Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposed draft scope. Our comments are below and in the attached document as well.
The United States is encouraged by the elements of this draft scope that take a nuanced view of holistic approaches that can integrate new science and traditional systems. However, we believe this draft does not incorporate many of the elements that were agreed to by consensus after the MYPoW OEWG refined this theme in consultation with capitals over the course of the biennium. This time-intensive process allowed for the finalization of a 2018-19 MYPoW that all Members could support and the eventual endorsement by CFS 44 Plenary. As our delegations and others noted several times during the MYPoW OEWG process, consensus on this theme was contingent upon a balanced and unbiased presentation of all approaches and which would include full consideration of the trade-offs to be made by stakeholders. Disregarding these elements would call into question the transparency of the HLPE report scope development process and overall Member support for this particular theme after much work was done to achieve consensus. We are also extremely concerned about the late addition of other elements such as the proposed trade and intellectual property related language in this draft that were not properly vetted or approved for this report.
Need for Unbiased/Balanced Presentation
Given the independent and analytical nature of HLPE reports, focusing on the advancement of agroecological principles should not come at the expense of other approaches to producing food safely, sustainably, and efficiently, including innovations which can be appropriately managed under risk-based regulatory systems. Unfortunately, this draft scope seems to distinguish between agroecological approaches and other innovations (implying that limitations and potential risks only apply to other innovations before any analysis is conducted). The terminology approved for the HLPE report and reflected in this draft is “agroecology and other innovations…” We strongly urge this formulation to be used consistently throughout the report for balance.
It is important that this report offer a balanced assessment that does not pre-judge the contributions and limitations of various approaches or frame them in opposition to one another. Agroecological approaches and other innovations can be complementary, and the report should be focused on best practices for improving food security and nutrition, not pitting approaches against one another. Breaking down the silos between different approaches has potential to maximize net benefits. As such, the United States suggests adding the following to the research questions for this report to address: How can diverse innovative technologies, practices, and approaches be combined to leverage the strengths of each while reducing the risks? Regarding the first proposed research question’s mention of “improving economic welfare”, the authors should acknowledge that sustainable farm systems must be economically sustainable, meaning that farm households do not live in persistent poverty.
Trade and Intellectual Property
We find the question about trade and intellectual property rights troublesome because it seems to imply that trade and intellectual property rights are impediments to the development of new approaches. It also seems out of place in the context of an examination of the field of agroecology (the science). If these topics are retained (which we strongly discourage), the question will have to be reframed. Given the emphasis on agroecology as “holistic” and a “social movement,” it is important that the scope acknowledge that this approach needs to consider international obligations:
o How could new approaches work within existing regulations and standards, processes, and government mechanisms to improve food security and nutrition?
o How can these practices and technologies be developed in a way that is in line with international obligations and commitments?
Definitional Challenges
This draft scope describes the relationships between multiple broad and inconsistently-defined concepts, including agroecology, innovation, and nutrition, which presents a strong set of challenges for the evidence-focused analysis the HLPE plans to conduct. These challenges will have to be addressed.
Nutrition:
· Which specific aspects of nutrition do the approaches to be discussed in this report affect and how?
Agroecology:
· How will the authors distinguish between the multiple conceptions of agroecology (the field of study, a set of practices, and the social movements) to avoid interpretations of the report that conflate the three?
· How will the report frame agroecology as a social movement given the multiple interpretations of the social movement of agroecology, ranging from the need to employ community based participatory research, to advocating for equitable access to land, technology, and inputs for smallholder farmers?
· Per the following paragraph, “Agroecology… will be studied in this report, as an example of an innovative approach aimed at holistically combining science and traditional knowledge systems, technologies and ecological processes, and involving all the relevant stakeholders in inclusive, participative and innovative governance mechanisms.” We cannot accurately claim that every agroecological system succeeds in all these dimensions, and it will be important to clarify when this is and is not the case in the report without using it as a base assumption.
· Some interpretations of agroecology espouse certain practices/concepts and reject others, for example monoculture. Will the report address how integrating some agroecological practices into a modern agricultural system might improve the performance of monoculture along the environmental dimension, or only consider agroecology as a comprehensive set of practices? It may be worthwhile for the report to consider the synergies of various approaches or practices rather than considering them as distinct tools.
“Bottom-up and people-centered approaches”:
· We would also like to see a definition of “bottom-up and people-centered approaches”, considering this phrase will drive how the research is conducted in this report. These are terms we have seen in the context of health systems and humanitarian action but the meaning in the context of agroecology and innovations for FSN needs to be clarified. Recognizing the importance of participatory and community-driven innovation, the report should also highlight the role for external innovation.
Examination of Trade-Offs
The first question that the report proposes to address lists a number of goals that might be addressed by a particular set of approaches/practices/technologies. However, it might also explicitly consider the tradeoffs between these goals, since an individual set of practices is not always able to address all dimensions mentioned. A good example of this is Payments for Ecosystem Services, which was widely touted as a path to both poverty alleviation and forest/ecosystem preservation. Economists have broadly considered (in the technical and academic literature) how these two goals may not, in fact, be complementary in the case of Payments for Ecosystem Services – and this report should also consider the tradeoffs implicit in the approaches, practices, and technologies that are examined in the report.
Another example of a potential tradeoff is the fact that agroecological production systems are typically labor intensive, which may make them inherently more difficult to scale relative to other types of production systems, or more vulnerable to labor shortages. They may also make it difficult for smaller producers to diversify into on and off-farm enterprises, which can reduce risk and increase household income and well-being. These types of potential tradeoffs should be explicitly considered in the report.
Caitlin Blair