Consultation électronique du HLPE sur le projet V0 de Rapport: Approches agroécologiques et d’autres innovations pour une agriculture durable et des systèmes alimentaires qui améliorent la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition
Au cours de sa 44e session plénière (9-13 octobre 2017), le CSA a demandé au HLPE d’élaborer un rapport sur le thème « Approches agro-écologiques et autres innovations
pour une agriculture durable et des systèmes alimentaires qui améliorent la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition », qui sera présenté à la 46e session plénière du CSA en octobre 2019.
Dans le cadre du processus d’élaboration de ses rapports, le HLPE organise une consultation pour solliciter vos contributions, suggestions et commentaires sur la version V0 du rapport (pour plus de détails sur les différentes étapes de ce processus, cf. l’annexe attachée à la version V0 du rapport). Le HLPE utilisera les résultats de cette consultation pour améliorer le rapport qui sera ensuite soumis à une révision par des experts externes avant sa finalisation et son approbation de la version finale par le Comité directeur du HLPE.
Les versions V0 des rapports du HLPE préparées par l’Equipe de Projet sont délibérément présentées à un stade précoce du processus, comme des documents de travail, pour laisser le temps nécessaire à la prise en compte des observations reçues, de façon à ce que celles-ci soient réellement utiles à l’élaboration du rapport. Ce processus de consultation est une partie essentielle du dialogue inclusif et fondé sur les connaissances entre l’équipe du projet HLPE, le Comité directeur, et la communauté du savoir dans son ensemble.
Veuillez noter que les commentaires ne doivent pas être envoyés sous forme de notes au fichier pdf. Les contributeurs sont invités à partager leurs commentaires principaux et structurants dans la boîte de dialogue du site Web et / ou à attacher d’autres éléments / références supplémentaires susceptibles d'aider le HLPE à renforcer et enrichir le rapport.
Les commentaires détaillés, ligne par ligne, sont également les bienvenus, mais uniquement s'ils sont présentés dans un fichier Word ou Excel, avec une référence précise au chapitre, à la section, à la page et / ou au numéro de ligne correspondants de la Version 0.
Merci de votre collaboration.
Pour contribuer à la version V0 du Rapport
Cette version V0 du rapport identifie des domaines de recommandation à un stade très précoce, et le HLPE accueille volontiers toute suggestion ou proposition. En vue de consolider ce rapport, le HLPE souhaiterait recevoir des contributions, suggestions fondées sur des preuves, références et exemples concrets, répondant, en particulier, aux importantes questions suivantes :
- La version V0 propose une analyse large de la contribution des approches agroécologiques et autres approches innovantes pour assurer la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition (SAN). La version V0 est-elle utile pour clarifier les concepts principaux ? Pensez-vous qu’elle traite de façon adéquate l’agroécologie comme l’une des possibles approches innovantes ? La version V0 atteint-elle le bon équilibre entre l’agroécologie et les autres approches innovantes?
- La version V0 identifie-t-elle et documente-t-elle un ensemble adéquat d’approches innovantes ? Pouvez-vous identifier les lacunes importantes dans la présentation de ces approches ainsi que la façon dont elles pourraient être intégrées de façon appropriée dans le rapport ? La version V0 illustre-t-elle correctement les contributions de ces approches à la SAN et au développement durable ? Le HLPE reconnaît que ces approches pourraient être mieux articulées dans la version V0 et que leurs principaux points de convergence ou de divergence pourraient être mieux illustrés. La caractérisation et la comparaison de ces différentes approches pourrait-elle s’appuyer sur les principales dimensions suivantes : ancrage sur les droits de l’homme, taille de la ferme, marchés et systèmes alimentaires locaux ou globaux (chaines de valeur longues ou courtes), intensité du travail ou du capital (incluant la mécanisation), spécialisation ou diversification, dépendance aux intrants externes (chimiques) ou économie circulaire, appropriation et utilisation des connaissances et technologies modernes ou utilisation des connaissances et pratiques locales et traditionnelles ?
