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
During its 44th Plenary Session (9-13 October 2017), the CFS requested the HLPE to produce a report on “Agroecological approaches and other innovations for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition”, to be presented at CFS 46th Plenary session in October 2019.
As part of the process of elaboration of its reports, the HLPE is organizing a consultation to seek inputs, suggestions, and comments on the present V0 draft (for more details on the different steps of the process, see the Appendix in the V0 draft). The results of this consultation will be used by the HLPE to further elaborate the report, which will then be submitted to external expert peer-reviewers, before finalization and approval by the HLPE Steering Committee.
HLPE V0 drafts prepared by the Project Team are deliberately presented early enough in the process – as a work-in-progress, with their range of imperfections – to allow sufficient time to give proper consideration to the feedback received so that it can play a really useful role in the elaboration of the report. It is a key part of the scientific dialogue between the HLPE Project Team and Steering Committee, and the whole knowledge community.
Please note that comments should not be submitted as notes to the pdf file, rather contributors are expected to share their main and structuring comments through the website dialog box and/or attaching further elements/references that can help the HLPE to enrich the report and strengthen its overall narrative.
Detailed line-by-line comments are also welcome, but only if presented in a word or Excel file, with precise reference to the related chapter, section, page and/or line number in the draft.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Contributing to the V0 Draft
The present V0 draft identifies areas for recommendations at a very early stage, and the HLPE would welcome suggestions or proposals. In order to strengthen the report, the HLPE would welcome submission of material, evidence-based suggestions, references, and concrete examples, in particular addressing the following important questions:
- The V0 draft is wide-ranging in analyzing the contribution of agroecological and other innovative approaches to ensuring food security and nutrition (FSN). Is the draft useful in clarifying the main concepts? Do you think that the draft appropriately covers agroecology as one of the possible innovative approaches? Does the draft strike the right balance between agroecology and other innovative approaches?
- Have an appropriate range of innovative approaches been identified and documented in the draft? If there are key gaps in coverage of approaches, what are these and how would they be appropriately incorporated in the draft? Does the draft illustrates correctly the contributions of these approaches to FSN and sustainable development? The HLPE acknowledges that these approaches could be better articulated in the draft, and their main points of convergence or divergence among these approaches could be better illustrated. Could the following set of “salient dimensions” help to characterize and compare these different approaches: human-rights base, farm size, local or global markets and food systems (short or long supply chain), labor or capital intensity (including mechanization), specialization or diversification, dependence to external (chemical) inputs or circular economy, ownership and use of modern knowledge and technology or use of local and traditional knowledge and practices?
- 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?
- 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 narrative and main findings?
- The V0 draft provides an opportunity to identify knowledge gaps, where more evidence is required to assess the contribution that agroecology and other innovative approaches can make progressing towards more sustainable food systems for enhanced FSN. Do you think that the key knowledge gaps are appropriately identified, that their underlying causes are sufficiently articulated in the draft? Is the draft missing any important knowledge gap? Is this assessment of the state of knowledge in the draft based on the best up-to-date available scientific evidence or does the draft miss critical references? How could the draft better integrate and consider local, traditional and empirical knowledge?
- Chapter 2 suggests a typology of innovations. Do you think this typology is useful in structuring the exploration of what innovations are required to support FSN, identifying key drivers of, and barriers to, innovation (in Chapter 3) and the enabling conditions required to foster innovation (in Chapter 4)? Are there significant drivers, barriers or enabling conditions that are not adequately considered in the draft?
- 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?
- This preliminary version of the report presents tentative priorities for action in Chapter 4, as well as recommendations to enable innovative approaches to contribute to the radical transformations of current food systems needed to enhance FSN and sustainability. Do you think these preliminary findings can form an appropriate basis for further elaboration, in particular to design innovation policies? Do you think that key recommendations or priorities for action are missing or inadequately covered in the draft?
- Throughout the V0 draft there has been an attempt to indicate, sometimes with placeholders, specific case studies that would illustrate the main narrative with concrete examples and experience. Are the set of case studies appropriate in terms of subject and regional balance? Can you suggest further case studies that could help to enrich and strengthen the report?
