全球粮食安全与营养论坛 (FSN论坛)

The draft scope is very good. All four questions are solidly arranged, as well. So, I just hope to contribute with some reflection questions:

a) It is essential to strengthen the regulation of agrochemicals and transgenic seeds. It is part of a technological package that concentrates power in the hands of agribusiness corporations. For this, we must articulate globally, but from local actions. In Brazil, for example, we consume 500 million kilograms of glyphosate in 2015. And the legislation tends to become more lenient, despite the high impacts on health and the environment. We must ensure that pesticides that have proven impacts on health and the environment, such as glyphosate are prohibited, at least for a certain period for revaluations, what has not happen in Brazil. The construction of the agroecology should take into account the clash with respect to transgenic seeds and pesticides. (attached text/in Spanish/Not published yet).

b) The water must also be considered the center of the discussion around the agroecology. I understand that it is included in the food processes, but I believe that calling specific attention is important. In 2018 in Brazil will happen to the World Water Forum. This is an important space for such a debate. People only are worried about water in dried periods.

c) Which criteria, indicators, statistics and metrics are needed? It is very important to understand Agroecology on a Dialectics perspective. The idea of Agroecology Transition Systems is essential to think the FSN. “Agroecology Transition is the infinity”, “Agroecology Transition is a constant movement”. In that sense, we cannot think agroecology from criteria that close the discussion. We must construct a Continuous and Progressive Validation Process (CPVP), with different scales (agro ecosystem, territory, etc.) that can guide the change, but not impose a closed package.

d) Punctually, I also suggest the use of the concept of Social Metabolism as an instrument to think agroecology and FSN. Who has been studying this concept deeply is the research group of Manuel Gonzalez Molina at Pablo de Olavide University, in Sevilla, Spain. 

Please find my comments in teh attached word document

Addendum to my comments on the Draft Scope of Agro-Ecology etc.

Other things being equal, one needs to be clearly understood if one wants satisfactory results from the methods one has proposed to achieve a definite result. Our objective here is to come as near as possible to achieving sustainable adequate nutrition and food security globally. This goal is our yardstick in ascertaining the suitability of the methods (including agro-ecology) we intend/recommend the others to use in real life in the fields, on the sea or on grazing grounds.

According to the available data, 70% of food produced in the world comes from the people who work small holdings. How many of those people would be able to understand our comments (including mine)? At the same time, some suggest that selection and recommendation of methods should be based on their input (bottom-up approach) in order to make the forthcoming document holistic. Is this really tenable?

With the greatest respect for the food cultures of the world, let me underline their applicability is strictly local, insofar as they were developed to suit local climatic, geographic and soil conditions when food trade had not turned itself into a legitimate method of enrichment for a host of intermediaries yielding food producer and the end-user with less real value in the respective exchanges in which they engage.

Even in the least economically developed country today, neither the food producer nor the end-user can escape the grip of commerce which seems to tighten around them as it develops. Even a very well-informed citizen of an affluent country finds it hard to identify various ramifications of trade that is progressively making inroads into every aspect of his life, not the least into how he meets his six fundamental needs, viz., nutrition, health, education, security, procreation and the set of non-material needs.

Under these circumstances, while praising the environmentally sound local methods of food production, it would be unsuitable to recommend them for localities of different food culture. Furthermore, such a praiseworthy method should not be recommended for use in another comparable locality unless the food cultures are identical in both places, and most important, the trade element had been made fair and equitable to food producers and end-users of both. This is at the core of a holistic approach. How many field workers may be justifiably expected to have such an overview?

The reality is that the world’s people are organized into nation states whether they like it or not (even today, there are a few nomadic groups who cross national frontiers in parts of Central Asia, Eastern Turkey, etc., as they have done for generations). For better or for worse, they have become dependent for somethings on their national governments. Even when they are not supported in any noticeable way by a government, they are subject to direct or indirect adverse effects on some aspect of their food production and its disposal. For instance, national policy may determine one food item to be exported for cash leading to malnutrition as it has actually happened when pea nuts were turned into a ‘cash crop’.

So, I think even with the best will to be open minded, the empirical evidence is just too strong to support the view that bottom-up approach leads to holistic solutions. Had the space at my disposal been greater, it would not have been difficult to furnish epistemological proofs to support that bottom-up approach has been the ‘darling’ of every reductive method since our search for easier ways to do things began. Please consider the yield per dollar criterion still in use when evaluating methods used in agriculture as noted in my previous comments.

