Foro Global sobre Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición (Foro FSN)

Sustainable Aquaculture: Five Capitals Approach

Sustainable aquaculture offers a key sustainable food source with potential to redress  world food and protein shortages, and is also a proactive food security strategy to assist in addressing the worldwide issue of fish depletion. Sustaining global food supplies presents challenges, with most population growth in the future estimated to be in the poorest developing countries for whom protein sources are already in short supply. As a source of protein, aquaculture is increasingly being viewed as a viable solution to protein source shortages to feed ever increasing population numbers. Aquaculture is efficient to operate compared with beef and other grain dependent animal protein sources.  Aquaculture ventures in developing countries such as oyster projects implemented by Australian Council of International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) in North Vietnam (Pierce and O’Connor,2014), have shown that not only can aquaculture ventures provide more quality protein sources into local diets, but also can provide an extra surplus income to buy other food staples and to enhance quality of life. Aquaculture without Frontiers (AwF) is a leading light in demonstrating how the many aquaculture projects they have assisted to start in developing countries can supplement food and income sources, and provide sustainable jobs. A key approach for success in AwF and ACIAR projects has been the ‘Teach a Man to Fish’ model to ensure they are predominantly locally driven by the community, with specialist voluntary expertise and funding provided.

Food and food security, whether in aquaculture production or other food production, needs to be viewed in the wider context of five different interdependent dimensions of sustainability capitals, none of which can be extricated from the equation.  Natural environment needs to be considered in relation to sustainable farming as it underpins the enablement of food production for today and tomorrow.  Human capital is another needed factor requiring knowledge and education for those who drive initiatives for food production both in implementation, in timely passing on of knowledge to those in communities, regular updating of new skills and knowledge, and flow on jobs. Social capital ensures commitment of the community to food ventures and in commitment to sustaining the environment, trust to share knowledge and to help others, whether in their businesses or in sharing of food. Flow on social capital other benefits include from mental and social wellbeing gained from providing for families and the community, and gainful employment.  Institutional capital is required which covers ethical and sustainable guidelines for developing of businesses that also are for benefit of the local community and sustaining the natural environment, and governing bodies who have the responsibility to set guidelines and policies for sustainable food production. It is also important to monitor ways in which businesses are operated for sustainable production and good standards of food security through all the links in the supply chain. A further institutional capital consideration is to ensure ways people in the food production supply chain are treated is in accordance with human rights guidelines and fair pay. Produced capital is another essential part of the capitals equation as income generated by food businesses can support lifestyles, help alleviate poverty, fund education for children, and further enhance business ventures in the community.  Aquaculture offers the opportunity to be a partial solution to world food security issues, but needs to be approached in a holistic way to ensure a five capitals approach for sustaining people and the planet. A positive model of implementation can be inspired by the AwF approach in developing countries for aquaculture projects.

thank you for the opportunity to comment. The issues raised for discussion are valid. Quite large literature available onthe questions raised. Yet they are in different disciplines and the specialists in one ares often do have knowledge about the other and hence when it comes to beinging it all together we  feel we dont have the information. The book by Per Pinsturp - Andersen and Margaret Biswa on Nutriton And Develop some 30 years ago covered some of the issues. A collegue of mine just commneted, " we have not acted on the knowledge we already have on these issues." While i am not sure of this, I do believe what is missing is the capcity to design and implement food system based nutrition interventions and nutrition driven food system design. Anyone who has the local knowldge in developing countries know that these issues are not even consdiered either by the researhcers or by the practitioners mainly due to wantof capacity. Hopefully we can develop some tools that will help in decentralised program design that will bring food systems and nutrition outcomes to gether. They are only in the policy statements and startegy dicument at best in some countries. Even there not much is known on how to proctically change the desings of the food ssystems to accomplish nutritional outcomes. This will require multidisciplinary cpacity of teaching nutritionist to ocnsider food ssytem variables and extension profesionals on nutritional objectives.

I share some efforts in this direction.

1.           Kataki, P., and S. C. Babu, eds. 2002. Food Systems for Human Nutrition. New York: Haworth Press. 

You can google this book which has vaious chapters that could be useful for this on going discussion, form technology, insitutions, M&E to extension and policy and program design.

             2. Babu, S. C., and P. Sanyal. 2009. Food Security, Poverty, and Nutrition Policy Analysis: Statistical Methods and Policy Applications. New York: Elsevier Publishers.

This book can help in building capcity for desinging local program interventions linking food systems and nutritional outcomes.

THE FOLLOWING PAPERS WILL BE USEFUL AS WELL

1.         Babu, S. C. 2002. Food Systems for Improved Human Nutrition: Linking Agriculture, Nutrition and Productivity. Journal of Crop Production 6 (1/2): 7-30.

2.         Babu, S. 2002. Designing Nutrition Interventions with Food Systems: Planning, Communication, Monitoring and Evaluation. Journal of Crop Production 6 (1/2): 365-373.

3.         Babu, S. C., and V. Rhoe. 2002. Agroforestry Systems for Food and Nutrition Security – Potentials, Pathways and Policy Research Needs. Journal of Crop Production 6 (1/2): 177-192.

4.         Babu, S. C. 2000. Rural Nutrition Interventions with Indigenous Plant Foods - A Case Study of Vitamin A Deficiency in Malawi. Biotechnology, Agronomy, Society and Environment 4(3): 169-179.

5.         Babu, S. C. 1999. Designing Decentralized Food Security and Nutrition Policies- A Knowledge-based System Approach in Malawi. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture 38(1): 78-95.

THANK YOU

SURESH BABU

IFPRI

This document conveys the collective input of the Civil Society Mechanism of the CFS regarding the e-consultation on the Issue Note proposed by the HLPE Steering Committee with respect to the upcoming HLPE Report on Food Systems and Nutrition. The document is based on the ongoing work of the CSM Nutrition Working Group. This version of the document replaces the earlier submission.

Preamble

The CSM welcomes the initiation of the preparatory process for the HLPE Report on “Food Systems and Nutrition” as it will be the cornerstone of CFS’s engagement with nutrition.

The past years have witnessed a growing disconnect between food and nutrition, as counterintuitive as this may be. While the imperatives of nutritional emergencies may have contributed to this situation, fact remains that nutrition policy, where existing, has been characterized by significant fragmentation, excessive “technicalization” and, often, overwhelming “medicalization”. Most recently, the scientific debate and the policy discourse have shifted towards malnutrition in all its forms (this also being the key focus of the ICN2 framework), though significant asynchrony persists between such a narrative and the reality of most nutrition programmes, particularly at the level of international development cooperation.

