Глобальный форум по продовольственной безопасности и питанию (Форум FSN)

¿Hasta qué punto pueden la agroecología y otros enfoques, prácticas y tecnologías innovadoras mejorar la eficiencia de los recursos, minimizar la huella ecológica, fortalecer la resiliencia, asegurar la equidad y responsabilidad social, y crear empleo decente -especialmente para los jóvenes- en la agricultura y los sistemas alimentarios?

Basada en un  conjunto de conocimientos y técnicas locales que se desarrollan a partir de los agricultores y sus procesos de experimentación, la  agroecología  propicia la capacidad de las comunidades locales que tienen amplia experiencia, evaluando su capacidad de innovación para ampliar sus aptitudes a través de la investigación empleando herramientas del extensionismo  horizontal.

Las bases del enfoque  tecnológico están sustentadas en la  diversidad, la sinergia, el reciclaje y la integración, así como en aquellos procesos sociales basados en la participación de la comunidad,

En cuanto al mejoramiento de los recursos se considera priorizar las necesidades alimenticias enfatizando en potenciar la producción alimentaria  de autosuficiencia en las comunidades así como también  llegar a abastecer los mercados locales para evitar el malgasto de tiempo y energía así como el alto riesgo que implica el traslado de los productos a lugares alejados.

Para lograr el objetivo de crear empleo decente especialmente para los jóvenes  que son los que más migran hacia las ciudades para ser explotados en empleos de mano de obra no calificada o son captados por  la delincuencia; se debe educar tecnológicamente, induciendo hacia el beneficio integral que significa la producción agropecuaria con el valor añadido que se le pueda dar al producto en el mismo ámbito ya que actualmente son los acopiadores quienes obtienen el mayor beneficio por hacer llegar los productos a los mercados.

La participación activa de la comunidad y el empoderamiento mediante la educación y capacitación integral  inclusiva que  cierre el circuito de la producción y la cadena de comercialización son indispensables para que se reviertan las condiciones actuales de pobreza extrema, malnutrición y analfabetismo  y que se corte la cadena heredada desde épocas coloniales para lograr que las nuevas generaciones tengan una calidad de vida adecuada que propicie el equilibrio con la naturaleza  que solamente los pueblos nativos han mantenido perdurable desde tiempos ancestrales.

En tiempos en los que alimentos principales como: la soja, el trigo, café, cacao y azúcar son comercializados en bolsa de valores junto al oro, plata, gas y otros, sujetos a especulación propias del mercantilismo y por otro lado el cambio del uso de tierras agrícolas por el urbanismo y la infraestructura hotelera,  son una  amenaza permanente para que se logre la SAN en sus cuatro dimensiones. La agricultura agroecológica es esencial para los sistemas de producción resilientes frente al cambio climático cuyos efectos negativos sobre la vida son cada vez mayores poniendo en riesgo la agricultura en general.

Es indispensable unificar criterios técnicos de Agenda Agroecológica con los procedimientos administrativos, enmarcados en las normas vigentes, así como facilitar propuestas viables y sostenibles en el tiempo con los sistemas de producción agroecológica de alcanzar en las políticas públicas en 6 puntos: tierra, semillas, agua, tecnologías limpias, créditos y mercados con comercio justo.

Valorar los saberes heredados y que han demostrado eficacia para contrarrestar a los fenómenos naturales, permitiendo el uso de las tierras y suelos adecuadamente, es una tarea que se debe retomar paralelamente a la implementación de nuevas tecnologías. Así lo demuestran los andenes, camellones, producción de abonos,  sistemas de riego y drenaje, entre otros, que han perdurado con los siglos pese a los factores climatológicos adversos.

