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.

Dear Colleagues,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this most worthwhile public consultation on agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems. This comment is in addition to my participation in a collective submission (see: “Comment by transdisciplinary team of scientists working in food and agriculture systems”) and drills down a bit on the sociological issues that we presented in that document.

Good work and best regards,

JoAnn Jaffe

University of Regina

Canada

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please find attached FIAN International’s comments on the zero draft of the HLPE report on “Agroecological approaches and other innovations for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition”.

Kind regards,

Philip Seufert

Good Afternoon!

We salute the HLPE committee team. The Agroecological Center (Núcleo de Agreocologia) from the Universidade de Brasília in partnership with advisers of the National Council for Food and Nutrition Security (Brazil) and encouraged by the Brazilian technical-scientific Association of Agroecology (ABA), send by this e-mail its contributions with the V0 DRAFT REPORT 4 October 2018 titled "Agroecological approaches and other innovations for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition”.

We hope it reaches the best results and that our lecture can contribute any way in the collective construction.

We are open to further discussion or any doubts about the contributions.

Dear colleagues

please see attached comments prepared by the Private Sector Mrchanism of the CFS.

With best regards

Brian Baldwin

Dear members of the HLPE Project Team and Steering Committee,

We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this consultation on the V0 draft report and would like to contribute to the revision with a joint submission by Bread for the World, Welthungerhilfe, Inkota and MISEREOR.

Please find attached our joint submission.

Best regards,

Sarah Schneider

Dear moderator,

Please find attached comments from the Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance (AFSA) on the HLPE's V0 draft report "Agroecology and other innovations for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition"

Our input provides some general comments, as well as a snapshot of AFSA's perspectives from Australian agroecological farmers, and a case study of an agroecological farm in the state of Victoria.

We hope the HLPE will find our input helpful in developing the next draft of their report.

With best wishes,

Anisah Madden

Dear FAO moderator,

Please find attached my comments on the HLPE consulation on the V0 draft of the report: Agroecological approaches and other innovations for sustainable agriculture and food systems. I have also contributed to a collective submission

enittled 'Comment by a Team of Transdisciplinary Scientists Working in Food and Agricultural Systems.' The online permalink is here:

http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/cfs-hlpe/comment/4004

Best regards,

Mariaelena

--

Mariaelena Huambachano (Ph.D)

Assistant Professor, Indigenous Studies and Sustainability

California State University, Northridge

1. Fantastic work! Thanks so much for this excellent draft, which I see as an important contribution to the field. The frameworks are generally useful, and I really appreciate Box 4 (the consolidated and ordered set of AE principles, distilled from various sources) among many other valuable contributions here.
2. My main concern / request has to do with Section 3.2, which is on "Sustainable intensification (encompassing Conservation Agriculture and Ecological Intensification." First, I would request acknowledgement of the term/concept of "agroecological intensification" (AEI) as somewhat distinct from sustainable intensification and the other terms mentioned. There are nuances here worth calling out; please see below for an excerpt from a 2015 paper by Wezel et al. on this topic. Second, while AEI could be considered substantially overlapping with the concept of ecological intensification, I don't see how either is encompassed in Sustainable Intensification. SI typically (though not always) seems to have a more narrow technical focus on input use efficiency. AEI is explicit about the agroecological means of intensification, and more focused on social and equity aspects. The fact that "agroecology" and "sustainable intensification" are so strongly contrasted in Table 4 (p. 62, lines 19-23) illustrates how poorly AEI can be subsumed under SI. I’m including a couple of obscure publications that use the AEI terminology for which I’m a co-author; others can be found via Google Scholar and similar.
3. Another serious issue is the low emphasis placed on nutrient cycling. I see four mentions of "manure" (livestock wastes), but how about human wastes? Section 2.4 (pp. 56-58) focuses on pre-consumption wastes. Post-consumption wastes seem neglected, despite their critical importance for nutrient cycles and thus for agroecology and plantary sustainability. Can you go farther with this issue, and call for greater nutrient circular economy (use of food wastes and human and animal wastes as agricultural inputs, reducing the reliance on mined and manufactured fertilizers)?
4. Beyond the binary… Page 20, lines 20-23; p. 66, lines 44-55 and p. 67 - Table 10: the table implies a binary system, while the text acknowledges that there is a continuum in the extent to which systems are based on agroecological principles. Could the text go farther in declaring that all farms and systems can be improved in the implementation of agroecological principles?
5. Incremental v. transformative approaches. Can this distinction, and pathways towards AEI, be explored more deeply? Perhaps this could be fit into section 3, as 3.1.3. (page 61, line 31) -- Pathways to agroecological transformation?