On the contrary, understanding the challenge of malnutrition in all its forms requires a holistic and multidisciplinary analysis, one that combines political, socio-cultural and technical perspectives. Above all, it also requires full appreciation for diversity and the values of human dignity, equity, sustainability and sovereignty, while recognizing the need for urgency and justice. The first fundamental step is the firm re-connection of nutrition with food, with the understanding that food is the expression of values, cultures, social relations and people’s self-determination, and that the act of feeding oneself and others embodies our sovereignty, ownership and empowerment. When breastfeeding, nourishing oneself and eating with one’s family, friends, and community, we reaffirm our cultural identities, our ownership over our life course and our human dignity.

When reconnecting nutrition with food, it is also essential to be fully conscious that family farmers, artisanal fishers, pastoralists and other peasants around the world – the primary contributors to food security, being those that feed approximately 70% of the world population - are engaged in economic activities, even if sometimes they remain trapped into subsistence. While some of the food they produce is for their own consumption, their marketable surplus aims to generate income to meet their family needs – for food they cannot grow themselves as well as to meet other needs such as health care, education, shelter and so on. It is therefore impossible to extrapolate the nexus between food systems and nutrition from the broader context that impacts smallholders, their access to productive resources and their key marketplaces, in particular informal/territorial markets.

The CSM therefore expects that such a holistic understanding of food and nutrition will provide inspiration and guidance to the HLPE Report. Should this happen, the Report will greatly contribute to a new phase of nutrition research and policy that can address past fragmentation and re-build a new comprehensive narrative and practise on this critical dimension of human life.

Substantive considerations

1. Contextualization of the Report within the CFS: The Report on Food Systems and Nutrition should be a foundational report for the CFS work in Nutrition. It should provide a solid conceptual framework for CFS work in nutrition and propose a common language that all CFS constituencies could refer to in future work. This would also include the harmonisation of current terminology used within the food and health angles of nutrition. At the same time, the report needs to be contextualized within the CFS, both in terms of its clear rights-based approach (with special but non-exclusive reference to the Right to Adequate Food and Nutrition, the Right to Water, the Right to Health, Women’s Rights, and Workers’ Rights) and its solid roots in the Global Strategic Framework and CFS’s past policy products and recommendations;
2. Holistic and rights-based understanding of nutrition: The report should start with a holistic understanding of nutrition grounded in a solid multidisciplinary approach, recognising that the fragmentation of nutrition is, largely, the result of a fragmented and reductionist conceptual framework of agriculture, food and nutrition knowledge as well as of significant vested interests. Human beings do not feed on Iron, Calcium or Trans Fats, to mention just a few: They need a varied and healthy diet. However, larger socio-economic and political considerations influence whether babies are breastfeed or are bottle-fed, and whether adults eat meals that may or may not be diversified, healthy, safe, culturally appropriate and nutritionally adequate. The Report should therefore resist the temptation to limit its considerations to any artificial subset of nutrition issues, which may be identified to be more closely connected to food systems. For instance, a superficial analysis might suppose that breastfeeding may not be squarely related to food systems and should therefore only be marginally addressed by the report. On the contrary, it is impossible to disconnect the relation between food systems and nutrition, on one hand, from the fulfilment of women’s and workers’ rights and all the other factors that promote or hinder the enabling conditions for optimal breastfeeding and caring practices, on the other. Taking such a holistic approach on nutrition would therefore involve bridging and integrating the conceptual and normative framework of the right to adequate food and nutrition with the right to health and all other related rights, particularly women’s rights, right to education, child rights, peasants’ rights and workers’ rights. The full realization of the right to adequate food and nutrition, in the context of the indivisibility of rights goes well beyond the replenishment of energy and nutrients. It results in numerous capabilities, which allow human beings – babies and adults alike – to protect themselves against diseases, be active, learn, develop, participate in social life, create, love, produce, and progress toward their full human potential.

At the same time, such a holistic approach should not lead to superficiality. For instance, understanding the relationship between agriculture, diet, nutrition and the growth and development of children, while intuitive, has proved to be complicated as the quality, in terms of nutrient content, of the diet is affected by crop varieties, soil fertility, water availability, processing and cooking techniques, as well as broader ecological, economic, social and political determinants. It is therefore essential that the holistic framework percolates down to the depth of the issues rather than remaining an umbrella with no sequel through the Report;