AUTOR:

Mg. Lily Dora Núñez de la Torre Caller

Lima – Perú

Bibliografía

https://www.servindi.org/actualidad-noticias/18/07/2016/foro-nacional-de-agroecologia-presente-y-futuro-del-agro-peruano

Conventional agriculture with its scope of producing food as commodities earnig profits has led to an economic and environmental crisis and increased food insecurity. It is unacceptable that there is still a prevalence of 10.6% and 815 million manourished people in the world (FAOSTAT, 2016), even with all the proposed goals and efforts made by FAO conferences over the last years. This proves the inefficiency of this system. Agroecology has proven, through many examples and researches, to able to sustain food production allied to rural development and natural resources improvement. In Nov 21th 2017, the MST camp "José Luxemberger" in Guaraqueçaba, Paraná, Brazil, that works in a agroecological system received the "Juliana Santilli" Award in recognition of its efforts in reconciling food production with the the recovery of the Atlantic forest (https://jornalggn.com.br/blog/antonio-ateu/agroecologia-mst-recupera-mat...).

As I understand agroecology as a urgent way of guaranteeing food security in its four dimensions, I hope I can contribute to this consultation.

In regard to the questions, my only suggestion is to be more clear and explicite when it  says " ... and other innovatives approaches, pratices  and technologies", considering that it  leaves the idea too open for many different interpretations and uses.

The four framing questions for this study are comprehensive and well-articulated. To cultivate an action orientation for the report recommendations, it may be useful to more explicitly explore policy and finance pathways for capitalizing on the FSN potential of agroecological approaches (e.g. developing, adapting, and facilitating access to agroecological technologies and practices).

With regard to 'bottom up' approaches, a review of existing examples and evidence for their effectiveness in increasing FSN would be helpful. For example, can 'bottom up' approaches be more effective in resolving tradeoffs (e.g. efficiency vs equity)?

Attention to cost-effective strategies (e.g. utilizing existing data systems) for monitoring of impacts would be a good addition.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the scope of the agroecology HLPE report.

Bonsoir

Je me réjouis de constater que le CSA situe les approches agro-écologiques parmi les innovations en faveur de l’agriculture durable. Pourtant, si ces approches sont regardées comme innovantes parce que la prise de conscience de la dégradation de l’environnement sur la planète terre pousse l’humanité à changer ses paradigmes en matière de modèles de développement, elles nous viennent le plus souvent des traditions agraires ancestrales que les paysans se sont transmises de génération en génération sur leurs territoires. Innovons donc en retrouvant un contact avec l’héritage culturel de l’humanité.

Une des difficultés que va rencontrer le HLPE dans la réalisation de l’étude réside dans la variété des territoires. On n’ouvre pas sa porte avec la clef de l’appartement voisin. A chaque territoire son modèle agricole durable. Le succès d’un modèle agricole durable tient à ce qu’il est bien adapté au territoire, mais il ne sera généralement pas transférable, du moins dans sa globalité : ce qui marche ici ne fonctionnera pas  là. Un territoire est un système complexe unique, cadre d’interactions entre ses ressources naturelles et physiques (sols, climat, biodiversité) et sa population, porteuse d’une culture enracinée dans ce système. 

On a cru longtemps que l’on parviendrait à vaincre la faim, la malnutrition et la pauvreté en milieu rural en vulgarisant massivement telle ou telle innovation technologique. Nous connaissons  aujourd’hui les limites de cette stratégie. Si l’étude sur les approches agroécologiques et autres innovations pour l’agriculture durable se limitait à identifier des innovations qui donnent de bons résultats ici ou là avec comme objectif de les répliquer ailleurs, elle reproduirait les erreurs du passé, que trop de gouvernements continuent à commettre. Même s’il n’est pas inutile de se pencher sur les potentialités d’approches agroécologiques (notamment), l’enjeu de l’étude est sans doutes moins d’identifier les innovations technologiques que de comprendre les facteurs de réussite et d’appropriation de ces innovations par les acteurs ruraux, que l’on peut constater sur certains territoires. D’autre part, les estimation actuelles des potentialités de l’agroécologie sont faites par défaut, car elles ne peuvent intégrer encore les effets de réorientation amorcée et à venir de la recherche agronomique, majoritairement tournée vers une agriculture utilisatrice d’intrants depuis plusieurs décennies.

