Foro Global sobre Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición (Foro FSN)

Promoting youth engagement and employment in agriculture and food systems

Until year 2000, global recognition of the need; and importance of youths participating in

agriculture had rarely been treated with so much seriousness across all continents. The

realities became very pronounced during the global pandemic. Major lessons were:

“Preparedness” and “Adaptation to change”.

The world would learn to make long-lasting and sustainable amendments on policies to

guarantee safe food and environment for the vulnerable in time of crisis. Global statistics

affirms youth as major stakeholders in respect of their roles in agriculture value chain against all odds. African population alone represents over two hundred (200) million aged between fifteen (15) and twenty four (24). This according to the African economic outlooks is expected to double in number by 2045.

The “draft report” did justice to a number of limiting factors; but I would like to emphasize

“Trust” in terms of sincerity of purpose and “Motivation” as it concerns wage and welfare.

Professionally, I have been involved in series of agricultural trainings that involved youths

within Nigeria and experience have shown that there is always natural willingness until lack of trust and poor motivation sets in.

I have witnessed instances where for political reasons; opportunities were given to unwilling candidates, where inputs meant for training were being diverted or commercialized for monetary gain as well as instances real farmers could not have access to loan and insurance policies.

In addition to this, good work environment, duration and wage are also key. Youth labour

should be seen as important factor upon which the survival and sustainability of agribusiness depends. Employers should be encouraged to expose them to frequent sponsorship to trainings about the profession with corresponding benefits to boost their morale.

Therefore, taking a holistic step with good feedback system on the afore—mentioned would assure due-diligence and discourage lack of trust in the society.

Thank you

Lawal, M. Olajire

(Nigeria)

Please find attached documents with comments from RLC.

As a general comment, it is important to note that the document is very interesting and brings a lot of new elements that allow us to broaden some discussions that we have underway in the region and reinforce the process of building the youth agenda that we had in recent years. 

The International Platform of Insects for Food and Feed (IPIFF) wishes to thank the HLPE for the possibility to contribute to this comprehensive draft report entitled 'Promoting youth engagement and employment in agriculture and food systems'.

3.1. What can make i) farming/fisheries/livestock rearing and other forms of food provision and ii) other roles in the food system a more attractive option for youth employment?

In our view, agricultural diversification is one of the elements which may make farming more attractive for the youth. Notably, bringing modern farming and innovation - such as vertical farming, precision agriculture, the development of new food and feed products/ingredients (e.g. insect farming) etc - closer to what is perceived as 'traditional farming' will, in our view, attract the younger generations (e.g. adolescents, young adults).

The advantages of supporting agricultural diversification are two-fold: 

- on the one hand, young adults with a background in farming may develop new skills, which would encourage them to remain active in the field of agriculture; 

- on the other hand, young adults with other backgrounds (e.g. computer science, engineering) who are seeking employment might be more attracted by the modern aspects of such diverse farming activities.  

Dear colleagues

Please find attached the IAFN-PSM Position Paper on "Engaging, Recruting and Retaining Youth in Agriculture' (June 2018) and PSM Comments on the HLPE V0 draft.

Regards

Brian Baldwin

Development & Policy Advisor , PSM.

Dear all,

Regarding employment, I reiterate that the transformation of farming/ fisheries/livestock rearing through agro-ipastoral ndustries and digitalised marketing remain the sectors to create more jobs in developing Countries;

Regatding land issue a interginational platform iof dialogue to negociate and allocate land to youth,;

One the aspect to address in VO draft is a transdiciplinarg and.integenerztional framework :

-to create diverse jobs;

-to negotiate and allocate land to youth;

-And to facilitate a win-win exchange between old and yong generation.

Thanks.

It has been long overstated that agriculture offers varied opportunities for youth, but how can we make it more attractive for them? Agriculture requires hard work, dedication, witt and being able to tap onto lucrative markets taking advantage of online platforms. Opportunities exist from research, policy, breeding, ICT, value chain, marketing you name it, but our potential is adversely impacted.