1. Central public policy focus on promoting balanced, diversified, healthy and sustainable diets: The Report should expose the key drivers of dietary patterns, taking into consideration both demand and supply side factors. However, rather than considering these drivers as given dynamics, the Report should emphasize the role of public policy in promoting diversified, balanced, sustainable and healthy diets, seeking the convergence among the food, health and environmental policy dimensions of nutrition. People eat a different ratio of food products from the 3 newly defined food groups[1], certainly due to their eating habits or wishes, but being heavily influenced by public policies which influence purchasing power, relative price, accessibility and marketing, with different implications for their nutrition and health[2]. In particular, the Report should expose the role of supply side factors, including the impact of commercial operators and related organisations, in creating demand and shaping the direction of dietary changes. These should include: the massive marketing of breastmilk substitutes, industrial products and animal-based foods; the enormous advertising influence of large food corporations and the social-appeal/status of certain foods that they generate; the misleading food labelling practises; the provisioning and advertising of unhealthy food in institutional settings (especially schools); and, the often close relationships between agribusiness and governments[3], which translate into unfair subsidies, pricing and trading terms that favour the corporatized food system and generate artificially-low prices of industrial food products. The Report should also give voice to emerging consumer movements that claim their rights to healthy, affordable, locally-sourced and accessible food options as well as to transparent information, and to be protected (particularly children) from aggressive marketing of breastmilk substitutes, unhealthy food and beverages that promote the increased incidence of diabetes, cardio-vascular diseases, some types of cancer and other diet-related non-communicable diseases. The way in which food systems are defined by communities themselves should also be given prominence. For example, traditional indigenous foods including gathered and wild foods make vital nutritional contributions to diets. Lastly, the promotion of sustainable food systems in institutional settings, especially schools, should be given special consideration, especially due to the importance of child and adolescent nutrition to prevent obesity and diet-related chronic disease in childhood and through the life course;
2. It is essential for the report to properly articulate the diversity and interplay of food systems: The Report should expose how different food systems shape significantly different nutritional outcomes and condition the emergence of different dietary patterns, with profound consequences in terms of the prevalence and incidence of diet-related non-communicable diseases. However, these different food systems cannot be seen in isolation one from the other and their interlinkages and power imbalances need to be addressed. In this context, the Report should not characterize the relation between different food systems as one of peaceful cohabitation and should rather expose the homogenizing, hegemonic and often predatory nature of the global industrial and corporatized food system and how it affects the viability of other food systems. The Report should therefore also expose the impact and influence of current trade regimes and agreements that favour industrialized cheap food imports, often masking dumping and unfair trade practises, leading to unfair competition with local food producers and undermining local/informal markets. The Report should therefore embrace the social, political and economic dimensions of food sovereignty as the critical organizing principles for sustainable local food systems and people’s self-determination. However, the Report should also acknowledge that there is an important role for trade in agriculture and food products, be it within or between countries and regions[4], but that such trade should be fully respectful of food sovereignty, human-rights and people’s self-determination;
3. Centrality of the role of smallholders as the main contributors to food security and nutrition: The Report should clearly recognize the far-too-often neglected reality that family farmers, especially small-scale farmers and food producers, feed 70 percent of the world population and are the main investors in agriculture. It should also reaffirm the importance of territorial, internal and informal markets, as these are the dominant source of food consumed in the world, particularly in the Global South. Any dynamics that influence smallholders’ rights, resources and capacities and undermine territorial, internal and informal markets have profound consequences on the evolution of food systems and their nutritional outcomes. In this respect, the Report should expose that, in the name of the grand narrative of feeding the planet, agricultural intensification and specialization are triggering the exit and exodus of millions of peasants, pastoralists and indigenous people, the disappearance of traditional crops and breeds, and creating enabling legal conditions for the further grabbing of land and water resources from their legitimate communities. The Report should also expose the often-violent displacement of communities and appropriation of their lands for the industrial agriculture and livestock industries, and the resultant loss of more sustainable livelihoods, with profound consequence on nutritional outcomes for these communities and the larger population. Furthermore, it should document the rise of oligopolies and extreme market concentration of inputs and the rapid, continued and unchallenged global consolidation of the industrial complex. Indeed, the continued expansion of the agro-industrial complex is undermining smallholders and their capacity to sustain their productive, territorial, social and political functions. It is itself contributing to the problem it claims to address;
4. The Report should factor in the impact of climate change and highlight the implications of dietary patterns on environmental sustainability: While agro-biodiversity is an important contributor to dietary diversity, changes in the length and nature of the growing season, increased variability in local weather patterns, including the increased incidence of extreme climate events, and other changes to agro-climatic factors may reduce the range of crops that can be grown. The consequences of climate change for undernutrition could be potentially devastating and significant efforts are required to strengthen mitigation and promote crop diversification and resilient adaptation strategies. While the Report should expose these important dynamics, it should also highlight the sustainability dimension of diets and the urgent need to significantly change the ecological footprint of agricultural production, seeking ways to reverse the environmental degradation that contributes to vulnerability and lack of resilience to environmental shocks. In this context, the report should examine the central role that agroecology can play in advancing new pathways towards resilient, agro-biodiverse, and ecologically sound local food systems promoting and supporting diversified, healthy and sustainable diets;
5. Locate the relation of food systems and nutrition in the broader context of the social, economic and political determinants of malnutrition in all its forms: The centrality of human rights and the need for a holistic view of nutrition demand that the key focus of CFS policy concerns should be that of addressing the structural determinants of malnutrition in all its forms, rather than focusing on nutrition as a need to be delivered (obviously without ignoring or underestimating the urgency of nutrition and food emergencies). The focus on food systems should not therefore fail to recognize that the root causes and factors leading to malnutrition in all its forms are many, complex and multidimensional and cannot be separated from their broader social, political, ecological and economic context, recognising that these differ greatly around the world. It is therefore necessary for the Report to adopt a conceptual framework that is broad enough to explore how these determinants influence health and well-being rather than an individual-based framework, which focuses solely on education and/or technical and technological solutions to change production and consumption behaviours;
6. The full realization of women’s human rights: Widespread violations of women’s and girls’ rights, women’s lack of control of economic resources, lack of focus on adolescent girls’ nutrition and reproductive health are some of the most pervasive determinants of malnutrition in all its forms. Despite some advances, most women in the world today continue to be subject to several layers of structural discrimination and violence, at societal, community and household levels. Not only does this have negative implications for the full enjoyment of their human potential, but it also contributes to rendering women and their rights invisible in food security and nutrition policies, leads to programmes that tend to overburden women even more with additional responsibilities, and promotes the intergenerational reproduction of malnutrition. The full realization of women’s human rights, in equal footing with men, is therefore central to the pursuit of the right to adequate food and nutrition and the right to health and needs to be a central consideration of the Report. The prevention of femicide, the full access to education (not limited to enrolment but ensuring completion), equal pay for equal job, the provision of paid maternity benefits, the social recognition of unpaid work through social and community support mechanisms, the gendered redistribution of household tasks, the prevention of child, early and forced marriages, and the protection of women and girls against all forms of violence are all critical components of an effective strategy for tackling malnutrition in all its forms. Equally importantly, breastfeeding must be protected, promoted and supported, as the best alternative for mothers to feed their babies, and women must have all legal, public, community and family support that is required. All these dimensions closely interconnect with food systems and nutrition, and need to be addressed by the Report.

In conclusion, the CSM is confident that the HLPE Report will contribute to moving from food-product approaches to food systems that support diversified, balanced, sustainable and healthy diets. The ultimate consequence of all points above is the centrality of breastfeeding and diversified, balanced, sustainable and healthy diets versus industrial food products and other product-based solutions[5] that address specific deficiencies or forms of malnutrition. Such diets must be protected, promoted and supported by sustainable, local and regional food systems, firmly centred on small-scale sustainable food producers, protected against unfair competition, and aggressive marketing, and aligned with agro-ecological and food sovereignty principles. It is also essential to recognize the value of indigenous food systems and the critical role of locally sourced and collected foods, e.g. wild foods, and, more broadly, acknowledge the importance of recognising how communities and individuals define their food items.

This approach inextricably links healthy nutrition to agricultural biodiversity, which is a direct function of the genetic diversity maintained by small farmers, fishers, indigenous peoples and food producers, through their existing and diverse knowledge systems. These food and knowledge systems should be protected, promoted and supported by health, agricultural and other policies, rather than undermined by nutritional research and approaches that do not take them into account. Agroecology and food sovereignty therefore offer an alternative vision of food systems that provides for a concrete and viable path to diversified, balanced, sustainable and healthy diets.

Methodological considerations

1. It is important to underscore that experiential, rather than just scientific or technical knowledge, be considered in the elaboration of this report. To achieve a holistic understanding of food systems and nutrition all types of knowledge must be drawn on, not just quantitative research and “big data”, but also ethnographies and individual testimonies. The distillation of knowledge into the Report should be an inclusive process in which all actors, especially rights-holders, should have the possibility to contribute their own knowledge and experiences. This might bring about methodological challenges, but it will ultimately result in better quality conclusions, as these will reflect the realities of people, local communities and their struggles;
2. Members of the HLPE team should be sensitive to the fact that academic research, especially in the nutrition and agricultural sciences, is often compromised by economic interests and industry financing. The HLPE should therefore make explicit effort to ensure the research products the Report will refer to have been carried out free of conflicts of interest, because the funding of science by industry has been shown to significantly influence results. For example, a meta-analysis found that studies conducted free of conflicts of interest were five times more likely to demonstrate a link between sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain and/or obesity than industry-funded studies[6];
3. Along similar lines, it is essential that the HLPE Project Team be selected with the highest standards of integrity and independence from any vested interests. Ensuring robust safeguards against conflicts of interest is critical to ensure the independence, legitimacy, trustworthiness and credibility of HLPE products.

