offers teachers the necessary wherewithal as well as the confidence that it is doable. This book is the outcome of field tests of the Our Land Our Life curriculum (see above). Download PDF: http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/schoolyard-nyla.pdf

      For print copies of Our Land Our Life and Tending a Schoolyard Garden, write to:[email protected]

      Warm regards

      Subhash

      See the attachments:

    • AGROECOLOGY – PUTTING FOOD SOVEREIGNTY INTO ACTION

      by WhyHunger

      http://www.whyhunger.org/getinfo/showArticle/articleId/4137

      Preface

      This publication is not a technical guide to agroecology. It does not discuss or share the science behind agroecological farming, and it does not include examples of farming practices. This publication does not try to present agroecology as a new technological fix or as a set of farming practices that can be learned and replicated with a “how to” manual. Instead, this publication shares the perspectives of members of social movements and grassroots organizations that are building agroecology and highlights the social, political, cultural, nutritional, and spiritual meaning of agroecology to their communities.

      La Via Campesina, a global social movement, says, “the origin of agroecology is the accumulated knowledge of rural people, systematized and further developed through a dialogue of different kinds of knowledge: scientific knowledge, knowledge of organizing communities, and the everyday practical knowledge of agroecology and food production.” This publication embodies the ongoing dialogue of grassroots knowledge and features peasant and indigenous men, women, and youth who are the stewards of agroecology in the US and the Global South. Agroecology belongs to communities, so we hope that the knowledge summarized here will help to generate dialogue in other communities and among consumers and food producers. And further we hope this publication will expand our collective struggle for justice and international solidarity and support the leadership of communities around the world facing the impacts of the commodification of food and the growing influence of international agribusinesses in our food system.

      "Scaling Up" Agroecology

      The question of how agroecology can make an impact at a greater scale has been at the center of the debates among NGOs, scholars, and policymakers at national and international levels. The question of how to increase the number of people and places impacted by agroecology everyday is important, and we must recognize that peasant and small farmer communities are at the center of agroecology, both as a science and as a way of life. Bringing agroecology to scale means both “scaling up” and “scaling out” agroecology — scaling up agroecology by increasing research, training, and supportive policies; and scaling out by supporting the dissemination of peasant-led agroecological practices through peasant-to-peasant exchanges and training. Specifically, scaling agroecology up and out needs:

      ·         Increased funding for social movements’ priorities.

      ·         Support for the rights to land, seeds, and water of local   communities.

      ·         Substantial government commitment, away from policies that subsidize international agribusinesses and toward significant funding for technical assistance for farmers; farmer-led research of agroecological practices; and basic infrastructure of roads, schools, and other services still lacking in many rural communities.

      ·         Democratic reviews of free trade agreements and other international agreements that disregard and even curb farmers’ rights to multiply, store, and share seeds.

       

    • MNCs are Globally Controlling and Monopolising Seeds - A threat to nutritious food and health security as these are high cost high risk - not sustainable in the long term

      Laws Violate Producer communities' Rights over own 'Low Cost Low Risk Quality Seeds'

      Producer communities' seed systems are low cost, low risk and thus stand at the very centre of their agro ecology. Whilst producers' seed rights have been recognised by their governments in several international treaties, the same governments are signing new laws and regulations that negate their rights, allowing MNCs to monopolise the world’s seed supply, even though these are high cost and high risk and not sustainable in the long term.

      This is explained in a primer by GRAIN on how farmers are affected by seed laws:

      • plant breeders’ rights or plant variety protection legislation, 
      • patent laws for plants, 
      • certification laws, 
      • marketing regulations and 
      • food safety rules. 

      UPOV (the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants), which provides for plant variety protection has got WTO members to protect plant varieties and joining UPOV 1991 has become requirement in bilateral and regional trade agreements involving developed nations.

      MNCs are pushing for ever more aggressive new laws and regulations that criminalise producer communities for sowing, keeping, exchanging, and taking care of their own seeds. These take effect through a variety of ways which include: 

      (1) bans or restrictions on using and exchanging privatised seeds; 

      (2) privatising farmers seeds; 

      (3) limits or bans on keeping, exchanging and selling seeds; 

      (4) fines and jail terms over seed saving and exchange; and 

      (5) reversing the burden of proof on to the farmers.

      Producer communities' resistance has and is gatherring momentum around the world, managing to stop and repeal these new seed regulations. GRAIN calls for further support and strengthening of such action.

      "UPOV 91 and Other Seed Laws Primer on How MNCs Intend to Control and Monopolise Seeds" can be accessed at:

       https://www.grain.org/e/5314

       

    • Dear Danielle and Artur,

      Bhaskar Save’s Low Risk Agro ecology vs MNC Agribusiness’ High Cost/ Risk Conventional Green Revolution/ Climate Smart Technology provides most of the answers you may be looking for in this discussion, also attached docs:

       http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/the-toxic-agriculture-of-monsanto-and-big-agribusiness-vs-agroecology-rooted-in-communities-and-locally-owned/

       “We are being far too kind to industrialised agriculture. The private sector has endorsed it, but it has failed to feed the world, it has contributed to major environmental contamination and misuse of natural resources. It’s time we switched more attention, public funds and policy measures to agro ecology, to replace the old model as soon as possible.” Dr David Fig, Biowatch, South Africa

      Based on the results on his farm in Gujarat, Indian farmer and campaigner Bhaskar Save demonstrated that by following the agro ecology, his yields were superior to any farm using chemicals in terms of quantity, nutritional quality, biological diversity, ecological sustainability, water conservation, energy efficiency and economic profitability. 

      Bhaskar Save: 1922 - October 2015, published in 2006 a famous open letter to the Indian Minister of Agriculture and other top officials to bring attention to the mounting suicide rate and debt among farmers. He wanted policy makers to abandon their policies of promoting the use of toxic chemicals that the ‘green revolution’ had encouraged and subsidized, even today .

      According to Save, the green revolution had been a total disaster for India by flinging open the floodgates of toxic agro-chemicals which had ravaged the lands (paper attached) and lives of many millions of farmers (for example, read about the impact: http://www.deccanherald.com/content/309654/punjab-transformation-food-bowl-cancer.html, in Punjab). He firmly believed that organic farming in harmony with nature could sustainably provide India with abundant, wholesome food to the growing population. 

      India had for generations sustained one of the highest densities of population on earth, without any chemical fertilisers, pesticides, exotic dwarf strains of grain or ‘bio-tech’ inputs – and without degrading its soil. For instance, see this analysis which highlights better productivity levels in India prior to the green revolution. (If further evidence is required as to the efficacy of organic farming, see this report, based on a 30-year study, which concludes that organic yields match conventional yields, outperform conventional in years of drought and actually build soil fertility rather than deplete it; and see this report that says that low cost low risk organic and sustainable small- holder producer communities could double farm production in all parts of the world, especially India, ensuring access to their own requirements of nutritious food thus reducing hunger, mal nutrition, poverty, effects of climate change and suicides - the big issues.) 

      Save argued that numerous tall, indigenous varieties of grain provided more biomass, shaded the soil from the sun and protected against its erosion under heavy monsoon rains. But in the guise of increasing crop production, exotic dwarf varieties were introduced and promoted. This led to more vigorous growth of weeds, which were able to compete successfully with the new stunted crops for sunlight. The farmer had to spend more labour and money in weeding or spraying herbicides. In effect, farmers were placed on a chemical treadmill as traditional pest management systems were destroyed and soil degradation and erosion set in. This water-intensive, high cost external input model of the high risk economies of scale conventional green revolution technologies led to the construction of big dams, deep indebtedness, population displacement and a massive, unsustainable strain on water tables. Save noted that more than 80% of India’s water consumption is for irrigation, with the largest share hogged by chemically cultivated cash crops. Maharashtra has the maximum number of big and medium dams in the country. But sugarcane alone, grown on barely 3-4% of its cultivable land, guzzles about 70% of its irrigation waters. 

      For Save, in a country of farmers, it was essential to restore the natural health of soil by making required investments in Indian agriculture to solve the inter-related problems of poverty, unemployment and rising population. See his arguments in more detail here. 

      Save’s views may be out of step with global agribusiness interests and the international bodies, national governments and regulatory bodies they have co-opted or hijacked (see this, this, this, this, this and this), but there is an increasing awareness across the globe that the type of viewpoint put forward by Save and many others is valid and backed with evidence. 

      Millions of farmers across the world already knew that what Save had stated was correct and have for a long time been protesting and resisting the industrial conventional green revolution high cost high risk model, dependent external input of seed/ GMO, agro chemicals and increasing requirement of water each year and being  imposed on producer communities across the planet. They are in step with what the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Science and Technology (IAASTD) report (among others) advocates: a shift towards and investment in and reaffirmation of  following the agro ecology of the area.  

      Likewise, botanist Stuart Newton’s notes that the answers to agricultural productivity do not entail embracing the international, monopolistic, corporate-conglomerate promotion of agro chemicals dependent hybrid/GM crops. He argues that India must restore and nurture its heavily depleted, abused and degraded soils and is endangering human and animal health by following the agro ecology. Newton provides good insight into the vital roll of healthy soils and their mineral compositions and links their depletion to the green revolution. In turn, these degraded and micro-nutrient lacking soils cannot help but lead to denitrified food and thus malnourishment: a very pertinent point given that the PR surrounding the green revolution claims it dramatically helped reduce malnutrition, hunger and poverty when the facts are otherwise. 

      Over the past few years, there have been numerous high level reports from the UN and development agencies putting forward proposals to support and invest in small holder producer communities and their agro ecology has not been put in their plans and budgets to ensure their access to own requirements of nutritious food and cash, if they are to be sustainable in the long term. Instead, the inaction of governments on the ground producer communities are increasingly being marginalised and oppressed due to corporate seed monopolies, land speculation and takeovers, rigged trade that favours global agribusiness interests and commodity speculation (see this on food commodity speculation, this on the global food system, this by the Oakland Institute on land grabs and this on the impact of international trade rules). 

      India has largely ignored he needs of the rural poor producer communities by continuing  to follow the World Bank/ US Government advice on moving out 400 million out of agriculture livelihoods, thus capitulating to US agribusiness interests and in the process seeking to demonise those who criticise the Government line. The  reasons given was that smallholder producers are not viable (policies behind making agriculture financially unviable) and the impacts are discussed in the article ‘Global Agribusiness Hammering Away at the Foundations of Indian Society‘. The urban-centric model of ‘development’ being pursued is unsustainable and is wholly misguided as about 20% of the population do not have jobs and thus the 70% of the  population (rural) must be put to work gainfully in agriculture as they can contribute to growth and development and become sustainable in the long term. 

      United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Professor Hilal Elver: 

      “Empirical and scientific evidence shows that small farmers feed the rich world [see this]. According to the UN Food & Agrultural Organisation (FAO), 70% of food we consume globally comes from small farmers… Currently, most subsidies go to large agribusiness. This must change. Governments must support small holder producer communities.”

      Despite the top down approach adopted by the National Agriculture Research & Education System (NARES) in India, it should be noted that a good deal of inspiring work is now being made to happen by the policies of the Ministry of Rural Development which may soon make the NARES redundant unless they start contributing substantially to facilitating and creating capacity in the producer communities to follow their agro ecology and having access to own requirements of nutritious food and cash, contributing to economic growth and development, becoming sustainable in the long term. 

      In Tamil Nadu (South India), for example, women’s collectives have been restored their agro ecology/ nutritious food systems and follow low cost low risk farming methods, resulting in lower costs, higher farm production and improved nutrition.  

      Before the green revolution India had 14,000 different varieties of paddy, but these traditional varieties were displaced by hybrid varieties developed based on the application on increasing quantities agro chemical and water use. Sheelu Francis is General Coordinator of the Women’s Collective of Tamil Nadu fighting back against the deleterious social, economic and environmental impacts of the conventional green revolution technologies. She states that by practicing agroecology, an increasing number of women farmers are now free from debt by growing many crops together – grains, lentils, beans, oilseeds each season thus have access to own requirements of nutrition and food, at little or no cost – creating biodiversity, producing most  inputs on farm (seed, compost, plant protection formulations and plant growth promoters) not using the high cost external agro chemicals. 

      Government subsidies for high cost external inputs required for conventional green revolution systems, farmers gave up following their agro ecology/ traditional farming practices and agriculture systems. Francis says that farmers were encouraged to grow rice, wheat and other commodities because of government price support and subsidies which promoted growing, especially with hybrid/ GM seeds and agro chemicals. Rice and sugar cane use lots of water, so when it is the dry season or when there is drought, there is no production at all, putting producer communities into deep debt. 

      The use of agro chemicals harmed the health of the producers, according Francis, not just because of the chemicals but because people consume polished rice which is not very nutritious (she says 46% of children are malnourished in Tamil Nadu).

      When you combine the effects of degraded soils depleted of nutrients, chemical residues many times the acceptable level, mono crops as food is a recipe for catastrophe. Little wonder then that producers are now going back to their agro ecological practices and growing multiple nutritious crops, thus ensuring access to own requirements of nutritious, balanced diet and maintain soil health. 

      However, it is an uphill struggle, as Francis notes: 

      “People who try to hold onto their ways of life are marginalised from their land, their seeds, and their way of farming. Now the industries are trying to make them workers on their own land and to a large extent they have succeeded. That is why we are strongly opposing Monsanto and Syngenta and the whole project of GM (genetically modified) seeds.”

      Elsewhere, in Africa, while Monsanto and The Gates Foundation are trying to force through a corpoand rate-controlled GMO/green revolution, the Oakland Institute recently published research that highlighted the “tremendous success” of agro ecology across the continent. By combining sound ecological management, using on-farm inputs renewable resources and managing pests and disease with low cost low risk approaches that increase their net incomes/ purchasing power, improves livelihoods whilst reducing hunger, malnutrition, poverty, effects of climate change and suicides of producer communities, agro ecology embodies a social movement for positive change. 

      Anuradha Mittal, Executive Director of the Oakland Institute, says that the research provides irrefutable facts and figures on how agricultural transformation can yield immense economic, social, and food security benefits, while ensuring its contribution to growth, climate justice and restoring degraded soils and the environment. Frederic Mousseau, Policy Director of the Oakland Institute, who coordinated the research, adds that the research debunks the myths about the inability of agro ecology to deliver and highlights the multiple benefits of agro ecology, including affordable and sustainable ways to boost agricultural prodiction  while increasing farmers’ net incomes/ purchasing power, food and nutrition security being resilient. 

      There are many successful farmer case studies and of different soils and agro climatic conditions  from across the world and this needs wide replication by contracting the successful farmers. However, what is ultimately required is a level playing field at the national and international level to stop the use of high cost external inputs in dry, rain fed and hill areas, to stop handing out massive subsidies for external inputs and to get off the destructive and wholly unsustainable and poisonous chemical treadmill. 

      “Agro ecology is more than just a science, it’s also a social movement for justice that recognises and respects the right of communities of farmers to decide what they grow and how they grow it”, says Mindi Schneider, assistant professor of Agrarian, Food and Environmental Studies at the Institute of Social Studies (ISS) in The Hague.

      As Mindi Schneider goes on to say, ‘agro ecology is essentially a system that prioritises local communities, smallholder farmers, local economies and markets. It is a system that the Rockefeller-backed green revolution is dismantling across the globe for the last 60 years or so. The green revolution is in crisis and has/ is causing massive damage to the environment and to farmers’ livelihoods to the point where ecocide and genocide is occurring and the cynical destructionof agrarian economies has taken place. The solution ultimately lies in challenging the corporate takeover of agriculture, the system of economies of scale ‘capitalism’ that makes such plunder possible and embracing and investing in sustainable economies of scope agriculture that is locally owned and rooted in the needs of communities.

    • Dear Colleagues,

      An IFOAM book, as attached FYA extensively addresses all the 3 Qs of this discussion, 'Producers who follow their Agro ecology' are sustainable in the long term. The focus is on the poor producer communities (over 50% of the population all over the world do not have the money) who are prone to food and nutrition insecurity as they do not have access to own requirements of nutritious food, but who  feed more than 80% of the world’s population, link at:

      http://www.ifoam-eu.org/sites/default/files/ifoameu_policy_ffe_feedingthepeople.pdf

      Food and nutrition insecurity resulted from a globally dysfunctional conventional green revolution agro-food system. The book addresses the question of how the poor producer communities need to be supported and funded to manage the conversion from high risk high cost conventional green revolution/ GMO (environmentally destructive, energy and agro chemical intensive market oriented commodity based systems) to low cost low risk producer oriented agro ecological systems, ensuring access to own requirements of nutritious food and long term sustainability. The authors examine aspects of agricultural policy, the role of livestock and crop/ nutrient cycles, climate change, international trade and certification schemes, the need for innovation and bring consumers closer to producers. They also highlight the main needs for further research and discuss impediments to the progress of agro ecology. Scaling up the use of agro ecological production systems requires Government support and funding for the development and improvement of the means of knowledge transfer mostly from successful farmer participation.

      The book provides recommendations for the transformation of the global market oriented commodity agro-food system to a producer oriented economies of scope system, to make significant investment to follow the agro ecology of the area, conduct research and develop new economic paradigms that penalize business models contributing to environmental degradation while rewarding those that protect and promote biodiversity and eliminate environmental pollution and other harmful practices. 

      CONTENTS:

      INTRODUCTION 6

      1. NOURISHING THE WORLD: THE ROLE OF SMALLHOLDERS AND VALUE CHAINS 10

      2. POST-INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURE: COMPETING PROPOSALS FOR THE TRANSFORMATION OF AGRICULTURE 12

      3. RECLAIMING FOOD SYSTEMS: LOCAL FOOD SYSTEMS AND ACCESS TO MARKETS LINKED TO TERRITORIES 20

      4. RECLAIMING FOOD SYSTEMS: AGROECOLOGY AND TRADE 22

      5. THE ROLE OF PARTICIPATORY GUARANTEE SYSTEMS FOR FOOD SECURITY 26

      6. THE ROLE OF LIVESTOCK IN AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 30

      7. AGROECOLOGICAL INNOVATION 34

      8. SMALLHOLDERS, URBAN FARMERS AND NEO-RURALISM 40

      ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS 42

      Also attached old and new pardigms and value chain for nutrition

      3 Attachments
       
       
      ***

      Dear colleagues,

      At this link: 

      http://sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Soil-degradat...

      is a report published on Dec 05, 2015, by the Sustainable Food Trust to mark World Soil Day, explains why soil degradation is one of the main causes of the agrarian crisis, increasing and calls for it to be recognised alongside climate change, as one of the most pressing problems facing the planet and humanity.

       

      Soil degradation costs up to £7 or $10 trillion a year and poses a grave long-term threat to food and nutrition security and the environment. It reduces the ability of farmland to produce safe nutritious food at a time when more will be demanded of soils than ever before due to population increase and climate change.

       

      More than 95% of the food we eat depends on soil, but half (52%) of all farmland soils worldwide are already degraded, largely due to inappropriate conventional farming methods dependent on agro chemicals.

       

      Every year, 24 billion tonnes of soil is irrevocably lost to the world’s oceans due to wind and water erosion – that’s equivalent to 3.4 tonnes for every person on the planet or a 12 tonne lorry load for an average UK family of two parents and 1.7 children.

       

      SFT policy director, Richard Young said, “Few people think about soil when they do their shopping, in part because most root vegetables have all the soil washed off them these days, but the reality is that for every trolley of food we wheel back to our cars, we are tipping three trolleys full of the same weight of soil into the river to be washed away.

       

      “With continuing population growth and the relentless march of climate change, we need soils to produce more and nutritious food in the years to come, yet they are in a more depleted state than at any time in human history. Urgent action is now needed to develop common solutions which address climate change and soil degradation simultaneously”.

       

      The problem, however, may be even worse than these figures suggest. In addition to the loss of soil itself, much of the soil that remains in the fields is losing organic matter. Organic matter is largely made up of carbon and nitrogen and these elements are being lost from soils as the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide, which increase global warming.

       

      Soils with low levels of organic matter lack the ability to produce quality nutritious food and potential of crop yields, retain moisture during dry times or produce crops that resist pests and diseases. They are also unable to stand up to the physical impact of heavy rain, flooding and mechanisation.

       

       

    • Dear all

      Prof Swaminathan endorses and supports the efforts being made by multi lateral agencies and your advice to Government, Donors and NARES to support and fund the rural poor producer communities to follow their low cost low risk 'Agro ecology', his mail trailed below.

      Government, NARES, Financial Institutions, Donors  and Multi lateral Orgs need to focus and support/ fund Agro ecology, moving away from the high cost high risk ‘Conventional Industrial Agriculture’, the cause of climate change, agrarian crisis and suicides.

      Trailed below is an article by Jomo Kwame Sundaram, FAO Coordinator for Economic and Social Development, published in South-North Development Monitor (SUNS) #8145, 30 November 2015, reiterating the fact that the way forward is following low cost low risk  food systems for long term sustainability, if we are to ensure access by producer communities (about 50% of world population) to safe nutritious food and health, as they do not have the money to buy.

      Better Nutrition for Better Lives Rome, 26 Nov (IPS/Jomo Kwame Sundaram*)

      Food systems are increasingly challenged to ensure food security and balanced diets for all, around the world. Almost 800 million people are chronically hungry, while over two billion people suffer from "hidden hunger," with one or more micronutrient deficiencies. Meanwhile, over two billion people are overweight, with a third of them clinically obese, and hence more vulnerable to non-communicable diseases.

      Overcoming hunger and malnutrition in the 21st century does not simply involve increasing food availability, but also improving access, especially for the hungry. Creating healthy, affordable and sustainable food systems for all is the most effective way to achieve this.

      Since 1945, food production has tripled as average food availability per person has risen by 40 per cent. But despite abundant food supplies, almost 800 million still go hungry every day of whom most live in developing countries. Many more go hungry seasonally or intermittently. Hunger affects their ability to work and to learn. Clearly, the problem is not just one of food availability, but also of access.

      The health of over two billion people is compromised because their diets lack essential micronutrients, which prevents them reaching their full human potential.

      "Hidden hunger" or micronutrient deficiencies, undermines the physical and cognitive development of their children, exposing them to illness and premature death.

      Ironically, in many parts of the world, hunger co-exists with rising levels of obesity. Over two billion people are overweight, with a third of them deemed obese.

      This, in turn, exposes them to greater risk of diabetes, heart problems and other diet-related non-communicable diseases.

      FOOD SYSTEM: PROBLEM AND SOLUTION

      Food systems must become more responsive to people's needs, including food insecure, socially excluded and economically marginalised households.

      Mothers, young children, the aged and the disabled are especially vulnerable. Adequate nutrition during the "first thousand days," from conception to the child's second birthday is especially critical.

      Our challenge then is not simply to produce and supply more food, but to ensure that better food is consumed by all, especially those most in need. And this has to be sustainable in terms of the environment and natural resources to ensure the capacity of future generations to feed themselves.

      Increasingly intensive industrial farming systems and massive food wastage are often simply unsustainable. Food production has often put great stress on natural resources - exhausting fresh water supplies, encroaching on forests, degrading soils, depleting wild fish stocks and reducing biodiversity. We need to recognize and deal with these challenges urgently. Fortunately, we also have the means to transform food production systems to make them more sustainable and healthy by empowering local communities.

      HEALTHY FOOD SYSTEMS FOR HEALTHIER PEOPLE

      Strong political commitment is required to prioritize nutrition and to improve food systems. Food system policies, programmes and interventions should always strive to improve diets, nutrition and people's access to and consumption of foods adequate in quantity and quality - in terms of diversity, nutrient content and safety.

      Food production research and development should focus on ensuring more diverse, balanced and healthy diets, including more nutrient-rich foods, as well as ecological and resource sustainability. Natural resources must be used more efficiently, with less adverse impacts, by getting more and better food from water, land, fertilizer and labour.

      Nutrient dense foods, such as milk, eggs and meat, are improving diets for many, while livestock continues to provide livelihoods for millions. Yet, livestock production and consumption need to be more sustainable, with far less adverse effects on climate change, disease transmission and overall health.

      Such food system reforms need to be accompanied by needed complementary interventions, including public health, education, employment and income generation, as well as social protection to enhance resilience.

      Governments, consumers, producers, distributors, researchers and others need to be more involved in the food system.

      SMART INVESTMENT

      Better nutrition also makes economic sense. About five per cent of global economic welfare is lost due to malnutrition in all its forms owing to foregone output and additional costs incurred. Expenditure to address malnutrition offers very high private and social returns. Yet, only about one per cent of the total aid budget is allocated for this purpose.

      The follow-up to the Second International Conference on Nutrition (ICN2) in Rome late last year provides a historic opportunity for political decisions and concerted interventions to enhance nutrition for all through better policies and international solidarity. Currently, less than one per cent of foreign aid goes to nutrition. It is hard to justify not making the desperately needed investments in better nutrition for better lives.

      [* Jomo Kwame Sundaram is the Coordinator for Economic and Social Development at the Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, and received the 2007 Wassily Leontief Prize for Advancing the Frontiers of Economic Thought.]

      ---------- Forwarded message ----------

      MSS/RM/ 23 November 2015

      Dear Subhash

      Thank you very much for your kind letter. I am grateful to you for the information you have given on FAO’s sub-Saharan conference on agroecology.  Mainstreaming ecology in technology development and dissemination is essential to achieve goal 2 of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. I am grateful to you for the interest you are taking in developing and disseminating agroecology which is the pathway to an ever-green revolution leading to increase in productivity in perpetuity without ecological harm. 

      With warm personal regards           

      Yours sincerely,

      M S Swaminathan

       

    • The case studies address your Qs 1 & 2::


      The Oakland Institute* released 33 case studies that shed light on the tremendous success of producer communities following their agro ecology in the face of climate change, hunger, malnutrition, suicides and poverty.

      "Released ahead of the COP21 Conference in Paris, these case studies provide irrefutable facts and figures on how agricultural transformation-respectful of the rural poor producer communities and the environment-can yield immense economic, social, nutrition, health and food security benefits while ensuring climate justice and restoring soils and the environment and in the long term,

      "We are told over and over that Africa needs a new high cost high risk Green Revolution ( agro chemicals and genetically modified seeds/ crops).  The case studies debunk these myths and highlight the multiple benefits of the low risk low cost agro ecology, including affordable low risk and sustainable ways to optimise farm production, thus ensurring their access to own requirements of safe nutritious food and health through agriculture while increasing farmers' net income/ purchasing power, food security, resilience and in the long term," said Frederic Mousseau, Policy Director of the Oakland Institute, who coordinated the research for this project. 

      The case studies bring forward a large variety of techniques and practices used to achieve these benefits: 
      plant diversification; inter cropping; the application of mulch, manure or compost for soil fertility; the natural management of pests and diseases; agroforestry; the construction of water management structures; and much more.
      The success stories from all over have farmers-including many women farmers-in the driver's seat of their own development. Agroecology is not a one-size-fits-all set of practices. Rather, its techniques are adapted to meet their specific needs and ecosystems. Producer communities who follow/ practice their agro ecology are innovators and experiment/ research, adapting to climate change, season after season, to find the

      best solutions for improving their livelihoods and being sustainable in the long term.

      High cost high risk Conventional 'Green Revolution' Agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry, etc., are responsible for nearly a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions from human activity. According to the International Panel on Climate Change, emissions from these sectors have almost doubled over the past 50 years, and could keep increasing each year unless we stop the use of synthetic agro chemicals, being the fastest growing source of agriculture GHG emissions (increased 37% since 2001).

      Ibrahima Coulibaly, President of CNOP-Mali and Vice President of the ROPPA (Network of Farmers' and Agricultural Producers' Organisations of West Africa) said, 

      "Our governments must now take decisive steps to actually support and fund the conversion of conventional green revolution agriculture to follow the low cost low risk agro ecological practices of the area, if we are to mitigate the effects of climate change and ensure our children a future in which they can feed themselves with nutritious food through agro ecology and in a healthy environment.".