Africa has been labelled to have the largest “youth bulge”, with such demographic youth explosion largely absorbed by cities which has not been met by a similar growth in economic opportunities for youth. A lot of research has been conducted to deduce mechanisms to address this challenge from policy reforms to embracing entrepreneurial behavior amongst the youth across Africa through various regional and continental youth-oriented programs. What is lacking is ACTION, ACTION and more ACTION, but on whose part.

Youth unemployment has resulted in inequality and marginalization. Lack of work-relevant skills, lack of information and connections for acquiring appropriate skills, lack of experience and credentials that could allow youth to get started on an upward career path, and limited opportunities for entry-level work that is career oriented have widened the youth unemployment rate. This demographic dividend  represents a valuable asset to firms in their capacities as consumers, influencers, innovators, and tech-savvy employees.

If this demographic dividend is properly harnessed, this increase in the working age population could support increased productivity and a more inclusive economic growth rate across the continent. However, this asset remains untapped due to various obstacles that include low industrial activity, lack of skills, start-up resources and infrastructure. Long spells of youth unemployment or underemployment permanently lower future productive potential and earnings. Lack of economic opportunity also fuels conflict and instability. 

Many African countries are implementing pro youth policies reforms to improve the youth development ecosystem. In recent years such initiatives have established policies that cover employment, gender, capacity building, investment, budget allocation, and funding and education transformation. Governments have further demonstrated their commitment by establishing fully fledged government ministries or special commissions dealing with youth development and empowerment. Whilst the factors listed above have been highlighted as vital in increasing youth participation, education transformation has remained at the center of the debate as pivotal in developing a lasting solution to the youth panacea.

As an early-career researcher and youth in the agriculture field, this topic is at the heart of my work. Agriculture has and continues to be the engine and backbone of most African economies. A microscopic analysis of the agriculture value chain, from farm and fork provides an understanding of the vast opportunities that exist for effective youth participation. Agriculture is not only restricted to production. From tapping onto digital platforms as lucrative sources of markets while breaking regional and international borders to exploring hands-on activities like production and value addition (food processing). Access to new markets and technologies and mobile capabilities are also challenging the young savvy to be more creative. With unprecedented statistics on the rate of food waste, this provides avenues for creativity.

Digitalisation has opened up pathways for youth to take action but certain issues hinder its potential, which include the increasing digital divide between rural and urban populace, cost of mobile data amongst others. Online platforms have been thriving, breaking regional and international borders to reach lucrative markets e.g the Kenyan owned Mkulima Young which uses social media to share success stories and create a market place for agricultural buyers and sellers

On a weekly basis, I come across youth who are championing and tapping onto agriculture as a serious career. It is promising to see some youth venturing into agricultural production and procession, using digital platforms to share and motivate more youth to take up the space and not become a unemployed statistic. We have a number of undocumented and well-known youth agripreneurs who are championing in this sector. In Zimbabwe, we have youth who have been at the forefront promoting biofortification, the use of drones to improve efficiency, bridging the gender gap amongst other case studies. Along the way, they have met their fair share of challenges, but it’s the dedication that pushed them to break the glass ceiling and make the change. Each country has youth championing agriculture, with some being well documented, hence challenges faced may not be similar. Access to financial support, bureaucracy/red tape, lack of access to land, lack of collateral, market challenges, and lack of sufficient business knowledge have been cited as main barriers for youth to fully engage in agriculture.

As the world came to a standstill, coming to terms with the Covid-19 pandemic, this has adversely impacted on agricultural food systems, dampening some hopes of truly transforming the face of agriculture.

Do you think that this framework addresses the key issues affecting youth engagement and employment in AFS?

