BuchWebTransformationFoodSystems PDF
BuchWebTransformationFoodSystems PDF
BuchWebTransformationFoodSystems PDF
This book was edited by Hans R. Herren, Benedikt Haerlin and the IAASTD+10 Advisory Group.
Publishers
Zukunftsstiftung Landwirtschaft (Foundation on Future Farming) is a German charity promoting
organic and agro-ecological innovation and research with a focus on breeding new varieties for
organic agriculture. Its campaign office in Berlin addresses issues of genetic engineering and natio-
nal, European and global food and agricultural policies and runs an educational field with 45 diffe-
rent crops. Since ten years, it presents the IAASTD and its follow-up on its websites
Weltagrarbericht.de and globalagriculture.org. www.zukunftsstiftung-landwirtschaft.de
Biovision Since 1998, Biovision has been promoting the development, dissemination and applica-
tion of sustainable ecological agricultural practices, allowing people in the developing world to
help themselves. In 2013, Biovision and its founder Hans Rudolf Herren won the Right Livelihood
Award, also known as the Alternative Nobel Prize. Biovision Foundation is a charitable organi-
sation in Switzerland. www.biovision.ch
Assistant editors
Jan van Aken, Harry Hadaway
Infographics
Data compilation, graphic development and texts: Angelika Beck
Design: Lee McGorie
Printed by
Triple AAA Druckproduktion, Gilching, Germany
ISBN 978-3-00-066209-6
www.globalagriculture.org
Content
9 Introduction
Hans R. Herren
40 2013 UNCTAD: How to cope with largely dysfunctional market signals for
sustainable agriculture?
Ulrich Hoffmann
116 2018 Agrimonde-Terra: Land use and food security in 2050: A narrow road
Marie de Lattre-Gasquet
123 Update: Urbanization and the effects on agriculture and food security
Frédéric Lançon
130 2019 Lancet Commission: The agriculture and health nexus: a decade of
paradigm progress but patchy policy actions
Boyd Swinburn
150 2019 IPCC Climate and Land:The contribution of the IPCC to a change of
paradigm in agriculture and food systems
Marta G. Rivera-Ferre
Content
162 2019 Global Alliance for the Future of Food & Biovision: Beacons of hope
Lauren Baker, Barbara Gemmill-Herren, Fabio Leippert
141
Infographics
25 Cereal production
32 Availability of calories
36 Cereal utilisation
78 Meat production
83 Meat supply
126 Obesity
146 Undernourishment
Introduction
“It always seems impossible until it’s done”
Nelson Mandela
A series of thirteen short essays, in chronological order, will delve into selected
landmark reports that were inspired by the IAASTD and originated in the same
concern for the urgent need to change how our food is produced. It highlights
how a new food system narrative has been firmly established since 2008, which
is distinctly different from the post-war chemical narrative that still dominates
mainstream farming. In addition, the book contains a series of articles and up-
dates on key topics of interest, written by authors from the
original IAASTD report.These articles range from trade, cor- This book highlights
porate concentration and proprietary strategies to urbani- how a new food
zation, innovation, and indigenous community-based research. system narrative has
been firmly established
The authors involvement took place in a rather passive, vo-
lunteering way, working with respondents to a broad call to since 2008 which is
the IAASTD authors and reviewers for action on a book to distinctly different
document the steps undertaken over the past 11 years. This from the post-war
led to a geographical and cultural imbalance and we do not chemical narrative.
claim to cover the full spectrum of views on the new para-
digm for the agri-food system, even though we can safely assume that the pro-
gressive forces are closely lined-up to the basic principles of agroecology in its
widest sense.1 The Advisory Group, a subset of the book’s authors, does not
have worldwide representation and recognizes that it does not contain many
highly relevant advances in sustainable agriculture from areas outside their per-
sonal experience.