    • Nutrition through agro ecology is safe, low cost and low risk and accessable to producer communities at little or no cost and thus agro ecology must be the back bone of curriculums in schools and colleges if we ar to mitigate hunger, mal nutrition, poverty and climate change

      ttp://www.globalresearch.ca/poisoned-food-poisoned-agriculture-getting-off-the-chemical-trea dmill/5485076

       

      A peer-reviewed study published last year in the British Journal of Nutrition, a leading international journal of nutritional science, showed that organic crops and crop-based foods are between 18 to 69 percent higher in a number of key antioxidants such as polyphenolics than conventionally-grown crops. Numerous studies have linked antioxidants to a reduced risk of chronic diseases, including cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases and certain cancers. The research team concluded that a switch to eating organic fruit, vegetable and cereals – and food made from them – would provide additional antioxidants equivalent to eating between one and two extra portions of fruit and vegetables a day.

      Moreover, significantly lower levels of a range of toxic heavy metals were found in organic crops. For instance, cadmium is one of only three metal contaminants, along with lead and mercury, for which the European Commission has set maximum permitted contamination levels in food. It was found to be almost 50 percent lower in organic crops. Nitrogen concentrations were also found to be significantly lower in organic crops. Concentrations of total nitrogen were 10 percent, nitrate 30 percent and nitrite 87 percent lower in organic compared to conventional crops. The study also found that pesticide residues were four times more likely to be found in conventional crops than organic ones.

      The research was the biggest of its kind ever undertaken. The international team of experts led by Newcastle University in the UK analysed 343 studies into the compositional differences between organic and conventional crops.

      The findings contradict those of a 2009 UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) commissioned study which found there were no substantial differences or significant nutritional benefits from organic food. The FSA commissioned study based its conclusions on only 46 publications covering crops, meat and dairy, while the Newcastle University-led meta-analysis is based on data from 343 peer-reviewed publications on composition difference between organic and conventional crops.

      There has been for a long time serious concerns about the health impacts of eating food that has been contaminated with petro-chemical pesticides and fertilisers. Over the past 60 years, agriculture has changed more than it did during the previous 12,000. And much of that change has come about due to the so-called ‘green revolution’, which has entailed soaking crops with petrochemicals. Coinciding with these changes has been the onset and proliferation of numerous diseases and allergies.

      The global agritech/agribusiness sector is in effect poisoning our food and the environment with its pesticides, herbicides, GMOs and various other chemical inputs. Journalist Arthur Nelson has written that as many as 31 pesticides could have been banned in the EU because of potential health risks, if a blocked EU paper on hormone-mimicking chemicals had been acted upon.

      Christina Sarich recently reported that there are currently 34,000 pesticides registered for use in the US. She states that drinking water it is often contaminated by pesticides and more babies are being born with preventable birth defects due to pesticide exposure. Chemicals are so prevalently used that they show up in breast milk of mothers.

      Illnesses are on the rise too, including asthma, autism and learning disabilities, birth defects and reproductive dysfunction, diabetes, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases and several types of cancer. Sarich says that their connection to pesticide exposure becomes more evident with every new study conducted.

      Important pollinating insects have been decimated by chemical herbicides and pesticides, which are also stripping the soil of nutrients. As a result, for example, there has been a 41.1 to 100 percent decrease in vitamin A in 6 foods: apple, banana, broccoli, onion, potato and tomato. Both onion and potato saw a 100 percent loss of vitamin A between 1951 and 1999.

      In Punjab, India, pesticides have turned the state into a ‘cancer epicentre‘, and Indian soils are being depleted as a result of the application of ‘green revolution’ ideology and chemical inputs. India is losing 5,334 million tonnes of soil every year due to soil erosion because of the indiscreet and excessive use of fertilisers, insecticides and pesticides. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research reports that soil is become deficient in nutrients and fertility.

      We can carry on down the route of chemical-intensive, poisonous agriculture, with our health and the environment continuing to be sacrificed on the altar of corporate profit. Or we can shift to organic farming and investment in and reaffirmation of indigenous models of agriculture as advocated by the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Science and Technology (IAASTD) report.

      In this respect, botanist Stuart Newton’s states:

      “The answers to Indian agricultural productivity is not that of embracing the international, monopolistic, corporate-conglomerate promotion of chemically-dependent GM crops… India has to restore and nurture her depleted, abused soils and not harm them any further, with dubious chemical overload, which are endangering human and animal health.” (p24).

      Newton provides insight into the importance of soils and their mineral compositions and links their depletion to the ‘green revolution’. In turn, these depleted soils cannot help but lead to mass malnourishment. This is quite revealing given that proponents of the ‘green revolution’ claim it helped reduced malnutrition. Newton favours a system of agroecology, a sound understanding of soil and the eradication of poisonous chemical inputs.

      Over the past few years, there have been numerous high level reports from the UN and development agencies putting forward similar arguments and proposals in favour of small farmers and agroecology, but this has not been translated into real action on the ground where peasant farmers increasingly face marginalisation and oppression.

      According to Vandana Shiva, for instance, the plundering of Indian agriculture by foreign corporations is resulting in a forced removal of farmers from the land and the destruction of traditional communities on a scale of which has not been witnessed anywhere before throughout history. On a global level, not least because peasant/smallholder farming is more productive than industrial farming and because it feeds most of the world, this is undermining the world’s ability for feeding itself. It is also leaving to denutrification: not only in terms of specific items containing less nutrients than before, as described above, but because people are being forced to rely on a narrower range of foodstuffs and crops as monocropping replaces a biodiverse system of agriculture.

      The increasingly globalised industrial food system is failing to feed the world but is also responsible for some of the planet’s most pressing political, social and environmental crises - not least hunger and poverty. This system – not forgetting the capitalism that underpins it - and the corporations and institutions (IMF, World Bank, WTO) that fuel it must be confronted, as must the wholly inappropriate and unsustainable urban-centric model of ‘development’ being forced through at the behest of these corporations in places like India.

      Organic farmer and activist Bhaskar Save describes how this urban-centric model has served to uproot indigenous agriculture in India with devastating effect:

      “The actual reason for pushing the ‘Green Revolution’ was the much narrower goal of increasing marketable surplus of a few relatively less perishable cereals to fuel the urban-industrial expansion favoured by the government. The new, parasitical way of farming… benefited only the industrialists, traders and the powers-that-be. The farmers’ costs rose massively and margins dipped. Combined with the eroding natural fertility of their land, they were left with little in their hands, if not mounting debts and dead soils… Self-reliant farming – with minimal or zero external inputs – was the way we actually farmed, very successfully, in the past. Barring periods of war and excessive colonial oppression, our farmers were largely self-sufficient, and even produced surpluses, though generally smaller quantities of many more items. These, particularly perishables, were tougher to supply urban markets. And so the nation’s farmers were steered to grow chemically cultivated monocultures of a few cash-crops like wheat, rice, or sugar, rather than their traditional polycultures that needed no purchased inputs.”

      Even if proponents of the ‘green revolution’ choose to live in a fool’s paradise by ignoring the ecologically and environmentally unsustainable nature of the system they promote and merely mouth platitudes about organic being less productive, they might like to look at the results Bhaskar Save achieved on his farm. They might also like to consider this analysis which questions the apparent successes claimed by advocates of the ‘green revolution’. And they should certainly consider this report based on a 30-year study which concluded that organic yields match conventional yields and outperform conventional in years of drought. That report also showed that organic agriculture builds rather than deplete soil organic matter, making it a more sustainable system.

      But why let science get in the way of propaganda? These proponents have already paved the way for extending the the corporate control of agriculture and the ‘green revolution’ with their GMOs and further chemical inputs – all underpinned of course by endless deceptions and neoliberal ideology wrapped up as fake concern for the poor.

      Copyright © Colin Todhunter, Global Research, 2015

    • >> РУССКАЯ ВЕРСИЯ НИЖЕ << >> 中文版见下文 <<

      To the question of Mr Dosov dated 12.05.2015 

      Dear Dosov,

      Yes it will apply to you provided you follow the agro ecology of the area being worked:

      Debt, despair and suicide as farm crisis deepens

      • High cost high risk Green Revolution Technologies Wheat Cause of Deep Distress
      • The damage to wheat crop this 2015 rabi season due to untimely rain and hailstorm, followed by delayed payments, has further stressed Punjab’s farmers. With the cost of external farm inputs rising manifold over the past few years, the net profit is reducing, thus making farming unviable. Unable to bear losses/ debt,  several farmers have committed suicide in recent months/ years.

      Major problems

      • High cost high risk green revolution technologies (GRT), supported by Government policies, is unviable in the wake of rising external input costs, climate change and falling net profits
      • The production has reached saturation point, requiring increased quantities of agro chemicals and water each year
      • Climate change increases costs and risk with reducing productivity, making GRT unviable for producer communities
      • Producer communities mostly depend on dealers of external inputs (money lenders) who exploit them
      • No long term policy to compensate producer communites in case of loss of crop due to varied reasons

      The way out

      • There is a need to shift Government policy to support/ assist producers follow their low cost low risk agro ecology
      • MSP fixed on the basis of cost plus 50% at the time of sowing, contracting producers for the quantity required
      • Diversification and following the low cost low risk agro ecology of each area ensures producer communities’ access to own requirements of nutritious food and cash in contrast to the high cost high risk GRT wheat-paddy mono crops
      • Government support/ assist the producer communities to set up their org/ company (PC) but staffed by professionals (general practitioners [GPs]/ MBAS in agriculture) taking over risks and responsibilities other than on farm activities
      • PC to value add for increasing shelf life of produce/ product for storage and mitigating post harvest losses
      • PC group insurance covering its members should be implemented as cover for facilities from financial institutions.

      • На вопрос г-на Досова от 12.05.2015

        Уважаемый г-н Досов!

        Да, такой подход может применяться в вашем случае, если придерживаться агро-экологии в районе, где проводятся работы:

        Долги, отчаяние и самоубийства в результате углубления кризиса в фермерском хозяйстве

        • Высокозатратные, высокорисковые технологии «зеленой» революции при выращивании пшеницы являются причинами тяжелого положения

        • Ущерб, нанесенный урожаю пшеницы в сезон раби в текущем 2015 году, вследствие несвоевременных дождей и града, усугубившиеся задержкой платежей, поставил фермеров Пенджаба в еще более затруднительное положение. При учете, что затраты фермеров на внешние средства производства многократно увеличились за последние несколько лет, чистая прибыль снизилась, там самым, делая фермерское хозяйство нежизнеспособным. Будучи не в состоянии нести потери / долги, за последние месяцы/годы несколько фермеров покончили жизни самоубийством.

        Основные проблемы

        • Высокозатратные, высокорисковые технологии «зеленой» революции (ТЗР), поддержка которых оказывается на уровне государственной политики, не являются жизнеспособными, в условиях роста затрат на внешние средства производства, последствий изменения климата и снижения чистой прибыли.

        • Производство достигло точки насыщения, требуя еще большего увеличения годового использования химикатов и воды

        • Последствия изменения климата увеличивают затраты и риски, снижая, при этом, производительность, и делая ТЗР нежизнеспособными для применения обществами производителей

        • Общества производителей, в основном, зависят от торговцев средствами производства (заемщиков), которые используют их в своих интересах

        • Отсутствие мер долгосрочной политики, направленной на предоставление компенсаций обществам производителей, в случае утери ими урожая, в результате различных причин.

        Выход

        • Существует необходимость переориентировать меры государственной политики на поддержку / оказание содействия производителям в их приверженности низкозатратной и низкорисковой агро-экологии

        • MSP, зафиксированный по формуле «стоимость плюс 50%», в сезон посева, заключение договоров с производителями о необходимом количестве

        • Диверсификация и приверженность низкозатратной и низкорисковой агро-экологии каждого района, позволят общинам производителей получить доступ к питательной пище и наличным средствам, в соответствии с их собственными требованиями, вместо высокозатратных и высокорисковых ТЗР при монокультурном выращивании пшеницы и риса.

        • Государственная поддержка / помощь общинам производителей для создания их организации / компании (ЧК), работать в которой будут профессионалы (врачи общей практики / получившие МВА в области сельского хозяйства), неся риски и ответственность, а не ведя сельскохозяйственную деятельность

        • Создание добавленной стоимости ЧК для увеличения срока годности продукции для снижения послеуборочных потерь

        • Страховое покрытие для членов групп ЧК должно быть реализовано в виде страхования производственных мощностей финансовыми институтами

      • 萨布哈什·梅塔，印度，DST集团

        尊敬的多索夫

        按您的思路，合理发展生态农业，如下内容或能为你所用：

        1.农业生产深陷危机，农民债台高筑、身心绝望，甚至自杀

        1）高成本高风险绿色小麦技术革命，加剧农业危机

        2）2015年因时雨不济与冰雹，重创小麦生产，加之，理赔滞后，因而旁遮普农民生产雪上加霜。过去数年来，农业额外投入成本翻番，农民务农净利润下降，导致农业生产风险加大。近年来，有些农民不堪重负，而无奈自杀。

        2.主要问题

        1）绿色技术革命成本高、风险大，虽有政府支持，但农业外部投入成本不断上涨、气候变化难测以及净利润下降，导致绿色技术应用举步维艰

        2）目前，随着年复一年的农药投入以及水资源消耗，农业生产力已经达到极限

        3）气候变化增加了农业生产成本与风险，生产率不断下降，从而让绿色技术革命更加难以推广

        4)绿色农业革命开发机构过度依赖外部投入（贷款等）

        5）缺乏绿色农业技术生产风险补偿长效机制

        3.对策

        1）转换政府角色，按照低投入低风险的生态农业要求，改善政府支持模式

        2）管理服务供给商要在成本加成50%的境况下，耕种并与农户确定定额

        3）遵从各地生态农业发展低成本低风险的要求，实施多元化生产，分散风险，满足粮食生产的营养要求及资金需求，与绿色小麦单作物试验田高成本高风险形成鲜明对比

        4）加大政府支持，成立技术公司或集团，但人员应由专业人员管理（全职管理人员/农业管理硕士等）承担风险，而非让农民来参与

        5）增加农产品储藏时期，提高产品附加值，降低收后损失

        6）金融机构要扩大农业保险覆盖面，并予以实施。

    • >> РУССКАЯ ВЕРСИЯ НИЖЕ << >> 中文版见下文 <<

      The major challenges faced by AIS in CAC countries and China is the fact that the producer communities in the CAC countries and China are following the high cost high risk mono crop  agricultural technologies, thrust on them by their research institutes and Government development programmes.  This has deprived them of access to their own requirements of low cost low risk safe, nutritious food, increased debt, poverty, malnutrition, effects of climate change whilst reducing net income/ purchasing.

      To tackle these problems these countries require to assist/ facilitate producers to establish their org/ company (PC) but managed by professionals, contract CSO/ NGOs and successful farmers following their agro ecology to assist/ train producercommunities with low cost low risk innovative research and development, season after season,  to increase farm production and net profit/ purchasing power. The  inclusion of and identifying roles of all stakeholders,  contributing to the PC’s plan and budget, enhance the human and institutional capacities of the producer communities’ long term sustainability and for improved policies to enhance investments and environment sustainability, thus contributing to food and nutrition security through agro ecology, in CAC countries and China, case study link, www.navajyoti.org .

      Attached manual on community producer org FYA



       

      Основными проблемами, с которыми сталкиваются АИС в странах ЦАК и Китае, является то, что сообщества производителей в странах ЦАК и Китае используют высокозатратные и высокорисковые сельскохозяйственные технологии выращивания монокультур, упор на которые находит поддержку у их исследовательских институтов и государственных программ развития. Эта ситуация лишила их доступа к необходимой для них безопасной и питательной пище с низкой стоимостью и низким уровнем риска, увеличила долг, повысила уровень бедности, неполноценного питания, усилило влияние последствий изменения климата, при одновременном снижении чистой прибыли / покупательной способности.

      Для решения этих проблем, этим странам необходимы: помощь / содействие производителям в создании организаций / компаний (частных), руководить которыми будут профессионалы, заключение договоров с ОГО / НПО и успешными фермерами, следование их технологиям агроэкологии, оказание помощи / обучение сообществ производителей низкозатратным и низкорисковым инновационным исследованиям и развитию, сезон за сезоном, чтобы повысить сельскохозяйственное производство и чистую прибыль / покупательную способность. Вовлечение заинтересованных сторон и определение их ролей, взносы в план и бюджет частных компаний, повышение человеческого и институционального потенциала сообществ производителей для долгосрочной устойчивости и усовершенствования политик, направленных на привлечение инвестиций и обеспечение устойчивости окружающей среды, тем самым, способствуя продовольственной безопасности и питанию, посредством агроэкологии, в странах ЦАК и Китае. Ссылка на пример: www.navajyoti.org .

      Вашему вниманию прикрепленное руководство о сообществах производителей.

      萨伯哈什，梅塔， 印度 DST

      中亚及高加索地区国家和中国农业创新系统面临的最大挑战是社区农业生产一直沿用高成本、高风险的单一农作物农技，同时又不得不接受研究机构和政府发展项目。这一现状制约了对低成本、低安全风险、粮食营养、债务增加、贫困、营养不良、气候变化影响的要求，同时，还降低了净收益或购买力。

      为解决这一问题，该地区国家需协助或帮扶农业生产，建立组织协会、公司，但管理应由专业人员、首席战略人员（非政府组织）以及有成功经验的农户共同负责，以他们的农业生态观以及低成本、低风险的创新研发成果，帮助、培训农业生产人员，周而复始，增加农业生产力和净收益或购买力。各相关人员，要明确角色，助力企业规划和做好预算，为农业生产长期持续，发挥人和研究机构的作用，提高政策力度，加强农业投资和环境可持续。同时，粮食和营养安全则通过中亚及高加索地区国家和中国加强农业生态。案例分析链接，www.navajyoti.org .

      附加社区生产者组织手册，FYA

      See the attachments:

    • Following modern low cost low risk producer oriented economies of scope farmer and climate friendly agro ecology programmes are sustainable in the long term, they meet the own nutritious food and cash needs of the producer communities of each area, can feed the world not the high cost high risk market oriented economies of scale conventional mono crop green revolution agricultural methods

      Governments must restructure their high cost high risk conventional agriculture systems, shift subsidies and research funding from market oriented agro-industrial monoculture to meeting the needs of smallholder producer oriented economies of scope, following ‘agro-ecological systems’, according to the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, her talk trailed below, coincides with a new agro-ecology initiative within the UN’s Food and Agriculture Org (FAO):

      Green revolution conventional industrial agricultural methods can no longer feed the world, its impact on the environmental and ecological crises linked to land, water and resource availability and access to nutritious food by over 50% of the world’s population.

      The stark warning comes from the new United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Prof Hilal Elver, in her first public speech since being appointed in June last year.

      “Food production policies which do not address the root causes of world hunger, malnutrition, health and poverty would be bound to fail”, she told a packed audience in Amsterdam.

      One billion people globally are hungry, she declared, before calling on governments to support a transition to “agricultural democracy” which would empower rural smallholder producer communities.

      Agriculture needs a new direction: follow agro-ecology of each area:

      “The 2009 global food crisis signalled the need for a turning point in the global food system”, she said at the event hosted by the Transnational Institute (TNI), a leading international think tank. Modern green revolution conventional agriculture system of the 1950s, is more resource intensive,  very fossil fuel dependent, using fertilisers and toxic pesticides based on massive production and mono-culture (high cost high risk). This policy has to change if the agrarian crisis is to be reversed.

      “We are already facing a range of challenges. Resource scarcity, increasing population, decreasing land availability and accessibility, emerging water scarcity, and soil degradation require us to re-think how best to use our resources for future generations.”

      The UN official said that new scientific research increasingly shows how ‘agro-ecology’ offers far more environmentally sustainable methods that can still meet the rapidly growing demand for food:

      “Agro-ecology is a traditional way of using farming methods that are less resource oriented, and which work in harmony with society and nature.

      Small farmers are the key to feeding the world

      ‘There is a geographical and distributional imbalance in who is consuming and producing. Global agricultural policy needs to adjust. In the crowded and hot world of tomorrow, the challenge of how to protect the vulnerable is heightened”, Hilal Elver continued.

      Traditional farming methods entails recognising women’s role in food production It also means recognising small farmers, who are also the most vulnerable, and the most hungry.

      Elver speaks not just with the authority of her UN role, but as a respected academic. She is research professor and co-director at the Project on Global Climate Change, Human Security, and Democracy in the Orfalea Center for Global and International Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara.

      Present industrial agriculture grabs 80% of subsidies and 90% of research funds

      Hinting at the future direction of her research and policy recommendations, she criticised the vast subsidies going to large mono-culture agribusiness companies. Currently, in the European Union about 80% of subsidies and 90% of research funding go to support conventional industrial agriculture.

      “Empirical and scientific evidence shows that small farmers feed the world. According to the UN Food & Agricultural Organisation (FAO), 70% of food we consume globally comes from small farmers”, said Prof Elver.

      “If these trends continue, by 2050, 75% of the entire human population will live in urban areas. We must reverse these trends by providing new possibilities and incentives to small farmers, especially for young people in rural areas.”

      But Marcel Beukeboom, a Dutch civil servant specialising in food and nutrition at the Ministry of Trade & Development who spoke after Elver, dissented from Elver’s emphasis on small farms:

      “While I agree that we must do more to empower small farmers, the fact is that the big mono-culture farms are simply not going to disappear. We have to therefore find ways to make the practices of industrial agribusiness more effective, and this means working in partnership with the private sector, small and large.”

      A UN initiative on agro-ecology?

      The new UN food rapporteur’s debut speech coincided with a landmark two-day International Symposium on Agroecology for Food and Nutrition Security in Rome, hosted by the FAO. Over 50 experts participated in the symposium, including scientists, the private sector, government officials, and civil society leaders.

      A letter to the FAO signed by nearly 70 international food scientists congratulated the UN agency for convening the agro-ecology symposium and called for a “UN system-wide initiative on agro-ecology as the central strategy for addressing climate change and building resilience in the face of water crises.”

      More than just a science — a social movement!

      A signatory to the letter, Mindi Schneider, assistant professor of Agrarian, Food and Environmental Studies at the Institute of Social Studies (ISS) in The Hague, said: “Agro-ecology is more than just a science, it’s also a social movement for justice that recognises and respects the right of communities of farmers to decide what they grow and how they grow it.”

      “Generally, nobody talks about agro-ecology, because it’s too political. The simple fact that the FAO is calling a major international gathering to discuss agro-ecology is therefore a very significant milestone.”

      Ataached are docs to support the above programmes

    • Dear All,

      I would like to take this opportunity on behalf of all participants to thank Maria and Ibrahim for taking out the time and moderating this important consultation, flowing into the proposed ten  year programme. My contribution with supporting attachments are trailed below.

      Warm regards,

      Subhash

       

      Development of Programme for Nutrition & Food Systems which are Sustainable in the Long Term

      FAO and UNEP’s public consultation on the proposed programme on sustainable food systems under the 10-Year Framework to be successful needs to focus on long term, low cost low risk agro ecology systems, putting the rural poor producer communities to work gainfully, thus accessing own requirements of nutritious food and cash, at little or no cost, if we are to reduce the effects of climate change, hunger, malnutrition, poverty, suicides whilst increasing net income/ purchasing power and improving livelihoods of smallholders, pastoralists, tenants, tribals, etc., all of them will also contribute to feeding their increasing populations, economic development, growth and in the long term.

      The programme also needs to ensure that the producer communities are assisted and facilitated to set up their producer orgs/ company (PC) but staffed by professionals (general practitioners [GPs]/ MBAs in agriculture) to take over all risks and responsibilities other than on farm activities, link to a case study: www.navajyoti.org, set up one of the poorest districts of Orissa, India, where thousands of its members have become sustainable in the long term over the last 5 years. Attached are docs providing evidence, etc.

    • Modern low cost low risk, producer oriented economies of scope agro ecological programmes, developed for meeting the needs of the producers in each area, can ensure producer communities' access to nutritious food, at little or no cost, also feed the world's increasing population, not the high cost high risk market oriented economies of scale conventional mono crop agricultural methods

      Governments must restructure their high cost high risk conventional agriculture systems, shift subsidies and research funding from market oriented agro-industrial monoculture to meeting the needs of smallholder producer oriented economies of scope, following ‘agro-ecological systems’, according to the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, her talk trailed below, coincides with a new agro-ecology initiative within the UN’s Food and Agriculture Org (FAO):

      Green revolution conventional industrial agricultural methods can no longer feed the world, its impact on the environmental and ecological crises linked to land, water and resource availability and access to nutritious food by over 50% of the world’s population.

      The stark warning comes from the new United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Prof Hilal Elver, in her first public speech since being appointed in June last year.

      “Food production policies which do not address the root causes of world hunger, malnutrition, health and poverty would be bound to fail”, she told a packed audience in Amsterdam.

      One billion people globally are hungry, she declared, before calling on governments to support a transition to “agricultural democracy” which would empower rural smallholder producer communities.

      Agriculture needs a new direction: follow agro-ecology of each area:

       

      “The 2009 global food crisis signalled the need for a turning point in the global food system”, she said at the event hosted by the Transnational Institute (TNI), a leading international think tank. Modern green revolution conventional agriculture system of the 1950s, is more resource intensive,  very fossil fuel dependent, using fertilisers and toxic pesticides based on massive production and mono-culture (high cost high risk). This policy has to change if the agrarian crisis is to be reversed.

      “We are already facing a range of challenges. Resource scarcity, increasing population, decreasing land availability and accessibility, emerging water scarcity, and soil degradation require us to re-think how best to use our resources for future generations.”

      The UN official said that new scientific research increasingly shows how ‘agro-ecology’ offers far more environmentally sustainable methods that can still meet the rapidly growing demand for food:

      “Agro-ecology is a traditional way of using farming methods that are less resource oriented, and which work in harmony with society and nature.

      Small farmers are the key to feeding the world

      ‘There is a geographical and distributional imbalance in who is consuming and producing. Global agricultural policy needs to adjust. In the crowded and hot world of tomorrow, the challenge of how to protect the vulnerable is heightened”, Hilal Elver continued.

      Traditional farming methods entails recognising women’s role in food production It also means recognising small farmers, who are also the most vulnerable, and the most hungry.

      Elver speaks not just with the authority of her UN role, but as a respected academic. She is research professor and co-director at the Project on Global Climate Change, Human Security, and Democracy in the Orfalea Center for Global and International Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara.

      Present industrial agriculture grabs 80% of subsidies and 90% of research funds

      Hinting at the future direction of her research and policy recommendations, she criticised the vast subsidies going to large mono-culture agribusiness companies. Currently, in the European Union about 80% of subsidies and 90% of research funding go to support conventional industrial agriculture.

      “Empirical and scientific evidence shows that small farmers feed the world. According to the UN Food & Agricultural Organisation (FAO), 70% of food we consume globally comes from small farmers”, said Prof Elver.

      “If these trends continue, by 2050, 75% of the entire human population will live in urban areas. We must reverse these trends by providing new possibilities and incentives to small farmers, especially for young people in rural areas.”

      But Marcel Beukeboom, a Dutch civil servant specialising in food and nutrition at the Ministry of Trade & Development who spoke after Elver, dissented from Elver’s emphasis on small farms:

      “While I agree that we must do more to empower small farmers, the fact is that the big mono-culture farms are simply not going to disappear. We have to therefore find ways to make the practices of industrial agribusiness more effective, and this means working in partnership with the private sector, small and large.”

      A UN initiative on agro-ecology?

      The new UN food rapporteur’s debut speech coincided with a landmark two-day International Symposium on Agroecology for Food and Nutrition Security in Rome, hosted by the FAO. Over 50 experts participated in the symposium, including scientists, the private sector, government officials, and civil society leaders.

      A letter to the FAO signed by nearly 70 international food scientists congratulated the UN agency for convening the agro-ecology symposium and called for a “UN system-wide initiative on agro-ecology as the central strategy for addressing climate change and building resilience in the face of water crises.”

      More than just a science — a social movement!

      A signatory to the letter, Mindi Schneider, assistant professor of Agrarian, Food and Environmental Studies at the Institute of Social Studies (ISS) in The Hague, said: “Agro-ecology is more than just a science, it’s also a social movement for justice that recognises and respects the right of communities of farmers to decide what they grow and how they grow it.”

      “Generally, nobody talks about agro-ecology, because it’s too political. The simple fact that the FAO is calling a major international gathering to discuss agro-ecology is therefore a very significant milestone.”

