Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

Please see attached file, an excerpt of which is copied below.

Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) welcomes the initiative of the High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) to develop a report on the contributions of agroecology to food security and nutrition. We appreciate the opportunity to submit comments (below) on the proposed scope of the report, as well as on the authorship, execution and governance of the report.

PANNA is a non-profit, public interest organization representing the concerns of over 100,000 supporters across the United States, including farmers, farmworkers, health professionals, members of sustainable agriculture, labor, environmental and consumer groups and individuals concerned with the safety, sustainability, fairness, resilience and integrity of our food and farming system. PANNA is one of six regional centers in the PAN international network, which consists of 600 groups in over 90 countries dedicated to building healthy, ecologically-sound and climate-resilient agriculture.

Contribution of agroecology. PANNA defines agroecology as the science, practice and social movement of applying ecological concepts, principles and knowledge to the study, design, development and management of sustainable farming systems. Agroecology combines scientific inquiry from multiple disciplines (including the social sciences) with local and Indigenous knowledge and community-based experimentation. It often includes social and institutional innovations to ensure secure access to land, water, diversity of seeds and the protection of farmers’ rights to freely exchange knowledge and resources. The highly biodiversified and robust farming systems that result mimic and support (rather than repress) natural ecosystem functions, are knowledge-rich, low cost and readily adaptable to local and changing social and environmental conditions.

As such, agroecology has proven ability — and enormous additional potential if better resourced — to provide abundant food, invigorate local economies, restore degraded agroecosystems, phase out highly hazardous pesticides, reduce farmers’ vulnerability to global commodity price fluctuations and their dependency on international corporations, while eliminating many of the negative impacts of prevalent chemical-, water-, and energy-intensive agricultural, forestry and livestock systems. Furthermore, agroecology can strengthen the ecological, cultural, economic and social resilience of our food and farming systems in the face of enormous stresses posed by climate change.

Modern and innovative agroecological approaches which integrate hundreds of years of farmers’ experiences with state-of-the-art science are proving to be sustainable, economically advantageous and good for food security as well as food sovereignty. Supporting agroecological farming systems is key to fighting environmental degradation, adapting to and mitigating climate change, and securing future generations’ health and livelihoods.

“Other Innovations.” The inclusion of this phrase in the title and throughout the Scope is curious and troubling. The phrase itself is so broad as to be meaningless, and could easily be interpreted or used as an excuse to introduce approaches and technologies that undermine agroecology and have no place in an ecosystem-based approach to equitable and sustainable food and farming systems. Certainly, many innovations from the pesticide and biotechnology industries have been assessed already and have occupied a tremendous amount of reviewers’ time, energy and publishing space. The UN-led International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) assessed many of these technologies, as detailed in its 2008 report. Nearly a decade later, a great deal of controversy continues to surround these technologies (as well as geo-engineering initiatives), with critics pointing out industry ties and conflicts of interest among recent reviewers, such as those involved in a recent US National Academy of Sciences report on biotechnology).

While it may well be time for another independent assessment of the approaches, technologies or products owned or developed by corporate actors, this can and should be done at a different time and place. We strongly urge the HLPE to maintain a clear-eyed focus on agroecology, for its potentially one-of-a-kind report.  At the very least, the phrase “and other innovative approaches” should be modified by the term “ecosystem-based,” so that it reads “and other ecosystem-based innovative approaches.” Examples should then be spelled out, e.g. “and other ecosystem-based innovative approaches such as permaculture, organic, regenerative farming, etc.”

Project team. When forming the project team, the HLPE should ensure that members of the team represent a range of disciplinary expertise (including especially the ecological and social sciences), genders and geographic regions, as well as expertise from the field (i.e. farmers and members of social movements implementing agroecology on the ground, representing or accountable to those having direct experience of or most directly impacted by agroecology, climate change, etc.). While we understand that author time is generally expected to be contributed on a pro bono basis, we urge HLPE to consider providing stipends for team members such as farmers whose livelihood would be constrained by participation in this initiative. Project team members should have ability and proven experience in working and thinking holistically, across disciplines and in terms of complex interacting systems. Furthermore, members should be independent of agribusinesses or corporate lobbying associations that have a vested interest in the outcome of the report, i.e. members should have no ties, direct or indirect, with such corporations). The latter interests would be welcome to submit evidence for scrutiny, but should not be represented on the project team. A useful model for author selection and team composition is provided by the IAASTD (please see Appendix A).