- La version V0 souligne 17 principes agro-écologiques clefs et les organise en quatre principes opérationnels généraux et interdépendants pour des systèmes alimentaires plus durables : efficacité d’utilisation des ressources, résilience, équité/responsabilité sociales, empreinte écologique. Certains aspects majeurs de l’agro-écologie sont-ils manquants dans cette liste de 17 principes ? Cette liste pourrait-elle être plus réduite et, dans ce cas, quels principes devraient être fusionnés ou reformulés pour atteindre cet objectif ?
- La version V0 s’organise autour d’un cadre conceptuel qui lie les approches innovantes à leurs résultats en matière de SAN à travers leurs contributions aux quatre principes généraux pour des systèmes alimentaires durables mentionnés plus haut, et donc aux différentes dimensions de la SAN. Au-delà des quatre dimensions reconnues de la SAN (disponibilité, accès, utilisation, stabilité), la version V0 discute également une cinquième dimension : « l’agentivité » (ou la capacité d’agir). Pensez-vous que ce cadre conceptual permette de traiter les principales questions ? Est-il appliqué de façon appropriée et systématique tout au long des différents chapitres pour structurer son argumentation générale et ses principales conclusions ?
- La version V0 offre une opportunité pour identifier des lacunes dans la connaissance, où des preuves supplémentaires sont nécessaires pour évaluer comment l’agro-écologie et d’autres approches innovantes peuvent contribuer au progrès vers des systèmes alimentaires plus durables pour une SAN renforcée. Pensez-vous que les principaux déficits de connaissance sont correctement identifiés, et que leurs causes sous-jacentes sont suffisamment articulées dans le rapport ? La version V0 omet-elle des déficits de connaissance importants ? L’évaluation de l’état de la connaissance proposée dans le rapport est-elle basée sur les preuves scientifiques les plus récentes ou le rapport omet-il des références essentielles ? Comment la version V0 pourrait-elle mieux intégrer et tenir compte des connaissances traditionnelles, locales et empiriques ?
- Le chapitre 2 suggère une typologie des innovations. Pensez-vous que cette typologie est utile pour explorer les innovations nécessaires pour promouvoir la SAN ; pour identifier les principaux déterminants de et obstacles à l’innovation (au chapitre 3) et les conditions permettant d’encourager l’innovation (au chapitre 4) ? Y a-t-il d’importants déterminants, obstacles ou conditions propices insuffisamment traités dans le rapport ?
- Un ensemble de « récits divergents » sont présentés au chapitre 3 pour aider à identifier et examiner les obstacles et contraintes majeures à l’innovation pour la SAN. Cette présentation de « récits divergents » est-elle claire, complète, appropriée et correctement articulée ? Comment la présentation des principales controverses en jeu et des preuves correspondantes pourrait-elle être améliorée ?
- Cette version préliminaire du rapport présente, dans le chapitre 4, un ensemble provisoire de priorités d’action, ainsi que des recommandations pour favoriser la contribution des approches innovantes aux transformations radicales des systèmes alimentaires actuels requises pour renforcer la SAN et la durabilité. Pensez-vous que ces résultats préliminaires constituent une base appropriée pour poursuivre la réflexion, en particulier pour concevoir des politiques de l’innovation ? Pensez-vous que des recommandations ou priorités d’action clefs manquent ou sont mal traités dans le rapport ?
- Tout au long de la version V0, sont indiqués de façon provisoire, parfois avec des espaces réservés, des études de cas spécifiques qui pourraient illustrer le récit principal à l’aide d’expériences et exemples concrets. Les études de cas sélectionnées permettent-elles d’atteindre le bon équilibre en matière de sujets traités et de couverture régionale ? Pouvez-vous suggérer des études de cas complémentaires qui contribueraient à enrichir et consolider le rapport ?
- La version V0 contient-elle des omissions ou lacunes majeures ? Certains sujets sont-ils sous- ou surreprésentés compte tenu de leur importance ? Certains faits ou conclusions sont-ils faux, discutables ou non étayés par des preuves ? Dans ce cas, merci de partager les preuves correspondantes.
Nous remercions par avance tous les contributeurs pour avoir la gentillesse de lire, commenter et contribuer à cette version V0 du rapport.
Nous espérons que cette consultation sera riche et fructueuse.
L’équipe de projet et le comité directeur du HLPE.
