First, I want to congratulate the authors of this document for the great work done. You can clearly see the time and effort put into it. Thank you.
I send you some considerations of the document:
A.- Why these different approaches are call “agroecological approaches”?. The title of this document should be “Agroecology and other different world agriculture approaches …..”. Beside that I consider that the name of this new world paradigm in agriculture should be agroecology as an umbrella of other concepts. Because agroecology as it is writing in the report is a scientific discipline, a social movement and a practice that include food sovereignty. Analysis can be carried out moving forward from productive units’ plots to sustainable agroecosystems towards the construction of a sustainable agro-food model where agroecology is the discipline that studies this construction over time (Dussi and Flores, 2018)
On the other hand, I would like to emphasize that give different names to what is agroecology, I think, creates confusion and the objective of taking care of our land and feed everyone with a principle of equity is atomized.
B.- It will be important to deepen core topics like:
- Human rights to the world germplasm. The seeds have been and continue to be a collective creation of peoples and attempts of appropriation and privatization through breeders' rights, patents or standards of quality are a threat to the food sovereignty of peoples. The material genetic content is pre-existing, and not the result of a human invention. Is by this, because of the history of the human work that it contains, which cannot be patented.
- Loss of productive land and diversity due to real estate pressure, oil and large monoculture corporations.
See: Dussi, M.C. y L.B. Flores. (2018). Visión multidimensional de la agroecología como estrategia ante el cambio climático. INTERdisciplina 6 (14): 129-153. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/ceiich.24485705e.2018.14.63384
C.- Among the innovative approaches towards sustainable food systems for FSN it can be mention Biodynamic agriculture. It will be interesting that this report contemplates this system of production.
D.- The policy of the central countries is, through the indebtedness of the poor or developing countries, to appropriate the natural resources and impose the guidelines of their use. This appropriation of biocapacity results in the loss of diversity and resources of the peripheral countries. This is related to the concept of ecological footprint developed in this report. (Dussi and Flores, 2018)
Many of the underdeveloped or developing countries depend on the external debt contracted from the IMF. Then, when the recommendations are made in this document, it is substantial that the IMF do not collect the debt exploiting the natural resources and diversity of the indebted countries or undermine the food sovereignty of the citizens.
E.- It is extremely important to consolidate what is stressed in line 37. Working at education level is the main thing if we want to see changes. This point should be developed in a deeper way and in different educational levels, for example It is important to study agroecology in the universities to have professionals trained in the area.
F.- Importance to have more fresh food and less processed to have better health: healthy diet would end up in heathier human beings that at the end will think better and besides that, from the capitalism point of view, healthier people will save a lot of money to the world Health System.
There are examples of improvements in the nutrition of people at local level in countries that have adopted community urban garden development programs working with different local actors with a substantial change in families’ diet. Local consumption of food also reduces food waste.
It is also necessary to develop networks of producers and consumers based on fair trade and the nutritional assessment of food produced with agroecological principles. This type of development must be strengthened and, in some cases, financed to give it solidity and permanence.
Dialogue of farmer to farmer could be promoted by local organizations, NGO; state initiatives, etc.
G.- One important thing of agroecology is that sometimes the examples cannot be extrapolated because each region has different cultures, ways of food systems and traditions that involves different ways to work. This is remarkably when we talk about technology, so we should ask what technology, when, how, why and in each region the answer will, for sure, differ. That is way the peasant, producers, farmers, orchardist opinion is central. Were the farmers consulted around the world?
H.- The use of some terminology is not minor. I think you should not talk about "ecosystem services". This terminology is purely anthropocentric and productivist, for that reason, “Ecosystem functions" should be used. This has a particular importance specially in this report in where the concept of foot print is developed (Dussi & Flores, 2018).
I. Participatory guarantee systems (PGS) is another point of view different from organic certification 1.1.3. PGS should be explained outside the 2.3.8 Sustainable food value chains. Because the principles of PGS are trust and solidarity that are in accordance with agroecology.
J.- Agroecology networking and participatory research are concrete actions that can be done. This includes universities, farmers, ONG´s, etc. Also, there is a need of research founding towards systemic and holistic approach that is time and money consuming.
K.-The majority of world´s nutrition is provided by small and medium sized farms. Therefore, multiplying farms of these sizes at territorial level, would be the way in which agroecology increases in scale. This should be worked with the municipalities (town halls), producers, consumers, universities, NGO, etc. at the beginning, then grow to regional levels and so on.
Thank you very much for taking the time to read these considerations. Fraternal greetings. Maria Claudia Dussi.
Prof. Maria Claudia Dussi is a full professor of Agroecology and Temperate fruit physiology and culture at the Department of Agricultural Sciences, Comahue National University, Rio Negro - Patagonia – Argentina. She led the Study group in Sustainability of Agroecosystems. She trains graduate students in Indicators of Sustainability, energy flux and efficiency and carbon footprint in agroecosystems. Board member of the Latin America Scientific Society of Agroecology (SOCLA). Member of the ISHS since 1991 and actual co-chair of the Commission Agroecology and Organic Horticulture. Convener of the workshop “Agroecology and Education: Socio-ecological resilience to climate change”, XXX International Horticultural Congress 2018 (ISHS). Email: [email protected] www.academia.edu
Maria Claudia Dussi