L’étude doit éviter de rester dans la généralité, mais au contraire s’appuyer sur l’analyse du fonctionnement de systèmes agricoles et alimentaires de territoires suffisamment nombreux et variés. Elle devrait retirer de ces analyses une meilleure connaissance des facteurs de succès. L’impact des contextes politiques, administratifs et des règles commerciales est important et mérite une analyse approfondie. 

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Helvetica; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000}

p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Helvetica; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000; min-height: 13.0px}

span.s1 {font-kerning: none}

Parmi les limites, une attention particulière doit être accordée au frein que représente la transition vers des systèmes à plus faible impact souvent considérée par les agriculteurs comme une prise de risque excessif.

Je joins un rapport publié par le Secours Catholique Caritas France qui est le fruit d'un travail collectif et dont je suis l'un des rédacteurs. 

Developed countries have moved from traditional agriculture developed over centuries by our ancestors to a system of industrial agriculture in a few decades, leaving aside much of that ancestral knowledge that ultimately had grown learning from the environment around us.

In these few decades of industrial agriculture we are discovering the problems that involve disconnecting from our nature and now we try to return to that traditional agriculture in what we call Agroecology and that we could consider the traditional agriculture of the 21st century. An agriculture that differs from the traditional precedent thanks to the accumulated knowledge in the understanding of both agriculture and ecology and of course, thanks to technology.

Developing countries are in full swing of industrial agriculture trying to achieve an economic return that allows them to achieve the welfare state that we have in developed countries, although they begin to suffer the problems that the abuse of this industrial agriculture entails.

The most underdeveloped countries or areas are, on the contrary, trying to achieve a small agricultural development by whatever means they have at hand, most of them traditional, with very little success.

We learn from our mistakes and the developed countries want to avoid now that we continue in the line of destruction of our natural environment and aggression on our health.

Our knowledge of agricultural systems and the natural environment as well as food security, and the verification of the problems and risks associated with industrial agriculture in these environmental and health aspects, leads us to take a step forward and move towards an agricultural system similar to the old system but with current technology and knowledge.

Part of the problem is that we want to achieve this goal from the underdeveloped or developing countries themselves. We want these countries do not pass through the industrial phase to preserve an environment that we all need, and ensuring quality and food safety.

In our hand is to avoid it but it has to be with our help and support, material and personnel. Eradicating poverty must be the main objective in this implantation of agroecology as a vital model. To ask or fight for this more natural and healthy system implies that we must develop alternatives that satisfy their demand for wealth.

There is a lot of accumulated knowledge that allows us to move towards the Agroecology of the XXI century but we have to transfer it adapted to the deepest rural world and for this, we have to establish protocols adapted to the different agrarian systems divided in the different agrosystems of the different rural areas.

In these protocols, it is necessary to consider:

-the different challenges of each agrosystem, production challenges and profitability

-production risks: phytosanitary risks, risks to public health and environmental risks

-control protocols of good agricultural practices

-guidance protocols addressed to government, technicians, farmers, traders

We are in a global world with many similarities but the peoples, their ecosystems and their governments are particular. So you have to look for personalized standards that do not ask to apply and develop useless protocols in areas where they are not necessary or impossible, forgetting or overlooking those actions that are valid

We must establish global major basic standards for different achievable farming systems worldwide. Then we must go making local regulations adapted to the different existing agroecological systems. The latter must be done considering as main elements of them the social and governmental environment in which this system is developed, apart from the natural environment itself.

For this, it is necessary to connect not only with great experts in large areas, but also with local actors that can identify and detect the needs and possibilities of development and action in each area and town.

I live and work in a semi-desert European area where, just over 50 years ago, it was an area with hardly any development possibilities. Agriculture was a very poor subsistence system. There was a progressive and continuous depopulation caused by the poverty of the area, illiteracy and the lack of resources, communications and possibilities for the future.

However, currently in this area is one of the most advanced agricultural systems in the world, which started from small family-run greenhouses and currently provides shelter and work to thousands of people including people from more than 150 countries in Africa and Africa.

This development results from an initiative and initial governmental support to which the farmers were added as they saw the success of the proposed model. From practically unoccupied land has been developed what is now considered the garden of Europe.

