Feedback HLPE October 2018- Gian Nicolay, FiBL

1

Feedback to HLPE V0 Report on Agroecology and Food security

Gian Nicolay, (gian.nicolay@fibl.org) , Group lead Policy and Sector Development, International

Cooperation Department, FiBL (Switzerland)

Miguel DePorras, (miguel.deporras@fibl.org), Co-director, FiBL Europe, Brussels Office

Nov 2, 2018

Summary

FiBL welcomes this consultation process on agroecology and food and nutrition security, as

the further clarification of the related terms, concepts and processes provides a unique

opportunity to better understand the current agrarian and food crises and better find

strategies to overcome them. We believe that the current world society, hence both the

global South and global North are united by this process, and that farmers, rural and urban

dwellers, researchers, activists and policy influencers will need to find a common language

as far as possible. We all need a better understanding of the way to transform the current

unsustainable systems in both agriculture and food.

The V0 provides an impressive collection of updated literature on the issue and interesting

thoughts. However, already the title suggests inconsistencies, which we discuss in more

detail below in the attached document. We expect the term “agroecology” to serve as an

umbrella for different concepts and hence including as well organic agriculture, permaculture,

and agroforestry to name. This report shall not be used to further divide and confuse but

rather serve for finding approaches, strategies and principles to overcome industrial

agriculture in its destructive forms. For example in Africa, FiBL works since six year with the

approach of “Ecological Organic Agriculture”.

We propose to restructure the report, by starting with a more rigid historic narrative on the

current problems we are in (food and agrarian crises, environmental stress, inequality etc), in

which the drivers and barriers, but as well social structures are better analyzed using the

large knowledge from social sciences including political economy and sociology. The key

terms need a proper definition in order to prevent confusion. For example, the distinction

between food and agriculture is not always consistent, leading to comparisons of unrelated

issues or systems (like agroecology and nutrition). The urban dimension incl. urban farming

needs more recognition as well as urban-rural linkages.

The term “innovation” is overstretched. Why should agroecology be an approach and organic

farming an innovation? Generally, the chapters on organic agriculture need revision and we

focus here on more general comments, as they seem at this stage more pertinent to

address. However, we consider organic as based in ancient practices or paradigm based on

regenerative agriculture, reemerging in its science-based form as a reaction against

industrial agriculture and unsustainable socio-cultural patterns.

Title of report: Agroecological approaches and other innovations for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition

1. The V0 draft is wide-ranging in analyzing the contribution of agroecological and other

innovative approaches to ensuring food security and nutrition (FSN). Is the draft useful in

clarifying the main concepts? Do you think that the draft appropriately covers agroecology

as one of the possible innovative approaches? Does the draft strike the right balance

between agroecology and other innovative approaches?

Feedback HLPE October 2018- Gian Nicolay, FiBL

2

The large literature covered in order to make this report is definitively a major asset. It, nevertheless, could be considerably improved by a better and less narrow use of the concept of agroecology (AE). As defined by its movement (Altieri, Gliessman etc; mainly between 1990 and 2015) and consider it as the main focus of the report it need to be more consistently approached, instead of analyzing it as an existing model together with the rest of the innovations or approaches, it should be considered as a general framework for all alternative to industrial agriculture (e.g. organic, permaculture, agroforestry, etc.). Hence, the balance between AE and the other approaches is therefore not given.

The draft is useful in comparing the various approaches, but this does not help the purpose or expectations of the reader. We had expected a larger definition of AE in the sense of IPES-Food (2016) and hope to see the relations of the various approaches, f.ex. organic (ORG) and AE. For that reason, more differentiation is required for both. AE can be seen as defined by the movement, or it can be seen in a larger sense, by which ORG, permaculture, agroforestry etc are part of.

2. Have an appropriate range of innovative approaches been identified and documented in the draft? If there are key gaps in coverage of approaches, what are these and how would they be appropriately incorporated in the draft? Does the draft illustrates correctly the contributions of these approaches to FSN and sustainable development? The HLPE acknowledges that these approaches could be better articulated in the draft, and their main points of convergence or divergence among these approaches could be better illustrated. Could the following set of “salient dimensions” help to characterize and compare these different approaches: human-rights base, farm size, local or global markets and food systems (short or long supply chain), labor or capital intensity (including mechanization), specialization or diversification, dependence to external (chemical) inputs or circular economy, ownership and use of modern knowledge and technology or use of local and traditional knowledge and practices?