      Posted September 26, 2014

       

      Attached are docs supporting the argument for change

    • Prof Amar Nayak’s paper, abstract and introduction as trailed below, full paper attached, focuses on ‘Achieving sustainable development for food, nutrition and livelihood security through low cost low risk agriculture and using the producer company/ org (PC) intervention but staffed with professionals’. The paper highlights sustainable approaches to agriculture, ensuring access to food, nutrition and cash for producer communities through agriculture and also meeting the increasing nutritious food needs of the growing population. Value addition for increase shelf life of farm produce to reduce post harvest losses and waste, also trade in the vicinity and opportunities, without compromising the economic, environmental and social bases of the rural poor producer communities. The paper identifies barriers to change, including in present institutions, organizations, policies and governance, and potential options to overcome them and covers the enabling environment necessary for  transition to agriculture systems contributing to economic development and growth but sustainable in the long term.

      Asymmetries in Organizations, Institutions and Policy Signals in the context of Sustainable Governance in India

      Amar KJR Nayak[1]

                                                                                                                                                                               

      Abstract:

      This article focuses on the present asymmetries in community organizational design, institutional architecture of these organizations and signaling effect of multiple development policies and schemes of the government and consequences of these asymmetries on effectiveness of programme delivery and overall sustainability of rural producer communities in the Indian context.  

      While these three aspects of community organizational design, their institutional architecture and policy signals are the critical pillars of sustainable local governance, the article based on eight years of an action research and empirical studies across India, argues that at present they are neither symmetric within nor symmetric across each other. The present institutional architecture of the government and community organizations at the last mile are serving as mere agents to deliver various government schemes with people as mere recipients. Further, deployment of multiple institutions at the community level to deliver these schemes tends to increase asymmetries in information in the system leading to opportunistic behavior among both the agents and the beneficiaries. In other words, the current design, architecture and mechanism of public service delivery inadvertently weaken the coordination processes of rural community producer organization/ companys that are crucial for governance in India and long term sustainability of rural producer communities.      

       

      Key Phrases

      Organizational design, institutional architecture, policy signals, coordination failure, local governance, long term sustainability of rural producer communities

       

       

      Asymmetries in Organizations, Institutions and Policy Signals in the context of Governance in India for Long Term Sustainability

       

      Introduction:

      There has been increasing appreciation among the policy makers and development professionals in India that demand side institutions viz., people’s organization/ companys and institutions at the producer community level are critical for efficient and effective delivery of public services for an equitable society.  That better local governance is the foundation to better governance at higher levels of the society is very well understood as has been reflected in the 73rd and 74th Amendment of the Indian constitution.   

      In the above light, this article discusses the issues of community organizational design, their institutional architecture and the nature of signals that multiple development policies implemented through multiple institutions of the government have on people and their community organizations. Following the exposition of the issues at the heart of local governance, the article proposes some thoughts on how to redesign producer community organization/ companys, their institutional architecture and development policy strategy that can minimize information asymmetry, opportunistic behavior by community members, especially the elite and reduce transaction costs for sustainable governance in the long term at the grass root level viz. the Gram Panchayat.    

      First, the article delves on the context of smallholder farmers/producers, in terms of their asymmetric disadvantages in resource base, capability base and traditional institutional base in relation to those in the current market economic system. It highlights how this context has shaped the various community organization based development interventions of the government over the last six decades. Second, based on the empirical evidences, it analyses the deficiencies in the supply side institutional and organizational arrangements of the governments and the significance of developing demand side institutional architecture of the producer community organizations.

      Third, based on the empirical observations, it highlights the conceptual gaps and theoretical challenges in guiding state policy on optimal design of community organizations and optimal boundary limits of institutional architecture of these organization for better local governance. Fourth, it discusses the dysfunctional signaling effect of development schemes and programmes implemented by multiple agencies of the government on the efficacy of coordination processes in community organizations arising out of high information asymmetries in the present system. Fifth, the article discusses optimal design of rural producer community organization/ company and optimal institutional architecture for these community organizations for the long term sustainability sustainability of their members.

      1. The Context

      The overall context of a small producer or a smallholder farmer in a rural agricultural setting is well understood. The current globally accepted description of producer includes not only small farmers engaged in agriculture but also hunters, gatherers, fishing folk, artisan, crafts persons, tenants, etc. S/he could be characterized as someone who holds or owns very little private property in terms of resources/asset/land with little liquid capital.  S/he engages in large number of production activities in low volumes and little product specialization. S/he has bare formal education, has limited access to information, knowledge and adopts rudimentary methods and techniques of production and value addition (processing). S/he has little accesses to good basic infrastructure on health, education, water, electricity, and roads.    

      While the internal conditions of small famer or landless smallholder producers, who form over 70% of total producers, is rather weak and vulnerable, the external conditions are highly unfavorable for their existence. The agricultural input market is better organized and prices of inputs have been rising. The players in the product market are better endowed with information, resources, capital and are better organized to bargain hard with small farmers/producer communities.

      Further, at the village level, sahukars/money lenders/local traders have indeed been on an advantageous position to exploit the small producers. It is indicative of the fact that while prices of agricultural products have multiplied several times in recent years, farm gate prices that the farmers get have hardly increased over these years.  In the light of the modern market economic system, the small farmer and the landless small producer is indeed in a highly asymmetric disadvantageous position.

      In addition, the uncertainty in weather and climate, especially in rainfall leads to incorrect assessment on timing of sowing by small farmers; makes the situation challenging and highly risky. Further, poor health, lack of knowledge/ primary education in the rural areas and reducing, net incomes from agricultural activities has lead to out-migration of people from rural agricultural communities. Not only has the overall climate of liberalization, privatization, and globalization exposed small agricultural producers to global commodity markets and industrial economic system, the culture of access to own requirement of nutritious food through agriculture has been adversely affected especially with respect to agricultural production of scale. Even in the best agricultural districts, nearly 30% of farmers are making net losses and another 20% are barely making profits from their agricultural activities (Nayak 2013d). While most farmer parents wish that their children stay in their villages; most of their children instead are forced to out migrate from their villages in search of alternate livelihood.     

       

       

       

      2. Institutional Architecture of the Government

      During the last sixty years, the central government and the state governments have experimented and tried with various institutional and organizational arrangements to improve the situation of smallholder farmers and producers as well as the rural agricultural communities. As against the Tata-Birla Plan of industrialization, 1944, that had only 10% provision for the agricultural sector (Nayak 2011), the Government of India since 1947 have been allocating significant budgets towards agriculture and rural development.  The central government and the state governments have created constitutional provisions in terms of institutional arrangement and organizational arrangements to resolve the various asymmetries of farmers in general and smallholder producer communities in particular. 

      The formal cooperative activities began with the enactment of Cooperative Credit Societies Act, 1904, later it was revised in 1912.  Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies were formed from around this period. The Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Act 1956 and the formation of organization like National Agricultural Cooperative Agricultural Marketing Federation in 1958 were some of the earliest initiatives. Similarly, the state governments have also formed state level departments, independent organizations and institutions to resolve these issues of small farmers. 

      Subsequently, the government initiated several provisions and institutions viz., Integrated Rural Development Programme (1978), NABARD (1982), PRI through 73rd Amendment of the Indian Constitution, Swarnajayanti Gram Swarojgar Yogana (1999), Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (2005), Right to Information Act (2005), and National Rural Livelihood Mission (2010). Specifically in the area of marketing, Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee was formed in 1956. Accordingly, the state governments created several provisions like formation of State Agricultural Marketing Boards, Regulated Market Committees, Check Gates, etc. In addition several institutions like the Farmers’ Commission, expert committees on rural credit, cooperatives, etc have been formed to assess and improve the well being of small producers in rural agricultural communities in India.

      Not only has the government tried to create institutional arrangement and organizations, it has also been pumping a lot of resources through these institutions and organizations for improving the situation of small farmers/producers and rural agricultural communities. One may look at the number of development schemes and programmes that are directed at the district and Gram Panchayat level to appreciate this point.

      The annual budgetary provision of only the Ministry of Rural Development is over INR 100,000 crores. As per the NRLM guidelines, the provision per family below the poverty line is INR 100,000 per year. Provision for various types of support viz., credit support, marketing support, livelihood support, natural resource management, watershed development, rural infrastructure, primary health, primary educations, basic infrastructure, etc have been created.

      However, the existing institutions and organizations have not fared well in terms of delivery of these provisions to the resource poor and smallholder producer communities. The capacity to absorb, internalize and create long term assets and value by people and community at the grass root level from these public investments have been far from expectations. Indeed, there seems to be a weak link between the public investment and long term impact on well being of the people and the community.

      To improvise its delivery capacity, the governments have also increasingly used the services of Non Government Organizations (NGOs) and civil society organizations (CSOs). Thousands of NGOs and CSOs have mushroomed in this process. The social impact of the public investment still remained below par. Additionally, the organizational arrangement with NGOs often lead to capacity building of the NGOs more than the capacity building of the communities. Once the NGOs stop getting funds from a project, the initiatives undertaken in a community also ceases and ironically all the investment made in the NGOs also moves away from the community.

      In recent years, governments have been collaborating with industrial organizations especially the large private corporations for improving delivery efficiency of public services. Individual farmers and small producer groups like SHG, CIG, FPO, small producer cooperatives, etc are being linked to large private corporations in the hope to improve the well being of small farmers/producers. The institutional arrangement in some states seems to be gradually moving from a welfare state mechanism to market mechanism under the broader framework of inclusive capitalism. Contract Farming, Public Private Partnerships, Crop Insurance, Agri-business model as per the traditional industrial organizational design, etc., are some examples of the orientation and attempts made by both central and state governments. In recent years, large venture capitalists and large corporations have been seeking support from the governments to undertake grass root level community development as part of their corporate social entrepreneurship.   

      The government and policy advisers little realize that the basic grain of a traditional industrial organizational design is totally different from that of community organizations at the grass root level. While the former is built on the paradigm of competition, the later is built on cooperation.  The position of design variables and the purposes of these two organizational types are so far apart that in the long run, large industrial enterprises will gain at the cost of community organizations in a competitive market economic system (Nayak 2010, 2014a).            

      In the above milieu of development approaches and challenges, the bright ray of hope to improve the well being of small producer communities including the psychological-social-economically weak communities appears to be the provision of National Rural Livelihood Mission (NRLM) 2010 of the Government of India. The emphasis on building local institutional platforms of the poor and converging all the resources to build and strengthen this local institution is indeed a wise and sustainable way forward for the well being of the poor communities.  There are however several questions that need to be answered for the new mission to make a sustainable impact and in the long term. 

      How will the multiple local institutions interact with each other? Will there be duplication of resources & efforts because of multiple people’s institutions?  What will be the cost of operating each of these institutions? Will each of these institutions be optimally designed for operational efficiency? Will the challenges of capacity building, marketing and value addition of the small producers be handled through these institutions? What will be the steps & sequences of implementation? Is it designed for sufficient local resource persons for successful implementation? How long will it take to implement and exit? What is the overall strategy? What will be the total cost of implementation at the GP level? Will these institutions for livelihood cater to other needs of the community viz., health, education, basic infrastructure, etc? Although individual organizations are attempting to resolve some of these questions as they work in the complex setting of Indian rural communities; these questions still remain largely unanswered by NRLM.  

      The latest attempt of the Government has been to promote Farmer Producer Organizations as Producer Companies as per section IXA of the companies Act 1956. Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Agriculture through NABARD have made a provision to promote 2000 farmer producer companies in the next two years (2014-16). While the Act came into being in 2002, development agencies have been struggling to stabilize the few hundred producer companies that have already been set up during the last twelve years. 

      Across the board, the institutions of the government for implementing these programmes are highly hierarchical, bureaucratic, centralized and top heavy with high transaction costs. While the supply side institution of the government seems to be well defined and overwhelming, the demand side institutions viz., people’s organizations or community organizations have not been well conceived. Figure 1-2 are sample institutional architecture of the Odisha Livelihood Mission and Karnataka Watershed Development.

       


      [1] Professor of Management & Centre Director of National Centre for Sustainable Community Systems, LBS National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie,  India. Email: [email protected], [email protected]  

       

      I thank my colleagues and Officers Trainees in LBSNAA and colleagues in XIMB for their valuable feedback and suggestions during the various discussions leading to development of this article.  

       

      See the attachments:

    • Here is a brief with links to PDF files on teacher and or student resource material which would greatly assist FAO & UNEP on developping the programme, the Governments - Central &, State, National Agriculture Research & Education Systems (NARES), Departments of Education (schools and colleges) , Dept of Rural Development and such like organisations in creating capacity, especially in rural women and youth, leading to self sufficiency, at little or no cost, self reliance and enterprise for producing safe and nutritious food through agriculture. 

      This resource material is well attuned to the agroecological systems, link at: http://sustainablefoodtrust.org/articles/agroecology-idea-practice-coming-age/, 

      economic, equity, energy, etc., a system which we must design and follow, if we are to be sustainable in the long term, reducing hunger, malnutrition, poverty and effects of climate change whilst increasing net income/ purchasing power, if we are to improve livelihood, now and in the future for the poor rual producer communities. 

      Successful farmers in each area, teachers, educators, trainers being  the prime players in this endeavor, as they play a pivotal role in the implementation of this programme by motivating rural women and youth and students to understand, acquire knowledge and look at agriculture as a viable option for migrating back from urban slums to a life sustainable in the long term. 

      The books being forwarded would act as a stepping stone for putting the rural women and youth to work gainfully, ensuring access to own requirements of nutritious food and cash, thus reducing hunger, malnutrition, effects of climate change and poverty whilst increasing net incomes/ purchasing power, improving rural livelihood, contribution to economic development/ growth and ensuring sustainability in the long term: 

      Links and Legends:

      I. Our Land Our Life by Nyla Coelho, 

      A book on a low cost low risk agro ecological education system for schools and colleges, especially for rural areas/ communities in India. It offers an educational system with specific emphasis on low cost low risk climate friendly agriculture/ farming systems, applicable to the soil and agro climatic conditions of each area. It’s design provides a hands on approach to learning/ research, both academic and on farm, season after season, if agriculture is to substantially contribute to the country's economic development and growth, thus creating employment opportunities for the rural youth, ensuring  sustainability in the long term. The book is the outcome of research based on inputs from successful farmers/ pioneers following agro ecological systems, educators, researchers and academicians from across the country.

      Download PDF  http://www.peakoilindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Our-Land-Our-Life_NC_2012.pdf

      II. Links to workbooks prepared by The Uttarakhand Seva Nidhi, with the same title as the above book are also provided below. These work books are teaching manuals for school and college teachers; also double as student workbooks that can be used by them for interacting with parents/ family/ communities, adapting to their soil and agro climatic conditions, thus ensuring own access to requirement of nutritious food and cash needs. I am sure you will find this excellent resource book most useful, if we are to ensure reversal of migration to cities:

      http://www.ueec.org.in/in_english.htm

      Our Land, Our Life, 6-8 class workbooks in English currently running in Government Schools of Uttarakhand

          6th class:    7th class:     8th class:

      class 6       Class 7       Class 8 

      Our Land, Our Life, 6-8 class workbooks in English VI to X class should

      6th Class ,  7th Class ,  8th Class ,  9th Class ,  10th Class 

      III. Tending a Schoolyard Garden by Nyla Coelho

      Tending a Schoolyard Garden is a teacher's manual/ handbook that facilitates teachers to motivate and create interest in students in the soil, nature, leaves, flowers, plants, animal husbandry, fisheries, etc., all of which creates livelihood opportunities, provides us with food, nutrition and thus good health, at little or no cost while contributing hugely to economic development and growth, as it reduces dependence on subsidies, effects of climate change. When in school and college in the city, one looked forward to the physical training class, sports, scouting excursions, etc., as a break from classroom academics. This manual with its hands on approach to growing greens, vegetables, fruits in the school garden, raising of poultry and dairy animals for eggs, milk, etc. for mid day meals and or for sale to local communities provides a practical and enjoyable approach to agriculture for rural (and urban) students. It is written in an easy to follow style with step-by-step instructions and plenty of illustrations. It offers teachers/ students the necessary wherewithal as well as the confidence that this system is low cost low risk and thus doable and hence  being sustainable in the long term. This book is the outcome of field tests of the Our Land Our Life curriculum (see above). The book comes with a DVD containing over 130 carefully selected resource material. 

      For hard copies of Our Land Our Life and Tending a Schoolyard Garden, write to: [email protected]

      Download PDF:  http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/schoolyard-nyla.pdf

      Also attached is a doc - Rodale INst white paper Org Agriculture and Climate Change_2014 04 

       

      hash

    • Dear All,

      I would like to endorse Katy Lee complimenting Florence and also, with your permission, record our appreciation, of her finding the time and conducting a positive and transparent consultation, focusing on the needs of the rural poor producer communities, looking for solutions for the agrarian crissis and for their long term sustainability. My answer to the 3 thematic Qs given below, with supporting attachments.

      Subhash

       

      Food,  Nutrition & Health  Security through ‘Agro ecology’ also Mitigates Climate Change:

      Climate change directly affects rural poor communities producing own requirements of nutritious food. Following conventional agriculture systems has pushed 100’s of million people into deep distress, increasing hunger, malnutrition and poverty, reducing net income and purchasing power, thus hitting them the hardest, especially women  and youth, resulting in migration to urban slums.  Producer communities, pastoralists, forest dwellers and fisher folk are facing hardships in producing and accessing nutritious food due to unseasonal hail storms, rain, floods, etc. In the long term, following conventional agriculture systems is the cause of the present agrarian crissis, climate change, soil degradation, etc., seriously affecting the environment and therefore nutrition, food and  health security. 

      Climate change has mostly occurred in areas following high cost high risk green revolution conventional agriculture, reducing numbers of trees, hardening of soil, increasing use of agro chemicals and water, year after year with productivity plateauing, has been harmful to the environment and cause of the agrarian crissis. Conventional agriculture facilitates climate change and being high cost high risk, will exacerbate the crisis of hunger, malnutrition and poverty with increasing prices, with the producer communities not having the money to buy own requirements of safe, nutritious food. 

      ’Agro ecological systems (interface between climate change, food, health and nutrition) of each area being low cost low risk is the obvious solution to ensure producers access to own requirements of safe nutritious food also mitigates the effects of climate change, FAO September 2014 conference. Urgent measures are urgently needed to be taken by countries for re converting to the low cost low risk safe and nutritious food production, following agro ecology of each  area, putting the rural poor producer communities to work and gainfully, produce own requirements of nutritious food and cash, at little or no cost and to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions, hunger, malnutrition, poverty and suicides, whilst increasing net incomes/ purchasing power to improve livelihoods of about 50% of the population dependent on agriculture thus calling for policies, programmes and projects being integrated, following Agro ecology systems of the area.

      This is in keeping with Rome Declaration on Nutrition and Framework of Action adopted by the 2nd International Conference on Nutrition in November 2014 recognized: 

       “the need to address the impacts of climate change and other environmental factors on food security and nutrition, in particular on the quantity, quality and diversity of food produced, taking appropriate action to tackle negative effects” and recommended to “establish and strengthen institutions, policies, programmes and services to enhance the resilience of the food supply in crisis-prone areas, including areas affected by climate change”. 

      We need to create awareness of the richness of the knowledge document and as applied by successful producer communities, to their soil and agro climatic conditions  and managed in their area around the world, learning from the AR4D being done by successful farmers, season after season, not the research being done in labs, most of which is not replicable in the field. 

      I have highlighted the impact of conventional agriculture on climate change, food, health and nutrition and provide  possible solutions to improve livelihoods while reducing and removing greenhouse gas emissions thus ensuring long-term nutrition, food, health and climate security, thus have endeavored to answer the following thematic Qs, focusing on meeting the needs of the rural poor smallholder producer communities in my above contribution: 

      1) What are the main issues for policy-makers to consider when linking climate change to food security and nutrition through agriculture, in particular when designing, formulating and implementing  policies and programmes?

      2) What are the key institutional and governance challenges to the delivery of cross-sect oral and comprehensive policies that promotes access to low cost nutritious food to the most vulnerable, and contribute to sustainable and resilient food systems in the long term?

      3) What are key best-practices and lessons-learned in fostering cross-sect oral linkages to  improve nutrition and food through agriculture, while preventing, adapting to climate change and reducing and removing greenhouse gas emissions?

    • Dear Florence,

      I am responding to your request for inputs on nutrition.

      Shanthu Shantaram’s article at: http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/LeNI9i16mbNcd5L8J8sU1L/Is-the-organic-mantra-for-real.html?utm_source=copy

      and the scientist community (almost all specialists) have got away with their push for high cost high risk laboratory developments of conventional mono crop agriculture systems  during the last around 100 years. In the long term, this has for many decades and continues to be the cause of the agrarian crisis, hunger, malnutrition, poverty and effects of climate change worldwide, especially among the rural poor smallholder producer communities (about 60% of the world's population) have lost the knowledge and know how to produce nutritious food through agriculture.

      In contrast, those following the low cost low risk climate friendly Agro ecological organic  systems of their area, setting up producer org/ company (PC) but managed by professionals, to take over all risks and responsibilities, other than on farm activities, now have have access to own requirements of nutritious food and cash with increased net income/ purchasing power improved livelihoods, mitigation of climate change and reversing migration back from urban areas, contributing to economic development and growth, case study at www.navajyoti.org,  alsoattached is a 20 March, 2015, Food Systems Report from Africa.

       

      See the attachments:

    • ecology by and for the small-scale producers who grow 70% of the world’s food.

      The conference, organised by the International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty (IPC) and hosted by the Confédération Nationale des Organisations Paysannes (CNOP), was a powerful opportunity to show how agroecology can help realise the six pillars of food sovereignty outlined by the IPC in the same village of Nyeleni, back in 2007.

      A representative of ROPPA (Network of Farmers’ and Agricultural Producers’ Organisations of West Africa) set the tone for the conference in his opening speech: “People are struggling every day, all over the world, but we must not struggle alone, we must work together.” One farmer’s voice is inconsequential in the face of the interests of financial profit, but together we can be heard.

      The declaration drafted One delegate spoke about how our feelings are as important as the techniques we use in agroecology: “Without feeling,” he said, “I cannot be a farmer.” We feel connected to the natural environment in a spiritual way – not one quantifiable by financial returns. Agroecology is not just a technique or a system, it’s a way of living that gives people a strong cultural connection to the land.

      The FAO was a key supporter of the February conference, and this new declaration defining agroecology more clearly has the power to influence FAO recommendations for the future of food production. With the UN following suit, we hope that nation states will, in turn, begin to look to agroecology to achieve genuine food security.

      However, co-optation is a continuing threat, diluting the power of agro ecology’s ethos. The French government, for instance, has created a central role for agroecology through the 2014Loi d’Avenir (law for the future of agriculture, food and the forest). This is ostensibly driven by agroecological rinciples, but in its essence, it does not uphold the expanded definition of agro ecology. Reducing the use of pesticides and antibiotics, and encouraging organic farming and the use of agro forestry, are steps in the right direction but they do not, on their own, represent the holistic approach mapped out in the new declaration.

      Peter Crosskey has commented in the Sustainable Food Trust’s coverage of the Loi d’Avenir, that:

      “The members of the small-scale farmer’s union, Confédération paysanne (Conf’), constantly accused Stéphane Le Foll of using new catchphrases to embellish an old system – for example, exhorting farmers to ‘Produisons autrement’ (produce differently) but allowing the same industrial production alongside.”

      The declaration was borne out of sentiments such as these, showing the will of people across the planet to work in ways that are healthy for us and the ecosystems on which we depend. The document weaves together many strands. It emphasises the importance of women as primary food producers, and the rights of indigenous peoples to access their traditional territories. The declaration also recognises our dependence on the health of ecosystems so that species extinction can be slowed and climate change halted.

      In order to maintain and develop agroecological production, practical face-to-face exchanges and training between producers is essential. Engagement between producers and consumers, also, needs to be prioritised and traditional markets have a key role in this. The market is, again, the ‘agora’ – a place to come and buy staples from the producers we know and trust, but also the place we come for community exchange and cultural sustenance.

      Out of these strong local networks, grassroots producers and consumers can make sure they are also represented in local policy-making decisions. Once these local networks work together they can link into national and international networks to ensure they are represented at higher levels of policy making too. This is well demonstrated through the West African networks of CNOP, which are members of ROPPA, which in turn works with Via Campesina, which is represented on the IPC.

      Perhaps most significantly, the declaration, “recognise[s] that as humans we are but a part of nature and the cosmos. We share a spiritual connection with our lands and with the web of life. We love our lands and our peoples, and without that, we cannot defend our agroecology, fight for our rights, or feed the world. We reject the commodification of all forms of life.”

      This declaration can lead us into a happier, more harmonious future, and towards viable food sovereignty. People deserve to be able to live with dignity, pursuing time-honoured practices that nurture the planet as well as their own lives.

      To read the full declaration please click here.

       

      On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Nemani Chandrasekhar <[email protected]> wrote:

      Is the organic mantra for real?

      Shanthu Shantharam, Livemint | April 8, 2015

       

      With India’s population set to grow in the coming decades, it will be foolhardy to go gung-ho on organic agriculture

       

      Read on: http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/LeNI9i16mbNcd5L8J8sU1L/Is-the-organic-mantra-for-real.html

    • Prof Amar Nayak’s paper, abstract and introduction as trailed below, full paper attached, focuses on ‘Achieving sustainable development for food, nutrition and livelihood security through low cost low risk climate friendly agriculture and using the producer company/ org (PC) intervention but staffed with professionals’. The paper highlights sustainable approaches to agriculture, ensuring access to food, nutrition and cash for producer communities through agriculture and also meeting the increasing nutritious food needs of the growing population. Value addition for increase shelf life of farm produce to reduce post harvest losses and waste, also trade in the vicinity and opportunities, without compromising the climate, economic, environmental and social bases of the rural poor producer communities. The paper identifies barriers to change, including in present institutions, organizations, policies and governance, and potential options to overcome them and covers the enabling environment necessary for  transition to agriculture systems contributing to economic development and growth but sustainable in the long term.

      Asymmetries in Organizations, Institutions and Policy Signals in the context of Sustainable Governance in India

                                Amar KJR Nayak[1]                                                                                                                                                                   Abstract:

      This article focuses on the present asymmetries in community organizational design, institutional architecture of these organizations and signaling effect of multiple development policies and schemes of the government and consequences of these asymmetries on effectiveness of programme delivery and overall sustainability of rural producer communities in the Indian context.  

      While these three aspects of community organizational design, their institutional architecture and policy signals are the critical pillars of sustainable local governance, the article based on eight years of an action research and empirical studies across India, argues that at present they are neither symmetric within nor symmetric across each other. The present institutional architecture of the government and community organizations at the last mile are serving as mere agents to deliver various government schemes with people as mere recipients. Further, deployment of multiple institutions at the community level to deliver these schemes tends to increase asymmetries in information in the system leading to opportunistic behavior among both the agents and the beneficiaries. In other words, the current design, architecture and mechanism of public service delivery inadvertently weaken the coordination processes of rural community producer organization/ companys that are crucial for governance in India and long term sustainability of rural producer communities.      

                                      Key Phrases

      Organizational design, institutional architecture, policy signals, coordination failure, local governance, long term sustainability of rural producer communities

      Asymmetries in Organizations, Institutions and Policy Signals in the context of Governance in India for Long Term Sustainability

       Introduction:

      There has been increasing appreciation among the policy makers and development professionals in India that demand side institutions viz., people’s organization/ companys and institutions at the producer community level are critical for efficient and effective delivery of public services for an equitable society.  That better local governance is the foundation to better governance at higher levels of the society is very well understood as has been reflected in the 73rd and 74th Amendment of the Indian constitution.   

      In the above light, this article discusses the issues of community organizational design, their institutional architecture and the nature of signals that multiple development policies implemented through multiple institutions of the government have on people and their community organizations. Following the exposition of the issues at the heart of local governance, the article proposes some thoughts on how to redesign producer community organization/ companys, their institutional architecture and development policy strategy that can minimize information asymmetry, opportunistic behavior by community members, especially the elite and reduce transaction costs for sustainable governance in the long term at the grass root level viz. the Gram Panchayat.    

      First, the article delves on the context of smallholder farmers/producers, in terms of their asymmetric disadvantages in resource base, capability base and traditional institutional base in relation to those in the current market economic system. It highlights how this context has shaped the various community organization based development interventions of the government over the last six decades. Second, based on the empirical evidences, it analyses the deficiencies in the supply side institutional and organizational arrangements of the governments and the significance of developing demand side institutional architecture of the producer community organizations.