Thèmes
- Afficher 103 contributions
Dear HLPE team,
Please find attached comments from CropLife International on the HLPE consultation on the V0 draft of the Agroecology Report.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document and please don't hesitate to contact us should you require any further information.
Kind regards,
Gloria Jaconelli on behalf of CropLife International
Dear all,
The National Council on Food and Nutrition Security (CONSEA) Suggestions to the Report on Agroecological approaches and other innovations for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhace security and nutrition are attached.
Thank you for for the opportunity to review this report
Many thanks for the opportunity to comment on this V0 draft. I have attached my personal comments regarding section 3.2.3 on local knowledge, and have pasted them below as well. I associate myself more generally with the submission "Comment by transdisciplinary team of scientists working in food and agriculture systems." In addition, I note with concern Marcia Ishii-Eiteman's comment among others that the comment process is weakened by the time and language constraints which prevent farmer and other agricultural movements in marginalized spaces of the globe. This unfortunately leads to the reality that, while the process claims to be participatory, it is still centrally administered (where the FAO is considered to be a "movement").
The report rightly includes discussion of “global” and “local” knowledge, also termed “indigenous” and “scientific” knowledge or in Scott’s important book Seeing Like a State, metis (practical knowledge) and techne (technical knowledge), in examining agroecology. Though the report introduces the section with straw-man caricatures of “science” and “tradition,” the authors then usefully supplement Robert Chambers’ classic work on rural development with more critical interdisciplinary work by Agrawal, Vandermeer and Perfecto, in arguing that “the notion that science and scientific knowledge are neutral and uninfluenced by human behaviour is not viable.” If the authors took these ideas as the epistemological bases for the approach to “local/global” knowledge and agroecology, this would create a strong statement on the complex and overlapping relations between “global” and “local” knowledge, the central role of power relations, the necessity of solidarity among people at multiple scales, and especially the need for equitable distribution of wealth and governance institutions accountable to social movements and civil society.
Agrawal (1995) argues that “The confusing rhetoric of indigenous vs. western knowledge, and the reliance on the politically and technically convenient method of ex situ conservation fail to address the underlying asymmetries of power and control that cement in place the oppression of indigenous or other marginalized social groups.” While Vandermeer and Perfecto seem to accept the dualism between “traditional knowledge” which is “profound but local” and “scientific knowledge” which is “general but superficial,” their vision is that these approaches are united by work between these two equally valuable pursuits and populations in order to come somehow to knowledge that is both “deep and general” (Vandermeer and Perfecto 2013, 86).
After the opening, however, the authors reference the latter two works only glancingly, disregarding in particular the power relations through which leaders of globalized corporate agri-business monopolize resources for agricultural production and associated production of “legitimate knowledge” that justify monopolization of authority by national governments whose leaders often are intimately invested (through debt and other instruments) in protecting interests of these multinational corporations. The authors explicitly categorize “local” knowledge as informal (the realm of farmers and activists), and “global” knowledge as formal (the realm of science, the state and the FAO). FAO administrators then implicitly become those responsible for combining “local” sites of “spontaneous” knowledge into planned systems of “organized” knowledge. This removal of contested politics (meaning that the FAO can be designated as a “movement” alongside Via Campesina for example) crystalizes divisions which in reality are often “more about politics than geography” (Forbes 1996, 31; see also Edelman 1996; Fisher 1997) and thus does not address what Chappell considers to be a key problem of food provision and hunger prevention: “Any analysis of hunger that refuses the issue of power is incapable of truly addressing the problem” (Chappell 2018).
Chappell, M. J. (2018) Beginning to End Hunger: Food and the Environment in Belo Horizonte, Brazil, and Beyond. University of California Press.
Edelman, Marc (1996) Reconceptualizing and Reconstituting Peasant Struggles: A New Social Movement in Central America. Radical History Review 65, 26-47.
Fisher, William F (1997) Doing Good? The Politics and Antipolitics of NGO Practices. Annual Review of Anthropology 26, 439-464.
Forbes, Ann Armbrecht (1996): Defining the "Local" in the Arun Controversy. Cultural Survival Quarterly, 20:3, 31-34.