Evidence.  The report should admit evidence from peer-reviewed sources, as well as "grey literature" from civil society (e.g. reports and contributions from peasant farmers, NGOs, research and development institutes and foundations). The report should exclude marketing information, public relations material and product promotions, e.g. from sources with a financial or competing interest in promoting commercial products and technologies.

Transparency and governance. HLPE’s decision-making process and outcomes, and the project team’s work should be conducted with total transparency. Following the model of the IAASTD, Principles and Procedures should be developed and agreed on at the outset, with civil society participation, particularly by directly impacted communities, and with oversight provided by an independent governance body that also includes civil society participation (see Appendix A.)  First and second order drafts should be made available for public review and comment, and the review process (including a compilation of all reviewers’ comments and how project team members respond to each comment) should be transparent and made public. The Principles and Procedures should identify how differing assessment of the evidence and conclusions by authors will be presented and include a "conflict resolution" processes. Following the IAASTD, if and when differences appear, we encourage the Project Team to report and discuss these differences, rather than reduce analysis to a less rigorous “least common denominator” approach, by including only those conclusions reached by consensus.

Scope. Proposed changes to the draft Scope by HLPE Steering Committee follow in attached document

[Additions are written in bold red, deletions are crossed out]

Sacramento is one of the "gateways" of the Serra da Canastra National Park, located in the heart of this Biome Continental: the Cerrado. Recognized as the world's richest Savannah in biodiversity, it has several vegetal typologies with rich flora. Hundreds of species of Cerrado plants have been exploited for centuries by indigenous people, quilombolas and by colonizers as food, medicine, fodder, plants used in landscaping, apiculture pasture, construction material and raw material for handicrafts and for obtaining fiber, oil, tannin and other products. The fauna is rich. Here the ancestral know-how is doctor in harmony with nature, where the São Francisco River is born and cheese is an award-winning cultural heritage. Currently, the Cerrado Biome is home to the country's main agricultural expansion. These activities have already resulted in the elimination of a significant portion of the Biome's native vegetation cover and the fragmentation of most of its natural habitats. The actions of the public ministry through sanitary surveillance in the region go in the direction of fine many of those who have made their cheeses for a long time, or sell their chickens, eggs, eggs and pigs! Women are more sensitive to the evidence widely published in Briefs with warnings by the Brazilian Association of Public Health and the National Cancer Institute and Consumer Protection. Rede Brota Cerrado de Cultura e Agroecologia acentua the inscription of Dra Maria de Fajardo Archanjo Sampaio to compose the representation of this HLPE´s Call.

Maria F.A. Sampaio was born in São Paulo - SP, Brasil and she is graduated in Food Engineering (1994), with a Masters and PhD in Sustainable Rural Planning and Development by Feagri - UNICAMP (2001 and 2005). Concluded postdoctoral (2008) by the Institute of Philosophy and Human Sciences also by the State University of Campinas. She has published articles in periodicals, annals of scientific events, specialized journals and books, and also co-organized thematic groups in congresses bringing together national researchers (by the Brazilian Society of Sociology-SBS) and international researchers (by the Latin American Association of Rural Sociology - ALASRU) . Since 2006, it has widened the dialogue between its researches, seeking to express them through Art, as was the case of the documentary Caminhos da Cidadania on the Program of Acquisition of Foods from Family Agriculture - PAA in the semi-arid Northeast, sponsored by OXFAM and FNT Coalition (anexo 1). Since 2009, she has moved with her family to Sacramento in Minas Gerais, in order to take her researches from the drawer and put them into practice at Fazenda São Vicente and through works of Rural Extension and Cooperativism throughout the region of the Triângulo Mineiro and Alto Paranaíba. As a member of the Association of Artisans and Artists of Sacramento-ASAA, as well as of the Cia de Teatro Movimento Cenica he formed the Group of Listening of the Body in Motion of Sacramento - MG (Technical Klauss Vianna - Educational process with Jussara Miller between 2007 and 2008) and the Socio-Environmental and Cultural CineClube of Sacramento. He has worked with traditional communities and quilombolas, including the folk dance of Engenho de Maromba. She was a proponent and art director for the Sacramento Culture and Agroecology Festivals (https://youtu.be/yttiXWewVXI 2012 and https://youtu.be/Zb3jGOpSUIc 2014). This cultural movement gave birth to Rede Brota Cerrado de Cultura e Agroecologia in 2012, Participativo Garantia System - SPG, whose OPAC was accredited in the Ministry of Agriculture in 2015. Associated with this organization since its inception, it has been contributing to the promotion of Organic Systems Socializing their experiences with the first Organic Mines Cheese of the Country (SISORG) and other works of Rural Extension and Cooperativism. She is currently representative of the Thematic Subcommittee on Organic Production of the Southeast Region in the National Commission of Agroecology. Anexo 2 included the Letter of Cerrado of the XI Congresso Latino Americano de Agroecologia  X Congresso Brasileiro de Agroecologia e V Semiinario de Agroecologia do Distrito Federal e Entorno " Agroecologia na Transformação dos Sistemas Agroalimentares na América Latina: Memórias, Saberes e Caminhos para o Vem Viver assinada por mais de 5.000 pessoas ali reunidas, entre 12 e 15 de setembro de 2017 em Brasilia, DF, Brasil.

