I write specifically to endorse and corroborate submissions by the organizations IPES-Food, Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA), and USC-Canada. Taken together, these organizations have highlighted the importance of taking a non-reductive approach to agroecology, specifically avoiding equating agroecology with a set of tools or technological innovations.
To summarize, I hope the HLPE will strongly consider the following in the scope, governance, and execution of the report:
Agroecology is an ecosystems-based approach to the design of sustainable food systems. Combining indigenous, practitioner, and scientific knowledge, it develops through their mutual learning and experimentation. As it has developed over time – from 1930s dovetailing of agronomy and ecology to 2017 ecology of ‘food systems’ – agroecology has become more than simply farm-level or land-scape level change. Now understood as the interplay of science, practice, and social movements, it’s a framework, in the words of Dr. Steven Gliessman, that has evolved because we need food systems that “once again empower people, create economic opportunity and fairness, and contribute to restoring and protecting the planet’s life-support systems.”
This implies that “other innovations” – a term now included in the title – should be bracketed within the principles of agroecology, and should not be a loophole through which non-ecosystem approaches enter in. The Report should only consider specific innovation practices, approaches, and technologies that are consistent with agroecological tenets, as defined by key and recognized sources in the field (Altieri 1995, Francis et al. 2003; IAASTD 2009, Perfecto et al. 2009; Vandermeer 2011; Gliessman 2015, IPES-Food 2016).
In terms of project team, I urge the HLPE to assemble a team that reflects the transdisciplinary nature of agroecology as a science, practice, and social movement. This implies including a range of relevant natural scientists as well as social scientists. Human geography, political ecology, rural sociology, anthropology, ethnic studies, education, philosophy, and indigenous studies all offer critical insights that could strengthen the scientific rigor of the report – and better reflects the non-dualistic dynamics of socio-ecological systems. Practitioners should also be invited as experts. A range of agroecological practitioners should include (but not be limited to) farmers of different scales, fishers, pastoralists, and urban agriculturalists. Farmworkers (not just farm owners) merit representation, and women and men should be given equal voice. The committee should strive for a diverse cross-section of race, ethnicity, faith, and class in assembling the project team – but should strive to particularly represent those who may be most vulnerable (because they live close to the land) and who have the most experience in agroecology (reflecting accumulated knowledge and practice).
In line with PANNA’s recommendations, I strongly encourage transparency in governance, and in all steps of creating and disseminating the report. Oversight provided by an independent governance body could help avoid conflicts of interest. A public comment period should be provided, during which drafts can be widely circulated for commentary and feedback. Any dissenting opinions – differing evaluations of evidence or ‘conclusions’ by authors – are more fruitfully described as points of ongoing debate rather than compacted into a winner-takes-all analysis. All of these steps will help ensure that the resulting report achieves credibility across a wide constituency.
Finally, I endorse IPES-Food’s recommendation to pay attention to obstacles that affect the scaling up (or scaling out) of agroecology. These ‘lock ins’, identified in the Panel’s 2016 report are vital insofar as, if left undisturbed, they will preclude the success of any agroecology transitions strategy. Specifically, these obstacles underscore issues of political economy and power. They call attention to dominant narratives about perceived lack of production (“must double food production by 2050”) that continues to pervade mainstream understandings of food security.
Also for this reason, I urge the HLPE to consider broadening the scope beyond “food security” to include food sovereignty and food justice. Food sovereignty is “people-centered” as per the HLPE’s committed focus, and food justice strives for equity in food production and consumption across race, class, gender, nationality, and other social lines.
Thank you,
Maywa Montenegro
Maywa Montenegro