From: Wezel, A., Soboksa, G., McClelland, S. et al. Agron. Sustain. Dev. (2015) 35: 1283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0333-y

6.1.2 Agroecological intensification versus ecological and sustainable intensification

Comparing agroecological intensification with ecological and sustainable intensification requires a more nuanced analysis. Many of the authors use existing definitions or concepts of ecological and sustainable intensification, but re-label them as agroecological intensification (Côte et al. 2010; Dobermann and Nelson 2013; Haussmann 2011; Karamura et al. 2013; Ochola et al. 2013). This understanding of ecological or sustainable intensification as agroecological intensification is problematic because it blurrs the boundaries between the three terms even more.

On the other hand, the principles for agroecological intensification clearly show a certain difference in terms of practical implications. The first is the insertion of the social and cultural perspectives into the definition of the principles of agroecological intensification (CCRP 2013). These perspectives are of great importance as most of the solutions advocated in ecological and sustainable intensification do not address these issues and mostly focus on the agronomic and environmental aspects and, to some extent, the economic ones. Agroecological intensification also distinguishes itself by emphasizing the importance of intensifying knowledge, not only for scientists and decision makers but for smallholders as well (Karamura et al. 2013). While social practices such as relying on local and cultural contexts and building on farmers knowledge are a part of agroecological intensification (Côte et al. 2010; CCRP 2013), proponents of sustainable or ecological intensification do not generally include these aspects as central to their concepts.

A second point is that agroecological intensification puts a stronger emphasis on having a systems approach (CCRP 2013; Dobermann and Nelson 2013). Most of the papers discussing the term refer to agricultural systems or agroecosystems and to analysing elements of these in a holistic perspective. This perspective requires taking into account the many and varied aspects of the systems to assess their interactive effects and leverage points toward (and away from) sustainability, including value chains and more globally food systems as well as knowledge systems. Although ecological intensification comprehends some of the fundamentals of systems thinking by integrating the notions of ecosystems, it is sometimes not clearly stated as a guiding principle by just focussing on implementing certain plot-scale practices for ecological intensification.

There are different ways in which agroecological intensification is operationalized, particularly among smallholders. For example, Dobermann and Nelson (2013) present interventions aimed at the short and long term. These interventions include closing yield gaps and reducing yield variability through enhanced breeding, using smart technologies for increased resource efficiency, investment in rural agricultural infrastructure and finding new business models for smallholder farming through collaboration with farmers. Such plans provide a useful means for presenting the goals of agroecological intensification as well as the ways in which proponents of the term can further modify and refine it. Systems of agroecological intensification are being assessed by rigorous comparisons to conventional farming systems (Karamura et al. 2013; Milder et al. 2012; Ochola et al. 2013) which can be helpful in providing an evidence base for their strengths, and criteria for success. Milder et al. (2012) introduced an assessment methodology that considers not just yields, but also the generation of ecosystem services. Both of these—the delineation of specific, time-bound action plans and assessments of outcomes—are two measures that from which initiatives for ecological intensification and sustainable intensification would also profit. This would allow for an improved understanding of the various concepts, their commonalities and differences.

To summarize, most definitions of ecological and sustainable intensification include the two main common key elements ‘increased production’ and ‘minimized environmental impacts’ and two additional ones each. Definitions of agroecological intensification re-use these key elements and add others such as ‘social and cultural perspective’, ‘farmers’ knowledge’ and ‘system approach’. Overall, many authors use definitions or concepts of ecological or sustainable intensification, but re-label them as agroecological intensification.

6.2 Synthesis of definitions on the three concepts of intensification

Based on the definitions of the different authors regarding the three intensification concepts, we tried to synthesis them for each of the concepts to provide new definitions which take into account the nuances between the concepts, even if they are sometimes not easy to detect from their definitions.

• Sustainable intensification: Producing more from the same area of land while conserving resources, reducing negative environmental impacts and enhancing natural capital and the flow of environmental services.

• Ecological intensification: Increasing food production while reducing the use of external inputs and minimizing negative effects on the environment by capitalising on ecological processes and ecosystem services from plot to landscape scale.

• Agroecological intensification: Improving the performance of agriculture while minimizing environmental impacts and reducing dependency on external inputs through integration of ecological principles into farm and system management.

Dear HLPE Project Team and Steering Committee,

Thank you very much for the opportunity to review and comment on the V0 draft of the report Agroecological approaches and other innovations for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition. I commend you on this first draft and look forward to reading further iterations.

Please see the attached comments for my thoughts on how the draft could be improved.

Warmly,

Dana