We, Madrid Agroecologico, as an agroecological movement that brings together a wide and diverse range of actors from both the rural and the urban worlds, would like to stress some points which are not enough highlighted in the list of questions to be tackled in the report:

• We strongly advocate for considering agroecology not only in terms of farming practices or technologies, but also as a social and political movement that builds stronger relationships between farmers and consumers, which contribute to maintain agroecological projects, to recognize the value of territorialised knowledge, to preserve local resources and biodiversity, and also to disseminate food culture, improving diets, food security and sovereignty and reducing food waste

• We firmly suggest to consider the interaction of agroecology with the environment in a systemic approach, and not only at the field level. This point is of high importance when making environmental accounts comparing agroecological practices against industrialized farming

• In the case of periurban areas especial attention should be given to the re-consideration of organic waste as a valuable source of organic matter and nutrients. Composting to mend periurban farmland, contributes to the transition towards a city-region circular metabolism.

• In order to secure social justice and responsibility, we need public policies that protect agrarian land (i.e. to avoid urban pressure in periurban areas and ensure stability and continuity) and the commons (also seeds and water). From our experience is extremely important to define norms and mechanisms to facilitate access to land as well as to production and transformation facilities. Access to food starts by creating enabling environments that guarantee equity in access to means of production

• We call to define mechanisms to forbbide dumping from large companies that sell at a loss and to integrate externalities in prices.

The HLPE report shall address the following questions:

The scientific evidences of the effectiveness of agroecology are rapidly increasing and the available knowledges are probably sufficient to impact dramatically the economic, social and environmental sustainability of farming systems. Most agroecological practices contribute to contain the ecological footprint and they lead to a higher rate of carbon sequestration (especially in soils). Furthermore, most practices have a positive impact on biodiversity.

The results of the conversion to agroecology in terms of productivity and revenues for farmers are often excellent. The adoption of agroecology does not require big initial investments.

Yet the contribution of agroecology to food sovereignty is far below its true potential. This is due to the presence of some bottlenecks that hinder a more widespread adoption of the agroecological approach.

Arguably the biggest challenge toward a wider adoption of agroecology is the “transition phase” a period lasting 3 or more years during which farmers have to learn new skills. During this period the new practices are tailored to the local context and to the needs of the farmers. Furthermore, most agroecological practices have a “lag phase”. i.e. a period of time between the adoption of a certain practice and the moment in which that practice shows an appreciable impact. Soils might need rather long periods of time to recover and reconstitute the O.M. content after years (or decades) of repeated tillage, overuse of chemical fertilizers and lack of crop rotation and fallow. To provide another example of this “lag phase”, some agroforestry practices give appreciable results only when the tree crop is fully developed.

Another key feature of the agroecological approach is that it is markedly context-specific. This, makes the agroecological approach probably the most “knowledge intensive” approach to agriculture. However, most farmers, especially smallholders in the tropics, own a valuable heritage in term of knowledges and skills of referred to as “Traditional Ecological Knowledge” (TEK). TEK is very often coherent with the basic principles of agroecology.