Scott, James C (1998) Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve The Human Condition Have Failed. Yale Agrarian Studies. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Vandermeer, John & Ivette Perfecto (2013): Complex Traditions: IntersectingTheoretical Frameworks in Agroecological Research, Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 37:1,76-89.
Dear HLPE team,
thank you for the opportunity to comment the V0 Draft on the agroecological approaches to FSN for FSN.
Please find attached the comments of Mister Felix zu Löwenstein, organic farmer from Germany.
Please do let us know if you request any more information.
Best wishes
Claude Blaschette
Marienstr. 19-20, 10117 Berlin, Germany
Tel. + 49 30.28482 310
I thank the Committee for opening this draft up for public review. My contribution is independent, but in agreement with several points listed in the key summary points of a review document put forward by a transdisciplinary team of scientists (referred to from here on as “Comments”), submitted late Sunday evening (4 Nov 2018).
I include an attachment of my contribution, for the Committee's consideration.
In particular I address section 3 of the report, considering the dimension of i) scale, ii) knowledge, and iii) how transition relates to the first two points. I deal particularly with agency and how it can be made more central in the report.
My comments relate to several points in the Comments including:
- supporting the notion that policy recommendations should shift to an "enabling environment" concept.
- that knowledge generation deserves a deeper and broader treatment that goes byeond science and industry to the knowledgemaking roles of farmers, pastoralists, fishers, and other producers, as well as the contributions of social movements to the "scaling across" of agroecology knowledge and practice.
They particularly support and provide suggestions to address the following:
- Avoid emphasis on "Innovations" theory, which is grounded in business and manufacturing studies and therefore illfitting for an agroecology report.
- Avoid treating agroecology as an essentialized, singular concept, which sets up for rigid binaries between conventional/industrial and agroecology.
- Instead, emphasize transitions to sustainable food systems, and the process of making those transitions in science, policy, and practice.
---
At the heart of my three points on scale, knowledge, and transition, is agency, which the report has identified as central to the narrative of agroecology’s relation to the world of scientific and technological development. My first general comment is about the absence of socio-political language in the report, which makes it difficult to make the case for agency front and centre of the narrative. The draft’s depoliticisation of the context from which different narratives about agroecology (chapter 3.2) arise, runs the risk of reducing their distinct impulses to a homogeneous set of interchangeable terms, that will consequently inform the report’s actual audience: policy makers and business leaders with no understanding of the historical context of these approaches and terms. Rather than pushing forward a set of agroecological directions with new evaluative potential, the draft will allow status quo business and governance mechanisms to swap out old appearances for a new set of (“unevaluative”; see page 32 of the comments) terminology and appearances.
The better option would be to clearly define the contextual background of the 9 different agroecological narratives the report identifies: the question of “who” and “where”, and bring that more fully into the report. This relates to the point made that “[a]n innovation system cannot be prized apart from what gave birth to it” (Comments, 28). Whopractises and espouses and puts forward each narrative, in which part of the world does it emerge, and which groups respond to these? This first grounding (if possible, in a chart or diagram) will allow the “Barriers and drivers of innovation” (Section 3.1) section to identify more clearly the challenges facing each of these, including policy and technological lock-ins. It also allows (and requires) the question of Scale (Section 3.2.1) to be better interrogated and refined, and sets out potential connections between the different stakeholders (private, public, people etc) that can be taken up in Section 4, making the report a key enabling site/“enabling environment” (Comments) for future connections to address the unevenness of the social landscape that produces each approach. Bringing in this context will also allow the report to more assiduously deal with agroecology as a continuum of levels that speaks to differentially embedded socio-technical practices, and which can be systematically considered without losing the particularity of each transition necessary in each context. This builds on the combined comments from the scientists also articulates in a detailed reply on page 30, to Section 2.2 (on Innovations theory and the use of agroecology as a black or white concept). This is ultimately I believe the report’s ambition and strength also: the ability to set out something that passes for an impartial, holistic overview of agroecology’s potential contribution to business leaders and policymakers today.
In each point I focus my attention around the central concept of agency, in contribution to the report’s goal.