Based on the three fundamental pillars for engagement and employment for the youth they have rights of employment for their subsistence. It is almost a universal truth that the youth have rights to work in the field to produce the foods for their families. Therefore it has to be considered as an important pillar in this regard. Accordingly, equity is quite justified having quality of being fair and impartial among the youth. There will be no discrimination between the youths based on dwelling in one region or locality and based on colour and gender too. Accordingly, agency is also a strong pillar for the employment opportunities of the youth. There are growing so many agencies/institutions with the aim of providing employment opportunities especially for the youths. However, the youths can be employed in their own or rented farming with or without the supports from their family members too.  At that moment no agencies established in private or public sector will be required for the engagement of the youths. 

Regarding the trends as mentioned above that these are some critical issues raised in the process of employment opportunities for the youths. However the youths are developing such concept in the society that farming is the job of their parents or elders. They do not want to work in the field rather work in manufacturing and in supermarkets. They want to have easy money within a night without getting trouble and without waiting for a long time. It is going to be serious problems in the society. Therefore, it has to be addressed by authorized national or international agencies to attract the youths towards agriculture farming. Youths are automatically the crowd of unemployed members of the society who do not have enough resources for their jobs in agriculture. Many youths have left their jobs due to lacking of resources though they might have skills and knowledge of farming, and motivated too towards farming. Therefore credit / loan facilities should be managed for the youths easily. Regarding knowledge it is necessary to provide them both theoretical as well as practical knowledge (demonstration) of farming with projection of production of the foods to the youths.   

Do you think that the trends identified are the key ones in affecting outcomes with respect to youth’s engagement in AFS and broader FSN outcomes? If not, which other trends should be taken into account?   

All the three trends are relevant with respect to youth’s engagement in AFS. It would be enough to get high production of food from farming if all these trends are equally applied for them. I have just mentioned above that the youth are fleeing from the farming which will alarming situation in future if it persists. Therefore it is suggested to be taken motivational factor too in the account.

In particular, can you offer feedback on the following:

Where are youth currently under- and over-represented in food systems employment/work? 

The youths are under-represented in hard work and time taking jobs like rice plantation, preparation of the muddy land, showing the seeds, weeding the growing plants, harvesting the crop, and carrying the products to home or market / dealers. There are many steps to be completed from farm to kitchen to eat cooked rice by a family. Therefore the youths are escaping this type of job. The over-represented jobs are farming of cash crops and vegetables which do not require such hard works rather get money immediately. Accordingly livestock and aquaculture are examples of over-represented. 

How does this change when considering intersectional categories such as gender, place, ethnicity?

Motivational factors can bring changes with the intersectional categories like gender, place and ethnicity.

How has digital technology, agriculture 4.0 and automation affected youth employment in AFS? What is their likely impact in the coming decades?

It is not known exactly at the moment. But such digital technologies might have positive impacts in coming decades.

Under what conditions should children be allowed to work in AFS when they want to?

The children should be allowed only with their parents or guardians only for observing the farming system, and for their enjoyment for playing with mud and clays to increase immunity. 

What models of land and resource access and redistribution best support young people to engage in food systems for sustainable livelihoods?

Ownership of land should be kept with the young people. If they do not have their own land for farming there should be available rented land in cheaper rate for them. Similarly, credit and loan facilities should be available w/o interest for long period.

Do these models take account of the differences amongst youth in terms of gender, indigeneity and other characteristics?

Yes. But it is not applicable forever. Changes should be done based on the situation.

What policies/initiatives could integrate traditional and modern knowledges (including educational programming in primary, secondary, post-secondary, and technical training), to prioritize equity, agency, and rights in AFS and create new opportunities for youth?

Formal education on agriculture farming should be included even from primary level to post – secondary too. But there should be provisioned of informal education like training, workshop/seminar, observation visits (demonstrations of farming) and so on.

How do the experiences of young women differ from those of young men in knowledge generation, acquisition and transfer?

Women are more inquisitive to learn the techniques, labourious and productive than the young men. Women are concentrated more than the men. 

What are the implications (potentially positive and/or negative) of online platforms and social media increasingly playing the role of knowledge providers?

Social media might be positive in sharing knowledge and experiences of AFS. But some time they are dong exaggeration which should be filtered by the readers.