Before answering these set of questions, it must be stated that a better clarity of key concepts as food security, food system and agriculture system would be required in the report. Particularly the notion of food security and its relation to food and agriculture system is not clearly outlined. Therefore, the reader does not grasp the scale and scope of the report. We assume that mainly the realities of the least developed countries (LDC) are covered, for whom the concept of food security has been created. If this is the case, then why not make it transparent? And why not bring in a historic narrative and political economy dimension (Nicolay, 2017; Van Der Ploeg, 2010)? Are these countries and regions not impoverished because at global level, food and agriculture are differentiated in such a way, that the more lucrative food industries are in the North? Then why not address this global and political dimension if this is a root cause of food insecurity. What does it mean that a production approach like AE or ORG can contribute to food security? Should it not contribute first to resilient agriculture systems and then secondly feed in and support the food system? Is food security not often a function of ODA (official development assistance) and state driven projects?

Coming to question 2: The title is suggesting that agroecology is the topic. The authors seem to assume that AE is what their main promoters declare as such. However, what if this is not the case? What, if a deeper analyses would suggest that permaculture, organic farming, agroforestry are forms of what people call “agroecology”, and that these forms all emerged out historically as a reaction against unsustainable industrial agriculture? Concerning the definition of ORG, just two remarks: it would be useful to differentiate between family-based ORG, which is very close to the definition of AE, and the business-large scale type of ORG, which is then closer to CSA (climate smart) or SI (sustainable intensification). The second remark is related to Africa and organic. On this continent of about 100 Mio farms or farming/herding households, the heads of state organized within the African Union have decided in 2012 to mainstream Ecological Organic Agriculture (EOA). Now this approach is exactly a blend between AE and ORG, and cannot be captured by the narrow description of the report.

3. The V0 draft outlines 17 key agroecological principles and organizes them in four overarching and interlinked operational principles for more sustainable food systems (SFS): resource efficiency, resilience, social equity / responsibility and ecological footprint. Are there any key aspects of agroecology that are not reflected in this set of 17 principles? Could the set of principles be more concise, and if so, which principles could be combined or reformulated to achieve this?

Feedback HLPE October 2018- Gian Nicolay, FiBL

3

The report makes difficult for the reader to understand of the difference between the 16 principles of Box 4 (set of agroecological principles) and table 1 (principles of agroecology) and the 17 aspects of Table 3 (approaches to innovation). Further specification of the Table 3 content is needed and explanation in order to better understand the comparison criteria. Related to food and agriculture systems, missing aspects or criteria are: - care for soil fertility and soil health - fossil based energy minimization and limiting GHG ( tractors, urea, long transportation ways of food etc) - providing fair “and sufficient” employment (in principle 14) (to add “and sufficient”) - it should be stated that these principles are valid as well for urban farming. The criteria “sustainability” is not operational and too general and should be replaced by the proposed criteria above. The criteria “comprehensiveness” is not useful, as none of the approaches is in fact covering the whole range from production (agriculture) to food delivery (food system). (I doubt that AE could be covering the processing, delivery and marketing of food; except we set the boundaries just within the scale of villages) (see Tab 3).

The “labor” criteria should be redefined: what is the positive contribution to employment in the given society.

4. The V0 draft is structured around a conceptual framework that links innovative approaches to FSN outcomes via their contribution to the four abovementioned overarching operational principles of SFS and, thus, to the different dimensions of FSN. Along with the four agreed dimensions of FSN (availability, access, stability, utilization), the V0 draft also discusses a fifth dimension: agency. Do you think that this framework addresses the key issues? Is it applied appropriately and consistently across the different chapters of the draft to structure its overall narrative and main findings?

-

5. The V0 draft provides an opportunity to identify knowledge gaps, where more evidence is required to assess the contribution that agroecology and other innovative approaches can make progressing towards more sustainable food systems for enhanced FSN. Do you think that the key knowledge gaps are appropriately identified, that their underlying causes are sufficiently articulated in the draft? Is the draft missing any important knowledge gap? Is this assessment of the state of knowledge in the draft based on the best up-to-date available scientific evidence or does the draft miss critical references? How could the draft better integrate and consider local, traditional and empirical knowledge?

