222 Evans Road, Glenwood, Durban, South Africa Tel: +27(0)31 206 2954 Fax: +27(0)86 510 1537 www.biowatch.org.za Attention: HLPE Project team and steering committee By email: [email protected] [email protected]. 19 November 2018 Biowatch South Africa response to the HLPE V0 Report: Agroecological approaches and other innovations for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition Thank you for the opportunity to comment on HLPE V0 Report: ‘Agroecological approaches and other innovations for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition’. We challenge the HLPE to look at agroecology and other innovations for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition (our underline) and critique the literature, before including it in this document as innovations. It is not helpful to include “innovative” practices that use toxic herbicides and pesticides, GMOs and new unregulated biotechnologies, or other practices that do not address the devastating climatic and biodiversity crisis that the earth faces and if not addressed, will result in devastating food insecurity and nutrition. Nor, should “innovation” lead to the further dispossession of peoples’ land and resources, or undermine their human rights. We urge the HLPE to be bold, to use the opportunity that they have, to take a transformative step that may be unpopular in the short term, but is of necessity to life on earth. Our submission follows below and consists of: 1. Introduction to Biowatch South Africa 2. Comments on the HLPE V0 Report Yours sincerely Rose Williams Director Trust No. IT 4212/99 Board Members: Dr David Fig (chairperson), Prof. Loretta Feris, Ms Thoko Makhanya, Dr Nombulelo Siqwana-Ndulo, Ms Beni Williams, Ms Rose Williams, Prof. Rachel Wynberg 1. Biowatch South Africa Biowatch is a non-governmental organisation established in 1999, which strives for social and environmental justice within the context of food sovereignty. Biowatch works to challenge unsustainable agricultural practices and to advocate for agroecology as an ecologically viable alternative that safeguards people and land. This includes supporting smallholder farmers; working with civil society to create joint understanding and action; and constructively engaging with government in implementing policies and practices that promote, facilitate and actively support agroecology and farmers’ rights. We have a long track record of working on policy issues concerning agriculture, biodiversity, seed and indigenous knowledge systems. 2. Comments on the HLPE V0 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? The chapter on agroecology does provide a comprehensive overview of the history of the developing definitions and concepts of agroecology as a science, practice and movement. However, the section on ‘agroecology as a social movement’ (1.1.3) does not give enough recognition to the role of indigenous societies in developing the diverse agroecological systems and related knowledge and foods that underlie all cultures (not just those identified by the FAO as ‘Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems’) and their agency in advancing agroecology. We support the emphasis of “agroecology addresses … the economic and social dimensions of food systems in an indivisible way”, but the role of agroecology as a means to achieve the right to food through transformation of food systems, and local and regional food sovereignty must have more emphasis in the text. This component of food sovereignty – that is the localisation and control of food systems – is also missing in the ‘Definition 2: Agroecological approach to FSN’ (page 30) for this report. In relation to this, the document is set out with agroecology as just one of, and distinct from, the approaches described as innovations in Chapter 2, whereas civil society organisations in South Africa and elsewhere (as indicated by the Nyeleni Declarations on Food sovereignty and Agroecology) view agroecology as the means to realise the right to food and nutrition, and to transform what is patently an unsustainable and destructive food system. 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 illustrate 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- 2 Biowatch SA_ response to the HLPE V0 Agroecology Report November 2018 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? Although the report acknowledges that “there is unequivocal evidence that supports the important role of agroecology for enhancing FSN with benefit demonstrated at a social, environmental and economic level’ and answers most of the key concerns regarding agroecology with evidence; the report goes on to discuss other approaches without the same rigour – and often cherry-picking perceived benefits or negatives in the descriptions of the approach. This counters the purpose of a workstream centred on agroecology, which is to address transformation of the food system due to: • The growing number of undernourished, malnourished and hungry people despite the current food system already providing sufficient calorie quantity of food for a population of 9 billion (i.e. population in 2050); • The current food system’s enormous negative impact on the climate (GRAIN 2011)1, biodiversity, waters, lands and indigenous peoples. This transformation is urgent as our ability to satisfy food and nutrition security into the future is fundamentally premised on the ability of the earth’s ecosystems to continue to support life. We therefore agree that the innovation chapter can better compare and distinguish the different approaches, and in some cases, exclude them from the chapter as they will not support sustainable agriculture and food systems or food security and nutrition. This would give a more succinct analysis to inform policy recommendations and the steps required to transform food systems. This could be achieved by assessing these against the specific principles of agroecology; or the overarching principles for sustainable food systems and the 5 pillars that have been identified as the framework for achieving SFS for FSN. Despite the effort to set out this framework, neither the overarching principles or the 5 pillars are used consistently in the analysis of innovations in the report. The only comparative analysis is in the form of Table 3 (page 36), which uses a new list of criteria described as ‘key aspects of FSN’ in Box 7 (page 34), without motivating why these particular aspects were chosen and their relationship to the conceptual framework for FSN outlined in the Introduction. It is also not clear how the applicability of these Key aspects was decided for each innovation in Table 3. For example, we disagree that Agroecology does not address issues of governance (represented by a X). In being grounded in local communities it directly addresses the livelihoods and wellbeing of stakeholders. It also engages with food system change, with the aim of food sovereignty, and therefore is implicitly engaged with food system governance and power dynamics. In this regard, Figure 6 (page 37, line 23) is disingenuous in that it gives the impression that all 9 approaches satisfy the principles and pillars identified as contributing to the outcomes of SFS for FNS, when they do so in varying measures and some of the approaches are contrary to some of the principles and pillars (for example, approaches such as conservation agriculture, Climate Smart Agriculture, sustainable intensification etc) which may achieve one production principle but continue to use or even promote the use of toxic synthetic inputs). Such approaches, should in our view, not be included in the Figure or the document. For example, policy-makers shouldn’t be given the impression that these are approaches with equal impact, but rather that these are approaches in a continuum from industrial agriculture to 1 GRAIN. September 2011. Food and climate change: the forgotten link. Against the Grain. http://www.grain.org/article/entries/4357- food-and-climate-change-the-forgotten-link 3 Biowatch SA_ response to the HLPE V0 Agroecology Report November 2018 agroecology, where the focus must be on transitioning to agroecology. We are very concerned that the report and resultant policy recommendations shouldn’t provide opportunities to circumvent the radical change needed to fix