COMENTARIOS DE LA REPÚBLICA ARGENTINA SOBRE EL BORRADOR V0 DEL INFORME GANESAN: 

“PROMOCIÓN DE LA PARTICIPACIÓN Y EL EMPLEO DE LOS JÓVENES EN LA AGRICULTURA Y LOS SISTEMAS ALIMENTARIOS”

Comentarios generales: 

A modo de introducción, en primer lugar, queremos aprovechar la oportunidad para agradecer la elaboración de la versión 0 del Informe en tanto pone en el centro de la escena a la juventud, grupo de gran importancia para impulsar el desarrollo de manera sostenible en sus tres dimensiones. Por ello, subrayamos la importancia de la elaboración de un documento que se focalice en detectar y abordar los desafíos que ese grupo enfrenta, al tiempo que se favorece su arraigo en zonas rurales para aumentar la producción de alimentos y alcanzar la seguridad alimentaria, especialmente en contexto del COVID-19.

Coincidimos en que las relaciones entre el arraigo y el involucramiento de la juventud en la actividad agrícola y las características de los sistemas alimentarios son múltiples y muy complejas, dificultando el diseño de soluciones únicas. Por ello, entendemos que se necesitan herramientas variadas, que se adapten a los diversos contextos y necesidades y que se amolden a las diferentes características de la juventud en las diferentes regiones productivas del planeta.

Comentarios particulares: 

1.-En en la introducción, página 3, se utiliza la frase “with a failing food system as its main driver (Amiot, 2020)” para hacer referencia al impacto de los sistemas alimentarios en los distintos esquemas productivos. En este sentido, entendemos que deviene necesario reflexionar sobre si es el sistema alimentario el que falla o si fallan los incentivos, la estabilidad u otros aspectos políticos sobre los que también se debe hacer foco en un análisis integral de la situación. Atento a ello, sugerimos que sean considerados todos los elementos que contribuyen a que los sistemas alimentarios presenten deficiencias, de modo tal de poder generar soluciones que aborden de manera efectiva tales desafíos.

Igualmente, en la misma página, se incluye la frase “at the level of intellectual and policy discourse the vision of fundamental transformations towards more agroecological, smallholder-based modes of supplying the world’s food needs has made significant progress in the past decade”. 

Al respecto, cabe señalar que, si el sector agropecuario y los sistemas alimentarios pudieron acomodarse y responder frente a la crisis del COVID, no resultan claros los fundamentos y premisas de base científica que sustentan la necesidad de una transformación exclusivamente agroecológica, basada en pequeña escala. 

Al mismo tiempo, interpretamos necesario reiterar que la agroecología es una de las alternativas valida de enfoque productivo, pero no existe fundamento suficiente para la posición adoptada por el documento de abrazarlo como única opción productiva a futuro, o como una única receta para los sistemas productivos y alimentarios y las realidades diversas de los Países Miembro, ni para hacer frente a la necesidad de proveer de alimentos a los más de 7500 millones de habitantes del Planeta.

2.- También en la introducción, página 4, se indican los objetivos que deberían alcanzarse en términos de derechos, “agencia” y equidad de los jóvenes, mencionando, especialmente, “la agencia” como un pilar de la seguridad alimentaria, adicional a los cuatro ya reconocidos. Al respecto, resaltamos la importancia de evitar la inclusión de términos o conceptos que no han sido debatidos o acordados por los miembros de CSA, así como tampoco dar por sentado el acuerdo en torno de nuevas dimensiones de la seguridad alimentaria que no han sido discutidas por la membresía.

Relativo a la mención del término “agency”, reiteramos que no es una es una dimensión de la seguridad alimentaria reconocida por los Países Miembro (ni está integrada dentro de la definición de seguridad alimentaria de la FAO) y, definitivamente, "respectful and empowering" no son cualidades que hacen a los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles, siendo difusas en su interpretación y de alcance indefinido.

