المنتدى العالمي المعني بالأمن الغذائي والتغذية

I have been working in agroecology for a decade. Agroecology has a long track record addressing the root causes of hunger - it does so especially because it is more than a set of techniques. Agroecology is a way of knowing, a method for transformation. As Wezel and colleagues so aptly put it, agroecology is a science, a set of practices and a social movement. It works not as a set of isolated technical intervenions, like diversification or cover cropping for example. Agroecology works because it integrates social movements to change the conditions of production that give farmers a bad deal, and it integrates ecological science and local knowledge to improve ecological conditions on the farm. Agroecology cannot but be an integrated field. The scope of this report should be mindful of this integration. 

With that in mind, I would like to comment on the scope, team and process for drafting such a report. These comments are inspired by discussions with colleagues in agroecology the U.S. 

First, the scope of the report should integrate agroecology as a science, practice and social movement. This means that the types of expertise and the kinds of evidence the report must address go beyond the purely agronomic. Often an historical approach is necessary as well, one that takes into account the kinds of food systems transformations in the past, and the root causes of farmers present vulnerability. Given the potential of agroecology to confer resilience to climate change, special attention should be given to resilience and vulnerability, and agroecology's contribution to mitigating climate hazards. 

Secondly, the project team should include ecologists, social scientists, agronomists, and others comfortable with transdicisplinary work and mixed methods. The team should also include the people who are foremost experts in the practical and social movement aspects of agroecology - farmers and social movement representatives themselves.

Finally, the report should have a clearly agreed upon, transparent process for deciding what is included, what meets the standard of evidence, how the project team is chosen, and how scientific disputes will be settled. Agroecology, agricultural research, agricultural development, environmental and anti-poverty work are all politically charged fields with deeply entrenched private interests. Ensuring this is a scientifically rigourous, credible process oriented for the public good is essential. Transparency is key.