This book was written during the coronavirus pandemic, which served to re-
mind us, in a terribly brutal way, of the direct link between industrial agriculture
9
Hans R. Herren
and human health. This pandemic has brought into plain sight the shortcomings
of the present food system, and the need to heed the warnings and options
for action enshrined in the IAASTD report and many more to come.The 2015
report published jointly by WHO, UNEP and CBD was crystal clear about this
link, stating that “Changes in land use and food production practices are among
leading drivers of disease emergence in humans.”2
IAASTD
The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Techno-
logy for Development (IAASTD) was initiated at the 2002 Rio+10 Summit on
Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa, when the World Bank
and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) sug-
gested that an international assessment of global agriculture should be carried
out. In 2004, six UN Agencies, the World Bank and 60 nation states agreed to
carry out the IAASTD, which would consist of: a global report, five sub-regional
reports, and executive summaries for decision makers.
As the final plenary in Johannesburg was being held, with the adoption of the
Synthesis Report and Executive Summary in April 2008, the world was not only
dealing with a major food crisis, but also slipping into a new financial and eco-
nomic crisis, which would have broad implications for food security.Today, twelve
years on, as we are finalizing a book to document what has been achieved since
the publication of IAASTD, we are deep into the COVID-19 pandemic, which
will have even greater economic and social impact than the
Today, deep into the financial crisis of 2008. It is increasingly clear that this aggres-
COVID-19 pandemic, sive zoonotic virus highlights the general unpreparedness of
the early warning of our health services; our immuno-deficiencies triggered by a
the IAASTD report food system that leaves hundreds of millions of people obese,
that “business as usual hungry and malnourished and exposes the public to cocktails
of chemical residues in the water, air and food. A perfect
is not an option” storm has thus caught our leaders off-guard and scrambling
should finally resonate for solutions. Resting on the laurels of food surpluses and a
with world leaders. relatively strong economy is no longer an option. The key
words, now and for the future, are as we are regularly remin-
ded by our governments, ‘foresight, preparedness and resilience’. This of course
was the fundamental message detailed in the IAASTD’s “summary for decision
makers”, now all the more urgent for leaders of global food systems to act
upon. However, politics, vested interests and false promises still stand in the way.
Now that hundreds of millions of people, both in industrial and low and middle
income countries are thrown back into poverty, hunger and homelessness, the
early warning of the IAASTD report that “business as usual is not an option”
should finally resonate with those leaders who should already have taken the lead
in promoting the agriculture and food system transformation. As the COVID-19
pandemic was spreading, both the UN Secretary General3 and WFP Chief 4 war-
10
Introduction
ned that immediate and substantial aid was needed to avert a hunger crisis. The
fragility of the present globalized, industrialized food system that we are now wit-
nessing in the Covid-19 pandemic, was amongst the key warnings of the IAASTD
report, that was itself following on the heels of the SARS outbreak of 2002/2003.
The 400 IAASTD-authors from around the world – from farmers to academics
and decision makers – sent a clear message, that there is a need to transform
agriculture from its unsustainable industrial/conventional model relying on ex-
ternal inputs and large scale farms to an agroecological model, which is fully
able to nourish a world population of 10 billion people by mid-century. There
is ample peer reviewed scientific evidence for this as detailed in this book.
In setting up the outline of the IAASTD, we paid attention to the three dimen-
sions of sustainable development and addressed them to the fullest extent pos-
sible. The main objective was a thorough analysis of the lessons to be learned
from the past 50 years and an outlook on the challenges of the next 50 years,
even as that long view would remain challenging to predict.The central question
asked of the IAASTD was ‘could key principles be identified for a food system
that takes into account not only production aspects, measured in yield per
hectare, but also socio-cultural and environmental conditions of providing he-
althy nutrition for all’? Looking back 50 years proved to be relatively easy, with
the green revolution and a globalized food system that concentrated on the
calories produced without including the nutrition and safety aspects. Envisioning
the future and coming up with real solutions that tackle the cause of the pro-
blems rather than the symptoms proved, unsurprisingly, to be more complex.
The late introduction of the “K” for knowledge, which never made it into the
acronym of the IAASTD, became a harbinger of one of the report’s missed op-
portunities.The push for inclusiveness across the world’s diverse agriculture and
food systems remained incomplete. The authors' list was extracted from the
nominations of governments and civil society by a bureau consisting of 30 go-
vernment and 30 civil society, academia and private sector representatives.There
were fair complaints that some groups central to the report’s topics were se-
riously underrepresented such as indigenous people, livestock and fisheries ex-
perts, and the wider farming community. This was not least a result of English
being the only working language, due to cost considerations.