En la misma línea, pero en referencia a las frases “The report draws on a broad range of ideas and literature” y “in doing so, the report draws inspiration from indigenous perspectives and philosophies of well-being or the ‘good life/buen vivir’”, estas menciones específicas nos generan un interrogante sobre los insumos y la bibliografía utilizada a lo largo del reporte, dado que debería tratarse de bibliografía científica e indexada, y estadísticas oficiales, y no emplearse bibliografía denominada gris.

A su vez, agradeceremos tener más información sobre el sentido y el alcance de la referencia “Western science”, contenida en la página 10 del documento, por cuanto desconocemos su significado y alcance. 

3.- Punto 1: aquí el documento utiliza la definición del GANESAN sobre “food systems” y “food environments” (página 6, último párrafo). Si bien es cierto que en otros textos del CSA se hace referencia al concepto “food environments”, entendemos que sería apropiado que se expliciten las diferencias conceptuales entre ambos términos. 

4.- Punto 1.1: el documento señala que el logro de los ODS debería facilitar las transiciones y las transformaciones de los sistemas alimentarios hacia “economías del bienestar”, concepto este último que no resulta claro y que no ha sido acordado a nivel multilateral.  

Dada esta circunstancia, apreciaríamos contar con mayores precisiones respecto de los parámetros que compondrían tales economías, así como sus objetivos y principios rectores, de manera tal de poder evaluar sus implicancias, en particular, con relación al concepto de “soberanía alimentaria” también mencionado en este borrador.

Igualmente, la mención del término “healhty environments” nos resulta confusa, toda vez que las definiciones brindadas anteriormente en el documento (en el último párrafo de página 6), donde, por ejemplo, "environments" no se refiere a ambientes biológicos, podrían dar lugar a interpretar que el “ambiente” podría integrar aspectos que modelan preferencias de consumo y las dietas. 

5.- Punto 1.2: se nota la introducción de los conceptos “generational sustainability” y “generational social landscapes” cuyos significados y alcances se desconocen. Por tal motivo, agradeceríamos nos pudieran brindar clarificaciones al respecto. 

6.- Punto 1.5: se encuentra la afirmación según la cual la elección de un “estilo de vida verde”, caracterizado por una dieta libre de OGM, compuesta de productos localmente producidos y con bajo impacto ambiental, puede estar motivada por preocupaciones relacionadas con la salud. Al respecto, no se comprenden las razones por las cuales una dieta libre de OGM y producida localmente sería más sana, con lo cual se agradecerá conocer los fundamentos científicos detrás de tales afirmaciones. 

Asimismo, sobre este punto, y en referencia a distintas afirmaciones que contiene el apartado, nos gustaría destacar que: 

-La generación local de un producto o alimento no necesariamente garantiza un impacto menor derivado. 

-La asociación entre “health concerns” y la remoción de OGM o “chemicals”, entre los cuales se integran elementos fitosanitarios y fertilizantes de manera indistinta y desconociendo los requerimientos regulatorios de los productos y las buenas prácticas agropecuarias involucradas en su aplicación y manipulación, carece de fundamento científico. 

-Se insiste en que, para alcanzar un futuro más sostenible y más saludable, todos los cambios propuestos apuntan exclusivamente a modificaciones en el sector productivo de alimentos, como si la sostenibilidad no dependiera simultáneamente de un consumo responsable de todos los bienes y servicios de la economía, y de un esfuerzo transversal a todas las producciones y actores sociales y económicos.

7.- Punto 2.3: con relación a la frase “in addition, agriculture is the third most hazardous sector (after mining and construction) and the highest in terms of fatalities, due to chemicals exposure, use of hazardous tools and machinery and contact with wild animals (ILO, 2010)”, es imperioso especificar que el uso inadecuado de agroquímicos y de la maquinaria agrícola es lo que deriva en lo referido, para lo cual existen buenas prácticas agropecuarias. De igual forma, nos gustaría conocer la posibilidad de utilizar una cita que se refiera a la temática, pero que sea más actualizada. 