Summary

Organic farming and lowering meat consumption are key issues when considering the resilience side of food and nutrition security. An organic vegan diet will create food security even under severe draughts, heavy rains and hard winds. Leaving the factory farmed meat era behind will release more than 200 Mha, for production of grass that can be turned into biogas and synthetic diesel, thus creating a possibility leave the fossil fuel era for vehicles behind. Meat consumption and conventional farming are also contributing to an increasing violence on a global level.  A vegan diet will pave the way for a global peace

Maintenance of soil fertility and nutritional value of crops are key challenges for humanity when considering creation of food security and proper health. Use of chemical fertilizer and linear flows of nutrients will never be sustainable since rock phosphate is a limited resource. Recycling of organic waste, including human manure to farming land is a cornerstone for creation of food and nutritional security. Pesticide residues found in drinking water and food are giant threats to human health. Nutritional values of crops cultivated with conventional farming have lost their nutritional values with up to 90% the last 50 years.

Organic farming using biomanure will maintain the crops nutritional values and secure the symbiosis between the plants and their root bacteria, thus the securing the plants immune defense.

Biogas technology is like introducing an industrial cow that produces biomanure and biogas as a

byproduct.  The biomanure can be spread directly in growing crops, since nutrients are mineralized during fermentation and can be taken up directly by the plants without losses. By using the bio manure in organic farming the crop yields can be increased compared to conventional farming. Cold plasma technology using biogas for small scale production of synthetic diesel creates a unique possibility to leave the fossil fuel era behind. The potential is giant since the synthetic diesel can be produced directly from biogas or by thermal gasification of any substrate with carbon like by example biomass, tires and waste from households.

The research report  “ Resource food”  written by Elsa laurel a famous nutrionist and me, shows that introduction of a vegan diet in Sweden would release 1,2 Mha of arable land for biogas production and at the same time secure self sufficiency on organic food and vehicle fuel – biomethane and synthetic diesel. (See www.resursmat.se)

On a global level 240 Mha of arable land is used for producing cattle feed. If we lowered our meat consumption with 80% we would be able to release 200 Mha of arable land for growing grass and energy crops that together with any carbon waste can support all our vehicles with bio methane and synthetic diesel.

Meat production is now the biggest contributor to the global warming. When considering the land use linked to cattle feedstock now preventing introduction of a fossil fuel free vehicle fleet, meat production is responsible for around 50% of the total anthropogenic global greenhouse gas emissions.

By switching from the real cow to the industrial cow – the biogas plant , meat and milk producing farmers can get a sustainable alternative since the industrial cow feeds very well on grass and any organic waste including black water. In Sweden 4 out 5 fishes are used as feedstock for cattle. Thus declining fish populations can be restored by switching the cows.

Raw vegan food will lower the demand for cooking fuel and thus prevent deforestation and soil degradation..The only cooking fuel you need is for making safe water for soaking beans and cereals.

The beans can be stored for decades and will be waked up by soaking them over night.

Organic solar dried fruits and vegetables and sprouted beans will be excellent alternative from a nutritional and resilience perspective.

Further on biogas technology will make it possible to reclaim denuded land that makes it possible for exploiters of the rain forest to operate outside the rainforest. Rescuing of the rain forest is the most important issue right now since the rain forest is a rain cloud factory that distributes rain to surrounding countries. Clearing rain forests for meat production is like stealing rain from your neighbor and without rain there will be no food.  It is also destruction of one of our most mportant carbon dioxide sinks.

Monoculture crop production is much more sensitive to extreme weather situations than organic farming and need to be abandoned once and for all from a soil erosion, nutritional, health, resource, biodiversity, energy, climate and resilience perspective.

Violence linked to food supply is now becoming highlighted. Resent research shows that consumption of pesticide residues are a source of violent behavior. Compared to vegetables meat has very high concentrations of residues from chemical pesticides since the cattle is eating the feed stock over and over again before it’s slaughtered. Meat itself is also well known source of violent behavior since it increases the adrenalin levels.

One of the wisest conclusions ever drawn is “As long as we have slaughterhouses we will have battle fields ”, a quotation from Leo Tolstoy that can become cornerstone for creation of rescuing plan for humanity and Planet Earth.   

Vegan food is a fundamental cornerstone for a global peace and nutritional security. Time is ripe for switching from a meat to a vegan diet. In combination with biogas technology and vehicle fuel production our farmers will get a sustainable alternative that will contribute to maintain soil fertility for coming generations – together with a global the biggest challenges for humanity. We are all one people and have one common home  to take care of - Planet Eart. Let’s start now tomorrow might be to late.  

Bjorn Marten, teacher at Campus West  in Sustainable development and independent sustainable system designer

Honorable Dr. Nathanael Pingault, coordinator of HLPE

My best regards to you

I hope you a nd a ll of your collea gues in steer ing com m it tee of H LP E a re hea lthy a nd ha ppy R efer r ing to your contr ibution in D AD -Ne t @ f a o .o r g under the t it le of :

HLPE Report on:

Nutrition and food systems + call for Experts, published in Dec 10 2015

Hereby, I pr esent m y view points a bout the ten (10) questions with the em pha sis (Ta king in to m y consider a t ion) on the th r ee ba sic points include: A –Under -nutr it ion B-O ver -nutr it ion

C -M icr onutr ient deficiencies.

M y g en e r a l vie w p o in t s:

Important Note :I write my view points with this mentality th at the First link of all food systems , kind and change of diets ,Sufficient or deficien t nutrition of human being is  SUST AI NABL E F O O D P R O DUC T I O N , which is output of cr op pr oduction or animal breeding in farms in a safe and comprehensive stable conditions.

…………………………………………………………………..

I ,personally, deeply, believe that nutrition and all subjects which by a way are r elated to nutrition of human being can n ot be appraised and studied solely .on the contr ary , it must be considered as a component of a combined phenomenon in our planet , very particularly , in the fir st decades of 21st  century which food production as the final output of all agriculture and animal husbandry activities in the world depends on many social(Dynamic universities and r esearch centers) , economic ,climatic , cultural ,environmental ,training and extension services in rural areas (status of human resources) and political conditions .I n th is con n ection , the best and the clearest examples are:

Unfortunately , the ominou s phenomenon of t er r or is m has shadowed a vast r egion of planet, the r egion where is very r ich and suitable for ood pr oduction but we cannot deny the ter r ible effects of this ominous phenomenon , because surely , will a ffect all socio- economic activities ,mainly agriculture activities , accordingly , food pr oduction for all age categories of people specially , b abies and children.