Removing the main bottlenecks to a wider adoption of agroecology would bring about an appreciable impact in a relatively short term. As mentioned above, the transition phase to agroecology represents the most insecure period for a farmer. Shifting from a certain, well tested, set of practices to a new one imply risks. Only few “innovators” are ready to faces those risks. Two effective actions that can be undertaken to create a conducive environment for a transition to agroecology are:

1) create long-term demonstrative agroecological plots where farmers can appreciate the potentialities of agroecological practices. In this way farmers will have an idea of how their farms will look like few years after the adoption of agroecology.

2) support farmers during the transition phase. Both technical and financial supports need to be guaranteed to farmers during the transition. It is rather common that the first period of the transition will result in a decrease in productivity or in a higher demand in terms of labour. Many smallholders are not able to face such cost, thus adoption of agroecology becomes not feasible for them.

Monitoring the impact of agroecology on FSN is a key aspect. A common misunderstanding is that farmers aim at maximizing production and this argument is often used to advocate for high external input agriculture. However, this is, in most cases, a misconception. After having fulfilled the needs of their household, farmers, like any other producer, aims at maximizing their net incomes. Agroecology is extremely suited to achieve this goal, especially because it allows farmers to reduce to a minimum the expenses for external inputs. Convential agriculture can, in some instances, result in higher productivity, but this is reflected very seldom by higher incomes for farmers, owed to the high costs of external inputs (fertilizers, pesticides, etc.). Furthermore, a comparison of the profitability of the conventional and agroecological approaches need to be carried out in the medium term and not for a single agricultural season. This is because agroecological practices generate a more resilient agroecosystem and lead to a mitigation of oscillations in  productivity (due to climatic uncertainties, pest outbreaks, etc.) to which conventional agricultural systems are very prone.

In addition to the joint comments by several US faith, farm and development groups on agroecology, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy suggests that the HLPE consider examination of how innovations in the use of digital information in agriculture might affect food security and nutrition.

Farming has always been dependent on flows of information about the weather, cropping techniques and markets, but, as in other fields, the nature and velocity of information generation has created new dynamics that are difficult to manage. These new kinds of information flows highlight the differences between agroecology, which emphasizes the inherent connections among nature, food production and human culture, and the drive for “high tech” agriculture that stresses increased yields through intensive application of chemicals, genetic modifications and highly integrated supply chains.

Analytical “big data” is collected from farm machinery, satellites and other sources that is then processed using algorithms used to predict climate, cropping and market trends. Farmers might or might not own the raw data generated from their fields, but they have no control over the information products generated from it. That information could potentially be used to affect prices, insurance rates, and perhaps even to inform investors interested in land grabs in the global North and South.

In theory, each of these new technologies could be used to support any kind of agriculture, but in practice they require massive investments in equipment and sophisticated data analysis that is out of reach of any but the largest agribusinesses. We urge the HLPE to pay special attention to the ways in which big data is gathered, aggregated and put to use, specifically identifying the various actors involved, and regulatory imperatives to ensure that the uses of big data do not exacerbate existing inequalities. We hope the HLPE can include some discussion of this emerging issue and appropriate governance measures in the study. We would be happy to work with the HLPE to identify potential experts and civil society organizations.

Sincerely,

Karen Hansen-Kuhn

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food) welcomes the initiative to produce a HLPE report on agroecology, and finds the proposed research questions to be valid and relevant.

However, in order to ensure that the report provides meaningful analysis, IPES-Food considers it imperative to avoid reducing agroecology to or equating it with specific technologies/innovations.

Agroecology represents a cohesive, systemic approach and a set of guiding principles for redesigning food and farming systems. It should not, therefore, be compared with stand-alone technologies, techniques or innovations (e.g. crop breeding advances; specific forms of integrated pest management; input reduction techniques). Many of these techniques and technologies have potential to reduce environmental and social impacts of agroecosystems on their own, and merit attention and support. However, they can be applied and often are applied within predominantly industrial systems, i.e. focused on monocultures and the production of uniform commodities for distant markets. In other words, specific technologies may mitigate but not reverse the severe social and environmental impacts of industrial agriculture - impacts that are now being documented and understood worldwide.