--
(See attachment for more)
I attach a document that sets out Compassion in World Farming's comments on the zero-draft of the report on agroecological approaches
In addition to the comments on the V0 Draft outlined in our previous submission, Pesticide Action Network International would like to draw your attention to the following publication, which we believe provides a useful source of case studies for the report:
Watts, M. & S. Williamson, 2015. Replacing Chemicals with Biology: Phasing Out Highly Hazardous Pesticides with Agroecology. PAN Asia Pacific, Penang, Malaysia. 208 pp.
https://www.panna.org/sites/default/files/Phasing-Out-HHPs-with-Agroeco…
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.”
I note here that members of the PAN International network (which includes over 600 organizations in 90 countries) would appreciate the chance to provide feedback on this report as well, but have not yet been able to do so, due to time and, in some cases, language constraints.
As a global network of civil society organizations representing peasant and family farmers, food system workers, agricultural and health professionals, Indigenous groups and consumer requests, with regional centers in Africa, Asia & the Pacific, Latin America, North America and Europe, we note with disappointment that the draft report was not translated into Spanish or French, or any of the other UN languages. We have requested the HLPE to extend the period for public consultation by at minimum two weeks, until 20 November 2018, to expand the possibility that interested groups may be able to participate.
In the meantime, I provide the following comments on behalf of Pesticide Action Network North America. We would be happy to expand upon the points outlined in the attached document and to provide additional literature references, upon request and time permitting.
Wit kind regards,
Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, PhD, Senior Scientist, Pesticide Action Network North America
Please find attached:
- Our organisational response to HLPE Draft 0. HLPE_Permaculturte_Assoc_response.pdf
- A recent study conducted by Dr Anne-Marie Mayer - "Exploring, documenting and developing sustainable approaches to improving nutrition in the global south. A case study on Permaculture Design Systems (PDS) implemented in Nepal". HPC report AM 011118.docx
If we can be of any further assistance - especially regarding permaculture section and further case studies - please do let us know.
With best wishes,
Andy Goldring
--
Andy Goldring
Chief Executive
Dear CFS/HLPE Secretariat,
Please find below a review of the V0 draft of the report: “Agroecological approaches and other innovations for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and
Nutrition.”
This submission is the result of a collaboration among several academics and researchers who work in agroecology, sustainable agriculture, and food systems policy. We connected with each other after independently reviewing the V0 and realizing that several of our reflections and suggestions were complementary. It thus made sense to collaborate on a single submission, given the complexity and length of the report.
We subsequently circulated the review among a small network of colleagues who made comments and suggestions for improving the review. The names of all contributors are included below.
Our review proceeds as follows. First, we provide a brief summary of our main recommendations (also in the email below). Next, we respond to the FAO 10 Guiding Questions. We then provide feedback on Tables, Figures, and Boxes used in the report. Finally, we offer a section-by-section review with more in-depth commentary on many chapter subsections, including references and suggestions for improvement.
Thank you for your time and consideration. We hope that our comments are constructive and we look forward to remaining in touch as the HLPE process continues.
Kind regards,
Maywa Montenegro, Alastair Iles, Annie Shattuck
Writing on behalf of all undersigned
Authored by:
Alastair Iles, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California at Berkeley, US.
Maywa Montenegro, Ph.D., UC President’s Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Human Ecology, University of California at Davis, US.
Annie Shattuck, Visiting Scholar, Department of Geography, University of Colorado Boulder, US.
Hannah Wittman, Ph.D., Professor of Land and Food Systems and Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, Academic Director, Centre for Sustainable Food Systems, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
JoAnn Jaffe, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Sociology and Social Studies, University of Regina, Regina, Canada
Molly D. Anderson, Ph.D., William R. Kenan, Jr. Professor of Food Studies, Academic Director, Food Studies Program, Middlebury College, US.
M. Jahi Chappell, Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience, Coventry University, Coventry, UK.
Mariaelena Huambachano, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Indigenous Studies and Sustainability, California State University, Northridge, California, US.
Rebecca Tarlau, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Education and Labor Studies, The Pennsylvania State University, US.
Reviewed and Endorsed by:
Raj Patel, Ph.D., Research Professor, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin, US.
Christopher M. Bacon, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Environmental Studies, Department of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Santa Clara University, US.
Joshua Sbicca, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Colorado State University, US.
Garrett Graddy-Lovelace, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, School of International Service, American University, US.
Timothy Bowles, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Agroecology and Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of California Berkeley, US.