To illustrate my point, consider now the case of a sensible small holder who uses the traditional methods of agriculture. His point of departure would be to obtain the best possible yield from crops he intends to plant there. To achieve this aim, he would carefully examine his piece of land and mark out the areas according to what crop is best suited for each. Even in a small farm, there may be some areas more moist than the others. A sensible farmer might select some leaf vegetable suited for moist areas for planting there, while reserving the drier plots for something that would thrive there. This is plain common sense and cannot be recommended highly enough even according to scientific principles. But please note the point of departure in reference to which those planting decisions were made. And this is exactly an example of top-down approach in use, admittedly on a humble scale. This is exemplified by the sequential top-down approach mentioned in my previous comment.

Hence, the methods we need to choose and recommend for field use must be suitable qua tools, but will be of little use even if put into their optimal use unless their use and output cannot be fitted into a fair and equitable food and agriculture policy at two higher levels, viz., global and regional in the senses as described in my previous comment. There are two important reasons for this.

First, those who can be fully self-sufficient in food are extremely rare. Vast majority of the people depend on food purchases to varying degrees. One way open to them is to sell their surplus in order to purchase the food items they cannot produce themselves.

More importantly, even in the least developed country, satisfaction of our other fundamental needs requires some expenditure of money (clothing and housing to secure us against the inclemencies of the weather). Here, those who engage in agricultural pursuits have to earn a decent income to be able to achieve those goals. Whatever means they use to earn an income and procuring what is needed to meet those needs, is governed by the actions and regulations of their national and regional governments. Obviously nobody can engage in food production unless one is healthy enough, have sufficient know-how and material resources needed, is secure enough, etc.

Thus, we need not only good methods of food production, but also an inclusively enabling environment if they are to come to fruition. This is the true holistic perspective, and it requires a rhetoric and jargon free open exchange among the authorities, farmers, fishermen, etc. Its ground rules are that our actions are benign to the environment and food producer and the end-user should have a fair an equitable deal lest we devote time, energy and resources gaining an immense reductive knowledge about each tree, shrub and bush while overlooking the forest that is perishing in places by hunger and getting bloated in others.

Best wishes!

Lal Manavado.

General Comment:

PAN Germany welcomes the initiative to support agroecological approaches with the goal of enhancing food security and nutrition. Agroecology has the potential of improving cultivation systems. It is a powerful approach to reduce various negative impacts of prevalent agricultural (but also forestry and horticultural) systems: Agroecology helps to reduce pesticide dependency and farmers’ dependency on international corporations. It is a highly recommended way to reduce the negative impact of pesticide use on human and environmental health by enabling the phase-out of highly hazardous pesticides. Modern and innovative agroecological approaches which integrate hundreds of years of farmers’ experiences with state-of-the-art science are proving to be sustainable, economically advantageous and good for food security. Supporting agroecology-based cultivation systems is key to fight environmental degradation and to secure future generation’s living.

When setting up the project team it is important to make sure that the members of the team are independent from big agribusinesses and other Conflicts of interest. Also, it is important that experts with scientific background as well as “field background” (farmers) are represented. Regarding the principles and procedures of the project team it is of great importance to secure responsible interaction, a high level of transparency and the possibility for the public to follow up the process.

Proposed changes by PAN Germany on the draft Scope by HLPE Steering Committee

[see attachment,Ed.]

I would like to say my compliments to the team that drew up the draft Scope for having included the legal question within the relevant aspects of the research. I believe it is important to establish a strong legal basis that guarantees rights for small producers to exercise agroecology. The policies and practices of good governance have to be guided on exigible rights. These rights must be biding not only for the States, but also for private actors. We cannot deny that the creation of a larger space for agroecology will be a process of 'struggle' for rights. The agroecology has to be an real alternative to agrobusiness. It will be necessary to improve traditional knowledge and develop new techniques. But these new techniques can definitely not separate the small producers from their means of susbsistence and production. A research to foster agroecology has to include an important legal question: the struggle for 'global social rights'. There is a need to discuss propper legal instruments specially to realize the right to adequate food, which is provided for in the art. 11 of the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.  

Buena noche respetados Doctores, les envío dos contribuciones personales en el archivo adjunto para : 

HLPE report on Agroecological approaches and other innovations for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition.