Con tinuous drought or decrease of useful r ainfall in a vast area of planet which , surely, affect the food pr oduction , accordingly ,will directl     tly affect the diet of world people which ,No-doub t, will cause nutritional deficiencies mainly under-nutrition and micro-nutrient deficiencies.Climate change , which ,In turn, affects the biologic  efficiency of soil and water  , productive and r epr oductive performance of animal and plant genetic r esources , accordingly , food pr oduction and food system and finally will affect diets of people , particularly poor and weak people who are more vulnerable , specially , babies and children.

Imposed and Un-wanted wars in some r egion of planet. Unfor tunately , continuous wars

(The m ost of them are Imposed) , which surely , or iginates from:

A-Ignor ance (Nescience) of people, for example, tr ibal wars in some r egions of planet, and fanatical wars which is very destructive.

B-Self –interest and mentality of invasion to other countries. No-d oubt, every kind of war will affect directly the cultivation of lands, social and economic and spiritual conditions of farmers so that will cause vagrancy ,hunger And adversity ,accordingly , will affect the food p roduction.

And finally , all of these above- mentioned areas will be adversely effective on the food production ,compulsory change of diet ,disorders in  food systems , will create nutritional ,mainly pr otein and micro nutrient deficiencies.

How a nd why do diets cha nge?

O n the whole , in a normal and quiet condition, people of each country are well ad apted to their conventional diet , the diet which during centuries parents have presented to their next generation , therefore , those people love to their common diet and are well ad apted to it. Considering that, kind of diets completely or iginate from ecologic and climatic and economic and somewhat cultur al and even r eligious characteristics of each community(The best example vegetarians in India, banning of pork among Moslems and fish eating in  water bounded countries).So, ever y changes in above-mentioned conditions , cer tainly will cause the changes of diet more and less .In some African countries which are in dry zones with no or lit tle r ainfall , anim al breeding is difficult because food of people is prefered to animal feed.in such condition  people ar e con tent and happy with carbohydrates for surviving , I n con t r a s t , in south America like Br azil and Ar gen tin a because of sufficient r ainfall and good pasture for grazing of  their animals, their diets include more meat(pr otein) in compare to carbohydr ates ,Likewise ,meat and milk in European countries .Complex of oppor tunities have caused different diets in different p ar ts of planet.  M u tu ally, any disorder in each of mentioned par ameters will make the people ch ange their diets unwillingly (based on their fin ancial power and availability of diet).

Wha t a re the links between diets, consum ption and consumer s ha bits a nd food system s?

The diets are r esult of accep ting the comm on nutritional h abits which children have learned fr om their p arents based on different before-mentioned conditions .sustainable production of food stuffs (availability) and financial power of consumers (To buy the

proper diet)are the most important links between diets and consumption. It is clear th at food p roduction is fir st necessity but not sufficient because processing and compatibility with consumers interest is something else. Therefore,  r sustainable production of dominant diets, processing, packaging , marketing and man agement of wastes are the m ost important links of a food system.

How do changes in food system s a ffect cha nges of diets, a nd therefor e hea lth and nutr it iona l outcom es?

We h ave accep ted th at food system includes an consecutive links such as: Sustainable food production (animal source food or plant source food) , processing. Packaging ,distr ibution ,marketing and m anagement of wastes .Now ,In case of any disorder or ch anges in each of these links ,Surely , diets will be hurt, and accordingly , the health and nu tr ition al status of people will be hurt. In this connection , I say  an clear  example :In any area of planet, where differen t kind of war occurs , provision or car rying of feedstuffs becomes difficult or impossible .Such a condition for long period(one year or m ore) will cause the involved people be deprived of suitable diet ,so that .m aybe they eat for a long time only carbohydrate to survive, which will be r esulted in under nutrition , par ticular ly ,deficiency of micr o-nutrient .Another example : with pr ogressing of science and ar r ival of new technology in life of m ankind ,processing of foodstuffs (As a link of food system)also has improved so that different hygienic product of pr ocessed milk or meat  which have m ore sustainability ,more oppor tunity for distr ibution to r emote areas ,more availability to consumers and meeting the nutritional requirements.

Wha t a re the deter mina nts of the cha nges in consum ption?

In my opinion, depends on socio-economic ,cultur al and environmental conditions ,There are many different determinants of the changes ,but some of them (At a glance) are as follow:

A-Incremen t of different kinds of diets consumed by people (Entr ance of new foods which mostly are man aged by medias and somewhat because of globalization (Which is inevitable).The best example the entr ance of fast foods in the diet of mainly developing countries, so that, symbol of them is pizza, up to three or two decades ago ,maybe five percent of people(In developing countries) knew and wer e interested in eating  pizza or other fast snacks. But , now , the young members of families are too much interested in eating pizza or other fast foods.

B-Changes in life style . In this connection,  the best example which unfortun, is seen in planet is dwindling the rural population ,and increment of urban population .Surely ,diets which are common between urb an and rural population is completely different ,and this is inevitable because of the life style .In urban areas not only the ingredients of diets differ ,but , methods of cooking and even processing systems are different.

C -Financial power of people which depends on economic performance of governments. No-doubt , r ich people will buy full nutrient feeds to meet their body r equirements (protein, minerals , vitamins etc..)

But when they become poor  they must  change their diet to buy only some less nutritive diets and are deprived to eat fr esh and delicous fruits and……

D-Some imposed events  , make people ch ange their diets .some of these events are: Imposed wars , drought ,famine and……

E-Scarcity of feed stuffs ,which will make the people ch ange quantity and quality of their

diets.

F-Improvement the awareness level of people abou t the role of diet in their health , body fitness ,obesity and prevention of diseases , surely they will  change the qu ality and qu antity of their diet.

How do the dyna m ics of food system s dr ive consum ption patter ns?

It is clear that(Doubt-less) food systems(Which I told about  in answering question 3) in communities governs the majority of people in each community .An Persian proverb says: No body can swim contrar y to the rou te of water. In this connection  , impor tant point is that wh atever  different links of food systems are full and well-functioned, Mutually , the consumption patterns will be improved .For example, if the pr ocessing of foods is hygienic and nutritive ,the people will not face diseases and meet their nutritional r equiremen ts, without deficiencies or obesity ,Vice-versa .Likewise, other links of food systems .Another example , in rural areas of the m ost developing countries, food systems ,is mainly r estr icted to pr oducing manual processing of products without pack aging and selling in local markets, this is the why we see the different consumption patterns in compar e to urban areas.

How to sha pe a nd to a ddr ess pathwa ys to hea lthy nutr it ion?

The First and most important step in order to shape and address pathways to healthy nutrition is to pr omote the n ation al awareness level about the healthy nutrition ,its social- economic and individual importance(benefits) ,and then the ways to achieve it .This is a bilateral r esponsibility as follow:

A-Responsibility of governments –all governmental policy-makers , presidents , r elated ministries ,parliaments  etc…must emphasis on the healthy nutrition of their people .they must lead and legally man age  and contr ol the differ ent links of food system which will r esult in healthy nutrition ,Simultaneously ,they must increase the awar eness of people about healthy nutrition thr ough national media(By using and extension of findings the universities ,r esearch centers ,senior experts etc).