      Third, based on the empirical observations, it highlights the conceptual gaps and theoretical challenges in guiding state policy on optimal design of community organizations and optimal boundary limits of institutional architecture of these organization for better local governance. Fourth, it discusses the dysfunctional signaling effect of development schemes and programmes implemented by multiple agencies of the government on the efficacy of coordination processes in community organizations arising out of high information asymmetries in the present system. Fifth, the article discusses optimal design of rural producer community organization/ company and optimal institutional architecture for these community organizations for the long term sustainability sustainability of their members.

      1. The Context

      The overall context of a small producer or a smallholder farmer in a rural agricultural setting is well understood. The current globally accepted description of producer includes not only small farmers engaged in agriculture but also hunters, gatherers, fishing folk, artisan, crafts persons, tenants, etc. S/he could be characterized as someone who holds or owns very little private property in terms of resources/asset/land with little liquid capital.  S/he engages in large number of production activities in low volumes and little product specialization. S/he has bare formal education, has limited access to information, knowledge and adopts rudimentary methods and techniques of production and value addition (processing). S/he has little accesses to good basic infrastructure on health, education, water, electricity, and roads.    

      While the internal conditions of small famer or landless smallholder producers, who form over 70% of total producers, is rather weak and vulnerable, the external conditions are highly unfavorable for their existence. The agricultural input market is better organized and prices of inputs have been rising. The players in the product market are better endowed with information, resources, capital and are better organized to bargain hard with small farmers/producer communities.

      Further, at the village level, sahukars/money lenders/local traders have indeed been on an advantageous position to exploit the small producers. It is indicative of the fact that while prices of agricultural products have multiplied several times in recent years, farm gate prices that the farmers get have hardly increased over these years.  In the light of the modern market economic system, the small farmer and the landless small producer is indeed in a highly asymmetric disadvantageous position.

      In addition, the uncertainty in weather and climate, especially in rainfall leads to incorrect assessment on timing of sowing by small farmers; makes the situation challenging and highly risky. Further, poor health, lack of knowledge/ primary education in the rural areas and reducing, net incomes from agricultural activities has lead to out-migration of people from rural agricultural communities. Not only has the overall climate of liberalization, privatization, and globalization exposed small agricultural producers to global commodity markets and industrial economic system, the culture of access to own requirement of nutritious food through agriculture has been adversely affected especially with respect to agricultural production of scale. Even in the best agricultural districts, nearly 30% of farmers are making net losses and another 20% are barely making profits from their agricultural activities (Nayak 2013d). While most farmer parents wish that their children stay in their villages; most of their children instead are forced to out migrate from their villages in search of alternate livelihood.     

       2. Institutional Architecture of the Government

      During the last sixty years, the central government and the state governments have experimented and tried with various institutional and organizational arrangements to improve the situation of smallholder farmers and producers as well as the rural agricultural communities. As against the Tata-Birla Plan of industrialization, 1944, that had only 10% provision for the agricultural sector (Nayak 2011), the Government of India since 1947 have been allocating significant budgets towards agriculture and rural development.  The central government and the state governments have created constitutional provisions in terms of institutional arrangement and organizational arrangements to resolve the various asymmetries of farmers in general and smallholder producer communities in particular. 

      The formal cooperative activities began with the enactment of Cooperative Credit Societies Act, 1904, later it was revised in 1912.  Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies were formed from around this period. The Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Act 1956 and the formation of organization like National Agricultural Cooperative Agricultural Marketing Federation in 1958 were some of the earliest initiatives. Similarly, the state governments have also formed state level departments, independent organizations and institutions to resolve these issues of small farmers. 

      Subsequently, the government initiated several provisions and institutions viz., Integrated Rural Development Programme (1978), NABARD (1982), PRI through 73rd Amendment of the Indian Constitution, Swarnajayanti Gram Swarojgar Yogana (1999), Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (2005), Right to Information Act (2005), and National Rural Livelihood Mission (2010). Specifically in the area of marketing, Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee was formed in 1956. Accordingly, the state governments created several provisions like formation of State Agricultural Marketing Boards, Regulated Market Committees, Check Gates, etc. In addition several institutions like the Farmers’ Commission, expert committees on rural credit, cooperatives, etc have been formed to assess and improve the well being of small producers in rural agricultural communities in India.

      Not only has the government tried to create institutional arrangement and organizations, it has also been pumping a lot of resources through these institutions and organizations for improving the situation of small farmers/producers and rural agricultural communities. One may look at the number of development schemes and programmes that are directed at the district and Gram Panchayat level to appreciate this point.

      The annual budgetary provision of only the Ministry of Rural Development is over INR 100,000 crores. As per the NRLM guidelines, the provision per family below the poverty line is INR 100,000 per year. Provision for various types of support viz., credit support, marketing support, livelihood support, natural resource management, watershed development, rural infrastructure, primary health, primary educations, basic infrastructure, etc have been created.

      However, the existing institutions and organizations have not fared well in terms of delivery of these provisions to the resource poor and smallholder producer communities. The capacity to absorb, internalize and create long term assets and value by people and community at the grass root level from these public investments have been far from expectations. Indeed, there seems to be a weak link between the public investment and long term impact on well being of the people and the community.

      To improvise its delivery capacity, the governments have also increasingly used the services of Non Government Organizations (NGOs) and civil society organizations (CSOs). Thousands of NGOs and CSOs have mushroomed in this process. The social impact of the public investment still remained below par. Additionally, the organizational arrangement with NGOs often lead to capacity building of the NGOs more than the capacity building of the communities. Once the NGOs stop getting funds from a project, the initiatives undertaken in a community also ceases and ironically all the investment made in the NGOs also moves away from the community.

      In recent years, governments have been collaborating with industrial organizations especially the large private corporations for improving delivery efficiency of public services. Individual farmers and small producer groups like SHG, CIG, FPO, small producer cooperatives, etc are being linked to large private corporations in the hope to improve the well being of small farmers/producers. The institutional arrangement in some states seems to be gradually moving from a welfare state mechanism to market mechanism under the broader framework of inclusive capitalism. Contract Farming, Public Private Partnerships, Crop Insurance, Agri-business model as per the traditional industrial organizational design, etc., are some examples of the orientation and attempts made by both central and state governments. In recent years, large venture capitalists and large corporations have been seeking support from the governments to undertake grass root level community development as part of their corporate social entrepreneurship.   

      The government and policy advisers little realize that the basic grain of a traditional industrial organizational design is totally different from that of community organizations at the grass root level. While the former is built on the paradigm of competition, the later is built on cooperation.  The position of design variables and the purposes of these two organizational types are so far apart that in the long run, large industrial enterprises will gain at the cost of community organizations in a competitive market economic system (Nayak 2010, 2014a).            

      In the above milieu of development approaches and challenges, the bright ray of hope to improve the well being of small producer communities including the psychological-social-economically weak communities appears to be the provision of National Rural Livelihood Mission (NRLM) 2010 of the Government of India. The emphasis on building local institutional platforms of the poor and converging all the resources to build and strengthen this local institution is indeed a wise and sustainable way forward for the well being of the poor communities.  There are however several questions that need to be answered for the new mission to make a sustainable impact and in the long term. 

      How will the multiple local institutions interact with each other? Will there be duplication of resources & efforts because of multiple people’s institutions?  What will be the cost of operating each of these institutions? Will each of these institutions be optimally designed for operational efficiency? Will the challenges of capacity building, marketing and value addition of the small producers be handled through these institutions? What will be the steps & sequences of implementation? Is it designed for sufficient local resource persons for successful implementation? How long will it take to implement and exit? What is the overall strategy? What will be the total cost of implementation at the GP level? Will these institutions for livelihood cater to other needs of the community viz., health, education, basic infrastructure, etc? Although individual organizations are attempting to resolve some of these questions as they work in the complex setting of Indian rural communities; these questions still remain largely unanswered by NRLM.  

      The latest attempt of the Government has been to promote Farmer Producer Organizations as Producer Companies as per section IXA of the companies Act 1956. Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Agriculture through NABARD have made a provision to promote 2000 farmer producer companies in the next two years (2014-16). While the Act came into being in 2002, development agencies have been struggling to stabilize the few hundred producer companies that have already been set up during the last twelve years. 

      Across the board, the institutions of the government for implementing these programmes are highly hierarchical, bureaucratic, centralized and top heavy with high transaction costs. While the supply side institution of the government seems to be well defined and overwhelming, the demand side institutions viz., people’s organizations or community organizations have not been well conceived. Figure 1-2 are sample institutional architecture of the Odisha Livelihood Mission and Karnataka Watershed Development.

       


      [1] Professor of Management & Centre Director of National Centre for Sustainable Community Systems, LBS National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie,  India. Email:[email protected], [email protected]  

       I thank my colleagues and Officers Trainees in LBSNAA and colleagues in XIMB for their valuable feedback and suggestions during the various discussions leading to development of this article.  

       

      See the attachments:

    • Here is a brief with links to PDF files for teacher and or student resource material which would greatly assist the Governments Central &, State, National Agriculture Research & Education Systems (NARES), Departments of Education (schools and colleges) , Dept of Rural Development and such like organisations in creating capacity, especially in rural women and youth, leading to self sufficiency, at little or no cost, self reliance and enterprise for producing safe and nutritious food through agriculture. 

      This resource material is well attuned to the agroecological systems, link at: http://sustainablefoodtrust.org/articles/agroecology-idea-practice-coming-age/, 

      economic, equity, energy, etc., a system which we must design and follow, if we are to be sustainable in the long term, reducing hunger, malnutrition, poverty and effects of climate change whilst increasing net income/ purchasing power, if we are to improve livelihood, now and in the future for the poor rual producer communities. 

      Successful farmers in each area, teachers, educators, trainers being  the prime players in this endeavor, as they play a pivotal role in the implementation of this programme by motivating rural women and youth and students to understand, acquire knowledge and look at agriculture as a viable option for migrating back from urban slums to a life sustainable in the long term. 

      The books being forwarded would act as a stepping stone for putting the rural women and youth to work gainfully, ensuring access to own requirements of nutritious food and cash, thus reducing hunger, malnutrition, effects of climate change and poverty whilst increasing net incomes/ purchasing power, improving rural livelihood, contribution to economic development/ growth and ensuring sustainability in the long term: 

      Links and Legends:

      I. Our Land Our Life by Nyla Coelho, 

      A book on a low cost low risk agro ecological education system for schools and colleges, especially for rural areas/ communities in India. It offers an educational system with specific emphasis on low cost low risk climate friendly agriculture/ farming systems, applicable to the soil and agro climatic conditions of each area. It’s design provides a hands on approach to learning/ research, both academic and on farm, season after season, if agriculture is to substantially contribute to the country's economic development and growth, thus creating employment opportunities for the rural youth, ensuring  sustainability in the long term. The book is the outcome of research based on inputs from successful farmers/ pioneers following agro ecological systems, educators, researchers and academicians from across the country.

      Download PDF  http://www.peakoilindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Our-Land-Our-Life_NC_2012.pdf

      II. Links to workbooks prepared by The Uttarakhand Seva Nidhi, with the same title as the above book are also provided below. These work books are teaching manuals for school and college teachers; also double as student workbooks that can be used by them for interacting with parents/ family/ communities, adapting to their soil and agro climatic conditions, thus ensuring own access to requirement of nutritious food and cash needs. I am sure you will find this excellent resource book most useful, if we are to ensure reversal of migration to cities:

      http://www.ueec.org.in/in_english.htm

      Our Land, Our Life, 6-8 class workbooks in English currently running in Government Schools of Uttarakhand

          6th class:    7th class:     8th class:

      class 6       Class 7       Class 8 

      Our Land, Our Life, 6-8 class workbooks in English VI to X class should

      6th Class ,  7th Class ,  8th Class ,  9th Class ,  10th Class 

      III. Tending a Schoolyard Garden by Nyla Coelho

      Tending a Schoolyard Garden is a teacher's manual/ handbook that facilitates teachers to motivate and create interest in students in the soil, nature, leaves, flowers, plants, animal husbandry, fisheries, etc., all of which creates livelihood opportunities, provides us with food, nutrition and thus good health, at little or no cost while contributing hugely to economic development and growth, as it reduces dependence on subsidies, effects of climate change. When in school and college in the city, one looked forward to the physical training class, sports, scouting excursions, etc., as a break from classroom academics. This manual with its hands on approach to growing greens, vegetables, fruits in the school garden, raising of poultry and dairy animals for eggs, milk, etc. for mid day meals and or for sale to local communities provides a practical and enjoyable approach to agriculture for rural (and urban) students. It is written in an easy to follow style with step-by-step instructions and plenty of illustrations. It offers teachers/ students the necessary wherewithal as well as the confidence that this system is low cost low risk and thus doable and hence  being sustainable in the long term. This book is the outcome of field tests of the Our Land Our Life curriculum (see above). The book comes with a DVD containing over 130 carefully selected resource material. 

      For hard copies of Our Land Our Life and Tending a Schoolyard Garden, write to: [email protected]

      Download PDF:  http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/schoolyard-nyla.pdf

      Also attached is a doc - Organic mitigates climate change.

      Subhash

       

    • Dear Colleagues,

      I have been struggling for years on the question of creating human and institutional capacity among the rural poor smallholder producer communities, if they are to be put to work gainfully, are to be sustainable in the long term, contribute to economic development and growth.

      Nyla Coelho in her contribution yesterday has laid the foundations through education, providing us with a methodology and the supporting curriculum, meeting the needs of developing countries.

      It is now for the multilateral orgs like UNICEF, FAO, UNCTAD, IFAD, etc., to make this the basis of change if we are to reduce hunger, malnutrition, poverty, suicides and the effects of climate change whilst improving livelihood and increasing net income/ purchasing power, say over the next 10 years.

      Warm regards

    • Prof Dr Hilal Elver, succeeding Dr Olivier de Schutter, in her maiden speech focussing on Agroecology, and FAO's conference on the same subject, Sept 18 - 19, 2014, does provide a number of answers to your Qs for the e consultation, most important the letter from scientists, as attached:

      'Governments must shift subsidies and research funding from agro-industrial monoculture to small farmers using 'agro ecological methods', according to Prof Hilal Elver, the new UN's Special

      Rapporteur on the Right to Food. Nafeez Ahmed notes, her call coincides with a new agro ecology initiative within the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation. This change is critical for future

      agricultural policies as most Government subsidies must go to support smallholder producers not to large agribusiness, as is now the case

      Convential green revolution high cost industrial agricultural methods can no longer feed the world, due to the impacts of overlapping environmental and ecological crises linked to land, water and resource

      availability. The warning comes from the new United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Prof Hilal Elver, in her first public speech since being appointed in June. Elver speaks not just with the authority of her UN role, but as a respected academic. She is research professor and co-director at the Project on Global Climate Change,

       

      Human Security and Democracy at the Orfalea Center for Global and International Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara. She is also an experienced lawyer and diplomat. A former founding legal

      advisor at the Turkish Ministry of Environment, she was previously appointed to the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) Chair in Environmental Diplomacy at the Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies, University of Malta.

      "Food policies which do not address the root causes of world hunger would be bound to fail, One billion people globally are hungry, she declared, before calling on governments to support a transition to "agricultural democracy" which would empower rural smallholder producers. Agriculture needs a new direction: agro ecology. The 2009 global food crisis signalled the need for a turning point in the

      global food system. Modern agriculture, which began in the 1950s, is more resource intensive, very fossil fuel dependent, using fertilisers, and based on massive production. This policy has to

      change. We are already facing a range of challenges. Resource scarcity, increased population, decreasing land availability and accessibility, emerging water scarcity, and soil degradation require

      us to re-think how best to use our resources for future generations.

      New scientific research increasingly shows how low cost 'agro ecology' offers far more environmentally sustainable methods that can still meet the rapidly growing demand for nutrition and food: Agro ecology is a traditional way of using low cost farming methods that are less resource oriented, and which work in harmony with soil, agro climatic conditions and producer communities. New research in agro ecology allows us to explore more effectively how we can use traditional

      knowledge of each area to produce own requirements of nutritious food, protect people and their environment at the same time. Smallholder producers are the key to feeding the world’s increasing population. There is a geographical and distributional imbalance in who is consuming and producing. Global agricultural policy needs to adjust. In the crowded and hot world of tomorrow, the challenge of how to protect the vulnerable is heightened. That entails recognising women's role in food production - from farmer, to housewife, to working mother, women are the world's major food providers. It also means recognising the rural poor smallholder producers (about 50% of the population), who are the most vulnerable, hungry and malnourished.

       

      Across Europe, the US and the developing world, smallholder farms face shrinking numbers. So if we meet the needs of the smallholder producer communities, focus on the producing for their own needs, we solve hunger, malnutrition, poverty, suicides and the effects of climate change whilst we also deal with food production for the growing population. Industrial agriculture grabs 80% of subsidies and 90% of research funds

      Hinting at the future direction of her research and policy recommendations, she criticised the vast subsidies going to large monocultural agribusiness companies. Currently, in the European Union

      about 80% of subsidies and 90% of research funding  supports the high cost green revolution conventional industrial agriculture technologies.

      "Empirical and scientific evidence shows that smallholder producers feed themselves and the world. According to the UN Food & Agricultural Organisation (FAO), 70% of food we consume globally comes from smallholder producers, This is critical for future agricultural policies. Currently, most subsidies go to large agribusiness. This must change. Governments must support small producers. As rural people are migrating increasingly to cities, this is generating huge problems. If these trends continue, by 2050, 75% of the entire human population will live in urban areas. We must reverse these trends by providing new possibilities and incentives to small farmers, especially for young people in rural areas, said Prof Elver." Her debut speech coincided with a landmark two-day International Symposium on Agro ecology for Food and Nutrition Security in Rome, hosted by the FAO. Over 50 experts participated in the symposium, including scientists, the private sector, government officials, and civil society leaders. A high-level roundtable at the close of the symposium included the agricultural ministers of France, Algeria, Costa Rica, Japan, Brazil and the European Union agricultural commissioner. FAO Director-General José Graziano da Silva said:

      "Agro ecology continues to grow, both in science and in policies. It is an approach that will help to address the challenge of ending hunger and malnutrition in all its forms, in the context of the

      climate change adaptation needed."

      A letter to the FAO signed by nearly 70 international food scientists, as attached, congratulated the UN agency for convening the agro ecology symposium and called for

      " A UN system-wide initiative on agro ecology as the central strategy for addressing climate change and building resilience in the face of water crises."

      The scientists described agro ecology as "a well-grounded science, a set of time-tested agronomic practices and when embedded in sound socio-political institutions, the most promising pathway for achieving low cost sustainable food production."

      A signatory to the letter, Mindi Schneider, assistant professor of Agrarian, Food and Environmental Studies at the Institute of Social Studies (ISS) in The Hague, said: "Agro ecology is more than just a

      science, it's also a social movement for justice that recognises and respects the right of communities of farmers to decide what they grow and how they grow it."

      Several other food experts at the Transnational Institute offered criticisms of prevailing industrial practices. Dr David Fig, who serves on the board of Bio watch South Africa, an NGO concerned with

      food sovereignty and sustainable agriculture, said:

      "We are being far too kind to industrialised agriculture. The private sector has endorsed it, but it has failed to feed the world, it has contributed to major environmental contamination and misuse of natural

      resources. It's time we switched more attention, public funds and policy measures to agro ecology, replacing the high cost conventional model as soon as possible."

      Prof Sergio Sauer, formerly Brazil's National Rapporteur for Human Rights in Land, Territory and Food, added:

      "Agro ecology is related to the way you relate to land, to nature to each other - it is more than

      just organic production, it is a sustainable livelihood in the long term. In Brazil we have the National Association of Agro ecology which brings together 7,000 people from all over the country pooling

      together their concrete empirical experiences of agro ecological practices. They try to base all their knowledge on practice, not just on concepts. Generally, nobody talks about agro ecology, because it's

      too political. The simple fact that the FAO is calling a major international gathering to discuss agro ecology is therefore a very significant milestone."

       We must consider ourselves very fortunate that FAO and Olivier de Scutter's successor, Prof Dr Hilal Elver, are also committed to the cause of meeting the needs of the rural poor smallholder communities'.

       

      Warm regards

      See the attachments:

    • Family farming - women and youth:

      To manage the effects of climate change, agriculture has to be climate smart, adapting to the agro ecology of each area, if agriculture is to be  sustainable in the long term. Accordingly, the Governments and donors need to invest in climate friendly, low cost, economies of scope producer oriented development - agro ecological technologies and innovations. These are adapted by successful farmers to changing climates; not the high cost conventional economies of scale green revolution technologies based industrial production, the cause of the present crissis in agriculture and climate change. The agriculture research for development (AR4D) being done by them, season after season, ensure their prosperity and sustainability in the long term. Their   models need to be documented, they are contracted to train on farm and widely replicate their models among producers in the vicinity.

      Governments, NARES, Global Institutions will need to first change the mandates and TORs currently focusing on the high cost economies of scale, market oriented conventional green revolution agriculture technologies. UN reports and the other evidence now available highlight the fact that they are no longer viable nor environmentally sustainable, especially for the rural poor illiterate smallholder producer communities, mostly dry and rain fed farms; which in the long term is also becoming a serious problem for the large farmers as well, Amar's published paper attached.

      Given the newer understanding that the efficiency of agriculture is economies of scope, the future of agriculture is in the hands of women and youth family farmers; but inequalities (land in the name of men) prevent them, especially women farmers, from equal rights to access land, inputs and required resources. Further, unless, we create an enabling environment for them to have enough for themselves, how can they produce required nutritious food to  feed the growing population.

      Governments and NARES need to design and implement programmes to fund, support and facilitate the rural producer communities to set up their optimally designed producer company (PCs), but managed by professionals (general practitioners [GPs]/ MBAs in agriculture) to take over all risks and responsibilities, leaving members to on farm activities, ensure delivery of and access to successful agro ecological  systems in the vicinity, know how for producing inputs, energy, finance, communications, services, infrastructure for training, storage, adding value to increase shelf life of produce to minimize post harvest losses, marketing - logistics, etc., and in the long term creating capacity in potential entrepreneurs to start up their own business, successful case study at:

      www.navajyoti.org.

      The PC will ensure communities access to their own requirements of nutritious food/ cash needs, at little or no cost, thus reducing hunger, malnutrition, poverty, effects of climate change, suicides whilst improving livelihood, increasing net incomes/ purchasing power, economic development, growth and sustainability in the long term. This change will give back their dignity and self esteem and create opportunities for the educated in rural areas as PC staff, entrepreneurs, scientists, service providers, business, etc.

      Population of rural youth in developing countries is over 30% and their unemployment levels are high as their schools and/ or colleges do not teach subjects of their interest like, managing/ knowledge/ research for development of their agro eco systems, etc. This calls for introducing subjects in rural school/ colleges, curricula and teachers that creates interest in managing their agro ecology, economic development and growth.

      Governments need to fund, support and provide the environment for entrepreneurship to succeed for the educated to look at rural life as full of opportunities, reversing migration from urban slums and back to their serene rural surroundings. Indeed, many well educated and well paid professionals are already following organic principles,  as it is not only profitable but ensures safe - healthy living and sustainable in the long term.

      Optimally designed, PC could facilitate/ mentor in improving the quality and access to rural education, health facilities, infrastructure, roads, mobile phone, public transport, internet, etc., ensuring the communities’ sustainability in the long term, bring back self pride/ esteem, essential for their social binding. Focus on addressing women’s rights to access land, natural and economic resources, low cost technologies in partnership with the successful farmers following agro eco systems, training, etc., could double their farm production to feed themselves and the country’s growing population.

      PCs, optimally designed, owned by the people but managed by professionals, is the need of the hour, as it creates an optimal architecture of a network of such community enterprises across the Nation, States, district/constituencies , enough to provide the small producers an effective platform to manage their ‘cash to cash cycle’.

      Governments need to urgently analyze their policies of inequality and discrimination of women farmers and legislate/ make changes to policy/ programme - rules that are holding back women from playing the key role as entrepreneurs or equal partners, in an effort to harness their full potential and contribute fully to the family farm management, research for development (AR4D) on farm, long term sustainability, economic development and growth.

      See the attachments:

    •  Success Story Template on shifting organic for all not just the haves with the PC intervention assisted by successful farmers in the area to minimise cost increase production, taking over risks and responsibilities for the 'cash to cash cycle', group PGS - no packaging costs, access at little or no cost to members, ensurring long term sustainability

      Name of your organization, country

       

      Devarao Shivaram Trust, India

      Your role

      Trustee

      Who are your target users?

      Governments, NARES, Multilateral Orgs, National and Global Research Institutions

      How do your target users use the information you provide and how do they give you feedback on their emerging  needs?

      Most cases we will rewrite draft in track, keeping in mind the needs of the rural poor smallholder producer communities, submit it back to the author for finalization as a Government  document.

      What role do intermediaries* (‘champions’ in government, media, etc) play ?

      Provides the required inputs during meetings, discussions, public hearings, etc., ensure meeting needs of the smallholder focus is not lost

      What is the main communications or policy outreach challenge you face?

      Addressing the causes, effects of errors made, making investments for essential corrections to be made, involving all the concerned stakeholders as equal partners and following a bottom up aproach

      What recommendations would you give to someone, in a similar organization, wishing to improve the uptake and relevance of the information  they produce?

      Follow a bottom up approach, involve all concerned stakeholders as equal partners, not loosing focus of the end objective, ‘Meeting the needs of the rural poor smallholder producer communities in an effort to ensure they set up producer company (PC) managed by professionals to take over all risks and responsibilities for their ‘cash to cash cycle’ access to own requirements of nutritious food and thus improving their livelihood and long term sustainability

      In your own words , tell your success story !

      I did a course in organic farming at IAMB (CHIEM), Bari, Italy, after my retirement in 1999, to be able to get to the bottom and understanding the standards, agro ecology, certification – holistic approach.

      Following Qs stood out as I was doing the course and since I have raised my voice on these issues:

      ·         Rigidity of the standards when agriculture is dependent on soil and agro climatic conditions

      ·         Justification of organic premium as production is higher and cost is lower  than conventional

      ·         Organic follows GAP, is safe and still is required to invest in the high cost packaging & certification

      ·         Conventional has very high pesticide residues, unsafe and thus certification should be mandatory

      ·         AR4D in organic is done by only a few orgs Globally – FiBL, Soil Assn, etc. The successful farmers do this season after season for adapting to climate change, if they are to remain prosperous

      ·         Post harvest losses of perishables (40%)

       

      Focus has been shifted to following organic principles as applicable to each area (successful models in each area), PGS replaces certification as a policy, producers no longer look for premium, access to own requirements of safe nutritious food produced by the community, at little or no cost, having access to models of  successful farmers in the vicinity to follow for their long term sustainability  

      PC intervention ensures creating human and institutional capacity, value addition to increase shelf life of produce, minimizing post harvest losses

      Attached is curriculum - manual based on a success story:www.navajyoti.org

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

      See the attachments:

    • Co ops etc, hijacked by people in power, forced members to suffer losses made by them - Government of India intervened and legislated in the Indian Cos' Act, through Amendment IX A, in Dec 2002, putting in place the Producer Company (PC) - the rest is now history!

      Name of your organization, country

       

      Devarao Shivaram Trust, India

      Your role

      Trustee

      What type of FSN information do you currently use for decision making?

      Outputs posted

      How do you give feedback to information producers and advise them of your information needs?

      Keeping focus on the fact that ‘Public funds are for Public Good’ and for meeting the needs of the  poor and for their long term sustainability

      Do intermediaries (media, individuals, etc.) play an important role in delivering useful FSN information to you?

      E consultation contributions

      In your own words , tell your success story  or describe challenges you face!

      I asked myself the Q; How can I give back my 50 years experience and having made it as a successful entrepreneur!

      Looking out of the aircraft window and seeing farming communities, mostly resource poor, illiterate, isolated, not even having access to a road, fending for themselves. I came to the conclusion that these out of sight out of mind entrepreneurs needed support, assistance and direction as they were not on the Government/ NARES’ rudder, if they are to  come out of hunger, malnutrition, poverty, deep debt  and for us to manage the effects of climate change.