- Are there any major omissions or gaps in the V0 draft? Are topics under-or over-represented in relation to their importance? Are any facts or conclusions refuted, questionable or assertions with no evidence-base? If any of these are an issue, please share supporting evidence.
We thank in advance all the contributors for being kind enough to read, comment and suggest inputs on this V0 draft of the report.
We look forward to a rich and fruitful consultation.
The HLPE Project Team and Steering Committee
- Read 103 contributions
Dear All,
Season's Greetings!
A great effort by HLPE. I feel the following point should get emphasis:
Agro-ecological zoning separates areas into the region at the apex level and agro-eco unit at the bottom. The agro-ecological region identifies the natural resources in terms of problems, potentialities and constraints and their extent with respect to land utilization types and groups them in uniform units. Digital database in GIS and application of logic through decision support system (DSS) further enhance the process and precession of agro-ecological delineation. The sub agro ecological regions are further subdivided into agro-ecological zones based on landforms, soil association and land use. The agro ecological zones have further taken down to sub zones depending on terrain characteristics, parent materials, soil texture, depth, salinity, surface and ground water potentiality and cropping pattern.
In solidarity and wIth warm regards,
Pradip Dey
This comment supersedes the contribution dated 05.11.2018, Ed.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the HLPE Version-Zero Draft of the report, “Agroecological and Other Innovations for Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems.”
Thank you for allowing a comment period. In summary, I am struck by 3 glaring omissions:
(1. PICS bags for inexpensive, protective grain storage-developed by Perdue and embraced by the Gates Foundation are omitted. Why not use this report to showcase them? 2. Barely a nod to global warming/climate change/carbon sequestration---when the ink from the ominous IPCC report is barely dry. Again, why this gap in what helps reduce atmospheric carbon, and most importantly--3. The omission of Inga Alley Cropping---and in particular the 7-year, 100% successful "Land for Life" program of Mike Hands in Honduras is not mentioned at all). It may be a small, but it has planet-changing results which apply to the entire humid tropics.
I am not an expert or scientist...so it is likely my remarks will not be taken as seriously as others---BUT you are blatantly sucking up to industrial agriculture--and most egregiously to GMO technology. Is Monsanto funding you? Apps/gene editing/drones and technology should not be part of this report--unless you only wish to consider business as usual.
From www.osce.org/what/environmental -"Once only considered as an environmental issue, climate change is increasingly being included as an inherent element of national and international security agendas. It is seen as a “threat multiplier” exacerbating existing threats to security and increasing environmental stress, adding to pressures that can push the responsive capacities of governments to their limits."
Figure 7-Evolution of the agroforestry paradigm—suggest an EXAMPLE BOX be added to include Inga Alley Cropping as a strong example of an agroforestry system which addresses all 17 of the SDGs, which can be provided by Dr. Mike Hands. His 20+ years as a tropical ecologist allowed him understand the inter-related problems of food security, slash and burn agriculture, rainforest, rural poverty, and ecosystem devastation--and working with Cambridge and Royal Botanic Garden, Kew established a scientifically-proven, bottom-up model (Inga Alley Cropping) for economic & environmental sustainability that is replicable and scalable to the entire tropics with 300+ Inga species or native, analogous species.
Figure 8-Add--Major ways in which agroforestry impacts smallholder livelihoods—sequestering carbon/biological weed control with no pesticides, herbicides or chemical fertilizers--again, all these benefits should be mentioned generally about many systems and from one agroforestry system in particular--Inga Alley Cropping.
Page 80-Line 54- Should genetically modified organisms be used for improving FSN? There is no consensus on this. Proponents of GM technology assert that there is a place for GM technology in SFS for FSN---WHY WOULD YOU KEEP THIS PROPOGANDA IN THIS REPORT? You do not even mention watershed protection, health of users (you say "possible" when a 40 million dollar lawsuit against Monsanto says otherwise), local plants and pollinators--why are you so biased here in favor of BIG AG? Do you not see you are biased?
Page 81-Lines 3 and 4 continue your bias when the industry fights labelling world-wide and litigates to silence those who seeks transparency:
3 introduced. They indicate that education about the effects of GM and transparency in labelling will
4 need to accompany introduction to allow consumers to make their own decisions about purchases.
