Foro Global sobre Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición (Foro FSN)

Dera All,

Please find my comments attached.

Best reagrds

Lal Manavado

Attached my comments

Best regards

The comment is submitted within my professional capacity but not as a comment of my employer.

The HLPE Project Team and Steering Committee-

Firstly, apologies in advance if some of my comments are addressed in the 118-page document. The following suggestions are offered by someone who has studied and promoted agro-ecology for improved nutrition since the 1970’s .

Overall comment

The technical case is well made for the importance of agroecology in the past, present, and future. However, it is less clear how useful the document is in enhancing food security and nutrition (security?). There are too few examples of genuine and sustained impact from promoting agroecology for improved nutritional outcomes within a field programme/outreach framework. The “what is easy. The “how” is hard.

Recommendations

Suggestion-The report needs to acknowledge that all 9 of these headings are currently being addressed. These are not new issues. Readers would benefit from an analysis of the issues identified, especially from an implementation standpoint as to what works and what doesn’t.

1. INCREASE INVESTMENT IN SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZED AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD ENTERPRISES

“ States, local governments and the private sector should review the current policy and investment climate that in many contexts favours economies of scale associated with larger farm and business sizes to consider the public advantages attainable through maintaining smaller, more labor intensive units that have positive social impacts and fewer negative environmental externalities. Specifically they should:”

Suggestion-Links to addressing nutritional challenges are not clearly stated.

Add (d) Encourage agro- enterprises to invest in profitable products that address specific dietary gaps. i.e. micronutrient dense foods.

2. Chapter 2 presents a typology of innovations.

The authors may want to make sure that this section is not more ideological than actionable and practical. Not clear if this chapter is aimed more at satisfying the "needs" of the funders and partners than those of the small farmers themselves.

Many decades ago a small farmer summed up her family’s farming system… “We grow whatever we can, where ever we can, whenever we can, with what we have.” As a field practitioner, this is the definition of “smart” farming and her statement should be the key message from this report.

2.3.6 Permaculture. Brief description of permaculture: Permaculture can be defined as an alternative agriculture movement based on designing productive systems where structural and functional patterns of nature are the main guiding principles (Baldwin, 2005).

There are tens of millions  of farming households practicing “permaculture” today that would question the term “alternative.” Forest-like polycultures have been a mainstream agricultural system for centuries. Permaculture has been documented since at least 1945( Pelzer), 1954 (Terra.)

2.3.7 Nutrition-sensitive agriculture (NSA)

Suggestions

1.Clear examples are needed for successful links between promoting agro-ecological interventions and nutrition sensitive agriculture. (A key theme of the report).

2. Homestead food production. Many studies show that food grown around a dwelling might have been the first agricultural activity. Often homestead gardens are highly diverse and their structure and function reflect the essential needs of the household.

The report mentions outreach projects that have an explicit focus on “direct transfer agricultural inputs.” In reviewing some of the references, they describe small-scale pilot -type one-off projects funded by external agencies that used a strategy of transferring external agro-inputs to create change. Is there evidence these “successes” had a sustained impact once donor personnel and external inputs were withdrawn? Why is it assumed that external inputs, especially seeds and livestock, are essential?

3. Nutrition sensitive value chains. This section needs to be expanded. Given the importance of market driven supply chains in providing nutritious foods, six sentences is not enough. Examples of how dietary gaps can be a driver for adding value to supply chains need to be included.

3. Existing examples of structural changes by government institutions to mainstream NSA into the existing policy, plans, and programmes should be added.

5. LEVERAGE PUBLIC PROGRAMS TO FOSTER SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS FOR FSN

States and local authorities should:

b) Integrate nutrition sensitive agriculture into sustainable agricultural development policies and programmes, including for example the promotion of home gardens with micronutrient-rich legumes, vegetables and tubers, small livestock such as poultry, or programmes with an explicit focus on nutrition education and gender equity.