      Having access to FAO, IFAD, WFP, whilst in Rome, I pursued the concept of farmers setting up their orgs, but soon realized that the money bags, large farmers/ corporations took control of the management and at the cost of the illiterate resource poor  smallholder members, as they continued to be poor, malnourished and in debt. Having had a similar experience as a member of a Club during the 1980's, where elected members also managed by farming out portfolios among   themselves and bleeding the institution. Some of us members intervened, when we received the annual accounts showing a loss. Some of got together and cleaned out those committee members whose families had become permanent fixtures, replacing them with members having integrity and ensurring professionals were hired to manage This experience encouraged me to extend this intervention to the rural poor communities following low cost agro eco systems of their area.

      In 1999 I discussed this intervention with and persuaded friends in FAO to consider a pilot project for implementation in the South Asia region, funded by IFAD. Thus a beginning had been made to facilitate rural producers to set up their producer org/ company (PC), assisted by the NGO/ CSO working with them, also to hire professionals (general practitioners [GPs]/ MBAs in agriculture) to take over all risks and responsibilities, other than on farm activities, to manage the ’Cash to Cash Cycle’ of each of its members, a successful model being: www.navajyoti.org.

      A similar situation was being faced by the milk co operatives in Gujrat, India, around the same time and they had persuaded the Government of India to get Parliament to pass a bill for democratisation of the co ops, resulting amendment IX A of the Indian Co’s Act - setting up of Producer Company.

      Ministry of Agriculture has now issued guidelines for a National programme to fund and support producers for setting up PCs, as all future funding and support from Government will be delivered through the PC (not possible for them to deal with millions of producers).

      Prof Dr Amar KJR Nayak's paper of March 2014 in support is attached.

      What recommendations would you give to producers of FSN information wishing to improve the uptake and relevance of their information for decision making?

      FSN has focussed on meeting smallholder producer communities' needs, must ensure that that all e consultation facilitators focus on this and not leave grey areas in their outputs, being then filled by the business usual agenda of the system pushing for their mandates and TORs,   promoting high cost conventional agri systems, the cause of the deep distress among 80% of the rural poor smallholder producer communities, if we are serious about achieving the goals set by the UN from time to time.

      Any other comments?

       

      Change in Mandates of Government NARES, Global Institutions and their TORs, is urgently required to reverse the top down being o a bottom up approach, converting the high cost conventional back to the roots/ low cost smallholder friendly agro ecological systems of each area.

       

       

      See the attachments:

    • Policy outreach and communications – what works for improving food and nutrition security?

      Suggested Success Story Template for Producers/ Disseminators of FSN Information ( feel free to write short notes or use bullet points)

      Name of your organization, country

       

      Devarao Shivaram Trust, INDIA

      Your role

      Trustee

      Who are your target users?

      Governments, Multilateral Organisations, International Research Institutions, Donors, CSO/ NGOs, Producer org/ companies (PC), etc.

      How do your target users use the information you provide and how do they give you feedback on their emerging  needs?

      Information is provided as soft copy for use in the manner most appropriate for achieving their objectives.

      They will either support my contributions, disagree or just keep silent when they do not want to be seen folowing a line/ stand. 

      What role do intermediaries* (‘champions’ in government, media, etc) play ?

      Intermediaries become champions and make appropriate interventions at meetings, conferences, at different levels, putting across their points of view having had exposure to the reality on the ground.

      What is the main communications or policy outreach challenge you face?

      Outdated institutional mandates, curriculums and TORs as a result of which the wrong people are in high places, allowing little or nothing to change over the last 15 years, except using some sexy words like smallholder producers, increased incomes, inclusive, climate change, etc., but the mainstream system sticks to their market oriented high cost economies of scale green revolution technologies being the cause of the present crisis in agriculture, with most rural producer communities deeper in debt, hungry, malnourished, getting poorer, committing suicide.

      What recommendations would you give to someone, in a similar organization, wishing to improve the uptake and relevance of the information  they produce?

      UN orgs – UNCTAD, UNRFC, FAO, IFAD, Donors, etc., have put on top their focus on ‘Public Funds for Public Good’, being directed at meeting the AR4D and funding needs of the rural poor smallholder producer communities’, for them to set up producer org/ company (PC) staffed by professionals (general practitioners [GPs]/ MBAs in agriculture) to take over all risks and responsibilities and managing the cash to cash cycle, leaving members to on farm activities. Convert to and follow low cost agro ecological – organic systems of their area primarily to produce and thus have access to nutritious food for their own requirements, at little or no cost, since they do not have the money to buy from the open market.

      In your own words , tell your success story !

      I have been a part of GFAR since its formation, as I happened to be living in Rome at the time. My interventions at the time was for AR4D to move in the direction of meeting the needs of the dry land and rain fed farmers following organic principles. For obvious reasons most ignored, some even looked down upon me as the numbers involved were less than 1%.

      I then shifted gears and coined the phrase ‘rural poor smallholder producer communities’, writing a paper on the subject, jointly with Dr O P Rupela, Principal Scientist, ICRISAT, circulated to the GFAR, Delhi,  invitees/  delegates/ participants . This paper did attract attention, thus giving us reason to focus and pursue our advocacy for these communities, at all platforms (e consultations, face to face meetings, etc.,  in preparation for GCARD I), especially as most smallholders do follow organic principles by default and we did succeed in persuading Dr R B Singh, former ADG, GCARD's Senior Consultant, to re write the outputs and focus on meeting the needs of the smallholder producers. A few weeks before GCARD I, Monpellier, a few of us CSO/ NGOs intervened in the consultation process and voluntarily contributed a ‘White Paper’, as attached, which then came to be the conference document as the Uma Lele, contracted to write the conference document, held it back in light of our document having reached the delegates/ invitees/ participants and was circulated by the GFAR secretariat after the conference.

      I am happy that our efforts has put the smallholder producer communities’ AR4D needs on top of the table, reports, etc., and will continue till the UN orgs’ focus on meeting the AR4D needs of these communities,  converting back to their low cost agro ecological – organic systems thus access there nutritious food requirements, at little or no cost, reducing hunger, malnutrition, poverty, effects of climate change, suicides whilst improving livelihoods, increasing net incomes & purchasing power and  long term sustainability is pursued.

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

      See the attachments:

    • Q 4:

      Delivery & long term Sustainability is missing:

      The economic activities of the rural smallholder producer communities  following their low cost ecological agriculture systems, mostly ensures access to their nutritious food requirements at little or no cost, thus reducing hunger, Malnutrition, poverty, suicides and the effects of climate change whilst improving livelihoods, purchasing power and net incomes. The intervention of their PC, staffed by professionals (general practitioners [GPs]/ MBAs in agriculture) to take over all risks and responsibilities other than on farm activities, is essential for proper convergence between the supply side and demand side institutions providing  services related to agricultural production, management, training, extension, value addition, etc., considering that it has become more difficult with passing of time. Evidence in this regard is available in the working papers available on this link:

      https://www.google.co.in/?gws_rd=ssl#q=economies+of+scope%2C+Amar+kjr+Nayak

      Given the required support, producers can then access low cost finance, management, know how/ knowledge for producing inputs, optimizing production, value addition to increase shelf life of perishables for minimizing post harvest losses, marketing/ logistics and creating the required infrastructure. PCs are also helping strengthen the capacity of producers by negotiating for improved policies, ensure stable domestic markets and link with regional, National and International processes.

      Government (Members of Parliament/ Legislators) have the responsibility and at all levels to fund, facilitate and assist in the setting up and staffing of PCs, thereafter mentor, if they are to succeed and for agriculture to contribute in economic development and growth in the long term. A model successfully implemented and in one of the poorest districts of Orissa, India: 

      www.navajyoti.org.

    • Evidence for commitments made - UK research on nutrition through agriculture:

      Further to my contribution yesterday urging that we follow the UN reports for the long term sustainability of smallholder producer communities, I am sharing a meta-analysis of 343 studies led by Newcastle University, U.K., highlighting that low cost organic agriculture/ food is a lot more safe and nutritious when compared to the high cost conventional agriculture systems:
       
      1. Higher antioxidant concentrations, and less cadmium and pesticide residues, in organically grown crops: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

      Baranski M et al. (2014) British Journal of Nutrition 06/2014; DOI: 10.1017/S0007114514001366

      Abstract

      Demand for organic foods is partially driven by consumer perceptions that they are more nutritious. However, scientific opinion is divided on whether there are significant nutritional differences between organic and non-organic foods, and two recent reviews concluded that there are no differences. Here we report results of meta-analyses based on 343 peer-reviewed publications that indicate statistically significant, meaningful differences in composition between organic and non-organic crops/crop based foods. Most importantly, concentrations of a range of antioxidants such as polyphenolics were found to be substantially higher in organic crops/crop based foods, with levels of phenolic acids, flavanones, stilbenes, flavones, flavonols and anthocyanines being an estimated 19 (95% CI 5, 33), 69 (95% CI 13, 125), 28 (95% CI 12, 44), 26 (95% CI 3, 48), 50 (95% CI 28, 72) and 51 (95% CI 17, 86) % higher respectively. Many of these compounds have been previously linked to reduced risk of chronic diseases, including cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases and certain cancers in dietary intervention and epidemiological studies. Additionally the frequency of occurrence of pesticide residues was 4 times higher in conventional crops, which also contained significantly higher concentrations of the toxic metal cadmium (Cd). Significant differences were also detected for some other (e.g. minerals and vitamins) compounds. There is evidence that higher antioxidant and lower Cd concentrations are linked to specific agronomic practices (e.g. non-use of mineral N and P fertilisers respectively) prescribed in organic farming systems. Overall it is concluded that on average, across regions and production seasons, organic crops have more antioxidants and less Cd and pesticide residues than the non-organic comparators.

      Corresponding author: Prof. Carlo Leifert, phone +44 1661 830 222, fax +44 1661 831 006, email  [email protected]

      2. NUTRITIONAL COMPOSITION OF ORGANIC CROP FOODS STUDY: BRIEFING NOTE

      Newcastle University, School of Agriculture Food and Rural Development (AFRD)

      About the Study

      A new scientific paper published in the British Journal of Nutrition shows that there are significant composition differences between organic and conventional crops (primarily vegetables, fruit and cereals) that are relevant in terms of nutritional quality.

      It is the most up-to-date analysis of the nutrient content in organic compared to conventionally produced foods, synthesising the results of many more studies than previous analyses. The findings are the result of a groundbreaking new systematic literature review and meta-analysis by an international team of scientists led by experts at Newcastle University.

      The most striking differences revealed in the study are: higher concentrations of antioxidants, lower levels of cadmium, nitrate and nitrite, and less frequent presence of pesticide residues in organic crops compared with non-organic.

      In presenting robust evidence of substantial differences and significant nutritional benefits from organic food, this study contrasts markedly with some previous studies, in particular with the findings of a 2009 UK Food Standards Agency (FSA)-commissioned study (Dangour et al. Am. J. Clin Nutr. 90, 680-685).

      The new analysis of organic crops is based on 343 peer-reviewed publications solely focusing on organic crops, fruit and vegetables, whereas the FSA-commissioned study based its conclusions on just 46 publications covering crops, meat and dairy. The Newcastle University study specifically sought to identify and quantify compositional differences between organic and conventional crops (primarily cereals, vegetables and fruit) and crop-based products (e.g. seed oils, wine and baby food) based on a systematic review of all the available literature and data.

      With over 50% of the publications included in the new analysis published since 2006 (and therefore not available to the FSA-commissioned researchers, and other earlier studies), this review is a landmark in the advancement of our knowledge of the subject.

      While people should not eat less fruit or vegetables, this study demonstrates that choosing food produced according to organic standards can lead to increased intake of antioxidants without increased calorie intake. With greater nutrient and antioxidant density, every mouthful of fruit and vegetables produced organically can count for more. This constitutes an important addition to the information currently available to consumers.

      The authors of this study welcome the continued public and scientific debate on this important subject. The entire database generated and used for this analysis is freely available on the Newcastle University website (http://research.ncl.ac.uk/nefg/QOF) for the benefit of other experts and interested members of the public.

      The Main Findings

      Organic crops/crop-based foods – on average, across regions and production seasons – have substantially more potentially health-promoting antioxidants, phenolics and (poly)phenolics and less potentially harmful cadmium, nitrite and pesticide residues than non-organic comparators.

      The analysis indicates that the quality of food is strongly influenced by the way it is produced, and that organic farming methods lead to increased levels of nutritionally desirable compounds and reduced concentrations of undesirable ones. In particular, there is increasing evidence that higher levels of manufactured chemical fertilisers, most notably the nitrogen and phosphate-based fertilisers that are prohibited or heavily restricted by organic farming standards, lead to substantially lower concentrations of antioxidants in conventional crops.

      Organic farming prohibits the use of synthetic chemical pesticides, and promotes the use of balanced crop nutrition, crop rotation and mechanical, biological and cultural methods for weed, pest and disease control. This explained the very low incidence of pesticide contamination in organic compared to conventional crops found in the study and demonstrated that organic food consumption is an efficient way to reduce dietary pesticide exposure.

      More Antioxidants/(Poly)phenolics

      Organic crops and crop-based food products were found to have significantly higher concentrations of antioxidants (including phenolic acids, flavanones, stilbenes, flavones, flavonols and anthocyanines)compared with their conventionally produced counterparts.  The mean percentage difference for most antioxidant compounds was between plus 18% and 69%. Smaller, but still statistically significant, composition differences were also detected for a number of carotenoids and vitamins.

      A switch to eating organic fruit, vegetable and cereals (and food made from them) would lead to a 20–40% (and for some compounds up to a 60%) increase in crop-based antioxidant/(poly)phenolic consumption without any increase in calories. This is important as there is strong scientific evidence of the health benefits of increased consumption of (poly)phenolics and other plant secondary metabolites with antioxidant activity, most notably protection against chronic diseases, including cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases and some cancers.

      Less Toxic Metals and Nitrogen

      Substantially lower concentrations of a range of toxic heavy metals were detected in organic crops, particularly cadmium (on average 48% lower). Cadmium is one of only three toxic metal contaminants (along with lead and mercury) for which the European Commission has set maximum permitted contamination levels in food. Since it is known to accumulate in the body (especially the liver and kidneys), any reduction in cadmium consumption is positive.

      Nitrogen concentrations were also found to be significantly lower in organic crops.  Concentrations of total nitrogen were 10%, nitrate 30% and nitrite 87% lower in organic compared with conventional crops.

      The higher nitrate and nitrite concentrations in conventional crops are believed to be linked to the use of mineral nitrogen fertiliser, which is strictly banned under organic farming standards.

      The significantly higher nitrite concentrations in conventional crops can be considered nutritionally undesirable, as they have been described as potential risk factors for stomach cancer and other conditions.

      Less Pesticide Residues

      This study found that the frequency of occurrence of detectable pesticide is four times higher in conventional (46 (+/-4)%) than organic (11(+/-2)%) crops.

      Conventionally grown fruit had by far the highest frequency of pesticide residues (75(+/-5%), about seven times higher than in organic fruit. In conventional vegetables and crop-based processed foods the frequency of pesticide residues was three to four times higher than in organic. All organic crop types were found to have similarly low contamination rates.

      The understanding that they contain lower levels of pesticides is already a key factor motivating some consumers to choose organic foods, making this further information useful for consumer choice.

      While further studies are needed to clarify the health benefits of reducing pesticide exposure, any reduction can be considered desirable, especially since we know that a significant proportion of conventional crop samples regulated by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) contain pesticide residues above permitted levels. For example, in recent EFSA surveys pesticide residues above the Maximum Residue Levels (MRL) were found in 6.2% of spinach, 3.8% of oats, 3.4% of peach, 3% of orange, 2.9% of strawberry and lettuce, 2.8% of table grape and 2.7% of apple samples. 

      The fact that pesticides are found twice as frequently in conventional fruit than in conventional vegetables is also significant and may point to greater use of persistent chemicals and/or pesticides being applied closer to harvest time in fruit crops.

      Need for Further, and More Reliable, Scientific Studies

      This study identified serious deficiencies in a large proportion of previously published studies. These include a lack of standardised measurements and reporting, and evidence of duplicative or selective reporting of data collected in experiments.

      The statistical methods used in the Newcastle University study were an advance over previous research syntheses that did not balance out the contribution of larger studies versus smaller ones. As well as having less evidence and not accounting for the amount of information, earlier syntheses used less reliable methodologies and inclusion criteria, and some included results from the same experiment multiple times.

      The authors of the Newcastle University study also concluded that further research is needed to understand the variation between studies and that it is vital that future comparative food composition studies use standardised protocols.

      This study identified significant differences, believed to be nutritionally beneficial, in the composition of organic compared with non-organic crops. However, it also highlights the need for more research to build our knowledge of the corresponding human health benefits of these differences.

      The findings of this study clearly demonstrate the urgent need to carry out well-controlled human dietary intervention and cohort studies specifically designed to identify and quantify the health impacts of switching to organic food.

      About the funding of this study

      The authors are grateful for funding from the European Community financial participation under the Sixth Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities for the Integrated Project QUALITYLOWINPUTFOOD, FP6-FOOD-CT-2003- 506358.

      The study also received financial and technical support from the SheepdroveTrust, which supports independent R&D underpinning the development of organic and sustainable farming and food systems. Financial support by the Trust was without conditions and the Trust had no influence on the design and management of the research project and the preparation of publications from the project.

      To read the full paper, as published in the British Journal of Nutrition, go to:http://research.ncl.ac.uk/nefg/QOF. This includes further information and annexes, and summary information in English, German, French, Italian, Greek, Polish, Czech and Finnish.

      Higher antioxidant concentrations, and less cadmium and pesticide residues, in organically grown crops: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.  Leifert, C. et al. (2014) British Journal of Nutrition July 2014

      The full dataset of this study is being made publicly available athttp://research.ncl.ac.uk/nefg/QOF

      For more information please contact:

      Lead author Professor Carlo Leifert 

      Tel:  01661-830222/830444

      e-mail: Teresa Jordon [email protected]

       

       

    • Addressing point 4:

      Mission for long term sustainability of smallholder producer communities:

      The UN agencies correctly have and continue to sound alarms about the urgent need for the rural poor smallholder producer communities (about 50% of the world’s population), to return to producer oriented, economies of scope development, following ecological/ natural/ organic agriculture systems, being sustainable in the long term, thus ensuring their access to nutritious food needs, at little or no cost and also feed the world. In contrast, the United States, Canada, Australia and some EU governments are pushing for the high cost external input, chemical intensive and corporate-dominated industrial farming systems and now also GMOs. UNCTAD report, link at:

      “Trade and Environment Review 2013: Wake Up Before It’s Too Late,”

      has contributions from more than 60 scientist/ experts around the world, mostly re iterating the findings of the IAASTD report, link at:

       December 2010 UN Report

      Reports also argue that smallholder producer communities following low cost organic/ natural/ ecological agriculture systems of their area is the answer for “feeding the world,” not the high cost conventional Industrial/ GMOs with a focus on mono cultures agriculture systems, being the cause of distress, deep debt and suicides.

      The UN reports rightly calls for, major changes in food, agriculture and trade systems, to focus on  meeting the conversion needs of the rural poor smallholder producer communities, if they  are to access their requirement of nutritious food, thus reducing hunger, malnutrition, poverty and suicides  whilst improving livelihoods, increasing net profits and purchasing power, effects of climate change and ensuring their long term sustainability.

      These reports also demand that global trade rules be reformed in order to work toward these ends as the proposed trade deals like the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the U.S.- EU Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) are primarily designed to strengthen the hold of multinational corporate and financial institutions managing the global agriculture economy are mostly working against the rural poor smallholder producer communities. Further ,with food prices (and speculation in food prices) on the rise, the report states that the present conventional systems are seeking to accomplish the opposite by continuing to push for their high cost green revolution/ GMO technologies..

      Thus, the reports call upon the Governments, National and Global Agriculture and Research Systems to shift from their conventional, high cost mono culture dependent external input based industrial production to following the low cost successful ecological/ natural agriculture systems, as applicable to the soil and agro climatic conditions in each area, that optimizes nutrition and improves  agriculture productivity of smallholder producer communities.

       

    • Following Ecological Agriculture Systems Ensures area of the   low cost production of  'nutritious food'

      Agriculture faces the challenge of not just meeting the growing demand for more but also safe, nutritious food and produced in a way that it is sustainable in the long term for the illiterate rural poor smallholder producer communitiess, constituting over 50% of the population in developing countries around the world.

      Given the persistence of hunger, Mal nutrition, health and poverty problems, there is need to review conventional agriculture 'nutrition and health through a lens to  identity the Integrated Agriculture Research for Development (IAR4D) areas for meeting the needs of the smallholder producer communities.

      To better understand the producer and their communities', meeting their requirements of nutrition, health and food needs, we first need to ascertain how currently their needs are addressed, document this and their successful low cost integrated agriculture models, meeting their own nutrition, health and food needs and at farm gate prices. These successful farmers need to be contracted for wide replication. This is the first step for reducing the cost, optimizing farm production and increasing the purchasing power and net income of the rural poor producer Communities, Ensuring nutrition, health and food security for Their long term sustainability.     

      Adding value to the produce locally for increase increasing shelf life, THUS zero down post harvest-losses, made possible With the intervention of the producer orgs (PC) staffed by professionals (general practitioners [GPs] / MBAs in agriculture, Set up by the smallholder producer Communities, but Facilitated by public funding ..

      The focus on nutrition-sensitive agri 'Culture' is of high priority and is gaining international attention, if we are to mitigate hunger, Poor nutrition, poverty and climate change (MDGs).  Also review how agriculture and food systems can be leveraged to mitigate hunger, Poor nutrition, poverty and climate change in a more sustainable and equitable Manner.

      Some areas for IAR4D:

      One.     Conversion of conventional agriculture to the Ecological Agriculture Systems of each area to Ensure  nutrition, health and food security through agriculture.

      Two.     Value Addition 'in not just agriculture Could Contribute to improved shelf life, harvest Minimizing post-losses, nutritional outcomes, but healthy food systems for Improving economic development and Reducing subsidies.

      Three.     Comparative research Between the Local and conventional agriculture and integrated agriculture on farmer fields to focus on safety and nutrition and  to document / nutritious food and agriculture system of each area, Especially Those Programmes and projects have resulted in improved That nutritional outcomes to be used as the baseline for future IAR4D projects, sharing the success and or failure factors, constraints faced, Lessons Learned: how the impact and objective nutritional Measured and was built into the program.

      Four.     The key gaps in knowledge or good practices abitur That the limit of agriculture and food systems to optimize nutrition through agriculture.

    • Further to my earlier contribution and since I strongly believe that 'Nutrition education' does have an enormous potential to motivate producer communities to follow their low cost ecological agri systems thus ensuring their access to safe and improved diets and of the general public who consume their produce. Answers to your Qs:

      Are you aware of programmes aiming to improve the dietary quality and diversity of farming families?

      With the Govt of India deciding on funding, assisting and provide supporting to the whole of North East India for replicating the hill State of Sikkim’s successful model of converting to the producer oriented economies of scope low cost ecological/ organic agriculture system will ensure the producer communities access to safe, nutritious food and cash needs of the producer communities, the possibilities are huge if this experiment succeeds in all hill states of the world, especially as Bhutan as a country has decided to go organic by 2020.

      How can ecological agri systems and nutrition education/ knowledge increase the demand for local family farming produce with high nutritional value?

      The produce from organic agriculture ensures access to the farmer families at little or no cost, is tasty and safe, thus ensures good health (little or no medical cost), thus will increase demand among producer communities and markets in the vicinity whilst reducing the effects of climate change.

    • 1. What are the existing national and regional programs which aim to improve the dietary quality and dietary diversity of farming families?

      Government of India has recognized the fact that the market oriented economies of scale green revolution technologies/ industrial agriculture, were and continue to be  dependent on high cost agro chemicals and seed, irrigated water and increasing each year, is the cause of deep debt/ distress among producer communities having small holdings, dependent on rain/ water harvesting in arid areas (84% of the farmers). The Government for now over ten years has made a provision in the annual budget to assist farmers’ conversion to their low cost producer oriented economies of scope ecological agri systems/ organic, thus ensuring their access to nutritious food and long term sustainability. In this process the State of Sikkim has since followed organic principles, banning the use of agro chemicals, GM seeds, etc. The Prime Minister of India has now proposed that the North East States of India follow the Sikkim model for which provision has been made in the new budget. The world needs to follow Bhutan’s example as a country going organic by 2020 especially as numerous reports commissioned by the UN orgs have provided the required evidence that producer communities following their low cost ecological agri systems ensures producer communities (64% of the population) access to nutritious food and also be able to feed the growing populations in the future provided Governments make the required investment in meeting the needs of the producer communities.      

      a. What educational and communication strategies have been used in these programs?

      Knowledge and the understanding of nature, eco agri systems needs to be part of curricula of education from the beginning through high school to enable students to make considered choice of a carreer in agriculture and associated fields, targeting women and youth to become general practitioners (GPs)/ MBAs in agriculture, with colleges offering these subjects.

      b. What main constraints and best practices have been identified?

      Most Governments have gone along with Agri Education and Research institutions over the last 100 years mandate to convert the low cost producer oriented economies of scope ecological agri systems followed by producer communities worldwide to the high cost market oriented economies of scale industrial agriculture (mono crops) systems resulting in the deep crisis being now faced by agriculture, especially the smallholder producer communities (84%) dependent on rain.

      c. What other strategies have potential?

      Fund, assist and support producer communities to set up and own their producer orgs/ company (PC) but staffed by professionals (GP &MBAs) to take over all risks and responsibilities except on farm activities. Governments to ensure required funding is available only through the PC’s bankable proposal based on the evidence provided by the numerous UN org reports, in an effort to ensure the long term sustainability of the community, reducing subsidies over the years.

      2. How can nutrition education increase the demand for local family farming produce with high nutritional value, and thus contribute to improving dietary diversity and to protecting traditional foods and the local food culture?

      a. What are the existing programs in the region in this respect?

      1. Funding for education/ knowledge, conversion and communication proposals to follow the low cost producer oriented economies of scope organic principles, evidence available that produce has high nutritional value and ensures the producer communities access to and protecting traditional nutritious local food and culture, at little or no cost.

      b. What main constraints and best practices can you identify?

      Opposition from the gradutes and specialists whose knowledge is restricted to conventional green revolution agri systems, staffing Government agriculture departments, National, Regional and International Education and Research Institutions.  

      c. What other strategies have potential?

      All education institutions from KG, lower, middle and higher schools and colleges must offer courses in agriculture and allied subjects as over 50% of the worlds population is directlyor indirectly involved with this subject/ rural activity.

    • Political Outcome:

      Support Required Investment for Low Cost Producer Oriented Economies of Scope Ecological Agriculture Systems of each area being Smallholder Rural Poor Producer Community friendly and Abolish Support to the High Cost Market Oriented Economies of Scale Green Revolution Technologies (mono crops) serving only the Large Farmer Interests

      Strengths and Opportunities:

      ‘Low Cost Ecological Agriculture’ will put to work about 60% of India’s rural poor producer communities, ensuring access to their requirement of nutritious food and cash, at little or no cost thus improving livelihood, net incomes and purchasing power and their long term sustainability whilst reducing hunger, malnutrition, poverty, suicides and the effect of climate. In contrast, distortions due to the high cost green revolution agricultural economy which perversely incentivizes farmers to grow wheat and rice (mono crops which have MSPs and subsidies for highbrid/ GM seeds).

      It will help boost farm production spread over 12 months, minimize risks with income from non-cereal food items, like vegetables, lentils, fruits, diary, fisheries, energy, production of inputs, etc. This will put a lid on food inflation with 60% of the rural poor producing for meeting their own requirements of nutritious food, value adding to the surplus, if any, for increasing the shelf life of the produce for storage and thus minimizing post harvest losses (presently 40%). MSPs (which have only moved upwards) and subsidies will no longer be required once the producers have become sustainable in the long term (about 10 years) with high economic development and job created through agriculture. An income support programme will ensure that needy farmers are compensated for any loss in income caused during their conversion to the low cost Ecological Agriculture System of their area abolition of subsidies and MSPs.

      Weaknesses and Threats:

      Conversion to ‘Ecological Agriculture Systems’ of each area from the green revolution technologies incentivized by Government/ NARES mostly followed by large industrial farmers who have benefitted from subsidies, MSPs, etc. are well organized and will protest and there will also be scientist/ political opposition to what will be portrayed as an anti-farmer policy.