B-Responsibility of individuals-Each person of community not only him or herself must move in the way  of healthy nutrition , but he or she must tr ain his children(other persons of community) abou t paying attention to healthy nutrition .Thr ough such bilateral cooper ation ,each person of community becomes like a well wh ich i t s elf oozes t h e wa t er, n ot p ou r wa t er in s id e ,m a n u a lly .Now , he or she knows very well about disadvantages of over-nutrition , micr o nutrient deficiencies ,full meeting r equirement diet, vice versa, accordingly ,he does his best to address his pathway to a healthy nutrition.

Wha t is the role of public policy in pr om oting hea lthy, nutr it ious a nd cultur a lly a ppr opr ia te food for a ll?

I think I have answered this question in question 6 ,But ,I cordially , believe th at public policy h as the most and the most significant role in w   abou t the dangers and disadvantages of an unsafe food .Why? because public policy makers have access to (Knows about)the food systems and cultural char acteristics of community .They must compile the tr aining and extension programs by using the newest technologies of the world, compatible with each population r egarding to their social and cultural peculiarities.

How to build on the diver sity of the existing food system s?

This is very interesting and attr active question for me .We must take in to our consideration that diversity of existing food systems directly depends on diversity of all links of each food system from sustainable food production  to consumption .Therefore , I f we conserve and comprehensively improve the links of food system compatible with socio- economic and cultur al peculiarities of each r egion, not only we have conserved the diversity , but we h ave built on the same existing food system .I , seriously , believe that the only solution to achieve this aim (At least in developing countries ) is comprehensive ru r al development.

What is in pra ctice the range of actionable solutions from farm to fork that enable better nutritional outcomes of food systems?

I think I have answered this question somewhat in last eight questions. But , again I r efer to the key solution of comprehensive promotion of different process(the links) of food systems .For example :Farmers or animal breeders must be aware of the effects of using the chemical fer tilizer or horm ones. Food processors must be aware of vital importance of pollute or unsafe products ,economic par ties such as cooperative must provide a balancing market so that people can afford to buy their favorite food .Consumers must be aware of the balancing food.They must know the importance of protein ,energy , vitamin and minerals .Likewise ,the disadvantages of over-nutrition -obesity… etc .The man aging r esponsibility of these awar eness is on the shoulder of governments , but the governments must use the Non-governmental par ties ,Cooper atives ,tr aining and extension services , universities… as executing agencies.

Wha t action should differ ent sta keholder s, includ ing gover nments, civil society a nd the pr iva te sector , ta ke?

I have  r efer r ed to the importan t and leading role of government in the way of the best efficiency of food systems in last 9 questions .but I believe that governments must have effective and significant  role  in compiling and contr olling of food systems but BY civil society and private sector .Civil society and private sector as executer sector must seriously feel the shadow of governments in order to do their best in the each link of food system .but governments also must be aware of their economic policies along with taking into their consideration the socio-economic and cultural status and ecologic poten tials of each r egion.

Thank you ver y much for your soon r eply indicating the receipt Hamidreza Naderfard.Born in 1959

M.Sc in genetic and animal breeding

Head expert of buffalo development in the ministry of agriculture.Tehr an.IRAN

E.mail: h n a d er fa r d @ ya h oo.com Mobile;0098(0) 936 877 9019

Thank you for providing the opportunity to register my comments and observations on the HLPE Steering Committee Issues Note on Nutrition and Food Systems.

In the draft note's opening comments there are a few ideas presented that I would like to quote as they shape the treatment of the ten points to consider. These are:

"There is a diversity of food systems and growing evidence of the health and nutrition implications of different food systems."

"The overarching issue in this report shall be to assess the influence of various types of food systems on diets, nutrition and health."

"It shall consider food chains from farm to fork and all the sustainability challenges of food systems (in the economic, social and environmental dimensions) and how they relate to nutrition."

"This calls for a report grounded on a multidisciplinary approach."

"Malnutrition is a global issue. The nutrition focus shall include malnutrition in all its forms, including under nutrition, over nutrition and micro nutrient deficiencies."

"The report shall examine the multidimensionality of food systems and nutrition and the root causes of malnutrition."

It would help to illustrate what is meant by a 'food system' and where the 'diversity' in food systems comes from. There are - as many previous CFS-HLPE consultations have shown - many ways in which to consider what agro-ecological systems and cultivation ideologies are. For this Issues Note, is 'food system' synonymous with an agro-ecological system, or with the retailing of primary crop produce, or with the technology, finance and marketing apparatus that deals with the transformed and retailed end product? I prefer to consider not 'food system' but primary crop that emerges from an agro-ecological approach, which is then stored as and used as food. This is an important distinction to make, because it maintains the connection between 'food' and agro-ecological cultivation, and it is on the basis of that connection we can consider what we mean by nutrition, but also by the provision of calories and the culturally-sound dietary selection - all these are to be taken together and it will not help engender a deeper understanding of the influencing factors if one (nutrition) is removed and treated separately.

Likewise, what is it that influences crop choices, the kind of agriculture practiced, and the notions of sustainability about any food provisioning system that rests upon these crop and cultivation choices? I'd like to point out that the FAO-OECD Agricultural Outlook projections for 2023 expect that 12% of maize and other coarse grains will go to biofuel production, 14% of global vegetable oils will be used to produce biodiesel, and 28% of sugar will go towards producing transportation fuels. This represents some of the contradictions that immediately confront any serious and committed discussion of what is meant by 'food system', dietary adequacy, dietary choice, degree to which primary crop is retained as food (that is, before entering the processing and then retail chains). There are aspects in such consideration that must dwell on how such use of maize, vegetable oil and sugar (to take examples pertaining to fuels) diverts land and water from their optimal use in producing healthier food. It also helps describe how substitution of one kind of energy (fossil fuel) with another kind (cultivated biomass) represents part of the current coalition of interests around 'green economy' and 'low carbon development' which have a very significant impact on food systems and nutrition.

The attempts to regulate commodities markets have been derailed by strong financial industry lobbying (because of the financialisation of food and other commodities, and the manner in which these are tied to the capital and speculative finance markets). As a result, financial speculators (who take form as a bewildering variety of funds) treat food commodities as an 'asset class'. In this way, the pernicious link between food, fuel, and financial markets adds volatility to real food markets even if overall food price indices remain relatively low. The Issue Note therefore must accurately characterise current conditions concerning: (a) what is considered agriculture and food policy, (b) how the food industry in fact functions, (c) how farmers' crop choices are influenced, (d) the ways in which consumers' food purchase choices are shaped, (e) the prices (to industry, government, household and producer) at which such choices are made out to be economically 'viable', and (f) the environmental, ecological, cultural and social costs that are incurred with these choices.