Consider a section of simple economics (with your recommendations for policy inclusion to benefit smallholders):
A new report by the international network More and Better presents a global overview of investments in agriculture, revealing that more investment in small-scale sustainable agriculture is needed. The report gives an overview of some of the most important financial institutions involved in agriculture and the benefits and implications of different investment models. It also provides recommendations for inclusive and equitable future investments in small-scale sustainable farming.
“Farmers have the most important occupation in the world,” says Aksel Nærstad, International Co-coordinator of the More and Better Network.
“The U.N. Global Compact states that small-scale food producers—peasants, artisanal fisherfolks, pastoralists, hunters, and gatherers—produce 40 percent of the food which is traded and 70 percent of all food in the world. But peasants are also the largest group of the poor people in the world and of the about 800 million people who are starving. More focus on and support to improve the condition for peasants is therefore crucial.”
The report details several studies from the World Bank and U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) demonstrating how investments in small-scale sustainable agriculture is an effective and proven way to reduce hunger and poverty in low-income countries. Despite this, public investment in agriculture has decreased considerably, with governments allocating less than two percent of their central government expenditures to agriculture between 2001 and 2015. Official Development Assistance (ODA) has increased since 2005, but is still very low, at approximately 6-8% of total ODA.
“Several reports show that support to and investments in small-scale sustainable agriculture in developing countries are by far the most efficient ways to reduce hunger and poverty,” says Nærstad. “Despite [this], very few investments are made with and for peasants. Most of the commercial and public investments in agriculture go to large-scale unsustainable farming.”
Hands, M. R. 2004.
El uso de Inga en Cultivo en Callejones; una alternativa sostenible comprobada a la agricultura migratoria en el Bosque Lluvioso. Invited co-author in : Cordero, J. and Boshier, D. H., (eds.) : Árboles de Centroamérica : Un manual para extensionistas. OFI/CATIE. Oxford. UK.
Hands, M. R. June 2002.
Alley-Cropping as a Sustainable Alternative to Shifting Cultivation. Final Report. Project HND / B7-6201 / IB / 97 / 0533(08). Tropical Forests Budgetary Line. Commission of the European Communities. DG I. Brussels.
Mr. Regis Yelemou
Dear HLPE Project Team and Steering Committee,
Please find below my review of the V0 draft of: “Agroecological approaches and other innovations for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and Nutrition.”
Overall, I appreciated and am encouraged by the intent and thoroughness of this report - as well as the opportunity to provide feedback at such an early stage. My detailed comments include some ideas and concerns that I hope will be helpful.
Sincerely,
Marcia DeLonge, PhD
Senior Scientist, Agroecologist
Union of Concerned Scientists, Food & Environment Program
Great effort. However, its potential results will be minimal unless every single process is conducted within a truly participative democracy, thus becoming tropophilic. Further details can be found here:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B078ZHSWWB
and here:
https://www.socialsciencethatactuallyworks.com/
Best regards and keep it up!
JC Wandemberg
I see the agroecological approach as distinct from the GMO one. The former is about ecologically informed, low cost innovations that are open to all, not lab-based (and often expensive) molecular innovations. As you know, by smartly capitalizing on interactions within agroecosystems, farmers are able to improve yields and manage pest problems through improved intercropping and agroforestry combinations, as well as more tightly integrated crop and livestock systems. While these practices have long existed within traditional farming systems in the tropics, there is enormous potential for scientists to collaborate with local people to make improvements to these techniques. As you also know, funding for work in this area has been woefully limited, probably because agroecological approaches are unlikely to generate the profits derived from the GM approach increasing production (and missing the hunger problem).
Thank you for considering these comments (and I apologize for submitting them very late in the comment period)
Dear all
Please accept Urgenci's submission of comments on the draft zero version of the HLPE report, and apologies for sending it a day late: I was unable to do so yesterday.
In solidarity
Judith Hitchman, President
This is a fine document, very detailed and well- illustrated. Congratulations to the contributors. It would be interesting to know what the precise objectives, uses and targeted users of the document are.