Suggestion- Consider adding Example- Rwanda. The ministry of agriculture has just begun implementing its multi- year plan (PSTA 4) that contains specific line items for nutrition sensitive agriculture. The government has also adopted national guidelines for (1) Nutrition sensitive agriculture and (2) Kitchen gardens. Both emphasize starting from existing household agro-ecological practices as the basis for innovations and interventions.

Missing. The role of public private partnerships. The current and future role of the commercial sector is under represented. Through personal experience, national and international commercial interests support sustainable agriculture. The marketplace works. If commercial buyers need products produced “organically” or” sustainably” small growers will respond if profitable.

Missing. Feed the Future Initiative is not included for this report. Why? Since 2010 the US Government has spent 100’s of millions of dollars on research through innovation labs, outreach through SPRING and TOPS and multiple field projects linking agriculture investments to nutritional outcomes. One would assume there are multiple lessons on what works and what doesn’t on promoting sustainable agriculture that would benefit our community of practice. Strongly urge a review be included.

9. ADDRESS SOCIAL INEQUALITIES ESPECIALLY IN RESPECT OF GENDER AND YOUNG PEOPLE, UNDERLINING NUTRITIONAL ASPECTS OF FOOD SYSTEMS

b) “Develop interventions that provide strategies and tools to deliver nutrition sensitive agriculture,including homestead food production systems, aquaculture, dairy, small livestock rearing, crop diversity and value chains for nutritious foods”

Suggestion- Instead of “develop” (which may imply that nothing exists now) use build on or expand on interventions. The following are just a few of the many tools already in use for multiple decades in the outreach community of practice.

The UNICEF Home Gardens Handbook: Promoting Mixed Gardens in the Humid Tropics, UNICEF

Nutrition Improvement Through Mixed Gardening- A Training Manual, USAID/Peace Crops

Low-Cost Farming in the Humid Tropics: An Illustrated Guidebook, Island Press

Dry Season Gardening for Improving Child Nutrition, UNICEF

Gardening for Food in the Semi-Arid Tropics, WHO/UNICEF

Mixed gardens: Gardening on Coral Atoll UNICEF/Fiji

African Gardens and Orchards, Technical Center for Agriculture and Rural Co-operation

Agriculture, Food and Nutrition in the Pacific Islands, University of the South Pacific

Improving Nutrition Through Home Gardening, United Nations FAO

Dear HLPE Project Team and Steering Committee

Congratulations for this important work. To my mind one gap could be the lack of studies of waste management inside and around the agroecological sites, how the wastes are managed, and where are the deposits on the sites and in their sorroundings. Microplastics pollution at the agroecological sites can be present by endoge (waste mismanagement, plastic mulch presence) or exogen reasons (microplastics trasported due to wind into the agroecological sites), therefore its important to be aware of the risk of microplastic pollution in agrocological areas.

Sincerely

Esperanza Huerta Lwanga

Wageningen University/ El Colegio de la Frontera Sur

I attach my comments on the V0 Draft.

Best wishes

Roger

Prof RRB Leakey

Dear HLPE project team,

I would like to comment specifically on pages 74 to 80 of the report concerning the use of GMOs in agro-ecological production methods.

For the moment the section provides a random undigested collection of claims about GMOs referring to a few scattered reports, while failing to critically assess the validity of those claims and - importantly - failing to evaluate the larger impact of GMOs, within the political, economic, social, ecological, technological and institutional context in which they have been introduced and promoted. The problem apart from ideological differences among the experts who co-wrote the text, is that they don't seem to be well informed about agricultural biotechnology. Already the first sentence in this section shows that they have an old definition of GMO that does not include the New Agricultural Biotechnologies. They talk about "selective gene transfer from one organism to another and between species (Bawa and Anilakumar, 2013)". New agro-biotechnologies do not practice gene transfer any more but induce mutations, 'edit genes' etc.. The immediate menace for agro-ecosystems is the new potential of very rapidely gene editing techniques that transform living organisms that are released in the environment.

The litterature quoted in this section seems 'undigested', unquestioned — sentences that follow one-another draw oppostie conclusions etc. Also important studies such as Benbrook 2016 on the explosion of glyphosate use since the introduction of GM glyphosate resistant crops in 1996 are omitted.