Johanna Jacobi, Ph.D., Senior Research Scientist, Centre for Development and Environment, University of Bern, Switzerland.
Liz Carlisle, Ph.D., Lecturer, School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, US.
Noa Lincoln, Ph.D. Assistant Researcher of Indigenous Crops and Cropping Systems, University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, US.
Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Pesticide Action Network North America, US.
Marcia DeLonge, Ph.D., Scientist, Food and Environment Program, Union of Concerned Scientists, US.
Rafter Ferguson, Ph.D., Scientist, Food and Environment Program, Union of Concerned Scientists, US.
Doug Gurian-Sherman, Ph.D., Strategic Expansion and Trainings, LLC, US.
Samir K. Doshi, Ph.D., Senior Technology and Innovation Advisor, World Wildlife Fund, International
Neeraja Havaligi, Ph.D., ED, Greater Portland Sustainability Education Network, Courtesy Faculty at Oregon State University’s Environmental Science Graduate Program, Corvallis, Oregon, US.
David Meek, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, International Studies, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, US.
Summary of Recommendations
- Clarify the understood relationship between Sustainable Food Systems and Food Security, moving away from an "impact model" towards a relational "ecosystem" model.
- Provide much stronger evidence-based assessment of agroecology and other innovations in terms of meeting holistic criteria for Sustainable Food Systems that includes, but is not limited to, Food Security & Nutrition.
- We suggest a holistic framework for SFS that includes FSN within a larger “ecosystem” of metrics would also include ecosystem/ecological health, knowledge and cultural diversity, equity, and rights-based democratic governance. (See Diagram: An ecosystem of Sustainable Food Systems framework).
- Rights is not another innovation. It is important to ground the entire analysis within the rights-based mandates of the CFS. Currently, Right-based innovations are included alongside other production systems, when they do not belong in that analysis. Rights provide a fundamental base that underpin all of SFS and FSN.
- Simplify the thicket of different principles, criteria, and metrics while strengthening the analytical coherence of a smaller few. To characterize agroecology, we suggest eliminating the 16 principles from different sources and instead using the FAO's 10 Elements.
- Improve the analytical development and treatment of scale. While particularly beneficial for smallholders and vulnerable rural populations (including Indigenous peoples, peasants, family farmers, and more) agroecology is not limited to small-sized farms, as the current report suggests.
- Avoid emphasis on "Innovations" theory, which is grounded in business and manufacturing studies and therefore ill-fitting for an agroecology report.
- Avoid treating agroecology as an essentialized, singular concept, which sets up for rigid binaries between conventional/industrial and agroecology.
- Instead, emphasize transitions to sustainable food systems, and the process of making those transitions in science, policy, and practice.
- Avoid abstract enumeration of "drivers and barriers." Focus instead on understanding the drivers and identifying barriers to the development and scaling up and out of agroecology and those innovative approaches that the weight of evidence has indicated are strong contributors to a holistic SFS (which includes FSN).
- Significantly strengthen the recognition and analysis of political economy factors in creating "barriers" to agroecology and other innovations that support and complement agroecology. Several prominent texts and references are provided.
- Reframe and strengthen the "Diverging Narratives" section which is currently disjointed, underdeveloped, and not clearly contributing to the overall objectives of the report. A possible reframing could be: "Given the varied interests in our current food systems, how can we best assess the validity of objections to agroecology and other sustainable innovations?"
- Policy recommendations should shift to an "enabling environment" concept.
- Knowledge generation deserves a deeper and broader treatment. Rather than focus principally on science and industry, the report should explicitly recognize the knowledge-making roles of farmers, pastoralists, fishers, and other producers, as well as the contributions of social movements to the "scaling across" of agroecology knowledge and practice.
- Strengthen overall recognition and analysis of political organizing in transitions to sustainable and food secure food systems. A variety of social movement, civil society, and scientific actors are essential to helping create policies and enabling environments that shift deeper structures (trade regimes, corporate consolidation, agro-industry friendly policy etc.) so that agriculture and food systems can be transformed.
- Page précédente
- …
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- …
- Page suivante
Cette activité est maintenant terminée. Veuillez contacter [email protected] pour toute information complémentaire.