The codification process of different kinds of sustainability standards for agriculture are missing.

Significant problems and already existing knowledge about the legal-political dimension of this kind of

agriculture need to be better assessed. Problems as certification system, sustainable value chains,

standards development, market access, price incentives, regulatory governance, etc should be

addressed. These approaches need to be tackled in a horizontal manner, only in this way the report

could provide more informed conclusions on the policy instruments needed for agroecology and all the

other approaches.

For example, specific reference to the potential of codified rules (such as laws, intellectual property

rights and regulations) and norms of boost or hamper agro-biodiversity are needed. The case of

heterogenic material development in the new organic farming regulation of the EU (Regulation EU

2018/848) could be referred to. This is the first regulation that allows European organic farmers to

develop and exchange their own heterogenic genetic material with an expected relevant impact in

agrobiodiversity of EU organic farmers.

The latest report of TP Organics “Scientific evidence of how organic food and farming contributes to

sustainable food security” could be referred since it provides a good insight of the scientific literature

about comparing conventional and organic agriculture.

Feedback HLPE October 2018- Gian Nicolay, FiBL

4

http://tporganics.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/tporganics-briefing-evidence-of-the-

performance-of-organic-farming.pdf

6. Chapter 2 suggests a typology of innovations. Do you think this typology is useful in structuring the exploration of what innovations are required to support FSN, identifying key drivers of, and barriers to, innovation (in Chapter 3) and the enabling conditions required to foster innovation (in Chapter 4)? Are there significant drivers, barriers or enabling conditions that are not adequately considered in the draft?

The typology is partially useful. All the 8 approaches are worth mentioning. But they are of different nature. Distinction should be made between real and normative approaches. Normative are:

- Climate smart agriculture CSA (including just 3 principles) - Nutrition sensitive agriculture NSA (emphasizing the nutritional value “only”) - Sustainable intensification SI (a very vague concept, can be ecological or not) - Sustainable food value chains sFVC (s. above; it depends on the definition of sustainable) - Rights based approaches RBA (rights and norms depending on the larger value system of the

given society).

From the 3 remaining approaches which can be found empirically on the ground (farm and field level) and within agriculture systems (and not always with food systems; here only ORG is traceable!)– ORG, PC, AF. We propose to consider them all as forms of agroecology, as they can potentially fulfill all the 16 agroecological principles (see Box 4).

The approach Ecological Organic Agriculture (EOA) is promoted by the African Union (AU) and partners (like IFOAM, SDC and FiBL) since 2012 (see p.46, L56). It is a regional approach created by the key stakeholders and merging to a new approach (see more on http://eoai-africa.org/) . This makes also clear that approaches cannot be defined easily as a clear object, but often rather as a continuous line/field with two or more edges.

The drivers are not well captured (p.60, L43-44). Here we suggest assuring that more competency in social and historical sciences is used to capture the large available knowledge (Edelman, 2011; Luhmann, 1995; McMichael, 2011; Nicolay, 2016 b). This aspect is important, as the agricultural scientists realize since about 30 years that the food and agriculture sector is dramatically changing since the last 40 years. But how can we make recommendations without knowing the underlying forces within society and economy?

This section needs to assess the role that economic incentives can play in the development of

innovations for sustainable agriculture. A better understanding of the impact of economic incentives on

farmers, such as organic or other label price primes, different models public subsides, intervention

prices, etc. is needed in order to develop better informed policy recommendations. The link between

the economic incentives and innovations for sustainable agriculture is key to assess different public

and private policies with relevance in the development of sustainable agriculture.

The barriers (p.61) are poorly described as are the drivers. Particularly the functions of ideas, ideologies and power relations are very important to capture in order to understand the dynamics between industrial and alternative forms of food and agriculture (see also above).

7. A series of divergent narratives are documented in Chapter 3 to help tease out key barriers and constraints to innovation for FSN. Is this presentation of these divergent narratives comprehensive, appropriate and correctly articulated? How could the presentation of the main controversies at stake and the related available evidence be improved?

The presentation could be improved, if the structure of the whole report would follow the sequence.