By contrast, agroecology represents a system redesign in itself:

‘Agroecology… is a universal logic for redesigning agricultural systems in ways that maximize biodiversity and stimulate interactions between different plants and species, as part of holistic strategies to build long-term fertility, healthy agro-ecosystems and secure livelihoods. Put simply, it is the opposite of monocultures and their reliance on chemical inputs. It is therefore a broad landing space that can be reached via a variety of pathways and entry points, progressively or in more rapid shifts, as farmers free themselves from the structures of industrial agriculture and refocus their farming systems around a new set of principles.’ (IPES Food, 2016, p.7 – see attached document).

Considerable research, investment and discussion is already dedicated to specific agricultural technologies and innovations (e.g. GM crops, precision agriculture techniques). The added value of agroecology, and the added value of a HLPE report on this topic, is to offer an alternative paradigm - one in which system redesign and diversification are prerequisites, and changes in knowledge transmission, participation and power relations are as important as shifts in farming practice. Specific technologies and innovations (social and technological) must be considered within agroecological systems – i.e., for their compatibility with agroecological principles, not as alternatives to them.

Failing to make this distinction risks reducing this report to a futile debate between agroecology (a holistic food and farming paradigm) and biotechnology (a set of crop breeding technologies), or between agroecology (a holistic food and farming paradigm) and ‘climate-smart agriculture’ (an umbrella term for various mostly capital-intensive innovations targeting environmental sustainability). In other words, the report’s framing must be attuned to the realities of current debates. The ongoing polarization between ‘agroecology’ and ‘biotechnology’ has led to unsatisfactory attempts to reconcile differences, e.g. under the umbrella of ‘climate-smart agriculture’, based on the assumption that different systems can co-exist side-by-side. The all-inclusiveness and compatibility of different approaches should be tested - not assumed from the outset.

IPES-Food therefore recommends i) that the report consider specific innovative approaches, practices and technologies for their potential within and compatibility with systems governed by agroecological principles; ii) that ‘agroecological approaches’ be used only to refer to systemic approaches (i.e. as a synonym for ‘agroecology’) and not to a catalogue of itemized practices; iii) that it be clarified what types of innovations would qualify as contributing to food security and sustainable food systems, and on what basis; and iv) that the original contribution of this report be its central focus on agroecology.

1. With regard to specific research questions, IPES-Food welcomes the attention to a range of sustainability criteria (i.e. resource efficiency, ecological footprint, resilience, social equity, job creation) and recommends inclusion of dietary diversity as a key component of sustainable food systems. The benefits of agroecology have already been widely documented (IPES-Food, 2016; De Schutter, 2011; FAO, 2015). The challenge is to build on and update this knowledge base, filling in specific gaps while keeping a view of the holistic and mutually-reinforcing nature of the different benefits. Specific gaps that could be usefully addressed include:

•         ·  employment impacts (how to capitalize on the labor-intensive nature of agroecology to foster employment and decent livelihoods);
•         ·  impacts specifically on youth employment (how increasing support to agroecology might attract more youth to agriculture and reduce urban migration);
•         ·  economic impacts (how food from agroecological systems can be sold at prices that support decent livelihoods);
•         ·  gender impacts (how and to what extent agroecology favors women’s empowerment); and
•         ·  integration - not appropriation - of indigenous, farmers’ and local knowledge (particularly around seeds) with scientific knowledge.

IPES-Food also welcomes the focus on addressing obstacles to agroecology, and draws attention to the ‘8 lock-ins’ identified in the panel’s 2016 report (attached). In particular, we would underline the need to consider obstacles of a political nature, including the perceived lack of productivity of agroecology via dominant narratives about food security; the assumption that agroecology means ‘a return to the past’ and a rejection of technology; and the general confusion that tends to be propagated around the meaning of agroecology (e.g. movement vs. practices). A further challenge is to reinforce understanding of the global impacts, while zooming in on specific regions and capturing agroecology in its different geographical incarnations. IPES-Food is currently testing the obstacles in a West African context and hopes the results of this study will be of use (IPES-Food, forthcoming – see concept note).

