Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

KEY QUESTIONS TO GUIDE THE E-CONSULTATION ON THE SCOPE OF THE HLPE- FSN REPORT

1. Do you agree with the guiding principles indicated above?

Some principles are overly general and could better aligned with some supporting documents. For instance, Principle 1 is crucial, and I fully agree with its intent. However, I recommend specifying whether the indigenous peoples' rights referenced include all spheres (international and national) or are limited to frameworks such as UNDRIP and C-169. Similarly, for the rights of nature, it would be helpful to cite the specific documents that form the basis of this principle, as different countries are at varying stages of progress. Including a supranational recommendation could further encourage global debate. Principle 2 seems to conflict with Principle 4, particularly regarding the role of “local communities” in the latter. To resolve this, I suggest maintaining the focus of Principle 2 and removing the example of “local communities” from Principle 4 for greater consistency.

Regarding Principle 3, I partially disagree due to issues in the MYPOW text, which I will address below. Principle 5 also lacks detail and would benefit from clear criteria for defining what would be “a relevant policy recommendation.” On a positive note, Principles 7, 8, and 9 stand out as particularly significant and deserve greater emphasis.

Turning to the MYPOW text concerning indigenous peoples, it is essential to acknowledge their capacity to promote food and nutrition security while maintaining biodiversity. However, this recognition must also address the challenges they face, particularly access to land—a fundamental right. For indigenous peoples in Brazil, access to their ancestral lands is the main constraint affecting food sovereignty. Without securing land rights, the preservation of indigenous agri-food systems cannot be ensured.

While GIAHS is a valuable tool, it overly emphasizes exceptional cases. To effectively leverage indigenous and traditional knowledge for food security and the Sustainable Development Goals, it is strategic to study communities under threat. Indigenous and traditional peoples facing pressures from urbanization or agribusiness can provide critical insights into resilience and the preservation of cultural practices. Understanding their strategies for survival amidst adverse conditions can inform broader recommendations for addressing these challenges.

Minha discordância, no entanto, está nos OSD destacados no documento. Eles aparecem como resultado alcançado a partir da futura recomendação, e não como meios de fortalecer e recomendar políticas e ações. Dito de outra maneira, parte dos os indicadores de desenvolvimento sustentável se alinham ao fortalecimento dos sistemas de conhecimento e alimentares dos povos indígenas. Se tais objetivos são atingidos impactariam positivamente a vida dessa população e além. Outros, porém, em especial ODS 2 exige cuidado e observações de especificidades que não constam nos indicadores, o que nesse caso seriam importante a complementação do relatório HLPE-FSN para destacar essas diferenças e pontos de atenção. Por isso recomendo atentar para outros objetivos não mencionados, como, OSDs 3, 6, 11, 14, 16 e 17.

Para o contexto brasileiro a relação entre soberania alimentar e saúde tem sido discutida nos fóruns e conselhos de segurança alimentar e nutricional, tendo sito tema em 2015 comida de verdade. Os efeitos adversos de não considerar esta forte relação entre alimentação e saúde, sobretudo para populações indígenas, vão para além da falta de alimentação e má nutrição. O caso do povo Xavante é extensamente conhecido. A distribuição de cestas básicas nas aldeias, contendo grande oferta de arroz, macarrão e açúcar, combateu a fome (OSD 2), mas afetou a saúde indígena (OSD 3). Embora seja um povo indígena de recente contato, há uma maior incidência de diabetes entre os Xavante, pois sua cultura alimentar foi alterada repentinamente. A política de segurança alimentar universalizante não questionou o que era seguro comer de acordo com as especificidades alimentares que garantem a saúde dessa população. Apenas recentemente os itens da cesta básica brasileira foi alterada, incluindo produtos regionais, restringindo produtos ultraprocessados e fomentando alimentos frescos.

