Forum global sur la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition (Forum FSN)

Thank you for the opportunity to review the V0 draft above.

At GAFSP[1] we believe we bring the policy-level conversion achieved by the CFS into operations at field level—with coordinated investments and field implementation of the consensus reached.

Using the questions posed by the HLPE Project Team at the onset of the V0 draft, we have the following five comments –from our policy and implementation experience—for your consideration:

1. We commend the Project Team in undertaking this important work and the quality of the V0 draft version. In particular, highlighting the objective of sustainable food systems (SFS) and detailing its components—basically encompassing the entire food chain—gives the adequate breadth of the study and allows the prioritization of elements of the SFS to be studied from an agro-ecological angle;

2. Definition: Definition 2 on “Agroecological Approach to FSN” could come earlier in the text (with perhaps a more summarized discussion) and you may consider adding an “objective” to the definition. For now, it mentions “addressing” FSN—perhaps replacing this with “attaining and maintaining” or with “reaching” FSN may convey a goal that will provide the necessary trade-off when the multiple sectors and concerns mentioned in the definition are put to play;

3. With respect to filling knowledge gaps, we find that lessons learned from multi-stakeholder partnerships such as GAFSP are ideal in that they cover practical interventions by a variety of actors, using diverse methods but under one “umbrella” partnership that should facilitate the development and sharing of lessons at relatively small time and resource costs;

4. On “case studies” that are currently demonstrating some of the recommendations of the draft, we believe that GAFSP’s recent update of its joint M&E system—followed by 8 of the largest multinational investment and/or technical assistance institutions in rural development in the poorest countries—may be of interest. For example, the V0 draft identifies Climate Smart Agriculture as an important element of agro-ecological approach to FSN. At GAFSP, we have incorporated this parameter and are gearing up to its full-fledged monitoring within the next few months.

5. In addition to the linkages to other initiatives or frameworks mentioned in the draft, you may want to detail the link between the agro-ecological approach and the CFS-agreed and promoted Global Strategic Framework for food security and nutrition (GSF). This would allow a quick assessment/confirmation of whether there is compatibility between agreed strategic frameworks for implementation and the recommendations emanating from the agro-ecological study. Although GSF is mentioned in the draft V0 it is not in the context of examining GSF from an agro-ecological perspective.

I reiterate our thanks for the opportunity to review the V0 draft and are ready to further detail or explain any of the comments above—and to provide additional follow-up if some of the recommendations are approved at your end and you see that GAFSP can provide case studies or examples of relevance.

[1] GAFSP is a multi-stakeholder partnership contributing since 2010 to the increase of funding toward food security in the poorest countries. To date, GAFSP has achieved the mobilization of US$1.5 billion in direct ODA and private funding to the sector and billions more in co-financing and blended funding. Reflecting CFS’s focus on policy conversion, GAFSP ensure conversion at the level of prioritizing and implementing the consensus achieved at the policy level. In addition to select developing countries, GAFSP encompasses major CSOs, country and philanthropic donors, as well as the eight major agencies involved in investment, implementation and/or technical assistance for priority food security interventions in the poorest countries. They include: the African Development Bank; the Asian Development Bank; the Inter-American Development Bank; the International Finance Corporation; IFAD; FAO; WFP and the World Bank.

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:

1. “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?”
2. “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).

1. “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

Firstly, congratulations to this HLPE team for an excellent report. It is no small feat to produce the V0!

I am happy to see attention to trees and forests in this report. However, I would note that our recent HLPE report “Sustainable Forestry for Food Security and Nutrition” includes quite a bit on agroforestry, including some of the material covered in the report (work by Ickowtiz, Kehlenbeck, Jamnadass, Dawson and others). It might be helpful to have a quick look at our report and seek ways to further develop some of these ideas and avoid too much repetition.

I am not an expert on agroecology and one of the things that has always be difficult for me to understand is what counts as an agroecology practice / approach and what doesn’t, as well as who decides. I have not read the whole report in detail, but I wondered if this could be even more explicit in your section “1.1.2 Agroecology as a set of practices”. Finally, for me (according to my limited understanding) “diversification of agriculture” is a central aspect of agroecology. I am not convinced that sustainable intensification, in cases when it leads to large-scale monoculture, still counts as agroecology.  Simialrly, agroforestry that doesn’t include a diversity of crops and trees (such as large-scale monoculture of cacao or rubber) maybe shouldn't "count" as agroecolgoy. I had expected to see a separate section of agrobiodiversity as one of the subsections in your “innovations for sustainable food systems” section, but upon closer examination I see it woven throughout each or most sections in an excellent way. I hope as you continue to refine and edit that you work to make sure the importance of diversity continues to be central to your report. Thank you so much for all your hard work!

Dr. Bronwen Powell

Please find attached the initial comments and contributions from the ETC Group (Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration ).   We will be sending additional inputs in the coming days since the timeline for the consultation on the zero draft has been extended to 19th November.

Neth Daño

Co-Executive Director

ETC Group, Philippines

Dear Colleagues,



Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the draft HLPE report "Agroecological approaches and other innovations for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition."



I would like to draw your attention to the Resilience Design in Smallholder Farming Systems Approach, which may be of use to partners interested in conducting trainings on agroecological techniques. The RD approach helps farmers identify influences that affect their farm sites as well as external resources that can benefit the site. Farmers can then adjust their farm design to work with surrounding natural systems in ways that ultimately improve soil health, water management, productivity and resilience to environmental and economic shocks and stresses.