      Identifying needy farmers for the income support programme will be a challenge as they will require assistance and support for setting up democratic producer organizations/ company (PC amendment IX A of the companies act) but staffed by educated (general practitioners/ MBAs in agriculture) women and youth to take over all responsibilities and risks other than on farm activities.

      How to get it done:

      Involving the CSO/ NGO working with the producer communities for setting up their PC and staffing it with the required professionals to manage on behalf of the members the Government’s introduction of an Income Support Programme, using Aadhar successfully and then followed by announcement to abolish ‘Subsidies & MSP’.However, the implementation of both these policies could be synchronized in calibrated steps over a period of time, so as to ensure that such a major policy reform is not stalled by the sheer scale of the change. As it will curb food inflation – an issue that pinches the majority – must be used as argument by the Government to persuade public opinion.

      Case Study:

      New Zealand farmers mostly follow their Ecological Agriculture Systems and are sustainable in the long term (without farm subsidies). This can be achieved in India in less than 10 years provided the required investments are made in Human and Institutional Development for meeting the needs of the rural poor producer communities to correct the wrong policies of the past 50 years: · 

      Announcing of a moratorium on export and futures trading ban only after the rural poor have converted to Ecological Agriculture and have access to their requirement of nutritious food and cash.· 

      Invest in locally adapted modern seed technology, enabling producers to produce their own seed.· 

      Amend Food Security Bill; Government’s introduction of an Income Support Programme for Rural Producer Communities through their PC and reduce coverage only to urban poor through Aadhar for cash transfers.· 

      Provide the financial resources for rural producer communities to contract CSO/ NGOs to assist them to set up their PC and staffed with the required professionals.· 

      Abolish the Agriculture Produce Market Committee (APMC) Act.· 

      Provide funding to allow PCs to manage.· 

      Fund/ Aid Integration of allied activities; Water harvesting/ table, energy production/ distribution projects, Horticulture, Poultry, Fisheries & Animal Husbandry.· 

      Institutes of Agriculture be converted to serving the needs of education, knowledge, training, action research in the area leaving research to the CSIR institutes.

      Encourage Modernisation as applicable to the soil and agro climatic conditions of each area, using hand tools, etc., to improve quality and production

    • A policy for agriculture and rural investment:

      This policy brief on agriculture and rural development is aimed to make agriculture and rural producer communities sustainable in the long term. It would not only avert the impending food,nutrition and health crisis but also improve security, climate risks whilst increasingly reduce the subsidies of the Governments in the next one decade.

      In the light of the increasing evidences from across the world in support of integrated ecological agriculture for sustainability, the policy in line with the best of understanding of making agriculture and rural communities sustainable.  It is also substantiated by various practices, policies and declarations from different national and international organizations. A few of them are cited below:

      1.      According to FAO,

      http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/nr/sustainability_pathways/docs/Factsheet_SMALLHOLDERS.pdf,

      Smallholder family producer communities,

      http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/index.shtml,  50 percent women, provide up to 80 percent of the food supply in South Asia, are productive, drivers of change and given the resources could increase farm production by 20 – 30 %. They mostly follow their low cost ‘Agro Ecological, climate-resilient agriculture’, primarily for meeting the producer communities own ‘Food, Nutrition, Health and

      Cash’ needs. A few  examples are cited below:

      1.   Nava Jyoti, Orissa

      www.navajyoti.org,

      2. One village. 60 millionaires, the miracle of Hiware Bazar, Maharashtra, the suicide State of India,

      http://www.tehelka.com/story_main54.asp?filename=Ne201012VILLAGE.asp

      3.     Panchavat Academy, Kuthambakkam (34 miles from Chennai),

      Website: www.modelvillageindia.org

      4. The System of Crop Intensification (SCI) -

      http://independentsciencenews.org/un-sustainable-farming/how-millions-of-farmers-are-advancing-agriculture-for-themselves/,

      now being followed by millions of prosperous farmers worldwide,

      5. Protect Water Quality, Replenish Aquifers and Saves the Soil:

      http://www.i-sis.org.uk/How_Farmers_Can_Protect_Water_Quality.php,

      6. Increasing ‘Cropping System Diversity’ balances productivity, profitability and environmental health, a USDA and Univ of IOWA case study,

      http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0047149,

      These systems ensures the producer communities’ access to nutritious food, reduces hunger, malnutrition, poverty, suicides and the effects of climate change, whilst improving rural livelihoods, increasing net incomes and purchasing power, thus making their country sustainable in the long term and the key to agriculture contributing substantially to the country’s security and economic growth, Coventry report as attached.

      Thus, the emphasis should be on low cost economies of scope integrated agriculture system, as applicable to the soil and agro climatic condition of each area (cereals, horticulture, animal husbandry, aquaculture, water harvesting, etc.), water harvesting, producing seed, energy, inputs on farm /locally and minimizing demand for water, energy, etc., over the years.

      In contrast, as we know, that the green revolution technologies require increasing quantities of the high cost seeds, agro chemicals, water,  etc., year after year, reducing the net incomes/

      purchasing power of the producer communities and which have and will continue to have disastrous effects on climate change/drought, the soil and their long term sustainability. Briefly:

      a.      Agriculture Policy:  needs to take a clear direction towards sustainable agriculture for minimizing the risks of the farmers and increasing risks of climate change .Some of the key areas of intervention that the policy needs to cover are on farm/agro forestry, kitchen garden, fodder cultivation, cattle shed, kitchen gardens, in-situ water conservation, bio-villages, action research and codification of science of sustainable agriculture, facilitate training of sustainable agriculture with the help of locally successful sustainable agricultural farmers. This also means that policy should develop a clear time plan to exit from the external input based industrial agriculture. (Nayak. 2014.  Baseline Study on Sustainable Agriculture in India)

       b.      Institutional Architecture: To make the sustainable agricultural policy work among the smallholder producer communities, an appropriate institutional architecture needs to be set up to deliver both ecosystem services and effectively deal with the pre harvest and post harvest needs of the small and marginal farmers (Nayak, 2014. Baseline Study on Sustainable Agriculture in India).

       c.       Following Integrated Agriculture System of the area shall be given the predominant role it deserves in our agrarian society, with the emphasis on self sufficiency for the producer communities’ meeting their own nutrition, food, health and cash requirements.  Adequate land area shall be identified & reserved for agriculture and allied activities, and such lands shall not be diverted to any other activities except under very rare circumstances for which the consent from the concerned state legislature and the parliament shall be obtained after due diligence in establishing the critical national need for such a diversion.

      d. With more than 60% of the population in the country being smallholder rural producer communities, depending on activities associated with agriculture, but contributing only about 16% of GDP from agriculture, there is an urgent need to refocus on funding

      innovative agriculture research for development (IAR4D) and meeting all their needs, making this the backbone of our economy and thus substantially increasing agriculture’s contribution to the national economy.

      e. Adequate funding, support and encouragement for converting to the integrated agriculture system and allied activities ( producing inputs, value addition to increase the shelf life of the produce, storage and minimizing post harvest losses) shall be ensured in order to produce enough nutritious food (horticulture, grains, dairy produce, etc.,) for their own and the growing requirements of the people in the vicinity on a long term sustainable basis and thus minimize the cost of transportation and pollution (climate change), eradicating import of food grains. In order to develop and implement sustainable practices the effective involvement of various stake holders such as CSO/ NGOs, successful farmers following their low cost integrated agriculture system and agricultural institutions should be

      ensured in the policy/decision making levels.

      f.  Focus on low cost economies of scope staple crop of the area such as ragi and  other millets and following the integrated agriculture systems which are suitable for dry/ arid regions of the country should be encouraged, not just the high cost economies of

      scale mono crops like rice and wheat green revolution technologies, which requires increasing quantities of water, seed, fertilizer and other agro chemicals each year and closely associated with Climate Change/ Global Warming as is the case now.

      g.      Vast varieties of native fruit species such as banana, jack fruit, mango, guava, pomegranate, orange etc. have huge potential to reduce the dependence on water intensive agricultural crops, and hence should be encouraged fully and as part of the integrated agriculture system.

      h.       Many varieties of tree species which can become perennial source of fodder, bio mass, etc., additional income to our farmers through bio-fuel and/or timber value potential, and which are also environmentally friendly should be encouraged as fencing crops, and

      also on barren lands and as an integral part of their integrated agriculture system.

      i.     In view of large areas of arid and semi arid areas in many parts of the country, widespread use of water harvesting for scientific dry land farming practices such as millets, horticulture, perennials, etc., should become an important part of agrarian economy.

      j.     In order to make agriculture a viable/ attractive option in rural India, human and institutional capacity should be developed adequately in women and educated youth being trained to become general practitioners in agriculture to shoulder the entrepreneurial risks and responsibilities, with good roads, telecommunication, health, and education facilities.

      k.        Agricultural produce/ products should be produced primarily for meeting the nutritious food needs of the rural producer communities, accessible to them at farm gate price, value addition for storage and release when prices peak, if we are to make the rural life meaningful through the intervention of the producer communities setting up their producer org/ company (PC) but staffed with professionals, to manage the ‘cash to cash cycle’ of each member.

      See the attachments:

    • >> VERSION FRANÇAISE CI-DESSOUS <<

      Students are now a part of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in agriculture and rural development.

      The Hindu report ("Farming is now part of CSR") will be of assistance for you to intervene and ensure that the Goa CSR model is replicated by all colleges, management institutions in Africa, assisted and facilitated by the Ministry of Education, governments, National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), Institutes of Agri Research, Universities and globally through World Bank, UN FAO and IFAD and the CGIAR.

      You can also observe that the call given by us during GCARD-I consultation process, to focus on and create capacity in educating rural youth (general practitionners and MBAs in agriculture) for the management of integrated agriculture systems (read UNCTAD TER 13) in their area, documenting and widely replicating the models of successful farmers, achieved through Inovative Agriculture Research for Development (IAR4D), season after season, adapting to climate change, ensuring a positive 'cash to cash cycle', not leaving our future only to 'breeders''.

      Les étudiants sont maintenant une partie de la responsabilité sociale des entreprises (RSE) dans l'agriculture et le développement rural .

      Le rapport hindou ( "L'agriculture fait désormais partie de la RSE" - article en anglais) peut être utile pour faire en sorte que le modèle de RSE de Goa soit répliquée par tous les collèges, instituts de gestion en Afrique et facilité par les ministèrse de l'Éducation, les gouvernements, les banques nationales pour l'agriculture et le développement rural (NABARD), les instituts de recherche agricole, les universités et dans le monde à travers la Banque mondiale, la FAO, le FIDA et le CGIAR .

      Vous pourrez également constater que nous avons lancé un appel durant le processus de consultation de la Conférence mondiale biennale sur la recherche agricole pour le développement , pour se concentrer sur l'éducation des jeunes en milieu rural (praticiens et diplômés en agriculture)pour la gestion des systèmes agricoles intégrés (lire en anglais UNCTAD TER 13 ), et la réplication des bonnes pratiques, obtenues par la recherche agricole pour le développement innovant (IAR4D ). Saison après saison, tout en s’adaptant au changement climatique, ceci favorise un cycle d’exploitation positif.

       

    • >> VERSION FRANÇAISE CI-DESSOUS <<

      Dear colleagues,

      I have read the contributions made till now and have a better understanding of social protection required by the rural poor in West Africa, especially smallholder producer communities, being mostly illiterate are vulnerable  and at high risk as they have little or no access to resources.

      To get them out of hunger, malnutrition and poverty, they need to be given the required assistance and facilitated to set up their orgs/ company (PC), staffed by professionals [general practitioners (GPs) and MBAs in agriculture], to take over all responsibilities and manage risks - cash to cash cycle (www.navajyoti.org, a model PC), leaving members to on farm activities, focus on producing low cost nutritious food of the area, mostly for their own needs, value adding to increase shelf life of their produce, thus minimizing post harvest losses and  ensuring access to nutritious food and cash, round the year, surplus if any, PC to market in the vicinity and when prices peak.

      Chèrs collègues,

      J'ai lu les contributions faites jusqu'à présent et j'ai désormais une meilleure compréhension des besoins de protection sociale des ruraux pauvres d'Afrique de l'Ouest. Les communautés de petits producteurs, le plus souvent analphabètes, sont les plus vulnérables car ils ont un accès limité aux ressources.

      Afin qu'ils sortent de situation de faim, de malnutrition et de pauvreté, il est nécessaire qu'on leurs fournisse une assistance et des facilités pour développer leurs activités. Cela peut se faire à l'aide de professionnels (praticiens et diplômés en agriculture) afin de mieux prendre en charge les responsabilités et gérer les risques du cycle d'exploitation (voir l’exemple www.navajyoti.org) tout en laissant les membres de l’exploitation agricole se concentrer sur la production de nourriture bon marché à fort potentiel nutritionnel, principalement pour leurs propres besoins. Cela permet d’augmenter la durée de conservation de la production et donc de minimiser les pertes post-récolte, et d’assurer l'accès à la nourriture et à des revenus financiers tout au long de l'année. En cas de surplus, la vente peut se faire dans le voisinage et quand les prix augmentent.

    •  Dear Colleagues:

      • Communities followed sustainable agri ‘Culture’ in their areas to produce nutritious food, mostly for their own needs.
      • Conversion to mono crops, with a focus on farm management, was done by the colonial rulers, for serving their political and commercial interests.
      • Increasing conversion each year to commercial crops like cotton, tea, coffee, jute, rubber, sugarcane, etc., resulted in less production by the small holders of nutritious food for their own and their country’s needs (decrease in purchasing power), leading to scarcity and famine like conditions
      • Increased cost of production, taxes and the reducing prices for commodities (green revolution techs) produced also reduced producers’ access to nutritious food and net income.
      • Post independence, senior scientists sent for advanced education abroad,   mostly specializing in green revolution (GR) technologies – loosing focus on sustainable integrated agriculture systems of the local areas
      • GR tech increased productivity for about a decade, with production plateau and decreasing in some cases whilst cost of production and requirement of water increased each year
      • Agricultural and Education System (ARES), Central & State Government agri depts. were and are staffed by scientists, mostly specialists, responsible for policies.
      • Focus was to meet the supply side (top down) when the need was more for the demand side (bottom up smallholder needs)
      • Production cost increased due to dependence on external inputs and hybrid/ GM/ BT seeds for implementing Green Revolution technologies, oil crisis, etc., further reducing net incomes, access to low cost nutritious food, resulting in rural hunger, malnutrition, poverty, debt, suicides and climate change

      HISTORY:

      Communities followed integrated agriculture system of their area to produce nutritious food for their own needs and at little or no cost, before the arrival of their colonial rulers, For serving their political and commercial interests, farms were converted to produce mono crops importing agro chemical inputs, converting more and more land for commercial crops like cotton, tea, coffee, jute, rubber, sugarcane, etc., reducing the land for production of nutritious food by the smallholder producer communities for their own needs. Policies, rules and regulations focused on commercial mono crops,, resulting in the decrease of purchasing power, taxing rural producers, increasing cost of production also resulted  in the decrease of farm produce prices and the producers’ net incomes. The resulting decrease in smallholder farm  production and  availability of nutritious food, leading to scarcity and famine like conditions during the world wars and also after independence (early 1960 in India).

      After many countries became independent from colonial rule, large sums of money were made available as aid for development of agriculture by the erstwhile colonial powers as well as the USA, with subtle conditions attached, eg.,  USAID made provisions to give scientists grants for advanced studies in the land grant universities of the USA, where the curricula focuses on mechanized industrial GR agriculture (most farms being over 100 hectares), training them as specialists, with little or no knowledge about the integrated low cost agriculture of the local areas in their country and sustainable in the long term for the smallholder producers. Most returned with PHD’s and thus on their return were given the responsibility to replicate the industrial agriculture models with AID funds, pursuing commercial mono crops, primarily to keep down the world prices of agricultural commodities, like rice, wheat, maize, cotton, rubber, tea, coffee, etc, loosing focus on producing nutritious food, good agriculture and management practices (GAP).

      The agri policies of the Indian government, post independence, continued to serve the commercial interest of the North (Europe/ USA/ Canada/ Australia), rather than the bottom up knowledge and management needs of smallholder friendly, integrated agriculture systems of each area for their long term sustainability primarily producing nutritious food to meet their own needs and that of the increasing rural populations in the vicinity, The continuing focus on commercial crops lead to shortages, scarcity and famine like conditions in the sixties, creating a panic among policy makers. By now, in addition to the agriculture research & education systems (ARES), most Central and State Government positions in agriculture were filled by Scientists, mostly specialists, opening the flood gates for  conventional agri technologies being forced on all farmers, as official extension programmes and schemes (subsidies) of the Government, especially in the irrigated areas of the country. The use of agro chemicals on rich soils built over centuries, did increase productivity for a decade, temporarily solving the immediate problem of shortages by meeting supply side but ignoring the demand side of access to good management to produce nutritious food needs of the rural producer communities.

      However, in about ten years there was enough evidence documented that the GR productivity had plateau and decreasing in some areas, requiring increasing quantities and higher prices for fertilizer, seed and water each year. Added to this was the global oil crisis since the 70’s, resulting in the huge increase in the costs of imports, transportation, production of agro chemicals, etc., making conventional farming unviable and forcing governments to subsidise production of external inputs. In spite of subsidies, the purchasing power (mono crops) and net incomes of farmers, especially smallholder producer communities reduced each year (often below cost of production, waste, etc., due to un abling policies), resulting in rural hunger, malnutrition, poverty, suicides and climate change.

      UN agencies have taken the initiative over the last 5 years to support holistic solutions for the long term sustainability of over 2 billion hungry, malnourished, poor, deep in debt rural producer communities, with UNCTAD’s TER of September 18, 2013, taking the ARES, World Bank, etc., head on, urgently calling for a ‘Paradigm shift in agriculture’. attached.

    • ‘Make agriculture truly sustainable now for food security in a changing climate’

      UN agencies have taken the initiative over the last 5 years to support holistic solutions for the long term sustainability of over 2 billion hungry, malnourished, poor, deep in debt rural producer communities, with UNCTAD’s TER of September 18, 2013, taking the ARES, World Bank, etc., head on, urging for a 'Paradigm shift in agriculture' IAR4D needs attached and for us to 'Wake up before it is too late', read TER at:

      http://unctad.org/en/pages/PublicationWebflyer.aspx?publicationid=666,

      HISTORY:

      Communities followed integrated agriculture system of their area to produce nutritious food for their own needs and at little or no cost, before the arrival of their colonial rulers, For serving their political and commercial interests, farms were converted to produce mono crops importing high cost agro chemical inputs, converting more and more land for commercial crops like cotton, tea, coffee, jute, rubber, sugarcane, etc., reducing the land for production of nutritious food by the smallholder producer communities for their own/ country needs. Policies, rules and regulations focused on commercial mono crops,, resulting in the decrease of purchasing power, taxing rural producers, increasing cost of production, resulting  in the decrease of farm produce prices and or producers’ net incomes. The resulting decrease in smallholder farm production and  availability of nutritious food, lead to hunger, malnutrition, debt, poverty, scarcity and famine like conditions from time to time especially during the world wars and after independence (early 1960 in India).

      After many countries became independent from colonial rule, large sums of money were made available as aid for development of agriculture by the erstwhile colonial powers as well as the USA, with subtle conditions attached, eg.,  USAID made provisions to give grants for scientists’  advance studies in the land grant universities of the USA, where the curricula focused on mechanized industrial green revolution (GR) technologies (most farms being over 100 hectares), training them as specialists, with little or no knowledge about the integrated low cost agriculture of different  areas in their country and sustainable in the long term for the smallholder producers. Most on return, made the agriculture policies of their country, continued to serve the commercial interest of the North (Europe/ USA/ Canada/ Australia), implemented their industrial agriculture models, using AID funds, ensuring continuation of their commercial interests (mono crops), primarily to keep down the world prices of agricultural commodities, like rice, wheat, maize, cotton, rubber, tea, coffee, etc, loosing focus on producing nutritious food, following the low cost integrated agriculture and management practices (GAP), etc., essential for meeting their own safe and nutritious food needs and the long term sustainability of the producer communities and markets in the vicinity.

      The continuing focus on commercial crops lead to shortages, scarcity and famine like conditions in the sixties, creating a panic among policy makers [mostly scientists staffing agriculture research & education systems (ARES), most Central and State Government covering agriculture departments, mostly specialists, opening the flood gates for  GR  technologies being forced on all farmers, as part of official extension programmes and schemes (subsidies) of the Government, especially in the irrigated areas of the country. The use of agro chemicals on rich soils built over centuries, did increase productivity for a while, temporarily solving the immediate problem of shortages by meeting supply side but ignoring the demand side of producers’ access to required knowledge and management to produce nutritious food needs of the rural producer communities/ contry.

      However, in about ten years there was enough evidence documented that the GR productivity had plateau and decreasing in most areas, requiring increasing quantities and higher prices for fertilizer, seed and water each year. Added to this was the global oil crisis since the 70’s, resulting in the huge increase in the costs of fossil fuel imports, transportation, production of agro chemicals, etc., making conventional farming unviable and forcing governments to subsidies production of external inputs. In spite of subsidies, the purchasing power (mono crops) and net incomes of farmers, especially smallholder producer communities reduced each year (often below cost of production) resulting in rural hunger, malnutrition, poverty, suicides and climate change.

      See the attachments:

    • You will be pleased to read the CGIAR Chairman's forward, written for UNCTAD’s Trade and Environment Review 2013 - "Wake Up Before Its Too Late ", endorsing the paradigm shift required in agriculture.

      Some highlights:

      Better understanding of the multi – functionality of agriculture being of  pivotal importance for the significant role it can play in development of rural poor producer communities’ access to safe, sufficient, nutritious food and mitigating/ adapting to climate change

      ·        Around one billion people chronically suffer from starvation and another billion are malnourished (70% of these two billion are themselves small producers/ agriculture labour) as they do not have the money to access sufficient nutritious food for their own needs

      ·        Priority in conventional systems remains on productivity and economies of scale, with the focus being on ‘Industrial Agriculture’

      ·        Paradigm shift and Fundamental transformation towards sustainable low cost agriculture systems needs to be recognized to ensure the ‘Right of everyone to safe, sufficient nutritious food is a reality before the MDG’s deadline of 2015 (June 20, 12, Rio +20

      declaration).

      Links are given below to the press release of Sept 18, 2013, and the report:

      http://unctad.org/en/pages/PressRelease.aspx?OriginalVersionID=154

      , http://unctad.org/en/pages/PublicationWebflyer.aspx?publicationid=666

      It is very encouraging that the report focuses on the current crisis in global agriculture and calls upon Governments to change and follow a smallholder producer friendly enabling AR4D path, primarily to put them to work on farm, producing most/ all the nutritious food needs for themselves and markets in the vicinity and tackle the multiple challenges of rural poverty, hunger, malnutrition, suicides, environmental degradation and the effects of climate change. This

      requires a rapid and significant shift from conventional monoculture-based and high-external-input-dependent ‘economies of scale’  industrial production towards mosaics of sustainable, regenerative ‘economies of scope’, integrated low cost agriculture systems of each area that considerably improves livelihoods, production, net income and purchasing power of smallholder producer communities.

      This report adds to the growing weight of opinion that conventional industrial agriculture will not deliver future nutritious food security and that efforts to promote low cost ecological farming practices, as adapted by successful farmers of each area, season after season, need to be widely and rapidly scaled-out for producer communities to access the required nutritious food and at little or no cost, thus making agriculture sustainable for nutritious food security and in the long term and substantially contributing to the economic development of developing countries.

       I am attaching the ‘White paper’ (contributed by CSOs for GCARD, Montpelier, March 2010), as it had then initiated the Paradigm shift in AR4D- Old to New, matrix also attached,  focus being on following integrated agriculture of the area, financing of producer orgs/ companies (Private Sector) set up by the rural smallholder producer communities but staffed by professionals (general  practitioners [GPs] and MBAs in agriculture), to take over all responsibilities and manage risks, leaving members mostly to on farm activities.

      Hopefully, the CGIAR and national agricultural research and education systems (NARES)  with the intervention of all stakeholders, ensure that the mandates are re written to include the proposed paradigm shift in the report, also being reflected in their research agenda and gets translated into policy recommendations by Governments, international bodies and multilateral UN agencies.

      Warm regards

      Subhash

    • ·         Policy issues: 

      We need to look at the rural producer orgs/ company (PC) staffed by professionals (general practitioners [GPs] and MBAs in agriculture) playing the role of the private sector and assisted by civil society for  designing and implementing bottom up policies that ensures nutrition through agriculture, following the local integrated low cost agriculture systems and creating human and institutional capacity and filling the knowledge gaps among the women, men and youth, docs attached coverring Policy, Programmes, Governance and Partnerships.

      ·         Programme issues: 

      Document the successful models, contracting these farmers for wide replication in the area assisted by the PC (private sector) and civil society in following integrated nutrition-enhancing community assisted agriculture and food systems programmes at country level and the PC responsible for monitoring the impact on food consumption and reduction of hunger, malnutrition, poverty and effect of climate change whilst improving livelihoods and net incomes.

      ·         Governance:

      NARES, CGIAR, PCs (private sector), CSO/ NGOs, will all need to work as a team and as equal partners, focused on AR4D for meeting the needs of the rural producer communities, from seed to harvest, finance, value addition, infrastructure, marketing/ logistics, etc.,if we are to ensure building effective and sustainable governance mechanisms related food systems and nutrition through agriculture.

      ·         Partnerships:

      Governments, NARES and the CGIAR are mostly urban based and thus it is the contribution of the local successful farmers, PC (private sector) and civil society, mostly working across sectors and building strong linkages with rural producer communities, covering nutritious food and agriculture, social protection, employment, health, education and other key sectors, model available at:

      www.navajyoti.org

      See the attachments:
    • CGIAR's mandate for 'Economies of Scope' and nutrition through agriculture ensure achieving the MDGs in the short term
       
      I am sharing the mails exchanged and attachs shared on the subject, with the CGIAR, Prof Swaminathan and others, in an effort to put this subject on top of the table, if we are to achieve the MDGs and in the short term.
       

      Dear all,

      Very interesting discussion on nutrition sensitive agriculture. I think the best pathway to nutrition for small holder farmers in developing country is agriculture-based nutrition intervention. If the food they produce is nutritious, they could supplement other foods (like cereals) from purchase within the village or available through market mechanisms. Therefore, sustainable technology producing more nutritious food is essential. Whatever land these people have or whatever opportunity is possible to improve access to land, these need to be tapped to grow nutritious food through sustainable technology and social arrangements (like economies of scope) that could enhance all the capitals of these people - social, natural, finance and human.

      Thanks for putting me in the loop. I hope Bonn conference goes well. I would have liked to come to Bonn to share my ideas but t is too late for now.

      jagannath

      (Jagannath Adhikari)

      ---------- Forwarded message ----------

      From: Subhash Mehta <[email protected]>

      To: "Myriam Ait Aissa (ACF)" <[email protected]>,

      "[email protected]" <[email protected]>,

      [email protected]

      Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 13:41:25 +0530

      Subject: 'Economies of Scope' & nutrition through agriculture ensures long term sustainability of smallholder producers

      Dear Myriam,

      I am forwarding the mails exchanged by me with the CGIAR and Prof Swaminathan in this regard along with all the attachments for your assistance. Please do press home the fact that the CGIAR needs to revisit its 'Economies of scale' mandate, as it works against the rural poor smallholder producer communities who need to follow the low cost integrated agriculture of their area adopting 'Economies of Scope' to have access for their needs of nutritious food at little or no cost,

      if we are to achieve the MDGs and in the short time.

      Wishing you and Christine all the best and hope you are both able to persuade the CGIAR into re writing their mandates if they mean what they say about serving the poor smallholder producer communities.

      Warm regards

      Subhash

      ---------- Forwarded message ----------

      From: Subhash Mehta <[email protected]>

      Date: Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 4:18 PM

      Subject: 'Economies of Scope' ensures long term sustainability of

      smallholder producers

      To: "William D. Dar ap" <[email protected]>

      Cc: Prof M S Swaminathan <[email protected]>,

      Dear Willie,

      This has reference to the mails exchanged and Prof Swaminathan's response in this regard, trailed below.

      I am  quoting from the matrix, Ideas for Research, Project Design,

      Implementation and policy for ‘nutrition sensitive food in

      agriculture’, as attached:

      ‘Biofortification - Nutrient-rich crop varieties can be produced through genetic modification but until concerns about GMOs are adequately addressed, biofortified crops be bred by traditional methods’.