11
Hans R. Herren
Frustratingly., with the launch of the assessment reports in the midst of a financial
crisis, little attention was paid to agriculture and food by the media. The main
economic players and governments were busy implementing yet a new set of
quick fixes to avert the worst impacts of the financial disaster they were facing,
and were not ready for a report on the resilience and future of agriculture and
the food system.This was not the case amongst Non-Governmental Organiza-
tions, where the IAASTD found fertile ground and was met with interest and
an eagerness for its actions to be implemented. Unfortunately, the World Bank,
the original initiator of the assessment, was an early critic of the report when
it was still in its draft form, as were some industry representatives.
Post-IAASTD
After a decade of working with the IAASTD results, this book takes stock of its
impact by looking at what has been taken up directly, what follow-up reports
and actions have been catalyzed and how policies from global to local have
been influenced. There has been genuine pick-up of the IAASTD’s “options for
actions” by production groups, research organizations, NGOs and some foun-
dations. There has also been a fair amount of co-opting our central message
that ‘business as usual was not an option’ and ‘the need of a paradigm change’
for green washing purposes. However, an example of how
After a decade of little has changed where such change is most needed, is the
working with the fact that most public and private R&D investments are still
IAASTD results, this going to conventional green revolution and industrial agricul-
book takes stock of its ture technologies and practices.5 At the center of these
impact by looking at money flows lies the fact that, through the ages control of
food has always been, and continues to be, one of the most
what actions have important tools used to enforce power over people.
been catalyzed and
how policies from This book presents the steps that will set the stage for the
global to local have inevitable transformation. In the same way that steam engines
been influenced. paved the way for internal combustion engines, which are
now about to yield to electric engines, in agriculture, outdated
chemical and energy intensive technologies will either yield to modern agroe-
cology, or simply go out of business.
The book’s Advisory Board has reviewed and selected landmark reports, pu-
blished since 2009, and inspired by the IAASTD.The reports address the same
concerns as the IAASTD, filling some of its gaps and further elaborating its
initial message. The corresponding thirteen essays in this book are presented
in chronological order. This provides an interesting account of the further evo-
lution in thinking and adoption of the IAASTD’s main findings with a remarka-
ble acceleration over the last three years.
12
Introduction
In addition, authors from the original IAASTD report have contributed a series
of thought pieces and updates on topics of interest and elaborated on areas that
did not get the deserved attention in the 2009 IAASTD report. Many authors
have reiterated the key place and value to society of the socio-cultural and spiritual
aspects of agroecology, as practiced by indigenous and local communities.The dis-
connect between humanity and nature, a hallmark of industrial agriculture, requires
diverse solutions in order to repair and heal the impact of previous policy.
As we work to transform the food system, the goal is to go beyond the overflo-
wing plate and profit maximization, which is still the central driver of many in agri-
business.The voices we are increasingly hearing from many sides of the debate is
for policy to be rolled out that allows for a society to live in harmony with its en-
vironment.The concept of “Buen Vivir” and the corresponding transition to a sus-
tainable economy, rather than development’, confirms the need for a new eco-
nomic system, which can handle all dimensions of sustainable development. Much
has been learned in the past decade about nutrition and the way food is produ-
ced, transformed, marketed and consumed. Several contributions highlight the
agriculture and health nexus, and the cost of ignoring how, where and by whom
food is being produced, processed, transported and distributed along the value
chain. How we produce both crops and animals has major implications regarding
climate change. The reader will thus be provided with the key data relevant to
carbon sequestration and the much-disputed impact of grazing modes.
The title of the 2019 FAO-HLPE report “Agroecology and other innovations”
carries a major contradiction, given that agroecology is not just a technology
but a holistic system, integrating science, knowledge and skills as well as tech-
nologies and innovations. This should of course all be in the service of the far-
mers (not the input industry) and preferably sourced from the pool of public
goods. Two contributions cover controversial technological developments: digi-
tization and biotechnology. While digitization had not yet played a major role in
the IAASTD, biotechnology, GMO’s in particular, had been a major bone of con-
tention in the final plenary and drove some countries and industries to distance
themselves from the report. In digitization, ownership of information is as con-
troversial as in the seed sector. For GMOs, ten years on, we are still waiting for
compelling proof that they make any significant contribution to resolving pro-
blems that could not be achieved more effectively, and with more resilience,
regeneration potential, and at lower costs than with other technologies. Almost
superfluous to mention that GMOs, by their nature, deal with the symptoms
rather than the causes of the problems they are intended to solve. Good for
business, bad for farmers.