1. The problem of the current food system and particularly the persistence of food insecurity 2. The various forms of alternatives to industrial agriculture (the 9 approaches) 3. The characterization of the sustainable FSN system at world level (we may call it diversified

agroecology; but here in the larger sense as characterized by its promoters Gliessman/Altieri et al)

Feedback HLPE October 2018- Gian Nicolay, FiBL

5

4. Barriers in society and economy to address in order to promote AE. The report should be as well strategic and show ways out of the current mess. Having worked with AE, PC, ORG, SFVC, RBA etc. over the last 30 years, it is very disappointing to see that mainstream food systems still go into the wrong, i.e. unsustainable direction. The model provided by “Limits to Growth” (Meadows and Rome, 1972), predicting the breakdown of the human-ecological system by 2070 has still not be understood, even as the predictions made so far are quite accurate. The relation between agriculture (incl. land use, farm investment, food per capita production), industrial output, human population, pollution (today mainly discussed under the name of climate change) and resource use remains critical and also relevant for this report. We know since over 40 years that hunger is correlated with status and poverty. Technologies are not the key question, but the quality and quantity of the limited bio-physical resources on our planet and the way how we can drastically reduce the ecological footprint of humanity (or global society); implying drastic social structural changes and new economic models. The way how world society- including the about 200 national sub-systems- organizes its food and agriculture system plays an important role within society and economy, hence the importance on our understanding of diversified agroecology as an alternative of industrial agriculture and current unsustainable food systems. In addition, the reference to the article “Strategies for feeding the world sustainably with organic

agriculture” (Muller et al, 2017) does not makes full use of the evidence that presents. The article is

presented very shortly as a contradictory with the question “can agroecology feed the word”?

However, this article provides the argument that organic production alone, while having big

sustainability potential along many indicators, cannot solve the current problems of food systems and

systemic and holistic approaches that involve food waste and meat consumption are needed.

8. This preliminary version of the report presents tentative priorities for action in Chapter 4, as well as recommendations to enable innovative approaches to contribute to the radical transformations of current food systems needed to enhance FSN and sustainability. Do you think these preliminary findings can form an appropriate basis for further elaboration, in particular to design innovation policies? Do you think that key recommendations or priorities for action are missing or inadequately covered in the draft?

Let’s take the recommendations made so far:

R1: INCREASE INVESTMENT IN SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZED AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD ENTERPRISES

R2: RECONFIGURE AND INTEGRATE EDUCATION, TRAINING AND RESEARCH ON SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE FOR FSN

R3: RECOGNISE THE ROLE OF POLICY OVER ACCESS TO NATURAL RESOURCES

R4: SUPPORT EQUITABLE AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD VALUE CHAINS

R5: LEVERAGE PUBLIC PROGRAMS TO FOSTER SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS FOR FSN

R6: FOSTER DEMOCRATIC AND PARTICIPATORY APPROACHES FOR POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION

R7: DEVELOPMENT AND STRENGTHENING OF LINKAGES BETWEEN URBAN COMMUNITIES AND FOOD PRODUCTION SYSTEMS

R8: REORIENT THE INTERNATIONAL GOVERNANCE SYSTEM, TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS FOR FSN

R9: ADDRESS SOCIAL INEQUALITIES ESPECIALLY IN RESPECT OF GENDER AND YOUNG PEOPLE, UNDERLINING NUTRITIONAL ASPECTS OF FOOD SYSTEMS

Feedback HLPE October 2018- Gian Nicolay, FiBL

6

The set or system of recommendations (R1-R9) is consistent. It depends mainly on R1, R3 and R8, all recommendations based on values, governance and envisioning. Financial resources and political will at global level are required to set a new system towards FSN in motion, based on approaches in line with agroecology principles. These recommendations should come out clearly from the science-based chapters 1 to 4.

The findings so far are therefore very useful, particularly as they are well supported by resent research papers. May be the concept of innovation policy is overstretched. Is

innovation here not the more fancy word for transformation and change? (To note that the term “innovation” is just the rewording of the previous “progress”. The term appeared only in the 1960ties).

9. Throughout the V0 draft there has been an attempt to indicate, sometimes with placeholders, specific case studies that would illustrate the main narrative with concrete examples and experience. Are the set of case studies appropriate in terms of subject and regional balance? Can you suggest further case studies that could help to enrich and strengthen the report?