The RD toolkit, developed by Mercy Corps through the TOPS Program in conjunction with leading field experts, guides farmers and trainers in applying this approach and includes the following resources, accessible from this link:

• Summary video
• Practical manual
• Field Tip Sheets
• Measuring Toolkit

All the best,

Kristin

Dear HPLE and author teams,

congrats to this rich and inspiring draft report. Please find attached our suggestions on how to further improve it.

Best wishes,

Frank Eyhorn

Senior Advisor Sustainable Agriculture

HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation

Weinbergstrasse 22a, P.O. Box 3130, CH-8021 Zurich, Switzerland

Phone: +41 44 368 65 32

helvetas.org

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find attached the contribution from Fertilizers Europe.

Best regards

Elisabeth Bömcke

I am pleased to offer the following general comments on the HLPE’s VO draft. I keep them general, about the framework and types of information included, because I believe the draft needs significant simplification, clarification, and refocusing on the crucial subject under study. I also trust that many others will provide some of the missing evidence and references that the current draft lacks. I would be pleased to provide references as needed.

I include more detailed comments in the attached document. Here, I would stress that the introduction should ground the study in two frameworks now widely accepted in the CFS and at the FAO: a rights-based approach to FSN, and a clearly agreed set of 10 principles of agroecology agreed by the FAO. These should be the starting points for the discussion, precisely because of their widely agreed content within the CFS and the FAO.

Rights are not an "other innovation" is in the draft currently; they are the foundation of all CFS work, and they focus our collective attention on the people whose right to food is currently being denied. The marjority of these are smallholder farmer families in rural areas in developming countries. They should be the focus of our efforts, and agroecology is being recognized and studies as a promising alternative to industrial agriculture, which is proving inadequate to the goals of creating sustainable food systems.

The FAO's 10 principles of agroecology are also the product of an inclusive and extensive set of consultations and meetings, which resulted in the "Scaling Up Agroecology" initiative and the subsequent commitments by COAG to the process. The 10 principles should be the criteria against which agroecology and "other innovations" are evaluated, rather than the confusing 16 points in the agroecology chapter and the unrelated and even more confusing 17 points in the "other innovations" chapter.

Detailed comments follow in the attached document.

Please find attached our comments for the HLPE consultation on the V0 draft of the Report: Agroecological approaches and other innovations for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition.

Thanks in advance,

---

María Marta Di Paola

Dear Colleagues,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft HLPE report "Agroecological approaches and other innovations for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition".

The VO draft is extremely rich in relevant content and indicates that the final HLPE report will represent a valuable addition to the literature. Below are some suggestions for the further elaboration of the report.

1. The contribution and the potential of smallholder systems for promoting innovations for food security and nutrition is well acknowledged in the report, with much evidence presented to show the advantages of such systems in terms of productivity, diversity, environmental sustainability and nutrition - in addition to their suitability for agroecological approaches vis-à-vis larger scale industrial systems. In the context of the holistic, systems-wide perspective adopted by the report, it would also be worth elaborating upon wider benefits of such systems, linked to food security and nutrition. In particular, local growth multipliers as a result of the re-investment of local revenues from food sales in local economies, creating opportunities for entrepreneurship and employment in rural communities – as opposed to industrial food production systems where revenues are generally extracted and invested elsewhere/offshore – would be relevant to consider. Especially so, since the potential pro-poor income gains would enhance the access of lower income groups to nutritious diets. This issue is discussed in paper 5 of the IFAD research series (especially pp. 12-13) - Suttie, D and Hussein, K. 2016. Rural-urban linkages and food systems in sub-Saharan Africa: A rural perspective. Rome: IFAD.

2. In terms of barriers of innovation (section 3.12), the exodus of ryouth from rural areas, and food systems work generally, and subsequent ageing of many rural communities would merit mention - and the potential for engaging youth may be mentioned under drivers of innovation (section 3.1.2). In this context, the labour intensity agroecological and smaller-scale systems/approaches, as mentioned elsewhere in the report (e.g. p,11 line 38-41), as well as the local level economic benefits deriving thereof (see #1 above) might be advanced as offering potential solutions to enhancing the choices open to young people in terms of their mobility decisions and potentially creating viable opportunities for them to engage in food systems in a context where labour markets are extremely pressed in many countries where lack of decent employment one of the drivers of poor food security and nutrition outcomes.

3. Benefits associated with enhanced and more equitable relationships and linkages between rural and urban areas might be emphasized as offering the potential to increase gains associated with (especially) agroecological and small-scale approaches to food production. This would mean discussing the importance of: better infrastructure and services to support production, storing and marketing in more rural areas (including rural advisory services); better transport linkages between settlements across the rural-urban continuum to enhance opportunities of (especially) urban consumers to benefit from nutritious locally produced food (as opposed, for example, to imported processed food); and equitable and inclusive mechanisms to ensure access of rural producers to land and natural resources needed for production and livelihoods. These issues are addressed in policy briefs IFAD has devoted to this topic, especially: IFAD. 2017. Promoting integrated and inclusive rural-urban dynamics and food systems. Rome: IFAD (Available at: https://www.ifad.org/web/knowledge/publication/asset/39320230); and IFAD. 2018. How inclusive rural transformation can promote sustainable and resilient societies. Rome: IFAD (Available at: https://www.ifad.org/web/knowledge/publication/asset/40253342).

Best regards,

David Suttie

Global Engagement Specialist

Global Engagement and Multilateral Relations division (GEM)

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)