Foro Global sobre Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición (Foro FSN)
IFOAM - Organics International welcomes the consultation process on the HLPE report “Agroecological approaches and other innovations for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition”.
Below, we will briefly present our main comments and concerns regarding the V0 draft, as expressed by various members of the organic farming movement. We are all strongly interested in this discussion as organic agriculture is based on agroecology as a science with about 100 years of experience in this field.
We appreciate the effort to include an extensive list of updated literature on the issue. However, the conclusions of the report, based on these, could aim for more clarity in order not to generate an artificial division between different stakeholders. We hope you find our comments constructive in this regard, too.
It might be useful to set the context by starting with an objective description of the role of current industrial farming and food systems in environmental pollution, soil degradation, overexploitation of water resources, biodiversity loss, weakened ecosystem services and the erosion of rural livelihoods, as states in the IAASTD report.
In our understanding, the term “agroecology” serves as an umbrella for different concepts and hence includes as well organic agriculture, permaculture and agroforestry to name a few. Permaculture, organic farming, agroforestry are forms of what people call “agroecology” and these forms all emerged out historically as a reaction against unsustainable industrial agriculture. In general agroecological practices and organic practices cannot be differentiated on a technical scale. It is conceptually misleading to put agroecology side by side with other approaches as if they were distinct. It would help stating that organic, agroforestry and permaculture are fairly well-defined forms of agroecological systems. There will never be a clear classification possible, since in reality all these systems greatly overlap. This needs to be recognized.
It is not clear on which scientific studies table 3 “Comparison between the nine approaches …” is based. The classification appears as arbitrary opinions without a scientific basis. For example, table 3 states “sustainable intensification” is sustainable and diversifies, but on page 43 it is admitted that it includes “conservation agriculture” mostly based on herbicides to kill the cover crop before seeding. We know that this practice, that irrigates millions of hectares with herbicides, is causing enormous damage to flora, fauna and humans.
The agroecological practices span several millennia and precede written history. The science of agroecology is even more recent as the document concedes. From these practices and science started a movement against the industrial agriculture that assumes different names (organic, biodynamic, agroecology, permaculture, regenerative farming, etc.) among regions, countries, decades and cultures.
The chapters on OA need revision as it is mainly based on organic markets and certification and neglects that organic agriculture evolved as a social movement and an agroecological alternative to conventional/industrial agriculture. We consider organic as based in ancient practices or paradigm based on regenerative agriculture, reemerging in its science-based form as a reaction against industrial agriculture and unsustainable socio-cultural patterns.
We would propose to use the broadly accepted definition of IFOAM – Organics International to define the 4 principles of organic agriculture: “Organic agriculture is a production system that sustains the health of soils, ecosystems and people; relies on ecological processes, biodiversity and cycles adapted to local conditions, rather than the use of inputs with adverse effects; and combines tradition, innovation and science to benefit the shared environment and promote fair relationships and a good quality of life for all involved."
There are some contradictions on participatory guarantee systems consideration. On the one hand it proposes as recommendation "Recognize participatory guarantee systems (PGS) as a valid means to certify organic, ecological and agro-ecological producers for local and domestic markets, which are often most feasible for low-income, small-scale producers to access.” But on the other hand the report clearly positions agro-ecology as much broader and a not regulated term. In the reality the countries that recognize PGS have also standards for agroecology (similar to organic standards).
Moreover the report describes Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS) only in the chapter on sustainable value chains. It should be included also in agroecology and organic chapter as it evolved with and from the organic and agroecological movement.
The drivers of innovation are not well explained and are not complete. The greatest driver of agroecological innovation—a producer with a problem and an idea of how to solve it—is not even included. Innovation is not just breakthrough inventions and “killer apps”, it is every day adjustments and improvements. Most innovations in agriculture come from farmers and are in the public domain. Another important driver of innovations is the increasing scarcity of natural resources and the increasing health crises.
Chapter 4 “Enabling Conditions for innovation in SFS for FSN” could be more focused on which policies, interventions and changes are needed to shift current agriculture to a truly sustainable agriculture based on agroecological approaches. In our opinion it could contain stronger recommendations to reverse perverse policies such as subsidies on chemical pesticides and fertilizers.
