Forum global sur la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition (Forum FSN)

Ce membre a contribué à/au:

    • Thank you for the opportunity to review this report. Below are comments on Chapters 1 and 2.

      Chapter 1.

      The broader flow of the chapter is quite good, and the framing around movement, science, and practice is excellent.

      Small points:

      Page 18, line 41; it is questionable that the whole food system is increasingly becoming the “ultimate focus for agroecology.” It might be helpful to specify in which contexts, or for whom this is the case.

      Page 19: Figure 2; the agroecology as a social movement section should include territorial development, and depeasantization/repeasantization; the agroecology as a set of practices section (and or the as science section) should include feedback loops.

      Broader omissions:

      1.1.2 Agroecology as a set of practices (page 20); one larger omission from this section (although it is slightly mentioned on lines 37-8), is that agroecology has been the dominant mode of production in many indigenous and other traditional cultures historically. This section could use greater acknowledgement and attention to traditional knowledge systems, and how these serve as the basis for agroecological practices throughout the world. It should be mentioned that much of the historical discovery of agroecological practices, particular starting in the 1970s was a process of re-valuing traditional approaches to agriculture, and peasant knowledge systems. Altieri’s early work would be one starting point, i.e. Altieri, M. and K. Anderson (1986). "An ecological basis for the development of alternative agricultural systems for small farmers in the Third World." American Journal of Alternative Agriculture1: 30-38. Chambers is frequently also considered a touchstone in this regard:

      Chambers, R. and B. P. Ghildyal (1985). "Agricultural research for resource-poor farmers: The farmer-first-and-last model." Agricultural Administration20(1): 1-30Section 2.3.1 Rights-based approaches. Lines 15-19 (approximately). The introduction to the Food Sovereignty section at present is very good, and does a fine job articulating the concept. However, the chronology should be updated to include Edelman’s intervention concerning earlier articulation of the food sovereignty concept in Mexico, and elsewhere in Central America, during the 1980’s. The inclusion of these historical points could be a sentence or two, or a footnote. It should be underscored that this revision does not discredit the dominant narrative, which is presented in the document.

      A major gap in the present document is a contextual discussion of the linkages between agroecology and health. There have been emerging discussions in various academic disciplines surrounding sustainable agriculture and health. Given the reports focus on food security and nutrition, it is essential to have a section in Chapter 1 that explores the relationships between agroecology and health--construed broadly to include infectious and chronic disease as well as mental health.