É importante ressaltar o impacto do acesso à água e da falta de saneamento sobre os sistemas de conhecimento e agroalimentares indígenas, bem como sua saúde. As terras indígenas sofrem impactos diretos do OSD 6, como a poluição dos rios, dos quais os indígenas dependem para viver e manter seu sistema agroalimentar, e onde se banham. A respeito do objetivo 14 e considerando a C-169, importante ressaltar que os pescadores tradicionais e as populações tradicionais costeiras estão inclusos no escopo HLPE – FSN, conforme o artigo 1º, item a da referida convenção. Seus conhecimentos de pesca, cooperação com outros animais (como os cetáceos em Laguna, Santa Catarina – Brasil) e leitura das marés são alguns dos conhecimentos relacionados à atividade. Ressalto o indicador 14.b para as recomendações do relatório.

Ao salientar o GIAHS como instrumento, é importante relacionar o OSD 11 (em especial o indicador 11.4) que trata do patrimônio cultural e natural.

Mais uma vez, tomando o Brasil como referência, sugiro incluir o atendimento dos indicadores relativos à paz, justiça e instituições eficazes. Diante de uma Constituição Federal que reconhece os direitos indígenas e seu direito original à terra, os povos indígenas aguardam o cumprimento das demarcações de suas terras, que há 26 anos excede o prazo definido. Sem acesso à terra os povos indígenas estão mais suscetíveis às violências, ameaçando seu modo de vida, sua cultura e sua existência. Ademais, há crescente violência e morte de líderes indígenas, em conflitos de terra, nos quais o agronegócio e o uso de agrotóxicos são usados literalmente como armas contra a presença indígena nas terras cobiças como expansão agrícola de soja. As terras demarcadas também estão ameaçadas por uma proposta inconstitucional de determinar um marco temporal para reconhecer a presença indígenas em suas terras, ferindo o reconhecimento do direito original e negando as expulsões e migrações forçadas do passado. Assim, os indicadores do ODS 16 precisam ser considerados como fundamento para “preservação, fortalecimento e promoção dos sistemas de conhecimentos e alimentar dos povos indígenas”. Nesse sentido, as parcerias e meios de implementação importam ser incluídas como uma forma de assessoria.

My disagreement lies with the presentation of SDGs in the document. They are framed as outcomes of future recommendations rather than tools to guide and strengthen policies. Many SDGs indicators align with preserving indigenous knowledge and food systems, which can positively impact indigenous communities and beyond. However, SDG 2 requires specific attention to indicators not currently addressed, which could be clarified in the HLPE-FSN report. Additionally, other SDGs, such as 3, 6, 11, 14, 16, and 17, should be added and highlighted for their relevance to indigenous issues.

In Brazil, the relationship between food sovereignty and health has been a key topic in food security forums. The adverse effects of not considering this strong relationship between food and health, especially for indigenous populations, go beyond lack of food and malnutrition. The case of the Xavante people is well known. The distribution of basic food baskets in the villages, containing a large supply of rice, pasta and sugar, addressed hunger (OSD 2), but affected indigenous health (OSD 3). Although they are an indigenous people with recent contact, there is a higher incidence of diabetes among the Xavante, as their food culture was suddenly changed. Universal food security policies failed to consider the dietary habits and food culture essential to maintaining indigenous health. Only recently has Brazil revised its basic food basket to include regional products, limit ultra-processed foods, and encourage fresh food.

These changes emphasize the importance of aligning food security policies with food sovereignty and health.

Access to clean water and sanitation (SDG 6) significantly impacts indigenous agri- food systems and health. For example, river pollution in Brazil affects indigenous livelihoods, ecosystems, and traditions. Regarding SDG 14, traditional fishing knowledge, such as cooperation with animals and tidal reading, demonstrates the importance of preserving indigenous practices. Indicator 14.b should be incorporated into the report's recommendations, as the C-169 includes traditional fishermen and coastal populations.

GIAHS provides a useful framework, especially when tied to SDG 11 (indicator 11.4), which focuses on cultural and natural heritage. Once again, taking Brazil as a reference, I suggest including compliance with the indicators relating to peace, justice and effective institutions (SDG 16). Despite constitutional recognition of indigenous land rights, many land demarcations in Brazil remain unresolved. Without access to land, indigenous communities face violence, loss of culture, and threats to their way of life. Land conflicts, often fueled by agribusiness and pesticide use, exacerbate these issues. Partnerships (SDG 17) and inclusive implementation strategies are crucial for addressing these challenges.