13
Hans R. Herren
“sufficiency” and warned that the complexity of interconnected drivers and their
non-linear feedback loops prevented reliable scientific predictions. This required
robust and precautionary reactions prioritizing sufficiency-oriented research, in-
novation and communication in an ever-accelerating combination of crises.
UNCTAD took a different line with its report “Wake up before it’s too late” in
2013, which strongly promoted organic and agro-ecological farming practices
in relation to trade. UNCTAD had already called for more resilience in the face
of climate change by shifting the green revolution paradigm to ecological inten-
sification and the use of regenerative production practices with an emphasis
on the small-scale farmers.
The 2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) or Agenda 2030 of the Uni-
ted Nations were probably the most comprehensive and significant global
agreement on the future pathway to sustainability. Civil Society Organizations
dealing with agriculture and related disciplines from health to environment ga-
thered and in a common effort produced a manifesto: “Time to Act”, which
greatly influenced the development of SDGs targets and their approval by all
governments. The manifesto was based on the key findings and options for ac-
tion from the IAASTD report. The consultation process leading to the SDGs
was a catalyst for a flurry of additional reports. As a result, the framing of the
SDGs marked a key global step towards the new systemic approach to food,
health, agriculture, climate, soil, water and biodiversity, within the realm of the
three sustainable development dimensions.
UNEP’s 2016 report “Linking Food Systems and Natural Resources“ strongly
contradicted a food systems model assuming that there is no limitation to the
substitution of nature with chemicals to grow the food needed by an increasing
and ever more demanding population.
The UNEP’s 2018 TEEB-Ag report assumes, as a leverage point for the trans-
formation of food systems, that consumers’ education about the environmental,
social and economic consequences of their choices at the supermarket or mar-
ket, and their wallets, can have an important impact as a driver for change. Cal-
culating the price of food as a cascade of savings due to reducing pollution,
addressing climate change impacts and biodiversity loss, along with related health
14
Introduction
care and research costs shows that these savings would make up more than
the price of supporting the poorer segment of the population.
In 2011, The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
presented its own concept of the transformation that was needed, with the
publication of their “Save and Grow” report, to present “sustainable intensifica-
tion” as the “new paradigm”, again taking cues from the IAASTD report. This
report can be seen as a first example of co-opting agroecology while pursuing
a business as usual agenda. However, the IAASTD still worked its way slowly
into the FAO policy development process. The culmination of the changes
brought to the thinking at FAO by the then Director General, Jose Graziano, is
best illustrated by the series of conferences convened by FAO from 2016 to
2018 on agroecology. In 2014, he stated that the cathedral of the Green Revo-
lution had opened at least a window to agroecology.This led to the Committee
on World Food Security (CFS) commissioning a report from its High Level
Panel of Experts (HLPE) on “Agroecology and other innovations”, first presen-
ted in 2019, which outlines a transformation of agriculture and food systems
and lists policies leading to the expected changes.
The 2019 IPCC special report on Climate Change and Land has given a major
boost to the food system change debate. Although it does not reference the
IAASTD report, its authors have clearly drawn from it with messages that point
in the same direction of transformational changes, with an
emphasis on the role of biodiversity in the food chain, agroe- In this book, the
cological practices, inclusion of local knowledge and empo- authors are illustrating
werment of women and youth. It is a rewarding read for the “behind the scene”
those who have been waiting for this report over the past
decade.
stories about land-
mark reports that
The Beacons of Hope Report, published in 2019 by the have emanated from
Global Alliance for the Future of Food and the Biovision the IAASTD.
Foundation, has searched around the globe for practical
examples that could accelerate the transformation process. The main criteria
were impacts of these new food systems on the environment, livelihoods and
health.The report also outlines key elements of successful transformation path-
ways, and how to grow them to scale.