My primary field is nutrition and not agriculture although food systems and food security are an integral part of nutrition. The few comments I have are therefore more directly connected with nutrition:
My Comments:
Recommendation 1, p. 9:
What are « small or medium farms »? Is it their size or their methods that are addressed? Please clarify.
Recommendation 2, p. 9:
I am not sure that SFS is to be introduced in primary schools. In contrast, it is important to emphasize the need for SFSs to be introduced in the public health training curriculum. Conversely, more attention should be paid to appropriate nutrition training in agriculture schools and universities.
Recommendation 5, p. 10:
Let’s not forget traditional and minor crops which contribute to food diversity hence security, and to better nutrition. I would also see mentioned here the importance of introducing the concept of nutrition value chains. Additionally, it may be useful to clarify here the concept of “nutrition sensitive” agriculture even if it is further discussed under 2.3.7.
Recommendation 7, p. 11:
Would it not be relevant to advertise for, or promote, locally produced foods as an additional means of linking rural producers and urban consumers? (See on this my discussion paper on urban food patterns for FAO http://www.fao.org/docrep/U3550t/u3550t05.htm#TopOfPage
Food security and nutrition, p. 14:
Under “access” is also included access to information about food outlets, about the nutritional value of food and about food and nutrition programs. Access to information is included in the FAO’s definition of food security.
P. 15: Does “approach to FSN” really need to be defined?
P. 25: It is interesting to read that one of the principles of agroecology is to “develop healthy, diversified, seasonally and culturally appropriate diets”.
P. 34, box 7: Other issues that could be considered is overfishing, as well as food processing, and the problem with ultra-processed foods.
P. 68, box 11: Adding the caloric requirements on a per capita basis would help understand this.
P. 73, Fig. 11: It is surprising not to see here wars and social unrest, as well as disease (such as HIV) as determinants of hunger. Other sources list these.
P. 77: GMOs: A major issue is that the risk is not taken by those who reap the benefits of GM... And that research is often proprietary.
Warmest regards,
Hélène Delisle, Ph.D.
Dear HLPE team,
The International Dairy Federation (IDF) welcomes the opportunity to submit comments to the Vo of the HLPE Report on Agroecological approaches and other innovations for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition.
Meeting the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) requires locally adapted agricultural approaches that foster productivity, maintain environmental sustainability, promote rural livelihoods, and ensure resilience.
In particular, meeting SDG 2 requires increased focus on the influence of local contexts on what constitutes ‘climate smart’ and sustainable agriculture practices, taking into account fragile farming communities and the specific needs of small holders. Today, many approaches have been developed that offer sustainable solutions while maintaining agricultural productivity and ‘usefulness’ to society over the long run.
However, we do believe that that sustainable agroecological practices are able to be implemented by all types of farms and are not scale dependent. This should be reflected in the report.
In addition, the report should reference the FAO document Agroecology: from advocacy to action (COAG/2018/5). The paper builds on prior work in this area, and includes 10 elements of agroecology as a guide to the transition to sustainable agriculture and food systems. We do feel that an 11th recommendation should be added to include the role of science/technology or innovation.
In conclusion to meet current and future demand for agricultural goods sustainably, we must not preclude any options and instead focus on what is most appropriate and scalable in any given context. All decisions must be grounded on scientific evidence and follow the development framework of the SDGs.
IDF advocates for a mix of practices, tools and technologies tailored to each situation. Many practices, such as precision agriculture, conservation farming (no- or reduced till practices), drip irrigation and integrated pest management, are supportive of and compatible with the goals of sustainable development and food security. Unilateral promotion of certain farming systems or the exclusion of some technologies does not reflect the notion of sustainable development and limits farmers’ choices.
Thanks a lot,
Kind regards,
María
Bonsoir,
Veuillez trouver ci-joint les commentaires de la France sur la V0 du Rapport « Approches agroécologiques et d’autres innovations pour une agriculture durable et des systèmes alimentaires qui améliorent la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition » .
Bien cordialement,
Gemma Cornuau
Adviser
This activity is now closed. Please contact [email protected] for any further information.