After more than 30 years of this intensive agriculture the problems have become evident and it has become clear that this is a model of finite agriculture, because it involves all the known problems of all (monoculture, lack of rotation, overexploitation of the soil, adaptation of pests and diseases to phytosanitary products, etc.)

Therefore, the region is becoming a model of sustainable agriculture, where good agricultural practices and biological control have been the first steps towards a conversion to organic farming, looking for that agroecological model, in which we want to take care of the environment, its flora and its fauna, soil, water, and its people. And as a success of this desirable evolution, we are watching what seemed impossible in an intensive agriculture like ours. We observe how each year the area of land with organic farming increases, with high profitability and always under the maximum food safety standards, both from the point of view of the absence of the use of phytosanitary products and of the total food security from the point of view of microbiological view.

This model change is being achieved thanks to the involvement of all the actors and the functioning of all of them with a network, where the vertical and horizontal knowledge transfer is continuous. Agroecology is possible. Healthy, safe and productive agroecology is possible

Best regards,

Mª Antonia Elorrieta

Head of Plant Pathology Department

LABCOLOR, COEXPHAL

Almería, Spain

I would like to suggest an integrated and sustainble approach to tackle the issues paramount to the aim of the HLPE, which will consider aquatic related resource utilisation, conservation, management and consumption.

Great questions. My only suggestion is to more explicitly consider different levels of analysis including plant, plot, household, community, landscape, territory, foodshed, regional and global.

The 2018-19 MYPoW reflects the extensive debate and discussion among all CFS members to build a better understanding of the roles that agroecological and other innovative approaches, practices and technologies can play to ensure FSN. These discussions and perspectives were included the proposed scope presented to Plenary as to how we envisaged we would proceed.

It is not clear why there is now another, ‘draft’, scope being posted which offers some different perspectives and positions to those contained in the 2018-19 MYPoW and which would appear  more limiting that the original MYPoW scope.  For example, during the MYPoW discussions, and as reflected in the scope, it was proposed to analyse the different approaches to develop a common understanding and consider the trade-offs to be made by stakeholders.

There are many and conflicting definitions of the practice of agroecology; a point raised in the MYPOW.  We encourage the HLPE as the source of scientific advice for CFS to focus on the scientific definition rather than the political movements and ideological debates.  In this regard, we point to the definition at: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/environmentgl/search.asp  which will be informing other UN processes. 

Given the importance of meeting food needs the MYPoW scope also highlighted the potential to deliver at scale and impact on employment and the types of market and regulations that can create enabling environments. It is of concern that these elements, for which the analysis was expected to ‘pay attention’ are no longer included. Rather, new topics such as ‘the impact of trade rules and intellectual property rights’ have been introduced which were specifically excluded from the scope of the negotiations. 

We hope there will be a strong emphasis on the other technologies which are to be included in the report and that the HLPE will give due consideration to the many ways in which technologies are contributing to the improvement of the footprint of agriculture.  Technological solutions such as precision agriculture, integrated crop management, conservation tillage are intimately involved in delivering on agroecology and important improvements in farming. 

Answers of Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock of the Republic of Turkey to the questions raised by CFS-HLPE:

1. With the effect of agroecological and sustainable innovative approaches, determination of the potential of natural resources will be provided and the potential, the problems and the susceptibility of the agricultural lands will be examined. Therefore, more accurate and reasonable decisions will be made. Also, with the help of the agroecological approaches, the usage of fossil fuel and chemical fertilizer etc. will be decreased and help to minimize the ecological footprint. The integration of innovative approaches to the traditional agricultural techniques must be provided. Also, the farmers must be informed about the ecological principles and programs by suitable techniques. Then, the social equity and awareness raising of the new generation would be provided.

2. The existence, richness and sustainable usage of food are closely relevant with climate change. The approach of agroecology provide long time climate assessment. Also, the determination of the climate properties of agricultural products can help for making a decision about food security. Moreover, the traditional knowledge must not be regarded. Farmers, who have to produce in rough land conditions, promote physical and biological methods to enhance these conditions. These methods must be combined with new technological methods. The technological methods must be spontaneously carried out together with the traditional knowledge. The constitution of self-sufficient system with the agricultural technologies towards the traditional knowledge provide the sustainable natural resources. After all, the when the food security increases the human health and prosperity develop.