In this book, the authors of the essays and short stories are illustrating, in a nar-
rative form and their own words, the “behind the scene” stories about these
and other landmark reports that have emanated from the IAASTD. It is hoped
that with this book we attract the further attention of decision makers to the
challenges, the solutions, and the actions necessary to address them. Food is a
human right, and it is the responsibility of governments to ensure that all have
access to the right quantity and quality of healthy food at an affordable price,
which has been produced for the long-term from resilient systems, many of
15
Hans R. Herren
which must be rebuilt on the ruins of degraded soils, lost biodiversity and im-
poverished farmers. It’s high time that our food systems pay attention to the
word regenerative, as sustainable and resilient systems can only function as such
in fully restored ecosystems.Time is ripe to move from exploitation to manage-
ment of our life supporting ecosystems.
With a major gathering planned under the auspices of the UN Secretary Ge-
neral, Food System Summit in 2021, managed by private foundations and private
sector representatives, this book could not be timelier, bringing a strong warning
that “business as usual is not an option”, and that if this is not heeded, it’s not
people but the irrevocable damage to nature that will destroy our civilization.
One could ask where were the initiators and leaders of the 2021 Food System
Summit over the past 11 years? It is clear that food systems and the value of a
“systems approach” has been suddenly (re)invented and re-interpreted. We
must defend the narrative we have developed in 2009 and refined since, which
is now very much in jeopardy again and keenly aware of the impacts of the co-
optation of language while continuing on the same path. History has a tendency
of repeating itself.
This book is a treasure trove for decision makers with any kind of responsibility
across the food chain. It is also relevant to the general public as it explains clearly
what the consequences of their choices are. Our hope is that decision makers,
NGO officials and the wider public read this book and do their absolute best
to implement its lessons – our current and all future generations will be eternally
grateful if they do.
It is our common future, and our common duty to act fundamentally differently.
Endnotes
1 Steve Gliessman (2018). “Defining Agroecology”. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 42:6, 599-600. See
also Clara Nicholls and Miguel Altieri (2016). “Agroecology: Principles for the Conversion and Redesign of Farming
Systems”. Journal of Ecosystem and Ecography
2 https://www.cbd.int/health/SOK-biodiversity-en.pdf
3 https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/covid-19-coronavirus-could-double-acute-hunger-un-warns/
4 https://insight.wfp.org/wfp-chief-warns-of-hunger-pandemic-as-global-food-crises-report-launched-3ee3edb38e47
5 http://www.ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/Money%20Flows_Full%20report.pdf
16
Preface
Benedikt Haerlin
More than a decade ago, the IAASTD identified a number of major shifts and po-
licy options that would contribute to the reduction of hunger and poverty, the
improvement of rural livelihoods and human health, and facilitating equitable, so-
cially, environmentally and economically sustainable development.These included:
• Favourable and just conditions for small farmers, especially women, in terms
of their access to land, resources, seed, knowledge and markets;
• Support for and investment in agroecological practices, innovation and re-
search;
• Complementing the concept of food security with that of food sovereignty
as the right of peoples and sovereign states to democratically determine their
own agricultural and food policies;
• Fair and equitable terms of trade, designed to overcome the ‘global treadmill’
and foster local and regional value chains, offering greater protection from fi-
nancial speculation, international corporate domination and corruption;
• The revalorization of indigenous, traditional and local knowledge and a parti-
cipatory approach to knowledge production and sharing that is solution ori-
ented instead of technology driven.
17
Benedikt Haerlin
Narratives and fashions come and go. However, what has developed over the
past decade is more than this. A real paradigm shift for agriculture, nutrition and
food systems has emerged. Such a paradigm shift entails the change of prevailing
questions and priorities to be answered within a conceptual framework accept-
ed by a majority of the scientific and expert community and those following
their knowledge system.Thomas S. Kuhn defined paradigms in 1962 as “univer-
sally recognized scientific achievements that for a time provide model problems
and solutions to a community of practitioners” . Paradigms are questions, meth-
ods, patterns and models, not answers. They provide room for lively discussion
and competing concepts as well as different approaches, including a pluriversity
of knowledge systems well beyond classical western natural sciences. However,
they do exclude answers to questions not asked. A good example of such a
paradigm shift is the role that Climate Change considerations have in global
priority setting.