En lo que concierne a la referencia de “Fears of job destruction due to nascent technologies, such as those in the suite of Agriculture 4.0, have yet to be confirmed”, entendemos que la afirmación puede resultar tendenciosa en tanto la innovación y la tecnología son parte de la solución para una agricultura más productiva y amigable, que impulsa la mayor producción de alimentos y con menos recursos naturales. 

8.- Punto 2.4: hacemos notar que la primera oración del tercer párrafo de la página 30 puede resultar sesgada, en especial el ejemplo detallado entre paréntesis, de entre todos los que se podrían haber mencionado. Por ello, se sugiere no realizar tales puntualizaciones.

9.- Punto 3: Con relación al contenido de este punto, entendemos que se debe considerar que una política que promueva el acceso a la tierra de los agricultores de baja escala necesita ser acompañada con herramientas o programas que permitan la sustentabilidad de la actividad agropecuaria y el desarrollo socio-económico local.

10.- Punto 3.1: se identifica la siguiente frase “reports by authoritative panels of international experts have confirmed the economic, social and ecological superiority of small-scale farming and other small and medium food systems enterprises (SMEs) in terms of their resilience and adaptive capacity”. Al respecto, solicitamos contar información sobre la bibliografía utilizada, de modo tal de poder corroborar los datos afirmados.

Por otra parte, con relación al concepto "land-grabbing" y las adquisiciones de tierras a gran escala, se debería estudiar el contenido del concepto ya que podría involucrar adquisiciones de tierras asociadas con glaciares o acuíferos, o bien, destinadas a la minería, etc., y no únicamente para destino agropecuario.

11.- Punto 3.1.2: quisiéramos conocer mayores detalles sobre el sentido y alcance de la referencia al concepto “the Anglo-Eurocentric view of land”, debido a que desconocemos su significado. Por otra parte, con relación a la frase “land tenure based on private heritable ownership is a key to the high and persistent levels of inequality seen in societies practicing intensive agricultura”, entendemos que refleja la opinión de los autores del documento y no el contenido de elementos científicos indexados. Por esta razón, sugerimos que se remueva del texto, atento es una generalización que podría no verificarse en todos los casos.

12.- Punto 3.1.3: en entendemos que la referencia a “ecological agricultura”, es inadecuada por el contexto del párrafo, y que debería reemplazarse por el término “sustainable agriculture”.

Por otra parte, en la página 40 del documento, se hace mención al acceso a la tierra para grupos jóvenes, a través de asociativismo y “short-term land leases”. Al respecto, quisiéramos indicar que esto último tiene sus aspectos negativos en tanto que los arrendamientos cortos no estimulan necesariamente un uso sostenible de los recursos involucrados en la producción, especialmente del suelo, ocurriendo que en muchos casos se reducen los muestreos de suelo y diagnósticos generales, y se puede ver perjudicada la planificación de rotaciones.

13.- Punto 3.2.3: se hace referencia a cadenas cortas de producción y abastecimiento que buscan ofrecer alimentos saludables y sostenibles de forma local. Al respecto, no comprendemos el sentido del término “alimento sostenible”, ni sus implicancias en términos productivos o de organización de las cadenas de producción.

Además, bajo este apartado se señala que “shortening supply chains limits negative environmental impact, food losses and packaging”, siendo que no se comprende la base científica que respalda esta afirmación. Al respecto, no se considera pertinente realizar este tipo de generalizaciones atento a que cadenas largas de suministro también pueden producir con limitado impacto ambiental y bajos niveles de pérdidas y desperdicios de alimentos, además de contribuir de manera sustancial al logro del desarrollo y la seguridad alimentaria de muchos países alejados de los grandes centros de consumo.

A su vez, quisiéramos agregar que el hecho de que la cadena de suministro sea corta o el alimento local no necesariamente hace a la calidad nutricional, inocuidad del alimento o que sea saludable y que los niveles de sustentabilidad habría que evaluarlos caso a caso, entendiendo que la idea apunta a las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero. Por otro lado, se señala que cuestiones vinculadas al impacto ambiental y las pérdidas y desperdicios dependerán del caso a caso, dado que pueden generar impacto pérdidas y “packaging” también en una producción local, y en cantidades o niveles variables, dependiendo de cómo se produzca, distribuya y conserve esa producción.