---

De Schutter, O. (2011). Agroecology and the right to food: Report presented at the 16th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council. Geneva, Switzerland, United Nations Human Rights Council

FAO (2015). Agroecology for Food Security and Nutrition Proceedings of the FAO International Symposium. 18-19 September 2014, Rome, Italy

IPES-Food (2016). From uniformity to diversity: a paradigm shift from industrial agriculture to diversified agroecological systems. International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food systems

I wonder which kind of “other innovative approaches” are considered in the first question. This should be clarified. Agroecology should not be taken out of its productive, social and political context. Peasant families and indigenous peoples in their territories are at the centre-piece of agroecological innovations and creativity fostering to address local problematics (see Timmermann & Félix, 2015). Practices and technologies that derive from traditional knowledge and ancestral know-how have often proved sound in the use and management of biodiversity, water and land resources, and in strengthening social resilience and intergenerational sustainability. To what extent can agroecology improve resource-use efficiencies, minimize ecological footprint, strengthen resilience, secure social equity and responsibility, and create jobs as well? The short answers is to have political will (locally, nationally, and internationally) to do so! To achieve this political will, grassroots movements are key to achieve agroecological food systems, and I cite Michel Pimbert with at least four aspects that are key (http://www.cultivatecollective.org/in-perspective/agroecology-as-an-alternative-vision-to-climate-smart-agriculture/):

(1)  Promote a new modernity and a dignified peasant identity

(2)  Transition from a linear economy towards circular and solidarity economy

(3)  Re-think the whole system of economics, trade, and markets

(4)  Deepen into proper participatory democracy

Diversification of farming system designs is key in sustaining food security and nutrition in its four dimensions. An agroecological approach to food systems also includes the territorialisation of the food produced and consumed (i.e. “food is grown where it is needed the most”,  https://www.wur.nl/en/show/Towards-ecological-intensification-of-world-agriculture.htm). The implementation of agroecological principles not only addresses food security, but also enhances local livelihoods.

Agroecology should not be framed in a certification scheme nor a top-down implementation. Rather, the amplification of agroecological approaches and principles should be rooted in social and organizations and political processes at local levels. This also highlights the need for a paradigm shift in curriculum and courses of technical and higher-education levels. ‘New’ technicians that are skilled in supporting community-based processes (instead of imposing research/development agendas) will only benefit the transformation of locally-rooted food systems.

The fourth question on metrics should be anchored in the re-vitalization of urban and rural communities through the practice of agroecology. The potential of agroecology to foster creativity and the development of innovative options to agricultural issues (production, consumption and markets) should not be overlooked in performance assessments of agricultural system.

INTRODUCCIÓN

La agroecología entendida como multidiversidad de ciencias, es la unica esperanza que queda para mantener y recuperar lo perdido desde la revolución verde.

La técnica de producción a emplear serán las interaciones entre los distintos métodos, teniendo como perspectiva que cada lugar es diferente y que los métodos deberan cumplir las normas de la agricultura orgánica y cerrar todos los ciclos de producción, minimizando las cadenas de valor.

Para ello debe tenerse una estratégia de concienciación participativa y con lenguaje inclusivo y por supuesto,trabajar en la concienciación de que tenemos un sólo planeta. En el que lo bello no es lo perfecto y dar el protagonismo al que produce.

Es muy importante que en estos procesos se implique a toda la sociedad. Desmentir que no se puede producir alimentos para todo el mundo y establecer estratégia de NO DESPILFARRO.

Así mismo hay que establecer una estratégia de descontaminación. Al final, SOMOS LO QUE COMEMOS y el tipo de agricultura industrial, nos está llevando a una proliferación de enfermedades que sólo enfocando estas como ENFERMEDADES AMBIENTALES PODRÁN SER TRATADAS.

We are pleased to see that the HLPE will study this important topic and appreciate the breadth of the inquiry. Agroecology is an innovative approach to food security that is built on traditional knowledge and cultural practices and enhanced by scientific advances. While there are many techniques intended to improve environmental sustainability and yields, agroecology is an integrated approach to the entire agro-ecosystem (rather than individual plants, animals, humans or soil organisms). Technological advances are essential, but they occur in specific socio-economic contexts that can either reinforce or challenge inequality and environmental sustainability. Agroecology is valuable because it puts more power in local farmers’ hands, in contexts where they have long been disempowered.