Agradezco la oportunidad brindada, 

Atentamente,

Diana Patricia Guzmán Álvarez

El campesinado, en el contexto de cambio climático actual, donde agroecosistemas que antes tenían regímenes pluviométricos casi perfectos, con estaciones de lluvias bien marcadas y pequeñas épocas de sequías que eran predecibles; se han convertido hoy en espacios productivos con retos climáticos difíciles de superar para mantener una producción estable de alimentos sanos y una programación escalonada de siembra y cosecha de rubros diversos, tanto animales como vegetales. En este sentido, los y las campesinas ; se están preparando reflexivamente para hacer innovaciones cada día en sus chacras, daschas, milpas y conucos; en buena medida recuperando técnicas , tácticas y estrategias ancestrales, que aún cuando fueron exitosas , que no han agotado su posibilidad de producir alimentos sanos de manera sustentable, fueron borradas del referente histórico cultural de los pueblos en lucha, por un esquema mundial de producción hegemónico transnacional colonialista de alimentos mercantilizados y en buena parte contaminados con amplísima huella ecológica y cargados de explotación y desplazamiento de comunidades locales.

LA AGROECOLOGÍA COMO NUEVA CIENCIA NO POSITIVISTA, HA VENIDO REALIZANDO LA TAREA DE SISTEMATIZAR, RESCATAR Y REVALORIZAR EL CONOCIMIENTO CAMPESINO, INDÍGENA Y AFRODESCENDIENTE, DONDE ESTÁN  PARTE DE LAS CLAVES PARA LA CONSTRUCCIÓN DE UN SISTEMA ALIMENTARIO MUNDIAL SOLIDARIO Y SOBERANO EN FAVOR DE LOS PUEBLOS.

I believe that one of the technologies that is very important for ecological animal husbandry, and as a consequence for SAN, is homeopathy.

The main reason: It can treat and prevent diseases efficiently with very small amounts of raw material, so it is not harmful to the environment.

Here in Brazil we have very good results. One example, presented, in the beginning of this month (November 2017), to the Conference on 'Livestock in Sustainable Agriculture' of IFOAM – Animal Husbandry Alliance is the of a ten years evaluation in two milk herds, one of cattle and another of buffaloes. This work has been conducted on an Experimental Station. However, all of them have been tested, at the same time, in private farms, in several Brazilian states, with the same good results.

As homeopathy has been given very low attention, research works in this area should be encouraged.

I welcome the decision of the CFS to commission a report on: "Agroecological approaches and other innovations for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition".

Considering the urgency to address the lack of sustainability of the currently dominant high input agriculture, this report is very timely.

However, it would be futile to limit the report to a comparison between "Agroecological approaches" and "other innovations". Indeed, agroecology is more that an innovation, but rather a comprehensive paradigm that combines a broad range of innovations with a deep understanding of nature and incorporates traditional/farmers knowledge.

Therefore, I recommend that the term "and other innovations" not be considered as an alternative to agroecology, but be envisaged for their potential to contribute to sustainable agriculture and food security and nutrition within the agroecological paradigm.

Agroecology and food security

The issues of sustainable development are in the center of global trends and issues for consideration by the world, regions, countries, and individual farmers and food producers. It is obvious that sustainable agriculture based on an integrated approach to environmental, economic, and social issues reflected in sustainable development goals (SDGs)[1]. SDGs identify workable options to eradicate poverty, hunger, malnutrition, and improve environmental performance. It means further development based on agroecological innovative approach. From that point of view agroecology it is a complex of innovative scientifically grounded methods and technologies used in the cultivation of crops and various types of livestock, which provides for the development of productive forces and compliance with environmental safety, as well as the mandatory reduction of anthropogenic pressures on air and water basins, agricultural, forest and other lands, quality and quantity of food.

That’s why agriculture and food security are in close connection with ecological issues which follow mankind since the second half of last century and even more actively in the current millennium. It is time to think about agroecology for food security rather than just agriculture and food production. There are a number of reasons to do so.

The first thing is the negative anthropogenic impact on one of the most important components of the natural environment, the basis of agricultural production, - the soil. Degradation of soil fertility is one of the most important problems associated with previous methods of land use. In general, this problem exists for the whole world and most clearly observed in the post-Soviet countries. Although the use of no-till or minimum till saving technologies are on the way in many countries, the problem is further exacerbated by the limited land areas and the need to increase food production due to the growing demand and increasing population of the world.

Along with the issues of the development of "accurate" agriculture, the issues of the development of "organic" agriculture, based on increasing the efficiency of agricultural production through agrarian landscaping of lands, the use of scientifically grounded crop rotation, the reduction of the amount of agrochemicals introduced in favor of organic fertilizer application, as well as the use of production of highly productive varieties.