      Prof Swaminathan's concern above, is reiterated by Jack Heineman, calling for better research and better process, before continuing to release GM crops into the environment or using them as food, reported by the Hindu and available at:

      http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/keep-the-pause-button-on-gm-pressed/article5101446.ece

      To assist the CGIAR in using the $400 million committed by the Gates Foundation to facilitate producer communities and all other people to access the required quantities of nutritious food, while contributing to economic growth, I am also attaching the following docs on

      nutritious food through agriculture:

      1. Enhancing the role of smallholder farmers in achieving sustainable

      food and nutrition security

      2. Synthesis of guiding principles on agriculture programming for nutrition

      3. Key recommendations for Improving Nutrition through Agriculture

      4. Sustainable nutrition security restoring the bridge between

      agriculture and health

      Looking forward to more action in this regard from the CGIAR,

      Warm regards

      Subhash

      ---------- Forwarded message ----------

      From: Prof M S Swaminathan <[email protected]>

      Date: Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 4:06 PM

      Subject:

      To: [email protected]

      MSS/RM/ 5 September 2013

      Dear Shri Mehta

      Thank you very much for sending me a copy of your letter to Dr Willie Dar.  You have made important points.

      With warm regards,

      Yours sincerely,

      M S Swaminathan

      PROF M S SWAMINATHAN

      Founder Chairman and Chief Mentor

      UNESCO Chair in Ecotechnology

      M S Swaminathan Research Foundation

      Third Cross Street, Taramani Institutional Area

      Chennai - 600 113

      Tel: +91 44 2254 2790 / 2254 1229 / 2254 1698; Fax: +91 44 2254 1319

      Email: [email protected]

      ---------- Forwarded message ----------

      From: Srinivasrao, M (ICRISAT-IN) <[email protected]>

      Date: Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 4:05 PM

      Subject: Your mail :

      To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>

      Cc: "Dar, William  (ICRISAT-IN)" <[email protected]>, "Bantilan, C

      (ICRISAT-IN)" <[email protected]>

      Dear  Mr Subhash Mehta ,

      Your  mail of Aug 27h to Dr William Dar , has been marked to me for perusal and follow-up.

      Thank  you for your insights on IMOD and the  two paradigms ( scale and scope ) and also your views on producer company organizations. At times , the challenge is how to  develop  the metrics of measurement and impact  at the farmer  level  especially when you are looking at scale  and from a value chain perspective .

      I am also going through the attachments you had sent of Dr Nayak of XIMB  .

      I hope to  discuss more  with you  in the  days to come .

      Best regards /

      Srinivas Rao

      Specialist ; Markets , Research and Innovation .

      ICRISAT

      -----Original Message-----

      From: Dar, William (ICRISAT-IN)

      Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 6:20 AM

      To: Bantilan, C (ICRISAT-IN); Srinivasrao, M (ICRISAT-IN)

      Subject: FW: Your mail

      -----Original Message-----

      From: Subhash Mehta [mailto:[email protected]]

      Sent: 27 August 2013 23:46

      To: Dar, William (ICRISAT-IN)

      Subject: Your mail

      Dear Willie,

      You had asked me to read your talk at the MS Swaminathan Leadership in Agriculture Award Ceremony, in New Delhi, explaining CGIAR's 'Inclusive market oriented development (IMOD)' vision, developed for the decade ending 2020, as available at:

      MDW TAAS DGs_Enhancing Smallholder_Scr .pdf (1.0MB), and then give you my comments. The attached table clusters the terminologies in two paradigms from your talk.

      Governments, NARES, CGIAR, etc., all appear to be very concerned about hunger, malnutrition, poverty and suicides in the smallholder producer communities (producers) and the effects of climate change on them.They also appear to be equally serious about improving their livelihoods, increasing net income and purchasing power and that developing countries drive economic growth in a ustainable manner and for the long term.

      The Old & New Paradigms, shared with you earlier, as attached, urgently requires that the new Paradigms be implemented, first by including the low cost integrated agriculture system of each area and included in all the mandates. Also the contracting of farmers for wide replication of their successful models, as extension services are required to be provided to producers for improving their communities' economic condition. This also means supporting and assisting in the setting up of the producer orgs/ company (PC) intervention, if they are to have access to their annual nutritious food and cash needs.

      The PC intervention is a critical component of the New Paradigm. The resource poor producers, mostly illiterate and isolated, need policies seeking 'Economies of Scope', some of which have been addressed in your talk, also listed in the attached table. Thus, producers need these policies which work for them as they and their families work their farms 24x7, 365 days and under hardship conditions, not the policies seeking 'economies of scale', also listed in the table, as they are in the interest of the commercial organisations, The producers need the required assistance to set up their PC and for staffing with professionals, to shoulder all responsibilities and manage risks, other than on farm activities.The PC, tested over time, adopting 'Economy of Scope,' policies ensures:

      Smallholder agriculture contributes to improved nutrition and achieves the MDGs,

      A bottom up 'Producers' Jury (IIED/ DDS model)' to ascertain their

      IAR4D and other needs,

      Following a low cost integrated agriculture to meet their own

      nutritious food and cash needs,

      Creating human and institutional capacity (women, men and youth)

      within the community,

      Assistance for setting up their PC, staffed with professionals trained

      to be general practitioner (GPs)/ MBAs in agriculture,

      Culture of planning & budgeting, to manage through weekly/ monthly/

      quarterly and annual meetings of concerned stakeholders at each level,

      Quarterly internal audit of performance by an independent person,

      Arrangements are made for capital and working capital requirement -

      get rid of money lenders,

      Facilitating members to produce inputs and energy on farm,

      Putting in place water harvesting and recharging of wells and bore

      wells in each farm,

      Value addition for increasing the shelf life of produce/products &

      storage till prices peak,

      Provision for reserves and emergencies with storage of nutritious

      food, etc., in PC go downs,

      Management of post harvest losses by covering production with orders in advance.

      In these circumstances, you will be happy to know that some donors, managing public funds, are now stipulating that funds are used only for 'Public Good', thus putting producers' needs seeking 'Economies of Scope', on top of their agenda, when considering requests for funding/ loans. It is also vital that concept notes/ project proposals and requests for conferences/ workshops, etc., when requesting donor funding, should first be debated by all stakeholders, with donors setting up an 'Electronic Consultation Process', ensuring that all proposals follow the 'economies of scope' paradigm, removing all grey areas from the proposals, which otherwise could drift to the

      'economies of scale' paradigm.

      You will agree with me that a mechanism is needed to ensure that requests received midstream for change to, 'Economies of Scale' from 'Economies of Scope' policies of sanctioned projects, primarily to meet the needs of the value chains focusing on a 'Market Oriented Development', are not accepted. Further, for proposals received in the future, donors also need to include in their contract that if such

      requests are received midstream, the project will be terminated and that the PEA will return the funds already disbursed.

      Warm regards,

      Subhash

      Message 1

      Women, Men and Nutrition

      Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:10 am (PDT) . Posted by:

      "Myriam Ait Aissa"

      Dear colleagues,

      I'm happy to come back to you on this « Nutrition&Agriculture » issue.Indeed, as you might know, ACF (Acton agains hunger) is very involved in tackling undernutrition.

      In this regards, I have been asked to coordinate a break out session in the "Facilitating Research Uptake : highlighting the importance of considering the empowerment of decision-making within households" for the biennial CGIAR Science Forum (http://scienceforum13.org), which will be held from September 23-25, 2013 in Bonn. The main objective of this conference is to improve griculture's impact on Nutrition and health outcomes.

      In preparation to this meeting, I would be delighted to get your views as Civil Societies Organizations and representative of farmers associations on the two following questions:

      - What would your members would like to ask about Nutrition?

      - According to your members, what interest do men have in the

      nutrition of their children?

      I allow myself to put Christine Okali from IDS into copy of this

      message as we defined these two questions together.

      Thanks in advance for your feedback - I will be very happy to be able to get / bring some of your views in this CGIAR meeting,

      Best regards

      Myriam Aït-Aïssa

      Research Manager

      Tel : + 00 33 (0)1 43 35 88 58

      Email : [email protected][email protected]>

      Action Contre la Faim

      4 rue Niepce

      75662 PARIS Cedex 14

      FRANCE

      http://www.actioncontrelafaim.orghttp://www.actioncontrelafaim.org/&gt;

      Fax : +00 33 (0)1 43 35 88 00

      [cid:[email protected]]

      --

      Subhash Mehta, Trustee,

      Devarao Shivaram Trust,

      NGO Association for Agricultural Research Asia Pacific (NAARAP),

      Hegenahalli PO, Devanahalli Taluka,

      Bangalore Rural North, Pin Code: 562110,

      Tel: +91-80-28494009 / +91-80-22712290,

       
      6 attachments — Download all attachments (zipped for 
        English (Multilingual Latin 1)

      )  

      Amar - Language-Logic-Value for Sustainable Management.pdf

      153K   View   Download  

      FAO Agriculture-Nutrition_Key_recommendations.pdf

      382K   View   Download  

      FAO agri programming for nutrition.pdf

      916K   View   Download  

      FAO Sustainable nutrition security – Restoring the bridge between agriculture and health.pdf

      947K   View   Download  

      FAO smallholder producers - nutritious food prod - Dioula_Paper_ICN2.pdf

      102K   View   Download  

      FAO Swami_Matrix_nutrition in agriculture1.doc

      51K   View   Download  

      -- 

      Subhash Mehta, Trustee,

      Devarao Shivaram Trust,

      NGO Association for Agricultural Research Asia Pacific (NAARAP),

      Hegenahalli PO,

      Devanahalli Taluka,

      Bangalore Rural North,

      Pin Code no: 562110,

      Tel: +91-80-28494009 / +91-80-22712290,

    • SAFE Nutritious Food & Sustainaable Agriculture 

      A summary of arguments by Stabinsky, D. and Lim L.C., ‘Ecological agriculture, climate resilience and a roadmap to get there’, is a consistent focus on sustainability (as versus a politically correct or convenient concept of sustainability) prepared for the third session of the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals held from Wednesday, 22, to Friday, 24 May 2013 at the UN headquarters in New York. The formulation of SDGs was one of the major agreed actions carried forward from the June 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development. 

      The sessions addressed the following clusters of issues:

      Food security and nutrition, sustainable agriculture; and drought, desertification, land degradation and water and sanitation. 

      Programme of Work for 2013-2014 adopted will facilitate the formulation of the SDGs coverring:

      • Investment in agriculture
      • Focus on smallholder producer communities' access to nutritious food
      • Incentives and subsidies agrgated to finance setting up producer orgs
      • Research locally adapted successful integrated agri knowledge
      • Partnerships to create local human and institutional capacity

      The background documents for this is at: http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/end/pdf/end14.pdf

      Important elements for consideration: Food Security and Nutrition, and Sustainable Agriculture

      1. Increase investment in sustainable agriculture

      Sustainable agriculture practices contribute to food security and climate resilience. Governments should specifically reorient agriculture policies and significantly increase funding to support biodiverse, sustainable agriculture, as recommended by the International Assessment on Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). In The Future We Want, which is the outcome document of the Rio+20 Conference, paragraphs 110-113 emphasize the importance of sustainable agriculture and the need for increased investment in sustainable agricultural practices. Particularly, in paragraph 111, the need to “maintain natural ecological processes that support food production systems” is recognized, which is a nod towards agro-ec ological principles.

      • Conduct in-depth assessments of agricultural conditions and policies at the national level, to identify both barriers to a transition to sustainable agriculture and gaps in policy, and ensure policy coherence such that sustainable agriculture is promoted and facilitated.
      • Focus national agriculture policy frameworks urgently and immediately on sustainable agriculture. In particular, increase emphasis on the conservation and use of agricultural biodiversity, building healthy soils, and developing and sharing water harvesting and other water management techniques.
      • Devote a large share of the national agricultural budget to promoting sustainable agriculture. The support should include mechanisms (both traditional extension and more far-reaching farmer-to-farmer networking methods) to train farmers in the best options for sustainable agriculture techniques, the development of ecological infrastructure including water supply, improvement of soil fertility, and the provision of credit and marketing.
      • Directly fund adoption of agroecological practices that reduce vulnerability and increase resilience, such as soil-fertility-enriching and climate-resilient practices (e.g., use of compost to enhance soil health, water storage and soil quality).

      2. Focus on smallholder farmers and their practices

      Agriculture is the most important sector in many developing countries and is central to the survival of hundreds of millions of people. Most agricultural production in these countries involves small land holdings, mainly producing for self-consumption. Women are the key agricultural producers and providers. Hence agriculture is critical for food and livelihood security, and for the approximately 500 million smallholder households, totaling 1.5 billion people, and living on smallholdings of two hectares of land or less. Smallholdings account for 85 percent of the world’s farms.

      The role and needs of rural communities are recognized and rural development emphasized in paragraph 109 of The Future We Want, including the need for enhanced access by small producers to credit, markets, secure land tenure and other services. Paragraph 109 also stresses the importance of traditional sustainable agricultural practices, including traditional seed supply systems, including for many indigenous peoples and local communities. This is important in light of the threats that undermine and marginalize such systems and the increasing takeover of the seed supply by a few large multinational corporations.

      • Ensure enhanced access by small producers, women, indigenous peoples and people living in vulnerable situations to credit and other financial services, markets, secure land tenure, health care, social services, education, training, knowledge and appropriate and affordable technologies.
      • Support conservation and use of local knowledge and seeds, as well as support peasant seed systems and community seed banks. In addition, prioritize participatory and formal plant breeding efforts to adapt seeds for future environments, particularly increased temperatures.
      • Improve social safety nets to enable farmers and the rural poor to cope with external shocks climate-related disasters. This includes implementing a range of policies that support the economic viability of smallholder agriculture and thus reduce their vulnerability, for example, improving access to credit for smallholders; and building and reinforcing basic infrastructure, such as water supplies and rural roads that can facilitate access to markets. Special attention and specific support should be given to women smallholder farmers.
      • Strengthen small-scale farmers’, women’s, indigenous and community-based organizations to, among other objectives: access productive resources, participate in agricultural decision-making and share sustainable agriculture approaches.

      3.   Dismantle perverse incentives and subsidies that promote unsustainable agriculture

      Current agriculture policies are geared to promoting conventional agriculture practices that are unsustainable. Perverse incentives, including those perpetuated under the international trade regime governed by the World Trade Organization and bilateral free trade agreements, entrench this unsustainable system. Agricultural incentives and subsidies therefore need to be redirected away from destructive monocultures and harmful inputs, towards sustainable agriculture practices of the small-farm sector. These need to be phased out in a fair and equitable manner, taking into account the impact on small farmers in developing countries.

      • Avoid and phase out perverse incentives and subsidies that promote or encourage the use of chemical pesticides, synthetic fertilizers and fuel, or that encourage land degradation, while ensuring that impacts on small farmers are addressed in a fair and equitable manner.
      • Reduce the use of synthetic fertilizers by removing tax and pricing policies that contribute to their overuse.
      • Shift subsidy priorities such that the initial costs and risks of farmers’ transition efforts to implement sustainable farming practices are borne by public funds.
      • At the international level, modify key market distortions that act as a disincentive to the transition to sustainable agricultural practices in developing countries. These include the significant subsidization of agricultural production in developed countries and their export to developing countries. As long as these conditions prevail, it is difficult to imagine how developing-country producers can implement a paradigm shift towards sustainable agriculture.

      4.   Implement a research and knowledge-sharing agenda towards sustainable agriculture

      Paragraph 114 of The Future We Want resolves to enhance agricultural research, extension services, training and education to improve productivity and sustainability. National and global agricultural research agendas have been however dominated by conventional agriculture approaches and the promise of new technologies. Sustainable agriculture has been sidelined, yet it has thrived and has proven successful despite the lack of public support. Research and development efforts must be refocused towards sustainable agriculture, while at the same time strengthening existing farmer knowledge and innovation. Moreover, current agriculture research is dominated by the private sector, which focuses on crops and technologies from which they stand to profit most. This perpetuates industrial, input-dependent agriculture, rather than solutions for the challenges facing developing-country farm ers.

      • Place sustainable agriculture at the forefront of the international and national agriculture research agendas; this means providing public resources for sustainable agriculture interventions.
      • Address current intellectual property systems that act as drivers towards corporate consolidation and corporate dominance of agriculture research, including the issues of patents on living organisms and seeds, as well as plant variety protection consistent with the strict standards of UPOV 1991, which may also impinge on farmers’ rights and affect smallholder agriculture.
      • Generously fund efforts to conserve crop diversity, both in situ and ex situ.
      • Support research on sustainable agriculture approaches that mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, such as practices that reduce or eliminate the use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers.
      • Identify research priorities in a participatory manner, enabling farmers to play a central role in defining strategic priorities for agricultural research; and increase networking and knowledge sharing between farmers and researchers.
      • Reorient research and extension systems at the national level to support farmer-to-farmer agroecological innovation; increase the capacities of farmer and community organizations to innovate; and strengthen networks and alliances to support, document, and share lessons and best practices.
      • Ensure farmers have access to information about sustainable agriculture practices, through both formal and informal means, including extension services, farmers’ organizations, climate farmer-to-farmer field schools and cross-visits.

      5.         Build supportive global partnerships

      A range of international institutions can make positive contributions by supporting and enabling the adoption of sustainable agriculture. These institutions should support the range of efforts to be undertaken at national and regional levels, and cooperate and coordinate efforts to mobilize necessary resources at the international level. Public financing and transfer of appropriate technologies by developed countries are needed not only for the adoption of sustainable agriculture but also to put in place the required infrastructure, communications and other enabling conditions. Furthermore, trade commitments made at the multilateral and bilateral levels must provide developing countries enough policy space to enable support for the agriculture sector, expansion of local food production, and effective instruments to provide for local and household food security, farmers’ livelihoods and rural development needs. This is needed before farmers in developing countries can start investing in sustainable agriculture. A universal, rules-based, open, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system that will promote agricultural and rural development in developing countries and contribute to world food security is reaffirmed in paragraph 118 of The Future We Want.

      • Ensure sustainable, predictable and significant public funding for sustainable agriculture, rather than speculative and volatile market-derived funding. International agencies must play an active role in mobilizing public resources.
      • Increase the scale of the work to promote sustainable agriculture practices by the Rome-based UN agencies: FAO, WFP, IFAD. This should include technical support to enable countries to transition to and prioritize sustainable agriculture, and appropriate policy advice that supports its implementation.
      • Encourage CGIAR centres to leverage research and research partnerships, and the funding thereof, which focus on sustainable agriculture, agricultural biodiversity and small farmers in developing countries.
      • Ensure the conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity and related traditional knowledge systems, including through the relevant work on agricultural biodiversity carried out by the FAO and the Convention on Biological Diversity.
      • Revive the work of the UN for a global framework for corporate accountability, including the reinstatement of obligations under the aborted UN Code of Conduct on Transnational Corporations.
      • Implement the outcomes/decisions of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS), as the governing body for food, agriculture and rural development policy and related financial issues at the global level, including the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security and the outcomes of the ongoing discussions on Responsible Agricultural Investment. (The important work and inclusive nature of the CFS is reaffirmed in paragraph 115 of The Future We Want.)
      • Eliminate export subsidies in agriculture (in line with WTO Hong Kong Declaration 2005) and substantially and effectively reduce agricultural support and subsidies in developed countries (in line with WTO Doha Declaration 2001) so that distortions in global agricultural trade will be reduced and developing countries’ farmers will have a more level playing field.
      • Prioritise developing countries’ goals of food security and protection of farmers’ livelihoods in free trade agreements (FTAs). The percentage of goods to be subjected to tariff elimination by developing countries should be adjusted if necessary to accommodate the need to exclude sensitive agricultural products from tariff elimination. Ensure that the FTAs provide enough policy space to allow sufficiently high tariffs on agricultural imports that enable the fulfilment of the principles of food security, farmers’ livelihoods and rural development, and to allow countries to rebuild and strengthen their agriculture sector.
      • Ensure that commodity markets operate in an adequately regulated manner that avoids excessive volatility and speculative activities and serves the real needs of both producers and consumers. Address the root causes of excessive food price volatility, including its structural causes, and manage the risks linked to high and excessively volatile prices and their consequences for global food security and nutrition, as well as for smallholder farmers and poor urban dwellers (as emphasized in paragraph 116 of The Future We Want).

    • I have read with interest the contributions made to the consultation and would like to highlight the fact that a key factor why there was no food crises post-Soviet Union collapse in South Caucuses and Central Asian countries after 1992, as seen in Sub Saharan Africa, was the Dekhon / Homestead farming practiced by each family. These farms provided most of the immediate nutritious food needs of vegetables, meat, milk, eggs, fruits, etc., even when inflation was rife.

      The NARES, Regional and International  research orgs/ stakeholders have not and are continuing to follow a top down approach, thus ignoring to meet the AR4D needs of the rural poor smallholder producer community ( 85% of farmers) to reduce costs, hunger, malnutrition, poverty, suicides and the effect of climate change whilst improving farm production of homesteads, quality of on farm produced low cost inputs in terms of improved livelihoods, seeds, compost, bio mass, water and irrigation, cultivation techniques, housing of livestock and their upkeep, net income and purchasing power etc. Many out of the box interventions like the funding  for the setting up of producer orgs/ company (PC) GOI doc attached, staffed by professionals (rural youth trained as general practitioners [GPs]/ MBAs in agriculture to take over all responsibilities, manage risks, leaving their members to on farm activities producing nutritious food for their communities and accessible at farm gate price), creating local human and institutional capacity (knowledge/ know how/ technologies/ ICTs and material sciences to manage water, etc., can contribute significantly to increased productivity of nutritious food by homesteads.

      Link to an article about smallholder agriculture contributing to better nutrition, by Steve Wiggins and Sharada Keats, Overseas Development Institute (ODI), UK - commissioned by The Hunger Alliance (March 2013):

      http://www.ajfand.net/Volume13/No3/Reprint-DI%20Smallholder%20agriculture’s%20contribution%20to%20Nutrition%202013.pdf

      A couple of excerpts:

      Public agricultural research needs to focus on smallholder needs, with technical innovations that are sparing in their use of capital, but which emphasise labour and the skilful application to local circumstances: reflecting the relative endowments of smallholders. For very small, part-time farms there is often a call for intermediate technologies that raise yields of food crops without heavy demands for labour or external inputs. 

      Farmer-to-farmer learning, especially of agro-ecological approaches with considerable local specificity, can be facilitated and promoted by innovative extension services; research on conservation of soil and water need to recognise how and where local innovations function. 

      Recommendation:

      Develop and promote innovations for marginal farms, focusing on higher yields for staples but using few external inputs and where possible saving labour. These will allow these farms to achieve the self-provisioning in staples that is often a primary objective of the farm, as well as potentially allowing some of the land to be switched to more diverse, nutrient-rich fruit, vegetables and small-scale livestock rearing. 

      Responsibility for this lies with agricultural research systems, although for some researchers taking up this challenge may require setting aside the search for optimal yields. There is scope here for NGOs to foster exchange of experiences from local innovations and NGO research. 

      See the attachments:

    • Trees on farms are essential for global production of nutritious food  

      My inputs are incorporated in,

      Summary of the International Conference on Forests for Food Security and Nutrition, held at FAO headquarters, Rome, Italy, 13–15 May 2013'

      • The role of trees on farms in the fight against hunger and malnutrition demands much greater attention and should be integrated with strategies for food and nutrition security.

      • Nutritious Food security is grounded in diversity – in terms of biota, landscapes, cultures, diets, integrated agriculture and management. Forests and trees are critical for maintaining that diversity.

      • The ecosystem services provided by forests and trees make essential contributions to forest dependent communities and integrated agriculture for, among other things, protecting soil and water, maintaining soil fertility, effects of climate change, providing habitat for wild pollinators and the predators of agricultural pests.

      • Forest tree products as part of integrated agriculture of the area have been important components of rural  nutritious food diets for millennia and today provide essential nutrition for millions of people. More than one-third of the world’s people rely on wood fuel for cooking, fodder for cattle and bio mass as a low cost producer of farm inputs.

      • Forests and trees on farms and their sustainable management are crucial for ensuring the resilience of low cost nutritious food-production systems in the face of climate change, economic, social and political instability by ensuring access to the poor rural smallholder producer communities. Forest and trees on integrated farms reduces effect of climate change, cost of production, hunger, malnutrition and poverty whilst improving livelihood, net income and purchasing power based on increased sources of income thus contributing to building resilience.

      • There are opportunities to use more forest species, especially plants and insects, for the large scale production of nutritious food. However, deforestation and forest degradation risks the loss of many such species.

      • The single biggest cause of forest loss is mono cropping in agricultural expansion, but there is potential for both by following the local integrated agricultural system and protecting forests, including through the restoration of degraded forest land, with the greater use of trees in agriculture, and the alignment of policies and institutional frameworks to that end.

      • Secure land and forest tenure and ensure equitable access to public resources for women/ local communities and who will encourage sustainable forest and tree based approaches to nutritious food security.

      • There is a need to retrieve, document and make available the traditional knowledge of integrated agriculture as applicable to the soil and climatic conditions of each area and to combine it with scientific knowledge to increase the role of forests and trees in food and nutrition security.

      • Women often have specialized knowledge of forests and trees in terms of species diversity for the local integrated agriculture, uses for various purposes, and conservation and sustainable management practices, thus ensuring the food and nutrition security of forest-dependent communities.

      • Greater collaboration at the local and national levels is needed to improve data collection, documentation, communication, reporting, monitoring & evaluation of the contributions made by non-wood forest products, forest ecosystem services and other forest and tree related aspects on nutritious food security.

      • Training and creating local capacity in the women and youth for management of sustainable forest enterprises can help forest-dependent communities, to add value, increase shelf life of the produce, to minimize post harvest losses and gain access to higher prices, thereby improving livelihood, net income and purchasing power and the food and nutrition security of such communities by helping them to capitalize on their traditional knowledge.

      • Governments, civil society, indigenous peoples, bilateral and multilateral development assistance agencies, the producer organisations/ company (PC) and other stakeholders are invited to strengthen the contributions of forests and trees on farms to food and nutrition security through a number of feasible actions, listed in the full summary.

      2 As used in this summary, the term “trees outside forests” encompasses agroforestry systems, other trees on farms, and trees in non-forested rural landscapes.

    •  

      I am saddened at the news of Michelle Gaultier who tirelessly contributed to the e consultations. 

      I would like to bring to the table my experiences with the Government of Bhutan over the last decade in the effort to make Bhutan become the first country in the world to fully convert to organic agriculture, ensure the water bodies/ sub soil water is free of pollutants and agro chemicals. 

      I had been visiting Bhutan regularly since 2002 on the invitation of the officials of its ministry of agriculture. Subsequent to the meetings I had with the Ministers of Agriculture, senior officials and the Research Institutes during my numerous visits , I was invited in 2007 by the then Prime Minister (also holding charge of agriculture) to bring with me a group of resource persons for holding workshops at research institutes across Bhutan and for senior Ministry officials in Thimphu. The purpose was to facilitate and take forward the Prime Minister’s goal for ‘Bhutan to become the first country in the world to fully convert to organic agriculture, ensure the water bodies/ sub soil water is free of pollutants and agro chemicals’ into a reality. The world of agriculture has a lot to learn from the Government of Bhutan: 

      The Honorable Prime Minister inaugurated our Thimphu workshop, June 2007, when I had the honor of sharing the podium with him to release the Organic Policy of Bhutan also declared that one of its research institutes had been converted and dedicated for research on following organic principles in agriculture, to meet the needs of the poor smallholder producers and went on to setting a tentative date of 2020 for Bhutan’s conversion to organic agriculture. 

      Very soon the country’s commitment for achieving these objectives was taken forward with the contracting of of Dr A Thimaiah, a PHD from IIT Delhi in Bio Dynamic Agriculture, as consultant, attached to the Ministry. The import and use of chemical pesticides were also banned and following measures and decisions taken for meeting the needs of the rural poor smallholder producers: 

      • create an enabling policy for integrated producer oriented development and research
      • public funds for the rural poor to produce and access nutritious food (self reliance),
      • recognize the importance of natural resources (forest cover, animal husbandry/ wildlife)
      • support rural human and institutional capacity building, funding of producer orgs (PC)
      • aggregating of  programs, schemes, funding, etc., all concerned Ministries/ departments
      • gross national happiness (GNH) of rural communities and long time sustainability 

      The following links gives status of this programme:  

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/01/bhutan-wealth-happiness-counts

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2013/jan/02/nature-teacher-bhutan-conservation-classroom

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2013/feb/11/bhutan-first-wholly-organic-country

      Worldwide, over a billion people go hungry every day, even more are mal nourished and poverty among the rural smallholder producer communities is of serious concern, as they are getting deep into debt with the yearly increase in costs of external chemical inputs for conventional agriculture,  reducing net incomes/ purchasing power, thus forcing large numbers to commit suicide.