Therefore, we hope the project team will especially emphasize the lessons learned from social movements and networks of small-scale farmers, landless farmers, and farmworkers on the key social practices involved in agroecology, including:

·        Building on indigenous practices and knowledge generation, as well as empowering local farmers.

·        Recognizing women’s central roles in agricultural and food systems

·        Developing new techniques through experimentation and sharing among farmers.

·        Requiring a commitment to the right of peoples to define their own food and agriculture systems, allowing producers to play a lead role in innovation, and placing those who produce, distribute and consume food at the center of decisions on food systems and policies.

As noted in the overview of the study, agroecology also requires a strong enabling environment and supportive governance structures. The HLPE team should consider local, national and regional experiences with agroecological policies and strategies – as well as foreign assistance programs -- that:

·        Respond to locally determined priorities for knowledge generation and dissemination, including public support for agricultural extension services.

·        Support cooperatives and other producer-controlled marketing mechanisms controlled by local farmers, fisherfolk, and pastoralists and their communities.

·        Foster national action plans to review and adjust laws to allow farmers to save, use, exchange and sell their seeds to enhance community rights over seed, plants and biodiversity innovations.

·        Expand national policies on agriculture, water, energy, environmental and food safety, biodiversity, agricultural research and extension programs that support agroecology.

·        Support national efforts to implement the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure, including technical cooperation, financial assistance, institutional capacity development, knowledge sharing and exchange of experiences.

·        Help safeguard legitimate land tenure rights (whether formally recorded or not) against threats and infringements, providing effective, accessible means to everyone through judicial authorities and other approaches to resolve disputes over tenure rights.

·        Make connections between support for agroecology and Earth Jurisprudence perspectives.

These issues have been addressed by a number of experts, including Olivier de Schutter (former Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food), Ivette Perfecto (University of Michigan), Steve Gliessman (UC Santa Cruz), Miguel Altieri (UC Berkeley) and Tomas Madrigal (Community to Community). The HLPE team should also consult with civil society leaders on agroecology including La Via Campesina, the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa, and the Asociación Nacional de Empresas Comercializadores de Productores del Campo (ANEC/Mexico), among others. Our organizations would be happy to work with the HLPE to suggest relevant publications and to help identify experts, practitioners and social movement leaders to enhance this study.

Finally, as organizations based in the United States, we want to take the opportunity to note that agroecology, while more developed and practiced by communities in the Global South, is also relevant to countries in the North, specifically among the landless farmers and workers in countries like ours. Farmworker communities in the United States can provide important expertise not just at the national level but also at the international level. We encourage the HLPE to also consider agroecology in from the perspective of these communities in countries like the United States. In addition, we encourage HLPE to explore the potential (and policy incentives available) for a shift from chemical intensive, industrial food systems to agroecological food systems.

Sincerely,

ActionAid USA

Church World Service

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns

PLANT (Partners for the Land & Agricultural Needs of Traditional Peoples)

Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposed draft scope. Our comments are below and in the attached document as well.

The United States is encouraged by the elements of this draft scope that take a nuanced view of holistic approaches that can integrate new science and traditional systems.  However, we believe this draft does not incorporate many of the elements that were agreed to by consensus after the MYPoW OEWG refined this theme in consultation with capitals over the course of the biennium.  This time-intensive process allowed for the finalization of a 2018-19 MYPoW that all Members could support and the eventual endorsement by CFS 44 Plenary.  As our delegations and others noted several times during the MYPoW OEWG process, consensus on this theme was contingent upon a balanced and unbiased presentation of all approaches and which would include full consideration of the trade-offs to be made by stakeholders.  Disregarding these elements would call into question the transparency of the HLPE report scope development process and overall Member support for this particular theme after much work was done to achieve consensus.  We are also extremely concerned about the late addition of other elements such as the proposed trade and intellectual property related language in this draft that were not properly vetted or approved for this report. 

Need for Unbiased/Balanced Presentation

Given the independent and analytical nature of HLPE reports, focusing on the advancement of agroecological principles should not come at the expense of other approaches to producing food safely, sustainably, and efficiently, including innovations which can be appropriately managed under risk-based regulatory systems.  Unfortunately, this draft scope seems to distinguish between agroecological approaches and other innovations (implying that limitations and potential risks only apply to other innovations before any analysis is conducted).  The terminology approved for the HLPE report and reflected in this draft is “agroecology and other innovations…”  We strongly urge this formulation to be used consistently throughout the report for balance. 

