Dear HLPE Project team and Steering committee,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the HLPE Version-Zero Draft of the report “Agroecological approaches and other innovations for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition”.
Due to time constraints we focus our feedback on a selection of the consultation questions posed in the V0 draft report. We have focused our input on the concept of resilience, its definition and how resilience thinking can be used as a broader, systems approach in relation to agroecology. Further, we highlight work that can inform the report regarding bridging between different knowledge systems.
We are available for any clarifications if needed, and look forward to follow the development of the report onwards.
Comments:
- “The V0 draft outlines 17 key agroecological principles and organizes them in four overarching and interlinked operational principles for more sustainable food systems (SFS): resource efficiency, resilience, social equity / responsibility and ecological footprint. Are there any key aspects of agroecology that are not reflected in this set of 17 principles? Could the set of principles be more concise, and if so, which principles could be combined or reformulated to achieve this?”
- “The V0 draft is structured around a conceptual framework that links innovative approaches to FSN outcomes via their contribution to the four abovementioned overarching operational principles of SFS and, thus, to the different dimensions of FSN. Along with the four agreed dimensions of FSN (availability, access, stability, utilization), the V0 draft also discusses a fifth dimension: agency. Do you think that this framework addresses the key issues? Is it applied appropriately and consistently across the different chapters of the draft to structure its overall 1 narrative and main findings?”
Regarding questions 3 and 4 we have some input on the use of resilience as an operational principle that some of the principles sort under. We think that it would be useful to more clearly define the concept of resilience in this framework of principles, and how it is used throughout the report. In some instances in the report, resilience is used as what can be referred to as specific resilience, the resilience of something specific (a farmer or a crop), to a specific shock or stress (climate change, or a pest). While this is relevant, we think it should be clarified where the report refers to specific resilience and where it refers to general resilience of a system to a range of different shocks and stresses.
Central to resilience thinking is the social-ecological systems perspectives, that nature and people cannot be separated but are truly integrated social-ecological systems. This is central also in agroecology, why we think the report will benefit from explicitly using the concept of resilience in that way.
Further, the concept of resilience also encompasses how to move a system in a sustainable direction. Folke et al. (2010) describes how to integrate resilience, adaptability and transformability, and defines resilience as “the capacity of a social-ecological system to continually change and adapt yet remain within critical thresholds”. This means that depending on the current system, persistence, adaptation or transformation may be needed to obtain sustainability. The following definition from Goncalves et al. (2017) can be useful for the report: “Resilience is the long-term capacity of a given system to deal with change or disturbance and still retain its basic function and structure – while continuing to develop. For an agricultural system, resilience involves an ability to deal with everything from climate change and pest outbreaks to changes in agricultural policy. Resilience therefore comprises the ability of systems to withstand stress and to restore essential functions afterwards. In the long term this requires an ability for adaptation and self-renewal.”
If the report adapts a broader definition of resilience, it may not be useful to sort the agroecology principles under the four different operational principles (e.g. Figure 1, Box 4, Figure 6). In Figure 1, diversified incomes is the only example under resilience, which indicates a focus on the resilience of the household, whereas in Box 4 and Figure 6, the principles sorted under resilience are mainly biophysical. We think that many of the principles sorted under social equity/responsibility also relates to resilience, and that a too narrow perspective on resilience is used in this categorisation.
You may want to relate the principles for agroecology to the seven principles for resilience identified by Biggs et al. (2015). The seven principles are: 1) maintain diversity and redundancy; (2) manage connectivity; (3) manage slow variables and feedbacks; (4) foster complex adaptive systems thinking; (5) encourage learning; (6) broaden participation and; (7) promote polycentric governance. They are discussed in relation to agroecology by Goncalves et al. (2017).
The planetary boundaries framework is mentioned in the report, but the discussion on how the planetary boundaries are related to agroecology could be further developed. A compilation of the contribution of agroecology to decreasing the impact of agriculture on the planetary boundaries can be found in a policy brief by SIANI (2015).
- “A series of divergent narratives are documented in Chapter 3 to help tease out key barriers and constraints to innovation for FSN. Is this presentation of these divergent narratives comprehensive, appropriate and correctly articulated? How could the presentation of the main controversies at stake and the related available evidence be improved?”
Regarding question 7, and the subsection 3.2.3 Are global science and local knowledge opposed in agroecological thinking and practice? (p.70), we would like to highlight ongoing work on connecting across knowledge systems, through the Multiple Evidence Base approach (Tengö et al., 2014). The approach has been developed in a collaborative process involving actors from policy, practice and science (for a background, see e.g. here and here). A Multiple Evidence Base approach views indigenous, local, and scientific knowledge systems as equally valid, and emphasises the integrity and complementarity of knowledge systems, which together generates an enriched picture. The approach has been piloted in relation to how evidence can be mobilised at local level and across knowledge systems, and how to feed that into policy making (Tengö et al., 2017; Malmer et al., 2017). The Multiple Evidence Base approach provides a framework that can help overcome disconnect or polarisation between knowledge systems, and which could resonate with agroecology as a science, a set of practices, and a social movement.
References
Biggs, R., Schlüter, M., Schoon, M.L., 2015. Principles for Building Resilience: Sustaining Ecosystem Services in Social-Ecological Systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. (See also a summary document here)
Folke, C., Carpenter, S.R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., Rockström, J., 2010. Resilience Thinking: Integrating Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability. Ecol. Soc. 15, 20.
Goncalves, A., Höök, K., Moberg, F. 2017. Applying resilience in practice for more sustainable agriculture – Lessons learned from organic farming and other agroecological approaches in Brazil, Ethiopia, Kenya, the Philippines, Sweden and Uganda. Policy brief commissioned by the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation. Available here
Malmer, P., Tengö, M., Belay Ali, M., Cadalig Batang-ay, M.J., Farhan Ferrari, M., Mburu, G.G., Mitambo, S., Phokha, C., Trakansuphakon, P. 2017. International exchange meeting for mobilisation of indigenous and local knowledge for community and ecosystem wellbeing. Hin Lad Nai, Chiang Rai province, Thailand. 13 – 15 February 2016. Workshop report. SwedBio at Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm, Sweden. Available here (See also further individual reports on piloting of the MEB approach here)
SIANI. 2015. How to feed nine billion within the planet’s boundaries The need for an agroecological approach. Policy brief. Available here
Tengö, M., Brondizio, E.S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P., Spierenburg, M. 2014. Connecting Diverse Knowledge Systems for Enhanced Ecosystem Governance: The Multiple Evidence Base Approach. AMBIO, 43:579–591. Available here
Tengö, M., Hill, R., Malmer, P., Raymond, C.M., Spierenburg, M., Danielsson, F., Elmqvist, T., Folke, C. 2017. Weaving knowldege systems in IPBES, CBD and beoynd – lessons learned for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmnetal Sustainability, 26:17-25. Available here
Sara Elfstrand