This is necessary as today a small number of increasingly powerful corporations dominate global markets and also what is considered the public policy space concerning agriculture and food. Despite having brought rapid growth in production of a few staple commodities, hunger and malnutrition persist, as do environmentally unsustainable production practices. Overall, at the inter-governmental level as well as at the national level, policy-makers have failed to confront the new realities of the dangerous interdependence of food, fuel, and financial markets in the face of climate change. The token changes mentioned so far have been inadequate to produce the kinds of structural reforms in global and national policies that are required to take us on a different path toward a different result. This different result and practice includes ensuring that farmers have access to decent land, public research and extension, credit, marketing support, measures to stabilise prices at remunerative levels, and import protection where necessary. These are not new ideas, and have been put forth since the early 20th century in most countries which began to follow (or were advised to by multi-lateral development banks) industrial agricultural methods.

These are also countries in which food markets (physical, rural, urban, wholesale) experience both shortages and price volatility because they have been persuaded (or coerced) into abandoning the practice of maintaining public food reserves that help deal with emergencies and help dampen commodities markets-induced price volatility. During the two decades of the International Monetary Fund- (IMF) directed structural adjustment programmes until 2008-09, when the food price rise struck all over the world, reserves like these had been widely condemned by the cabal of macro-economic planners who advise governments as inefficient, market-distorting government interventions. Such calumny continues, but many governments have taken steps to establish food reserves as an important measure with which to stave off price volatility in local markets caused by the transferring of international food commodity prices and the volatility that accompanies them every so often as the financialisation mania takes a new turn for the dangerous.

To make clear the fundamental connection between what the Issue Note considers as food systems and their sustainability, and the perversities of macro-economics that prevail today, consider the public stock-holding programme of India. It is linked to the right to food through a programme that pays farmers a guaranteed (minimum support) price slightly higher than market prices for their crops and distribute it to the needy at subsidised rates (for cereals, pulses and sugar). When fully implemented, the programme can reach more than two-thirds of India's enormous population, a large number of whom experience dietary deficiencies and inadequacies. Yet the National Food Security Programme of the government of India has been singled out as a sticking point for the World Trade Organization (WTO) which has the potential of stalling the WTO altogether, and which therefore must be 'reformed' as per the dictates of a grouping which includes the USA, EU and several of their allies. That these 'reforms' rest upon archaic norms agreed two decades ago and which unabashedly favour the USA, EU and OECD are considered beyond the scope of negotiation.

In 2011 the then U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, identified the underlying problem when he accepted his second three-year mandate in 2011: "Too much attention has been paid to addressing the mismatch between supply and demand on the international markets - as if global hunger were the result of physical scarcity at the aggregate level - while comparatively too little attention has been paid both to the imbalances of power in the food systems and to the failure to support the ability of small-scale farmers to feed themselves, their families, and their communities." My advice to the HLPE is to not treat nutrition separately. Until recently, the loudest alarm raised concerning food has been that not enough of it is grown to remove global hunger, when in fact for years inter-governmental and state data have showed that collectively, countries grow enough to feed very much more than the current population (after providing for cattle, poultry and farm and draught animals). In the same manner, I find, the superficial but high-volume argumentation about nutrition is taking shape in order to divorce it from agro-ecological cultivation, culturally and community appropriate crop and dietary choices, from the retaining of primary crop as food (less to the processing and retailing industries, none to the fuel industry). It is taking shape in order to use the goal - that seemed to become available under the 'global hunger' alarm - of raising production through the expansion of industrial high-input monoculture farming assisted by bio-technologies and synthetic biologies.

Yours sincerely,

Rahul Goswami

[email protected]

Thank you for taking into accounts the following ideas I kindly suggest despite their limitation due to the broadness of the subject:

- How and why do diets change?

I have observed that diet is relied on a personal choice which is influenced by Environment (available and marketed local products, habits, fashion, lifestyle, money, weather, and mood) and the feeling of a physical status (resulting from pregnancy and physical activities like hungry, thirsty). It changes through life cycle, is different for man and women, societal status …

- What are the links between diets, consumption and consumer habits and food systems?

Earnings, economic constraints, marketing and more important are information on products (that is said may fulfill a diet). Network of counseling is spontaneous (between maternal, parental, young people …) in order to look for the “better” cost to benefit, or means (capability) to starvation – in Madagascar, staple food is more than common.

- How do changes in food systems affect changes of diets, and therefore health and nutritional outcomes?

A good food system must offer diversified and low cost products, adapted to habits and beliefs.

- What are the determinants of the changes in consumption?

Health constraint (benefits to health – healthy diet), food costs, food taste, means of cooking (cooking material, whether adapted to coal …), and ease of cooking (boiling water …), product availability, confidence (healthiness, sanitation), knowledge, education, information.

- How do the dynamics of food systems drive consumption patterns?

Consumption patterns may be driven by a food system that has the means of offering universal coverage (in time – life cycle and group of ages – and in geographic space).

- How to shape and to address pathways to healthy nutrition?

In order to shape and address pathways to healthy nutrition, we must educate (prioritizing health and physical performance or wellness first, then taste, qualities and quantities). Consumption habits may come with economic means.

- What is the role of public policy in promoting healthy, nutritious and culturally appropriate food for all?

Public policy should promote products with minimum standard level of nutrition requirements by country. School and food professional must have standard costs for such nutritious products. Each country must have a universal value chain for such nutritious products. People must have knowledge of good and healthy eating habits. Social protection policy and plan must provide poor and vulnerable people (particularly women and children among them, where either they are), with minimum daily nutritious food requirement.  

- How to build on the diversity of the existing food systems?

The diversity of the existing food systems may help promote growing local, daily and fresh products consumption; their use in promoting local restaurant specialties, and market. The better is a local or regional product (from taste to price), the better its adoption by consumers (by group of age, at national level). Market information system (MIS) must be nutrition oriented.

- What is in practice the range of actionable solutions from farm to fork that enable better nutritional outcomes of food systems?

With respect to food preference in a country, the food systems must aim first to promote daily consumption by all groups of ages of adequate nutritional food either grown or prepared locally. It should ensure minimum loss (with the right packaging and/or quantity) and full confidence (sanitation and quality labels), at all daily reselling, packaging and consumer points.

In order to provide full coverage of population and respond to market needs, the food system must provide adequate knowledge and information to all stakeholders (price, availability, quality, nutrition facts …).

- What action should different stakeholders, including governments, civil society and the private sector, take?

Recognize the need of holistic approach, including gender approach.

Most important is the private sector that must fulfill population need.

The government must provide incentive to private sectors for all questions regarding food systems and nutrition.

The civil society must ensure that the access to nutritious food is universal (by contributing to better coverage and counseling).

La complejidad evidente nos lleva a varios frentes, sin embargo, las decisiones desde las políticas públicas y privadas, no están armonizadas todo lo que podrían con las necesidades de alimentación y nutrición de las personas, por ende su salud. Las estructuras económicas actuales van en función de las ganancias económicas y esto muchas veces deja de lado la salud como fin primario, el " negocio ante todo " !. Inclusive los sistemas médicos están " pensados ", para la atención post enfermedad, tienen ese énfasis - hablando de nutrición -, y a la parte preventiva, no se le da la prevalencia que requiere las personas.