The second is the role of agroecology in reducing the negative impact of agricultural activities on water bodies and atmospheric air. Wastes and wastewater from livestock farms and poultry farms, unsystematic use and abuse of pesticides, waste from the processing industry, weakening of production and technological discipline, difficulties in implementing environmental monitoring at agricultural sites - these all lead to the fact that the state of all components of the environment in rural areas remains alarming. A number of regions have signs and zones of emergency ecological situation or ecological disaster.

The development of livestock breeding on an industrial basis, the creation of a strong fodder base, the expansion of pasture pastures, the large concentration of livestock in a limited area, the change in traditional forms of its content necessitate the use of a large amount of water from rivers, lakes and other water bodies, which has a significant impact on the state reservoirs and the environment as a whole.

The intensive and multifaceted impact of agriculture on the environment is explained not only by the growing consumption of natural resources necessary for the continuous growth of agricultural production, but also by the formation of significant waste and sewage from livestock farms, complexes, poultry farms and other agricultural facilities.

The third is related to the increase in water consumption for livestock raising, discharges of manure-containing sewage into water, as a result of which they become polluted and lose their useful properties. Even dumping small doses of untreated manure-containing sewage from livestock farms and complexes causes massive fish freezes and causes significant economic damage. Again, in most of post- Soviet countries at present, the majority of treatment facilities (78.5%)[2] do not meet regulatory requirements. Ineffective operation of treatment facilities is due to outdated technologies for wastewater treatment and equipment deterioration. In the zone of livestock complexes and poultry farms, air is polluted with microorganisms, dust, ammonia and other animal products, often with an unpleasant odor (over 45 different substances). These smells can spread at a considerable distance (up to 10 km).

The fourth is that addition environmental and climate change issues raise concerns on quantity, quality and safety

of agricultural products. It is related with protein content, loose of nutritious elements in soil and its

contamination by mycotoxins. With regard to mycotoxin contamination it is even worse since, as it outlines by the

Codex Alimentarius, majority of related issues the control measures are not fully effective. In addition the

countries’ regulations on mycotoxins are far of rationality since used just tolerant level thresholds which are risky.

Some countries try to set up the thresholds based on it is based an Acceptable daily intake (ADI) or Tolerable daily

Intake (TDI). At the same time the survey conducted by BIOMIN 2014-2017 demonstrates increasing threats,

which are in many cases related with weather conditions, hazards, and climate changes observed

in the forms of frequent droughts, floods, irregular rains, extreme wet, cold, and humidity.

However, in terms of providing food of the right quality which is nutritious and free from environmental contaminants, the task ahead is challenging, particularly in highly populated parts of the world. Among food contaminants, mycotoxins will have greater consequences in terms of both human and animal health as well as economics. Mycotoxins - poisonous chemical compounds produced by fungi, found in food and animal feedstuffs (grains and seeds). They are very sensitive to climate and environmental conditions due to ecological imbalance, systematic violation of biosphere, climate change (irregular rains, floods, droughts or unusual cold weather).  Mycotoxins are substances produced by moulds that contaminate various agricultural commodities either before harvest or under post-harvest conditions. In addition to the various moulds occurring in crops which are improperly stored, certain plant diseases are responsible for the production of mycotoxins. Different weather conditions, such as unseasonable rains at the time of flowering or cyclones and droughts during harvest and post-harvest stages; mould growth; and mycotoxin contamination can also pose serious problems.

Mycotoxin contamination results in serious socio-economic implications in particular on health. The consumption

of mycotoxin-contaminated commodities is related to several acute and chronic diseases in humans as well as in

animals. While the exact cause and effect relationship has been established for only a few of the diseases,

speculation about the role of mycotoxins in the etiology of various illnesses has been based on circumstantial

evidence in other cases. Increase of mycotoxin contamination levels observed for corn, finished feed and

soy. Costs of protein and mycotoxin contamination in agricultural products, for example cereals, results in socio

economic and environmental consequences. Mycotoxin contamination leads to different losses and costs this

might be grouped as socio –economic and environmental costs.[3]

These above mentioned problems can be effectively solved also through increasing the science intensity of the industry, through technology and, of course, through effective law enforcement practice in the framework of implementing key legislative acts in the field of environmental protection, food safety and food security. Thus, the role of agricultural innovations is in the first place to address the above problems.