More detailed comments:

p. 76 line 37 Outdated definition of GMO— obviously the New Biotechnologies of gene editing do much more than that.

line 39 "Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were discovered in 1946 (Clive, 2011)" this sentence is nonsense as GMO were not discovered at a particular moment in time but engineered over a long period of time

p. 78 line/box 16 "An examination of relevant social and agro-ecological factors improves assessments" My comment: Systemic impacts such as herbicide resistance, pest resistance, explosion of secondary pests, only show in the medium and long term. Longterm trials are needed… The nutritional deficiencies of plants produced in the GM complex (genetic modification plus assorted herbicide use) could be examined immediately in the short term.

line 15 "The net economic gains have been due to improved yield and production gains (72 percent) and cost savings (28 percent) (Brookes and Barfoot, 2017)." My comment: How are these gains calculated? Gain per farmer, per farm, per hectare, per ton of grain produced? Ratio of input / output in 1996 and 2015?

Box 17 "Meta-analysis (of peer-reviewed literature, 1996–2016) suggests yields were increased (5.6–24.5 percent) and GM maize had lower levels of toxins (Pellegrino et al., 2018)." My comment: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/8/e1600850

Recent studies in the US showed that herbicide use increased in GT Maize and soy. BT crops that produce their own pesticide for the time being seem to need less external pesticide applications

p. 79 line 3-6 "In May 2018, the US FDA provided a positive food safety and nutritional evaluation of Golden rice, although they noted that it did not have high levels of Vitamin A. An economic analysis of costs and benefits suggested that the delay in the approval for use of GM Vitamin enriched rice (Golden rice) resulted in ~1.4 million life years lost in India over a decade (Wesseler and Zilberman, 2014)." My comment: this sentence is inconsistent with the preceding one, stating that golden rice does not have significantly increased levels of vitamin A

line 19 "engineered varieties resistant to papaya ring spot virus" My comment: What makes them resistant? the plant produces a pesticide? what is the health impact for humans?

p. 81 line 1 "proponents of GM technology assert [...] it can contribute to the realisation of some agroecological principles provided that the social, economic, safety and health aspects of GM technology are appropriately regulated" My comment: What about ecosystem impacts? GM technology needs to be evaluated and monitored.. for instance the longterm  consequences of the introduction of Roundup Ready technology for the entire ecosystem... as required in the European Directive 2001/18.

Dear Madam, Sir,

Thank you for the possibility to make a comment on the present V0 Draft.

I would suggest to underline the following interrelation: agroforestry supports the mitigation of climate change through the posibility to transform the pruned material into biochar which is mixed with the soil and stored in the soil for several hundred of years:

In a degraded soil are implemented brushes and trees in between or around fields with crops, forage or fruit trees. The leaves do mulch the soil and will decompose to humus. So, the soil begins to restore, getting a diversified and rich life of microorganisms. Fertile soil will develop healthy plants. The accompanying species need to be pruned periodically. The pruning material is transformed to biochar, which is storing CO2 and is activated with input from the own farm (manure, output from dry/compost-toilets) to Terra preta. This increases the soil fertility and soil is changing to a living soil with a huge diversity of organisms and plenty of nutrients for organic food production. In addition, production of agroforestry products with Terra preta is mitigating climate change because biochar is a carbon sink, which reduces the impact of climate change.

Best regards,

--

Noemi Stadler-Kaulich

MOLLESNEJTA

Centro de Agroforestería Andina

Zentrum für Andine Agroforstwirtschaft

Dear Madam/Sir,

Firstly I would like to congratulate you on a very comprehensive and interesting document, and I am sure will strongly take forward understanding and attention for agroecological approaches and other innovations for sustainable agriculture and food systems.

However, having read through the document though it does mention livestock as a food commodity/food-based system, and though pastoralists are mentioned as a stakeholder with other local stakeholders, I do feel that there is a general lack of attention to livestock and to agroecological approaches that have livestock (and particularly extensive livestock systems) at their core. including i) mixed crop-livestock systems, and ii) pastoralism (and rangelands as part of this).