It is important that this report offer a balanced assessment that does not pre-judge the contributions and limitations of various approaches or frame them in opposition to one another. Agroecological approaches and other innovations can be complementary, and the report should be focused on best practices for improving food security and nutrition, not pitting approaches against one another.  Breaking down the silos between different approaches has potential to maximize net benefits.  As such, the United States suggests adding the following to the research questions for this report to address: How can diverse innovative technologies, practices, and approaches be combined to leverage the strengths of each while reducing the risks?  Regarding the first proposed research question’s mention of “improving economic welfare”, the authors should acknowledge that sustainable farm systems must be economically sustainable, meaning that farm households do not live in persistent poverty. 

Trade and Intellectual Property

We find the question about trade and intellectual property rights troublesome because it seems to imply that trade and intellectual property rights are impediments to the development of new approaches.  It also seems out of place in the context of an examination of the field of agroecology (the science).  If these topics are retained (which we strongly discourage), the question will have to be reframed. Given the emphasis on agroecology as “holistic” and a “social movement,” it is important that the scope acknowledge that this approach needs to consider international obligations:

o   How could new approaches work within existing regulations and standards, processes, and government mechanisms to improve food security and nutrition?

o   How can these practices and technologies be developed in a way that is in line with international obligations and commitments?

Definitional Challenges

This draft scope describes the relationships between multiple broad and inconsistently-defined concepts, including agroecology, innovation, and nutrition, which presents a strong set of challenges for the evidence-focused analysis the HLPE plans to conduct.  These challenges will have to be addressed.    

Nutrition:

·         Which specific aspects of nutrition do the approaches to be discussed in this report affect and how?

Agroecology:

·         How will the authors distinguish between the multiple conceptions of agroecology (the field of study, a set of practices, and the social movements) to avoid interpretations of the report that conflate the three? 

·         How will the report frame agroecology as a social movement given the multiple interpretations of the social movement of agroecology, ranging from the need to employ community based participatory research, to advocating for equitable access to land, technology, and inputs for smallholder farmers?

·         Per the following paragraph, “Agroecology… will be studied in this report, as an example of an innovative approach aimed at holistically combining science and traditional knowledge systems, technologies and ecological processes, and involving all the relevant stakeholders in inclusive, participative and innovative governance mechanisms.” We cannot accurately claim that every agroecological system succeeds in all these dimensions, and it will be important to clarify when this is and is not the case in the report without using it as a base assumption.

·         Some interpretations of agroecology espouse certain practices/concepts and reject others, for example monoculture.  Will the report address how integrating some agroecological practices into a modern agricultural system might improve the performance of monoculture along the environmental dimension, or only consider agroecology as a comprehensive set of practices?  It may be worthwhile for the report to consider the synergies of various approaches or practices rather than considering them as distinct tools. 

“Bottom-up and people-centered approaches”:

·         We would also like to see a definition of “bottom-up and people-centered approaches”, considering this phrase will drive how the research is conducted in this report. These are terms we have seen in the context of health systems and humanitarian action but the meaning in the context of agroecology and innovations for FSN needs to be clarified.  Recognizing the importance of participatory and community-driven innovation, the report should also highlight the role for external innovation. 

Examination of Trade-Offs

The first question that the report proposes to address lists a number of goals that might be addressed by a particular set of approaches/practices/technologies.  However, it might also explicitly consider the tradeoffs between these goals, since an individual set of practices is not always able to address all dimensions mentioned.  A good example of this is Payments for Ecosystem Services, which was widely touted as a path to both poverty alleviation and forest/ecosystem preservation.  Economists have broadly considered (in the technical and academic literature) how these two goals may not, in fact, be complementary in the case of Payments for Ecosystem Services – and this report should also consider the tradeoffs implicit in the approaches, practices, and technologies that are examined in the report. 

Another example of a potential tradeoff is the fact that agroecological production systems are typically labor intensive, which may make them inherently more difficult to scale relative to other types of production systems, or more vulnerable to labor shortages.  They may also make it difficult for smaller producers to diversify into on and off-farm enterprises, which can reduce risk and increase household income and well-being.  These types of potential tradeoffs should be explicitly considered in the report.