El enfoque de los sistemas involucrados, no parte realmente de estas necesidades como eje, además la capacidad de dar fundamentos y requisitos en normativas reales y aplicables a los actores que rigen la cadena alimenticia a nivel mundial, regional o local, no es relista con los intereses de los sectores, entonces, cómo logramos un entendimiento y establecemos un marco equilibrado ?, la cuestión tiene cantidad de aristas.

Desde la disposición de los inversionistas, el agro, los sistemas de distribución y comercio, la atención en salud y por supuesto las preferencias del consumidor, estamos ante " actitudes " disímiles, donde no se puede conciliar a todos los intereses de manera homogénea. La visión " holística " para establecer patrones o esquemas desde la fuente hasta el usuario final, parte de un entendimiento razonado y que valore el beneficio general de los factores y actores involucrados. 

Al carecer de este marco, se deben seguir orientando las acciones prioritarias a los grupos vulnerables y víncular los mecanismos de la " cadena de valor ", hacia un objetivo pausible de " interés global ", en todas las actividades relacionadas con la alimentación, nutrición y salud. Dónde encontramos ese punto de balance ? 

Diversas organizaciones multinacionales, ONU ( FAO, PNUD, Etc,) OMS, OMC, gobiernos, deben establecer un norte claro y de acuerdo a las características propias y diferenciadas en un " bien común " - suena utópico, claro - pero esa pretensión nos marcaría una hoja de ruta, hacia objetivos enlazados con otras cuestiones globales que se presentan actualmente. Hay cantidad de prácticas que se realizan y diversos movimientos que van en el sentido correcto, pero no son sufientes. En todo caso, Sigue siendo un  asunto de complacer la mayor cantidad de intereses por el bien común. 

Suggestions toward developing a conceptual framework for measuring food security, health and nutritional status of the communities of different agricultural systems:

Food security, nutrition and health of different communities of different agricultural systems vary. To some extend it depends on agricultural practices and the diversity of the agricultural systems. Food security, nutrition and health have the multidimensionality aspects of social, economic and environmental issues. Therefore it can be assessed by multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) and indicators from multidisciplinary subjects.  Understanding the status of the food security, nutrition and health, and policy measures can be developed by indicator based MCDA analysis of the communities of different agricultural systems. A systems of systems approach can be used for framing detail data collection. The data related to protein and calorie productivity, energy use efficiency, human and physical compatibility, economic and social equity, food security, nutrition and health can be collected by using both qualitative and quantitative data-collection methods consist of interviews using a questionnaire, measurement of food/nutrient intake, anthropometry, and observations of clinical signs of malnutrition and so on.

FEEDING THE PEOPLE:

AGROECOLOGY FOR NOURISHING THE WORLD AND TRANSFORMING THE AGRI-FOOD SYSTEM

IFOAM EU Group

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

TRANSFORM?... OR CONFORM AND ADJUST? 

Bernadette Oehen and Angelika Hilbeck

How can inefficient, poorly managed smallholder systems be transformed into productive agroecological systems?

And how can environmentally destructive, energy and chemical-intensive industrial systems be converted into productive agroecological systems?

What role does international trade play in today’s agro-food systems, and are short supply chains relevant?

This brochure provides a platform to a number of experts working in various fields relevant to these issues. It gives them space in which to share their visions and voice their concerns about how we are feeding the people of the world.

The focus is on small-scale farmers who, all over the world, are prone to food insecurity, but who nevertheless feed more than 80% of the world’s population. Many of these farmers are located in what we often call the developing world, but we should make no mistake: change is needed in developed and developing countries alike. Food insecurity in today’s world results from a globally dysfunctional agro-food system that is failing to meet the needs of many people in both developing and developed countries.

There is an urgent need for a transition from the existing agro-food systems to sustainable agroecological systems. This brochure explains many reasons why change is needed, based on strong science to underpin the arguments. At the same time, the authors highlight the main needs for further research and describe impediments to the progress of agroecology.

The articles examine aspects of agricultural policy, the role of livestock and nutrient cycles, climate change, international trade and certification schemes, the need for innovation and the need to bring consumers closer to producers. In this way, we hope to contribute to a constructive and inspiring debate on this important issue that affects everybody around the globe!

A lot of know-how has been generated on the production side, and many methods for alternative, sustainable forms of agricultural production have been documented. This rich body of expertise continues to grow. The flourishing organic sector, the growing interest in agroforestry and permaculture, the spread of integrated pest management approaches are just a few examples. These developments so far have yet to be matched by a similar degree of support in other fields necessary for their broader adoption. Therefore, to scale up the use of these agroecological production systems, there is a need to develop and improve the means of knowledge transfer that includes the participation of farmers. And it is important to establish regional supply chains, including food storage, processing and trade links.

At both national and international levels, there is an absence of broad-based political support, regulatory frameworks and appropriate economic incentives – or they are just in their infancy. Just as the industrial, mechanized systems of monoculture that transformed post-war global agriculture could only be installed with massive public investments and the concerted efforts of all the relevant segments of society, so too will the next transformation of agriculturerequire a similar concerted effort for its success – an effort that involves science, research and technology combined with adequate policies and economic incentives.

The Way Forward for Agro ecology and the Transformation of the Global Industrial Agro-Food System

• Funds must be provided and opportunities created for scaling up the best agroecological systems and integrating them into a coherent supply and value chain.

• National and international trade agreements must support the development of regional food systems.

• Training and extension work for agroecological production and fair trade must be integrated into academic and vocational education programmes.

• Significant investment is now needed to research and develop new economic paradigms that penalize business models contributing to environmental degradation, and reward those that protect and promote biodiversity, and eliminate environmental pollution and other harmful practices. While research into agroecology in its broadest sense has delivered results, that research has been largely decoupled from the study of economics.

• Final product prices must reflect the true costs of production by internalizing all the externalities.

• A detailed review is needed of the existing WTO rules, including its trade and agricultural policy measures, in order to strengthen food security, food sovereignty and sustainable rural development. Other relevant agreements should also be examined, such as those on anti-dumping, public procurement and the agreement on services.

• For this reason, we are calling for a billion-euro flagship research programme on agroecology and the transformation of the current agro-food system. The disadvantaged position – even exclusion – of agroecological research from major funding mechanisms must be overcome. Agroecology is an innovative form of food production that offers huge potential, not only to provide better food but also to remedy the environmental destruction that now threatens human societies.

• It is imperative that we break free of our collective dependency on the industrial agro-food systems that is under-serving the people and destroying the environment – it is also achievable, because the necessary agroecological systems do exist and are ready for deployment as soon as we have a conducive institutional and political environment. Missing this opportunity would be unforgiveable to future generations.