Igualmente, con relación al contenido de la Tabla 4, mucho agradeceremos nos puedan proveer de mayores precisiones respecto del término “food empires”, así como especificaciones sobre el alcance y sentido de la referencia al concepto “economies of solidarity and well-being”.

14.-Punto 4: con relación a la frase “at the same time, the transition to more sustainable food systems also requires a democratization of knowledge production, allowing the construction of technical and policy related knowledge for food sovereignty, agroecology and biocultural diversity to be more actively shaped by food producers and consumers”, marcamos la conveniencia de no utilizar el término "sovereignty" toda vez que no se encuentra validado a nivel multilateral la referencia a “soberanía alimentaria”.

15.- Punto 4.2: quisiéramos recibir información y detalles respecto a qué se entiende por “nuevos programas educativos sobre sistemas alimentarios sostenibles” y qué aspectos se considera deberían ser abordados en los mismos. En ese sentido, se resalta que algunos de los temas sugeridos como parte de los programas educativos no gozan de consenso multilateral respecto de su sentido y alcance (por ejemplo: soberanía alimentaria, o justicia alimentaria).

16.- Punto 4.3: a luz del contenido del apartado, entendemos que no existe, como tal, un conocimiento ecológico que pueda ser disgregado como tradicional o no, siendo la Ecología, como ciencia y disciplina biológica, una sola. 

17.- Punto 4.5 (tabla 5): en este apartado llama la atención la inclusión del concepto “circular and solidarity economy”, toda vez que su contenido y alcance no ha sido acordado a nivel multilateral. Asimismo, a priori parece extraño que se contraste la digitalización en la agroecología con la “agricultura convencional” y no, en todo caso, con “agricultura sustentable”.  

18.- Punto 5.2: en este apartado se invita a priorizar las innovaciones tecnológicas “job-rich” y, al mismo tiempo, se desincentivan las soluciones tecnológicas que tienen impacto en los trabajos a gran escala. En tal sentido, quisiéramos conocer ejemplos del tipo de innovaciones que caen bajo estas categorías, de modo tal de comprender el alcance de la recomendación sugerida por el GANESAN.

Asimismo, bajo este apartado el documento reconoce a la agroecología como una herramienta que puede ayudar a los jóvenes en tanto implica experimentación y adaptación continuas, permitiendo a ese grupo la adopción de un rol activo en el desarrollo de alternativas para una agricultura sostenible. Sobre el particular se desea resaltar que, si bien valiosa, la agroecología no es la única herramienta innovadora que permite a los jóvenes desenvolverse de manera activa para la adopción de una agricultura sostenible, por lo que no se comprende la necesidad de puntualizar a este enfoque por sobre otros.

Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts.  

I went through the draft, all the elements mentioned are sensible.  In my opinion, one dimension has been left out, which is the public perception of youth engaging in farming and agriculture.

Our society does not place enough importance in agriculture and farming, though these are the most essential and important professions.  How many parents say with pride that their children are farmers, for instance?  

Governments must consider using State media and social media to promote the image of young people engaging in farming and agriculture, show public support to them, share their success stories, and praise their contribution to the society.  In this way, the public will understand better these professions and the importance of youth engagement.  In addition to appropriate conditions provided by public authorities, the whole environment will become more encouraging.  Young people engaged in farming and agriculture will increase their self-esteem, be proud of their profession in their entourage and become more motivated.  This social recognition is crucial for youth engagement.  Without it, youth will not invest and their engagement will not be durable.

I hope that a part of the document can provide suggestions on ways to promote social recognition.  If one day parents can be proud of their children being farmers in the same way as they are proud nowadays of their children being lawyers or doctors etc., then we are getting on the right track to engage young people in farming and agriculture.

Thanks for your consideration.