2. Should the objectives include mainstreaming Indigenous Peoples food and knowledge systems, and lessons learned from them, for the benefit of all, or solely for the benefit of Indigenous Peoples as rights holders?

I recommend prioritizing benefits for indigenous and traditional peoples first. Historically, the distribution of burdens and benefits has often disadvantaged these populations, and addressing this imbalance is a matter of justice. Furthermore, historical reparations remain overdue and should be considered when crafting policies. While international recommendations often aim for universal benefits, focusing on the communities directly involved ensures that their unique needs and circumstances are adequately addressed.

3. What are the challenges related to Free, Prior and Informed Consent and Access and Benefit Sharing when widely promoting and/or mainstreaming Indigenous Peoples food and knowledge systems?

The greatest challenge appears to be ensuring that indigenous knowledge is protected from future misuse. It is essential to uphold the rights and ethical guarantees of agreements, ensuring that these do not place undue responsibility on indigenous peoples to evaluate and mediate terms. At the same time, their autonomy to establish and consent to agreements must be safeguarded. Ideally, these terms and consent should be developed collaboratively with each indigenous community, respecting, and adapting to their unique ways of thinking and decision-making.

Integrating diverse forms of knowledge presents the challenge of avoiding reduction, simplification, or assimilation of what is inherently diverse. Using alternative forms of communication beyond writing, such as oral traditions or visual storytelling, could play a vital role in supporting the preservation and integration of this knowledge.

4. How can the report ensure the inclusion of marginalized groups, sustainability, and protection against commercialization risks for Indigenous Peoples' food and knowledge systems?

It is urgent to ensure that knowledge holders, whether individually or collectively, have their authorship protected before their knowledge is registered, documented, or disseminated outside their territory. Patents, unfortunately, have often been used unethically in this context. Materials with international visibility, such as FAO reports, should address the risks of scientific and commercial exploitation and advocate for robust international instruments, including patents, to safeguard these rights. These instruments should prioritize the economic benefits for disadvantaged groups whose knowledge holds global significance, ensuring they are not excluded from the potential advantages derived from it.

5. How should oral knowledge and traditions be documented and referenced in the development of the report?

   I strongly recommend that the report incorporate diverse means of communication, including indigenous languages. Oral knowledge should be referenced with the explicit consent of the narrator, ensuring that authorship is protected before any information is disclosed. Care must be taken to avoid revealing sensitive knowledge without first securing clear guarantees of its ownership.

6. What dimensions linked to Indigenous Peoples’ agency, e.g., in governance issues, could be addressed?

   In the Brazilian context, addressing land demarcation is both unavoidable and urgent. Additionally, a proposed municipal law, PL 181, developed in collaboration with the Guarani people of São Paulo, merits broader attention. This legislation addresses critical issues of autonomy and shared management of territories. In countries with diverse indigenous populations, policies on autonomy and shared management are essential for preserving their way of life and safeguarding their knowledge.

7. Are there important/relevant policy papers and instruments missing from the foundational documents list?

   See above and below.

8. Could you please indicate relevant references that should be taken into account? Incluir nos documentos fundamentais a atualização da COP 16 em Cali de 2024, que inclui, além dos povos indígenas, o papel dos afrodescendentes e das populações locais na conservação da biodiversidade.

Include in the fundamental documents the update of COP 16 in Cali in 2024, which includes, in addition to indigenous peoples, the role of Afro-descendants and local populations in biodiversity conservation.

The fundamental documents should incorporate the updates from COP 16, held in Cali in 2024. These updates expand the focus beyond indigenous peoples to also recognize the critical roles of Afro-descendants and local populations in biodiversity conservation. Including this perspective highlights the diverse contributors to conservation efforts and ensures a more comprehensive and inclusive approach.

https://www.cbd.int/article/agreement-reached-cop-16

Additional References:

Diegues, Antonio Carlos. 2014 “The role of ethnoscience in the build-up of ethnoconservation as a new approach to nature conservation in the tropics”, Revue d’ethnoécologie [En ligne], 6|2014, mis en ligne le 31 décembre 2014, DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/ethnoecologie.1956