IFOAM - Organics International welcomes the consultation process on the HLPE report “Agroecological approaches and other innovations for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition”.
Below, we will briefly present our main comments and concerns regarding the V0 draft, as expressed by various members of the organic farming movement. We are all strongly interested in this discussion as organic agriculture is based on agroecology as a science with about 100 years of experience in this field.
We appreciate the effort to include an extensive list of updated literature on the issue. However, the conclusions of the report, based on these, could aim for more clarity in order not to generate an artificial division between different stakeholders. We hope you find our comments constructive in this regard, too.
It might be useful to set the context by starting with an objective description of the role of current industrial farming and food systems in environmental pollution, soil degradation, overexploitation of water resources, biodiversity loss, weakened ecosystem services and the erosion of rural livelihoods, as states in the IAASTD report.
In our understanding, the term “agroecology” serves as an umbrella for different concepts and hence includes as well organic agriculture, permaculture and agroforestry to name a few. Permaculture, organic farming, agroforestry are forms of what people call “agroecology” and these forms all emerged out historically as a reaction against unsustainable industrial agriculture. In general agroecological practices and organic practices cannot be differentiated on a technical scale. It is conceptually misleading to put agroecology side by side with other approaches as if they were distinct. It would help stating that organic, agroforestry and permaculture are fairly well-defined forms of agroecological systems. There will never be a clear classification possible, since in reality all these systems greatly overlap. This needs to be recognized.
It is not clear on which scientific studies table 3 “Comparison between the nine approaches …” is based. The classification appears as arbitrary opinions without a scientific basis. For example, table 3 states “sustainable intensification” is sustainable and diversifies, but on page 43 it is admitted that it includes “conservation agriculture” mostly based on herbicides to kill the cover crop before seeding. We know that this practice, that irrigates millions of hectares with herbicides, is causing enormous damage to flora, fauna and humans.
The agroecological practices span several millennia and precede written history. The science of agroecology is even more recent as the document concedes. From these practices and science started a movement against the industrial agriculture that assumes different names (organic, biodynamic, agroecology, permaculture, regenerative farming, etc.) among regions, countries, decades and cultures.
The chapters on OA need revision as it is mainly based on organic markets and certification and neglects that organic agriculture evolved as a social movement and an agroecological alternative to conventional/industrial agriculture. We consider organic as based in ancient practices or paradigm based on regenerative agriculture, reemerging in its science-based form as a reaction against industrial agriculture and unsustainable socio-cultural patterns.
We would propose to use the broadly accepted definition of IFOAM – Organics International to define the 4 principles of organic agriculture: “Organic agriculture is a production system that sustains the health of soils, ecosystems and people; relies on ecological processes, biodiversity and cycles adapted to local conditions, rather than the use of inputs with adverse effects; and combines tradition, innovation and science to benefit the shared environment and promote fair relationships and a good quality of life for all involved."
There are some contradictions on participatory guarantee systems consideration. On the one hand it proposes as recommendation "Recognize participatory guarantee systems (PGS) as a valid means to certify organic, ecological and agro-ecological producers for local and domestic markets, which are often most feasible for low-income, small-scale producers to access.” But on the other hand the report clearly positions agro-ecology as much broader and a not regulated term. In the reality the countries that recognize PGS have also standards for agroecology (similar to organic standards).
Moreover the report describes Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS) only in the chapter on sustainable value chains. It should be included also in agroecology and organic chapter as it evolved with and from the organic and agroecological movement.
The drivers of innovation are not well explained and are not complete. The greatest driver of agroecological innovation—a producer with a problem and an idea of how to solve it—is not even included. Innovation is not just breakthrough inventions and “killer apps”, it is every day adjustments and improvements. Most innovations in agriculture come from farmers and are in the public domain. Another important driver of innovations is the increasing scarcity of natural resources and the increasing health crises.
Chapter 4 “Enabling Conditions for innovation in SFS for FSN” could be more focused on which policies, interventions and changes are needed to shift current agriculture to a truly sustainable agriculture based on agroecological approaches. In our opinion it could contain stronger recommendations to reverse perverse policies such as subsidies on chemical pesticides and fertilizers.