3. For applying and increasing the new technologies, climate and land evaluation works on especially the subjects about agroecological approaches have to be continued. The strategical evaluations and planning have to provide alternative producing scenarios when some extraordinary conditions such as climate differences and fast population growth exist. The risks, advantages and effects of the new technologies to traditional knowledge must be evaluated.

4. To observe the positive or negative effects of agricultural technologies about food security and nutrition, local, regional and territorial natural resources (eg. vegetation, fauna, soil, water, climate, geology, topography etc.) must be analyzed. With the light of the results of these analyzes, determination of the usage properties of lands, evaluation of the same potentials between the lands and the problems must be exposed. Also, the abiotic parameters for the crops especially barley, wheat, corn etc. must be determined. The indicators can change depending on diversity, coherence, cultural change and fragmentation of land. All these situations and the analyzes can be revealed by using Geographic Information Systems. Updating the data in certain periods provides the following and strategic evaluation works.

Using as reference the National School Feeding Program (PNAE) of Brazil, as of 2009, FAO in the region has been supporting the countries, through a technical cooperation project, for the strengthening of School Feeding Programs in the framework of the Hunger-Free Latin America and the Caribbean Initiative 2025 (FAO, 2009). The objective is to contribute to the strengthening of local and sustainable public school feeding policies, with a focus on the human right to food.

The project has contributed in different ways to broaden the spaces for discussions and strengthening of school feeding in 19 countries of Latin America and the Caribbean, namely: Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Granada, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Dominican Republic, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Venezuela.

School feeding has gained increasing importance in all regions of the world in recent decades, and is considered a key component of social policies and the application of the human right to adequate food. It is also considered that it contributes directly to the achievement of sustainable development goals by 2030, in particular goal 2 "Zero Hunger". In this context, school feeding is a line of action prioritized in pillar # 3 on Nutritional Wellbeing of the Food Security, Nutritional and Hunger Eradication Plan of CELAC in 2025.

Sustainable food systems have been promoted for healthy eating FAO (2017) through various instances of dialogue and consultation have agreed that a profound change is required to strengthen, preserve or recover food systems that ensure their sustainability and ability to provide food nutritious and accessible for the entire population.

During the second International Nutrition Conference (ICN2) held in November 2014, it adopted the Rome Declaration and its Framework for Action in which member countries committed themselves to "promote sustainable food systems through the formulation of coherent policies from production to consumption and in relevant sectors to provide year-round access to food that meets the nutritional needs of people and promote a healthy, diversified and safe diet. "

In January 2015, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) approved and adopted the Plan for Food Security, Nutrition and Hunger Eradication by 2025, which consists of four main pillars that seek to strengthen the dimensions of food and nutrition security through the generation of national, sub-regional and regional policies, programs, strategies and projects from a multisectoral approach.

In September 2015, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was approved, under the premise that it is possible to achieve an integral development that puts in tune the economic, social and environmental sustainability "without leaving anyone behind". The 2030 Agenda includes 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), where nutrition occupies a relevant space, reiterating and reinforcing the commitments of the ICN2.

And finally, the mobilization to reduce hunger and improve nutrition in the world has been described as an important step in education and nutrition actions that are included in the recommendations and agreements of the second international nutrition conference held jointly by FAO-WHO in Rome Nov 2014.

The implementation methodology of the Sustainable School Model is planned in conjunction with national governments and in the territories, promoting the participation of multiple actors at the national, regional and local levels in order to promote joint knowledge and learning and with a view to expanding the model to the largest number of schools in the country. The sustainable schools model was designed to establish a reference of school feeding programs, making them fairer, more equitable and sustainable from activities such as the involvement of the educational community, the adoption of appropriate and healthy school menus, the implementation of orchards pedagogical schools, the reform of kitchens, dining rooms, cellars and the direct purchase of local family agriculture products for school feeding.