      The Bhutan model on organic agriculture should be followed by all developing countries for making ‘Nutritious food being made accessible through integrated agriculture to the world population of about nine billion by 2050. This is possible by focusing on and using public funds to contract the successful farmers in each area for wide replication of their model, setting up producer orgs and staffing them with professionals, thus meeting the needs of the poor rural smallholder communities to follow ‘Integrated Producer Oriented Development (IPOD)’, putting them to work, following the local integrated low cost ecological successful agriculture, producing to meet their own nutritious food needs. This is in contrast to the high cost ‘Market Oriented Development’ system of conventional mono crop agriculture policy of most Governments, NARES, CGIAR, etc., which produces  the quantity of food required, but being high cost is not accessible to the poor (being many times the farm gate price in the retail with shops overflowing with food stocks).

      • The intervention of rural producer orgs/ company (PC) set up by rural producers (mostly  following the local integrated agriculture) but staffed with professionals, to take over all responsibilities and manage risks, other than on farm activities of their members will ensure:
      • creating of human and institutional capacity
      • providing the required management, 
      • encouraging natural regeneration, planting of trees and other forest plants as a source of nutritious food, fodder for livestock,
      • production of inputs and biogas,
      • recharging of subsoil water for drinking and agricultural lands, by protecting catchments, on farm water harvesting, production of nutritious food, bio gas, fibre/ fuel (animal droppings and bio mass for production of low cost inputs),
      • primary and secondary value addition to increase shelf life of produce for storage till prices peak, thus minimizing post harvest losses, etc.

      This would reduce cost of production, deforestation, degrading ecosystems, hunger, Mal nutrition, poverty, effects of climate change, etc., whilst ensuring livelihood improvement of forest-dwellers, tribal’s and the smallholder rural communities, water and nutritious food security and improving livelihood, net income and purchasing power:

      Link provided by you to FAO's publication on Forests for Improved Nutrition and Food Security has most of the required evidence.

    • How Farmers Can Protect Water Quality, Replenish Aquifers and Save the Soil - a subject of great importance to for meeting the needs of the poor smallholder producers and for this consultation process, as trailed below:

      Scientists work with farmers to find ways to reduce surface runoff and soil erosion, thereby also reducing water pollution. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

      A team of scientists and local farmers used a computer simulation programme to help identify the best ways to reduce surface runoffs and soil erosion on farms

      [1].

      The study was done in collaboration with the local authorities in an area of south-western France that suffers badly from surface runoffs and soil erosion

      after rainfall.

      To support the work, they used a geographic information system (GIS) computer simulation model of water flow and soil erosion, STREAM, to assess the impacts of a spring stormy event under different management scenarios at two sites chosen by the farmers. The results were jointly analysed and evaluated by the farmers and scientists, and the farmers discussed the technical and economic feasibility of each management scenario.

      The STREAM simulations showed that a 40 mm spring rainfall with current cropping patterns led to 3 116 m3 total water runoff and 335 tonnes of sediment at site A, and 3 249 m3 water runoff and 241 tonnes of sediment at site B. Growing grass strips at strategic places could reduce runoff by about 40 % and sediment by about 50 % at site A. At site B, grass strips could reduce runoff and sediment by more 50 %, but changing the cropping system could eliminate both runoff and sediment almost entirely.

      Agriculture & water

      Agriculture is a major user and polluter of water, and this needs urgent attention in view of the global depletion of fresh water resources (see [2, 3]

      World Water Supply in Jeopardy, SiS 56; Using Water Sustainably, SiS 57).

      The problem started from the 1960s when intensive agriculture was introduced in Europe to increase crops yields (see [1]). This required mechanisation and the application of fertilizers and pesticides, which soon favoured big farms at the expense of small farmers. And the now well-known nvironmental problems of runoff, soil erosion and pollution of water resources started to emerge.

      Over the past 20 years, groundwater and surface water monitoring in Europe revealed significant nitrate and pesticide contamination, especially in France, where surface water samples often exceed the drinking water limit of 0.1 mg pesticides/L. For example, 96 % of surface water in the Department Tarn and Garonne in south-western France was contaminated by nitrates, phosphorus and pesticides, partly because of erosive runoff in cultivated fields.

      In 2000, the European Community introduced the Water Framework Directive (WFD) to restore and preserve the quality of all water resources. It set targets of water quality to be achieved by 2015. The common agricultural policy (CAP) reform of 2003 introduced the ‘cross-compliance principle’ that linked the full payment of CAP aids to farms to compliance with agri-environmental standards

      called “good agricultural and environment condition”, which include a part of the annual cropped area to have permanent plant cover to prevent soil erosion and buffer strips (no-cultivated or grass planted) along water courses to prevent surface water pollution.

      According to French decree, the total surface area of permanent plant cover (PPC) in each farm must be at least 3 % of the annual cropped area. PPC or grass strips must be planted within fields, most importantly, those bordering rivers, and the strips must be between 5 and 10 m wide and must cover at least 500 m2. Designing these agri-environmental measures (AEM) is not a trivial matter, and will differ for farms at catchment level as opposed to river level. Therefore modelling could help find the best design. And working with farmers in real farms would also put the model to proper test.

      Farmers chose the sites

      The study was done in the French Department Tarn et Garonne in collaboration with Lomagne district agricultural committee. Soil erosion is prevalent in these catchments and sediment loads in streams and rivers impact negatively on water quality.

      The region has a humid temperate climate, with annual rainfall between 700 and 760 mm, and average daily temperatures 10 to 35 ºC. Rainfall is low to moderate in winter, and the most intense rainfall events are in spring. The soils in the region are very susceptible to surface sealing. The water table is very deep (> 10 m). The risk of erosive events is very high in April-May, when intense rainfalls occur (20-40 mm in 2 to 3 hours) and many fields have just been sown.

      Figure 1   Sites selected for study in southern France

      In collaboration with the local farmers, two sites were selected (see Figure 1). The first is a 41 ha hillside farm with slopes ranging from 0 to 15 %, comprising five large fields cultivated by two farmers. In 2009, 36 ha were planted with spring crops (maize and sunflower) and 5 ha with winter wheat. Spring storm causes mud flows in the fields with spring crops that cover the downhill road nearly every year.  The second site is a 107 ha catchment that supplies the Serre River and comprises 40 fields cultivated by 5 farmers. This site is characterized by a steep-sided upstream valley with strong slopes (> 15 %), followed by a relatively flat valley (slope between 0 and 5 %). In 2009, five main crops were cultivated: winter crops (wheat, barley and rape) on 43 % of the area, spring crops (maize, sunflower and sorghum) on 41 %. Grasslands account for 12 % of the area mainly in the upper basin, while forest and set- aside account for less than 4 % of the area.

      Site A was chosen because erosive runoff is severe and occurs almost every year in spring. Site B was chosen because it is small and different crops are grown

      there. Another important factor was that most of the farmers (5 of 6) in the two sites selected agreed to spend time with the scientists.

      The hydrological model and geographic information simulation software

      Read the rest of this report at:

      http://www.i-sis.org.uk/How_Farmers_Can_Protect_Water_Quality.php

       

    • Dear colleagues,

      I am happy that FSN has focused on this very important subject and received very valuable suggestions and solutions to reduce hunger, malnutrition, poverty and suicides while improving access to nutritious food, purchasing power, net incomes and effects of climate change.  

      Quoting Patrick Webb, Director, Global Nutrition CRSP – Asia and Dean, The Fletcher School, Tufts University, United States

       

      “There is agreement internationally that evidence - based programming at scale is possible, ‘things that work’, to improve nutrition. It’s no more pilots and efficacy trials but an understanding of delivery, ‘what works at large scale in practice - with a big focus on costs and effectiveness’, integrated sustainable agriculture for the production of safe and nutritious food. The largest gap is in, ‘knowledge of how best to design and implement multi-sector, integrated programs at scale that combine the positive impacts of integrated agriculture, producing nutritious and healthy food and managed through the whole value chain’. The CGIAR (CRP4) and USAID’s Global Nutrition CRSP are focused on this and where the FTF’s research agenda is expected to play an important role in advocating for and sustaining, this kind of research globally”. 

      I am looking forward to CFS taking forward most of the suggestions and solutions given, thus ensuring the long term sustainability of the resource poor rural communities/ smallholder producers.

      Warm regards

      Subhash

       

    • It is my view that investments in ‘Nutrition through Integrated Sustainable Agriculture and for rural producers’ to set up and staff their producer co ops/ organizations/ company (PC) with professionals will ensure over a billion smallholder rural producer communities will have access to nutritious food at farm gate prices and at the same time correct the mistakes made in the past, current and proposed supply side approaches and policies, most of them focusing on Green Revolution (GR) / conventional technologies.

      Smallholder producers, mostly resource poor, illiterate, out of sight and out of mind are over burdened, as ‘Public Institutions’ providing services have deteriorated/ non-existent during the last many decades. To fill this and other gaps, rural producers need to set up and staff their producers companies (PC) with professionals, to take over these problems/ responsibilities, manage risks (other than on farm activities) and focus on costs. The PC intervention will effectively fill the knowledge and other gaps to design, implement and manage multi-sector integrated sustainable agriculture programs that work in the large scale for producing safe, nutritious and healthy food. The PC set up by rural producers is also a good platform for institutional and human capacity building, delivery of Government programmes and providing the need based management services.

      Evidences from most producers who converted from conventional (GR) to the local low cost integrated sustainable agriculture, meet their communities’ nutritious food needs, have measurably and demonstrably improved the lives of rural communities - world’s most vulnerable people in developing countries. The local practices have proved that they are internally consistent for integrated sustainable agriculture and externally synergistic to these smallholder producers. The local ecology and greater overall nutritious food production for meeting their needs and at farm gate prices, suggest that integrated low cost agriculture of the area is the only way to sustainably involve the over one billion resource poor producers globally, mostly women, for economic growth and to feed the future (FTF) growing populations. This will ensure access to nutritious food security, safety of the environment; reduce hunger, malnutrition and suicides among these rural communities while improving purchasing power, net incomes and livelihoods.

      The US government, through its FTF programme is working with this in mind to develop IAR4D to ‘reenergize and reorient’ and in positive ways, to grow safe and nutritious food for feeding the future (FTF) and in a short time. Further, ‘Government funding and programmes require mechanisms of accountability, ensuring that public funds invested actually benefit the marginal, resource poor and vulnerable populations’, says Rajiv Shah, Administrator, USAID. 

      My views given above are in keeping with the outputs of the numerous consultation processes I have participated in over the last several years.

    • Could correcting harms of current policies or approaches be just as important, if not more so, as capturing new opportunities to make agriculture work better for nutrition? 

      Rural farm-based livelihood policies - key to achieving economic growth and FTF with nutritious food:

      —Natural resources for  nutrition and health

      —Access to resources through soil, water, and biodiversity conservation

      —Produce/improve nutrition through low cost integrated agriculture

      —Depended on locally adapted breeds, varieties and species

      —Recycling  of agriculture waste for soil fertility (on farm inputs)

      —Value addition (drying, processing to increase shelf life)

      —Little or no post harvest losses

      —Livestock & fisheries

      —Bartering for access to healthy nutritious food

      Quotes from numerous consultation processes I have participated to support:

      Strategy on sustainable integrated agriculture was developed through a wide consultation process, involving all concerned stakeholders, is now mostly targeting poor smallholder producers, family farms and in particular women.  Policies to be ‘demand-driven’ and ‘participatory’ and in the short term, to take new technologies to poor smallholder producers, which they can use and help governments make better policy. 

      (DFID & EIARD consultation process)     

      ‘sustainable integrated agriculture’, in ways that measurably and demonstrably improves the lives of the rural smallholder producers, world’s most vulnerable people.

      The FTF program is working with this in mind to develop IAR4D to ‘reenergize and reorient’ and in positive ways, to grow safe and  nutritious food to FTF.

      Success will require integration of programs on the ground, undertaking the complex challenges that lie ahead, taking bold and swift action, coupled with a willingness to pursue out of the box ideas of the type pursued by successful farmers and bearing fruit in the short term, season after season, from displays of  leadership, built on a willingness to listen, to learn, and to collaborate with all stakeholders and as equal partners.

      (USAID FTF Consultation Process)

      Public policy and funding is now mostly targeting meeting the nutritious food needs of poor smallholder producers, family farms and in particular women, with priority for IAR4D policies to follow sustainable  integrated agriculture, to be ‘ demand-driven’ , ‘participatory’ and in the ‘short term’.  

      USAID, UN (IFAD, etc.), DFID, EIARD, Etc.

      “One-and-a-half billion low income people live in countries  affected by fragility and conflict. None of them are on track to achieve even a single MDG,” “Growth and development have to be inclusive, ensuring that their benefits are broadly shared,” “These countries need a World Bank that is far more responsive than it is today, and capable of delivering the right financial and technical support at the right time”

      World Bank President Kim 

      “Government funding and programs demand they actually  benefit the marginal, resource poor and vulnerable populations, and thus require mechanisms of accountability”

      (Rajiv Shah, Administrator, USAID).

      “I take this message to the G20 ministers on behalf of the smallholder farmers around the world:  The development of rural areas is central to overcoming hunger and poverty, mitigating climate change, achieving energy security and protecting the environment, and it is the smallholder farmer that holds the key. But we must seriously start investing in their potential to support them to deliver,”

       Nwanze said (IFAD President)

      “Rio+20 has delivered a pretty good text for farmers; now it’s up to governments and agencies to act on these words, and put into place the financial commitments and practical policies that can truly deliver”,  “Sustainable agriculture, food security and smallholder farmers are now formally part of that equation’ and the “Recognition of smallholders as key stakeholders”.

      Vanessa Meadu, CG Climate Change Agriculture Food Security (CCAFS)

    • The haves, can afford to be rude, arrogant, etc., about the resources they have accumulated and deposited in banks, mostly meant for the sustainability of the poor producers(have nots), used for trade and or FDI, take over and making the smallholder producers slaves on their own lands and to produce high cost mono crops to serve the commodity boards, thus continuing to keep them hungry, malnutrition, poor, deep in debt and ultimately forcing them to commit suicide.

      Public funds are meant for public good to meet the needs of the resource poor smallholder producers to set up and staff their producer org/ company (PC) intervention to provide services for ‘things that work’:

      • analysis of and filling gaps in basic knowledge (Ken Cassman),

      • agricultural research & education systems (ARES) to meet the needs of the rural poor

      • a bottom up approach, IIED’s rural ‘Jury’ and involving all stakeholders

      • following low cost sustainable agriculture of the area to produce nutritious food

      • clearer measures for assessing needs and success,

      • smallholder friendly IAR4D that works successfully and in the local area,

      • no more ‘demonstration and pilot projects’ by ARES,

      • connecting technological improvements to real improvement,

      • innovative solutions to problems, rather than develop solutions decided in advance,

      • ARES moving towards cross-disciplinary smallholder friendly integrated agriculture

      • Human(GP/ MBAs in agriculture) and institutional (PCs) capacity development

      • producing to meet the communities nutritious food needs and at PC gate price.

      • evidence based programming at scale to improve nutritious food production,

      • value addition to increase shelf life of produce to mitigate post harvest losses

      • improving purchasing power, net incomes, livelihoods and long term sustainability,

      • reducing hunger, malnutrition, poverty, suicides and the effect of climate change

      • enabling IAR4D in the short time, all stakeholders as equal partners

      Subhash

    • Dear Colleagues,

      I agree with Lenox’s emphasis on ‘fresh’, as is nutritious food from safe, quality, fresh agricultural produce as applicable to the local soil and agro climatic conditions of each area, as the active ingredients of agriculture produce are balanced by the 100’s of secondary metabolites. Instead we have today a flourishing nutraceuticals industry where the active ingredients isolated from agricultural produce is converted into molecules and produced in chemical plants and marketted as food supplements, making up for the unsafe, poor quality conventional agriculture produce of today.

      FAO as a premier multilateral UN organization for agriculture must ensure that all Governments focus on meeting the nutrition needs is made available from safe, quality integrated agriculture of the local areas globally.

      Subhash

    • Dear colleagues,

      I have read with interest the contributions on the 'terminology' and feel strongly that it is important to ensure in the definition, the fact that the source of the nutrition has to be mostly from agriculture, if we are to mitigate malnutrition among the rural and urban poor. Thus, the CFS paper needs to move towards more inclusive terminology, eg.,'nutritious food security’, in order to better reflect the conceptual linkages between agriculture, nutrition and food, to address the rampant malnutrition among the smallholder family producers, being the majority population of developing countries.

      You will agree that the concerns of food insecurity and malnutrition cannot be addressed just by a definition, “Food and Nutrition Security”, without ensuring that conceptual and programmatic bridges are retained between agriculture and nutrition, say, ‘Nutritious Food Security’.

      Subhash

    • Dear John, Your request for successful producer orgs. I had given the link,www.navajyoti.org, a successful producer org case study, set up by smallholder producers in one of the poorest areas in the State of Orissa, North East India. The hand holding is being done by Prof Dr AKJ Nayak, assisted by some colleagues at the Xavier Institute of Business Management, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa. The have also developed a curricula for women and mostly rural unemployed educated youth, for being trained as general practitioners (GPs) in agriculture (entrepreneur professionals),for staffing the PCs to take over all risks and responsibilities from the members, other than on farm activities. Warm regards Subhash

    • Dear John, I am giving a brief introduction to COA Producer Company Ltd,please see: http://www.chetnaorganic.org.in/, for more informtion. I will be happy to send the case study direct to you as it is 2.5 MB. Warm regards Subhash 'The formation of COAPCL is aimed at providing the member farmers with a fair business alternative so as to enable them to: i) get the best possible price for their produce and ii) enjoy the benefits of a fair and transparent transaction. As a farmer-owned producer company, COAPCL is specifically involved in the following activities:- Sensitizing and training existing farmer groups for participating in value addition of their produce and collective marketing for better margins Managing the organic cotton marketing process of member farmers, hitherto managed by COFA Oversee the certification process of farmers pertaining to organic certifications, fair trade certification and any other that the organization may feel the need to subscribe to from time to time Organize marketing of non-cotton crops of farmers, wherever possible as organic and fair trade, otherwise in alternative formats Business planning for local level farmer co-operatives/societies and providing expert inputs on conducting such businesses/local level economic activities Facilitate fund raising for farmer’s co-operatives/societies to conduct above mentioned business/local level economic activities Conduct/organize/facilitate suitable research and advocacy activities – in collaboration with COFA - that are in the benefit of its member farmers Assist farmers of partner projects of FFID, COFA in marketing activities and/or undertake marketing activities on behalf of such projects

    • Dear Colleagues,

      The attached doc is the report submitted by me to FAO in 2007 on the producer and institutional producer orgs.

      I felt it fair to share it with all participants for them to use it as a base to build on not having to re invent the wheel.

      Warm regards

      Subhash

      See the attachments:

    • This is Subhash Mehta again in response to Edward's contribution.

      Steps of Evolution:

      1. All families of the community who produce some agriculture, forest, horticulture, animal husbandry, poultry, art, craft, etc. are eligible to become producer members/shareholders/owners of the company.

      2. The local unemployed educated youth to be trained to become general practitioners (GPs) in agriculture, volunteers/community workers/facilitators/employees of the producer company (PC) or any other community enterprise system to take over all risks and responsibilities other than on-farm activities.

      3. The PC/community enterprise system aims to complement the strength of the local community and to integrate all the facilities in a community towards building trust, cooperation and higher quality of life.

      4. All producer-members have equal say in management decision on price, policy & profit sharing, etc., but management is left to the professionals

      5. Profit of the company after providing for reserves will be shared proportionately among the producer-members at the end of every season depending on their contribution of produce/ product.

      6. Collection, sale and profit distribution of the produce shall be:

      Level 1: Base price paid as agreed at the time of contracting

      Level 2: Profit distributed every year after providing for reserves.

      7. Stages of building a sustainable community owned enterprise system.

      a. Registration of the company

      b. Election of a board of directors under the guidance of a respected father figure who will continue this role till the enterprise starts making a profit

      c. Selection of professionals to staff the PC

      d. Macro (5 yrs) and one year micro plans and budgets along with marketing plan for surplus produce/products submitted to all concerned institutions for seed capital, funding and or financing

      e. Contracting a successful farmer of the area as the model for wide replication of member farms, transfer of know-how for integrated agriculture, production of inputs, primary value addition to increase shelf life to minimise post harvest losses and storage of seeds for the next year

      f. Farm management plan/annual calendar for each member farm/enterprise

      g. Create central facilities for storage, production of inputs, need based primary and secondary value addition facilities to increase shelf life of the produce to minimize post-harvest losses and logistics for marketing

      h. Create the required infrastructure on each farm for water harvesting and or re-charging of wells/tanks and or tube wells

      i. Create the required facilities to store produce for meeting emergencies

      j. Create the required office and training facilities for members, unemployed educated youth, etc.

      h. To take over responsibility from the local government/banks/etc., the delivery of all services meant for, and or required by, members and the community

      Subhash Mehta, Trustee,

      Devarao Shivaram Trust,

      NGO Association for Agricultural Research Asia Pacific (NAARAP),

      Hegenahalli PO, Devanahalli Taluka,

      Bangalore Rural North, Pin Code: 562110,

      India

      email: icapsm (at) gmail.com

      Tel: +91-80-28494009 / +91-80-22712290,

    • Dear John and Janos,

      In response to the contributions made I am adding to my earlier contribution for further clarity.

      Differences in Structure, Functions, Relationships & Purposes between the Producer Company(PC)/ Farmer Organizations and the Industrial Corporations/ Companies under the Indian Companies Act 1956

      Issues relating to costs, taxation policy, legal requirements, structure deficiencies & purpose in developing countries:

      1. The central and state taxes, duties, etc., to be paid by the Farmer’s Rural PC/Farmer Organizations, Self Help Groups, Societies and Producer Cooperative, etc., formed by smallholder and marginal farmer producers should be exempted.

      2. Inability and relevance of the Rural Producer groups to be able to absorb the cost of registration, various taxes, duties, etc.,, that maybe applicable.

      3. Type of documents required and procedures to be followed are difficult even for the educated entrepreneurs and thus beyond the competence and or means to be produced by the smallholder producers to register themselves as a PC.

      4. Ability of the small and marginal producers to provide the different types of documents for registration of the PC.

      5. Equity (seed capital) required for formation of a producer company/cooperative and its feasibility for marginal producers to come together on this.

      6. Tax benefits available to producer companies/cooperatives vis-à-vis other large business houses, should be need based

      7. Type of subsidies available to industrial organizations/private business enterprises vis-à-vis producer companies/cooperatives should be much more as it serves public interest

      8. Provisions for grant and seed capital available for producer companies/cooperatives should be liberal

      9. Provision for producer companies/cooperatives (formed by a group of farmers/producers) to avail the various schemes and departmental programmes of the government that individual farmers are eligible for be converged and accepted as the promoters contribution/ margin

      10. Ownership structure of producer companies formed needs to be of the rural farmers/ other producers but staffed by professionals, to meet all the

      needs of their members by filling in all the gaps

      11. Different types of formal and informal sources of credit developed for the small and marginal producer orgs could be sourced

      12. Types of credit required by the small farmers/producers could all be sourced by their PC

      13. Type of credits and flexibility offered by the money lenders to the small producers could be taken over by the PC and at low rates of interest

      14. No documents required to be produced by the farmers to borrow loan from the government system of formal credit system as the PC would provide the colateral.

      15. Challenges faced by small and marginal farmers in borrowing money from the formal credit system is enabled with the PC intervention and supported by the financial institutions/ Government.

      17. Amount of money borrowed by the PC intervention to meet the needs of their members, namely, marginal and small farmers and other rural producers becomes possible and at very low rates of interest from the formal credit systems.

      18. Capital available in the future from the savings made by the small and marginal producers

      Warm regards

      Subhash

    • “The role of small holder producer organizations/ company (PC) interventions could feed the world and promote economic growth” The Government of India, realising the problems faced by the Cooperatives and Societies, being a department of the State Governments, legislated the Producer Company (PC), amendment IX-A of the Indian Companies Act 1956, as a sustainable local community enterprise institution of, for and by the smallholder farmer/and rural producers. The PC has the features of an enterprise and will be driven by the cooperative and societal spirit of the community. This local institutional intervention, staffed by professionals, will serve as a single window through which their members (smallholder farmer/ rural producers) will transact with various external forces by taking over the risks and responsibilities, viz., management, finance, banking, imparting knowledge/ training and capacity building, product development, factor market, capital market, research-extension services, value addition, delivery of government programmes, logistics, etc.. It will also be responsible for all internal management of the smallholder farmers/producer viz., integrated agricultural production for meeting their own need of nutritious food and at farm gate prices, planning, budgeting, value addition, women empowerment, nutrition, health, education, increasing purchasing power and net incomes, ensuring safety, quality, livelihood improvement of the small holder farmer/producer families and their communities and a positive 'cash to cash cycle'. To be able to put up such a farmer led and professionally managed local institution, public funding towards overheads, working capital, basic infrastructure, technical and managerial support need to be provided for the first 5-8 years, depending on the nature and type of agricultural communities. An example of such a Producer Company can be viewed at navajyoti.org. The Funding and Loan Projects considered by the Financial Institutions must not only directly fund the PC intervention as the PEA but also make such an intervention compulsory, before sanctioning any project, as it takes over all risks and responsibilities from its mostly illiterate, resource poor members, other than on farm activities. The Governments of developing countries need to make huge investment in this area for not only correcting the mistakes made in the past but also for feeding their populations and ensuring economic growth, but also to get back the small holder farmer / rural producers at the centre of sustainable farming activities. Briefly, the functions of the Producer Company (PC) will be: PCs will be set up by competence and capabilities of the rural producers, staffed by unemployed educated youth trained to become GPs in agri 'culture'/ professionals to take over all risks and responsibilities other than on farm activities, requiring handholding by the village elders, CSO/ NGO working with the community, till break even ( about 5 years) Increase net incomes and purchasing power of members by focussing on the local successful integrated agriculture producing to meet their own nutrition, food and health needs at farm gate prices, surplus sold in the vicinity for meeting their cash needs, achieving long term sustainability Impart now how/ training of the successful integrated farming in the area, especially on farm production of quality inputs and water conservation Contracting successful farmers, for training on their model farms and wide replication of their integrated agriculture system, to meet their nutrition, health, food and cash needs Arrange with financial institutions (IFAD, NABARD, etc.) the annual limits for capital, seed capital and working capital needs Primary and secondary value addition to increase shelf life of produce/ products, minimizing post harvest losses and increasing net incomes Plan, budget and market produce/ products at farm gate price to members/ communities, for meeting their nutrition, food and health needs, surplus first stored as reserves for emergencies and balance converted to cash in the vicinity (food miles) Empowerment of women by fully involving them in the planning, budgeting, decision making and Governance of the PC Convergence of Government programmes and schemes for delivery to members Etc. Prior to setting up the PC by the rural producers in that community, they need to be given all the information about the features of the PCs and the benefits that would accrue to them by their NGOs and the local Government bodies. The role of NGOs will be vital as the rural communities have lost faith in the mainstream agriculture systems, having been driven to hunger and poverty, if we are to succeed in the execution of the project during its formative period. It is understood that their role would be confined to organizing communities, creating cadres, building trust, developing skills and overseeing the professionals staffing the PC, etc., important role in ‘hand-holding’ until the business breaks even, the staff has the confidence to manage the ‘cash to cash cycle’, thereafter keeping an eye on the professionals and thus ensuring that the interests of the resource poor illiterate members are protected. Subhash Mehta, Trustee, Devarao Shivaram Trust, NGO Association for Agricultural Research Asia Pacific (NAARAP), Hegenahalli PO, Devanahalli Taluka, Bangalore Rural North.