Some reference could be done to the Syscom project of FiBL (https://systems-comparison.fibl.org/), since this project compares different production approaches in tropics since 2007. The result of this ambitious research project (which includes the comparison in different context, of conventional, organic, agroforestry, GMO in cotton, etc.) provides significant empirical evidence of performance of different production system and approaches. Refer to this project will increase the empirical basis of the information discussed in this report.

10. Are there any major omissions or gaps in the V0 draft? Are topics under-or over-represented in relation to their importance? Are any facts or conclusions refuted, questionable or assertions with no evidence-base? If any of these are an issue, please share supporting evidence.

The main points have been mentioned above. To repeat the main omissions:

1. Better differentiate between Agroecology and the rest of approaches. Use AE as the umbrella framework for the assessment of the rest and keep this approach consistently all over the text.

2. Make a deeper historic and social science-based analyses of the problems of industrial agriculture already at the beginning, not only in chapter 4. Clearer drivers and barriers for agroecology (in the large sense) shall emanate of this diagnosis. It is important to make more statements on the need to make a radical transition from industrial to ecological processes and systems.

3. Be more consistent in the definition of food system, agriculture system, food and agriculture system and food security system. Our proposal is as follows:

Feedback HLPE October 2018- Gian Nicolay, FiBL

7

Source: Nicolay (submitted), Understanding and Changing Farming and Food & Fiber Systems. The

organic cotton case in Mali and West Africa

4. Include more social science based knowledge in order to be consistent with the draft

recommendations, which are to over 90% related to social realities, including norms, values,

governance, politics/policies and apply them in a systems-based way (why not make a

reference to the simulation models of “Limits to Growth 1972”?). Better explore the legal-

political dimension of the different proposed approaches, as well as their implications as

drivers or barriers for their development. This important point is missed in the report and is of

uttermost importance for the development of any policy recommendation. Here the legal

standards of organic agriculture can provide a significant basis for the empirical work. The

more social science lens would also prevent to romanticize concepts like community, often

over-simplified in agroecological literature (Nicholls and Altieri, 2018).

5. Especial focus need to be given to the role of economic incentives in the behavioral change of

all actors of the agri-food chain. In order to achieve the objectives of this report, drivers or

barriers to innovation needs to be better analyzed and understood, and for this economic

incentives are of an uttermost importance.

6. Make it clear that the transformation of the food and agriculture system (incl. food security) will

depend on the overall society with its economy and industry. Changing agriculture and food

systems can only work when the rest of the economy and the other sectors are changing

accordingly. Hence the key role of politics at global level (= Recommendation 8).

We are running out of time. The intended report could build on the IAASTD report (2008) and

provide a urgently required wake-up call in order to put food systems where they belong: in the

center of societies and economies, particularly at world level.

References:

Edelman, M. (2011). Van der Ploeg, Jan Douwe: The New Peasantries: Struggles for Autonomy and Sustainability in an Era of Empire and Globalization. Human Ecology 39, 111-113.

IPES-Food (2016). " From uniformity to diversity: a paradigm shift from industrial agriculture to diversified agroecological systems. International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food systems. www.ipes-food.org."

Luhmann, N. (1995). "Social systems," Stanford University Press. McMichael, P. (2011). Food system sustainability: Questions of environmental governance in the new

world (dis)order. Global Environmental Change In Press, Corrected Proof.

Feedback HLPE October 2018- Gian Nicolay, FiBL

8

Meadows, D. L., and Rome, C. o. (1972). "The limits to growth," Universe Books. Nicholls, C. I., and Altieri, M. A. (2018). Pathways for the amplification of agroecology. Agroecology

and Sustainable Food Systems 42, 1170-1193. Nicolay, G. (2016 b). Theory-based Innovation Platform management. A contribution of sociology to

agriculture research and development. In "12th European IFSA Symposium, 2016. Theme 2: Methodology and frameworks of farming systems transformation.". Harper Adams University.

Nicolay, G. L. (2017). Why is Africa struggling with organic farming? A methodological contribution from sociology. In Rahmann, Gerold (Ed.) et al. (2017) : Innovative research for organic 3.0 - Proceedings of the scientific track. In "Organic World Congress 2017, November 9-11", Vol. Volume 2, pp. 708-719. Thünen Report, No. 54,2, Delhi, India.

Van Der Ploeg, J. D. (2010). The Food Crisis, Industrialized Farming and the Imperial Regime. Journal of Agrarian Change 10, 98-106.