Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed outline. Agroecological knowledge and principles are already core to many production systems (e.g. organic, permaculture and agroforestry approaches), yet despite being well established, their uptake in more ‘mainstream’ agriculture remains limited. Meanwhile, the current rate of technical development is producing innovative methods and technologies that a decade ago were unimaginable. None would deny that a revolution is needed in current food systems to secure a sustainable future. However, the role of this report to properly consider the opportunities – and risks – posed by each innovation is crucial to avoid decisions for our food system that we will later regret. Some considerations we see as key for the report in order for it to offer real value for improving FSN are outlined below:
Different approaches to innovation should be considered not just in isolation but in combination with one another. Do positive synergies exist that can be exploited, or are there negative interactions that should be avoided? This is particularly important when considering practices that combine ecological approaches with more ‘man-made’ or ‘artificial’ technologies. Even (perhaps especially!) in the most industrial, ‘artificial’ systems, benefits stand to be gained from considering ecological principles and integrating agro-ecological approaches. Similarly, in some more ecological farming systems there can be a tendency to reject new methods and technologies as a point of principle. Yet there may be scope for some such technologies to be implemented in ways that conform with agroecological principles.
A mainstream practice in one context may well be innovative in another. Practices common in different agricultural systems should be considered and their potential transfer to other systems should be investigated. Organic, permaculture and agroforestry approaches, and systems located in areas of resource stress, offer long-held knowledge that is currently little applied in ‘mainstream’ agriculture. Fully exploiting existing knowledge already demonstrated in practice should be a priority.
The suitability, accessibility and impact of innovation in different agricultural contexts will vary. Innovation beneficial in one situation may be detrimental in another. Meanwhile, innovation that requires a high initial capital investment will largely be inaccessible to smaller producers. If the variation in impact between systems is not recognised, the conclusions of the report will be misleading.
The role of social factors should not be underestimated. Social innovations – novel approaches to the producer-consumer relationship, ‘shared economy’ approaches and other initiatives that restructure the value chain, for example – have the potential to revolutionise FSN. Likewise, deeply held social values and psychological traits can lead to – often illogical – resistance to change. Unless recognised and addressed, even the best innovation will go unimplemented.
The extensive body of existing research on assessing the sustainability and security of food systems should be drawn on as much as possible. Hundreds of tools and frameworks already exist, many developed as attempts to bring consensus and provide a universal framework or set of indicators. Many farmers are also under pressure to monitor and report on various indicators of sustainability on their farms. In recent work with four UK farms, each was found, on average, to provide or record data for 14 different purposes (farm assurance schemes, accounts, subsidy applications, retail outlet assessments etc.). Much of this data was the same or similar across assessments but nonetheless had to be reported separately. This is a situation likely to be typical of much of Europe and potentially further afield. Development of approaches to assess and monitor the potential impacts of innovation on FSN should bare this in mind. Wherever possible, indicators should comprise data already collected and reported by farms. If the extraction of this data could be automated from existing reporting that would be even more advantageous. Similarly, indicator and metric selection should be aligned with existing research efforts and attempts at consensus.
Finally, the core role of a farm as a food/biomass production business must not be forgotten. The efficiency, ecological impact, resilience and social contribution of farming systems are imperative for securing future FSN and wider human and planetary well-being. However, a farm that performs fantastically in all of these areas but that is not productive and/or a viable business will not survive to contribute to a sustainable food system that enhances food security and nutrition. These core roles of production and business viability should be a foundation when assessing innovations and considering the instruments and mechanisms needed to enable their implementation.
The Organic Research Centre (UK) has led on two studies on the contribution of Agroecology for the Land Use Policy Group of the UK government nature conservation agencies that might provide some further insights.
Lampkin NH, Pearce BD, Leake AR, Creissen H, Gerrard CL, Girling R, Lloyd S, Padel S, Smith J, Smith LG, Vieweger A, Wolfe MS (2015) The role of agroecology in sustainable intensification. A Report for the Land Use Policy Group Organic Research Centre, Elm Farm and Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust. Newbury and Fordingbride. https://www.snh.scot/sites/default/files/2017-06/A1652615.pdf
Padel S, Rubinstein O, Woolford A, Egan J, Leake A, Levidow L, Pearce B, Lampkin N (2018) Transitions to Agroecological Systems: Farmers’ Viewpoints. Organic Research Centre and Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust. Newbury and Fordingbridge. To be published by the Land Use group in 2018
Regards,
Samantha Mullender, Susanne Padel, Laurence Smith, Nic Lampkin
on behalf of
The Organic Research Centre (ORC)
Hamstead Marshall, West Berkshire,
United Kingdom, www.organicresearchcentre.com
Samantha Mullender