Here you can find two articles that raise the linkages between pastoralism (in particular) and food security and nutrition that you you may find of interest, written by myself and a colleague, as well as other articles by colleagues at ILRI linking livestock production and nutrition.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780081005965215291?via%3Dihub

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780081005965215461

I am happy to give further input if required.

Best wishes,

Fiona

Fiona Flintan | Senior Scientist-Rangelands Governance including coordinator of ILC Rangelands Initiative-Global Component,

International Livestock Research Institute |ilri.org

Please find below some elements - which possibly could be further considered, when crafting a new version of the HLPE report:

On the topic of sustainable pest management, it would be worthwhile to revert to the May 2018 ‘Beijing Declaration for Biological Control’ (IOBC and China Academy of Agricultural Sciences) – which favors biological control as a central pillar in global crop protection & the first line of defense against crop antagonists (in addition to sanitation, and cultural/physical measures) and specifically refers to synthetic pesticides as the ‘measure of last resort’. Through this approach, there is no room for prophylactic insecticide applications, calendar-based sprays, or any other irrational forms of synthetic pesticide use. The same rationale could be clearly and explicitly incorporated in the HPLE report.

In Griggs et al., 2013, there’s a plea for the establishment of ‘national monitoring, reporting and verification systems’ and for ‘securing open access to information and decision-making processes at all levels’. Given recent reports by Wyckhuys et al. (2018) of substantial global disparities in the online public visibility/awareness of biological control organisms, what a) mechanisms could be deployed to ensure that residents of all countries have equal access to ecologically-based approaches and technologies, and b) what verification systems could be put in place to track their public visibility globally (Griggs et al. 2013. Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 495, 305-307; Wyckhuys et al. 2018. Global disparity in public awareness of the biological control potential of invertebrates. PeerJ Preprints 6:e27238v1).

I feel encouraged by the report’s emphasis on farm profitability, farmer income, quality of harvested produce (incl. food safety parameters) and ecosystem health as metrics to gauge the sustainability of entire farming systems. A recent paper by LaCanne & Lundgren (2018) revealed how farm profitability was not necessarily related to crop yield but instead to overall health and fertility of the soil (LaCanne, C.E. and Lundgren, J.G., 2018. Regenerative agriculture: merging farming and natural resource conservation profitably. PeerJ, 6, p.e4428.)

In the early 1980s, ‘farming systems research’ (FSR) & a close 3-way engagement between anthropology, sociology and systems-level agronomy were advocated as suitable ways to promote sustainable agriculture. In DeWalt (1985), the closing paragraph reads “If FSR passes into the graveyard into which old buzz words and phrases go, with it will go the hopes of anthropologists and sociologists who wish to contribute to the betterment of the lives of the many small farmers that we have come to know”. Since 1985, FSR indeed has died a silent death – and the HLPE report might want to examine ways to reinvigorate it. (DeWalt, B.R., 1985. Anthropology, sociology, and farming systems research. Human Organization, 44(2), pp.106-114).

Along the same lines, a holistic analysis of farming systems is key - and interdisciplinary science should be greatly encouraged. What measures/incentives can be considered to promote cross-disciplinary interactions, and to e.g., have soil scientists engage with climatologists or entomologists? As it is often challenging to get interdisciplinary research published (or even funded), other means of leverage should be examined.  

Many of the agro-ecological tools/technologies that are enumerated in the HLPE report are (highly) knowledge-intensive & their successful on-farm implementation directly hinges upon the extent to which individual growers understand/appreciate them. A critical assessment is required of the extent to which farmers are effectively prepared to implement these technologies, or whether they lack a sound understanding of key ecological concepts and principles. Recent work -e.g., on insect biological control- reveals how farmers across the globe have a highly deficient knowledge of beneficial (pest-controlling) insects, and ways to effectively conserve or augment their on-farm populations. Similar patterns have been reported for farmers’ appreciation of soil health, nutrient cycling, etc. What can be done to fill those knowledge gaps, and remediate this key barrier to agro-ecological technology diffusion?