Amongst the key elements of the new paradigm for food and farming systems
is the recognition of planetary boundaries and natural scarcities, including rapid
climate change and biodiversity loss as well as the scarcity of time left for ad-
dressing these issues.The drama of the predictions of the IPCC (see page 150)
as well as the IP-BES (see page 104) becoming true and visible in even less time
than expected is defining the global modus operandi under which we have to
address the questions of the new paradigm.
The level of complexity that emerges from this new paradigm is higher and
more challenging than its green revolution predecessor. This leads some scho-
lars to believe that only computed modelling, big data and artificial intelligence
will be able to solve the riddle. De-humanisation by means of digitization has
become a conceptual approach to managing this complexity. Resorting to tools
and technologies instead of values to answer what are basically political and so-
cial questions is not new. However, this ideological mistake is at the root of
18
The making of a paradigm shift
many of the disasters that must now be urgently managed and healed. Re-
humanising, reconnecting, rebuilding and restoring the resilience of our food
systems is a distinctively different response to the same set of undeniable chal-
lenges.
The emerging food and agriculture paradigm shift contrasts with the insufficient
and sometimes counterproductive political and economic approaches of gov-
ernments and global corporations and their national and international value
chains. This is not an entirely new illustration of practise not following
knowledge.Threats to the resilience of ecosystems and sustainable use of natural
resources and critical material cycles have increased over the past decade. All
planetary boundaries, except the ozone layer, are being stressed harder today
than ten years ago. Loss of biodiversity, mounting greenhouse gas emissions, de-
gradation of soil fertility, deforestation, and detrimental nutrient and chemical
emissions continue to rise at unacceptable levels. In many regions of the world
‘mainstream’ chemical agriculture continues on a pathway of self-destruction.
Despite progress on the part of some countries, chronic undernourishment
and hidden hunger, as well as obesity and other food related diseases have actu-
ally increased over the past decade. The destructive impact of industrial food
systems and agricultural practices on our ecosystems and the social and cultural
wellbeing of communities and nations has probably never been higher than
today.
When looking back to the last decade we must acknowledge that, however in-
tellectually and technologically productive and exciting it has been, it was by
and large a lost decade for the practical resilience and ecological adaptation as
suggested by the IAASTD report. While this is the statistically quantifiable evi-
dence, the qualitative balance may not look as grim. This decade has seen bot-
tom-up movements across the globe, not only demanding but realizing radical
change, inspiring new approaches and practices in fields, kitchens and markets.
A groundswell of highly innovative, yet conserving and healing agricultural and
community practices may prove to have laid the ground for a “revolution of
the niches” in industrialized as well as less industrialized societies.
19
Benedikt Haerlin
Many scientists and other experts believe that the present decade will be the
last chance to keep global warming and global biodiversity loss at an acceptable
level for the survival of humankind. Likewise, bio-culturalism is threatened with
irreversible collapse. The food and agricultural system has become the single
most important factor that can deliver fast and sustained results in relation to
these challenges. It is the one sector that directly affects, and can directly be in-
fluenced by, all those who eat and who produce food, i.e. all 7.7 billion humans
on this planet.
Most societies and individuals now know exactly what needs to be changed,
what really works and how it works. The financial and technical means to ac-
complish these changes are at hand. All that is needed is the political and eco-
nomic will to do the right things at the right time. And there is clearly no time
to lose.
Hopefully this collection of essays and topical papers will contribute to the de-
bate, convincing and motivating colleagues, decision makers and all those in-
volved in the food and agricultural sector to deliver the changes we all need to
see. May it serve as a useful resource for those engaged in converting this para-
digm shift into a real-life transformation of our food systems.
Endnotes
1 IAASTD, Global Summary for decision makers, p. 3
2 Kuhn, Thomas S., 1962,.The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd edition 1970, p. 8
Benedikt Haerlin heads the Berlin office of the Foundation on Future Farming (Zu-
kunftsstiftung Landwirtschaft). He co-ordinates the European initiative “Save our
Seeds“, runs a “global field” of 2000 m² and co-chairs the thinktank ARC2020 on
European agricultural policies. He represented northern NGOs in the board of the
IAASTD. Before, he was an author and journalist, a Member of the European Parlia-
ment and worked for Greenpeace International.
20
Looking Back
Marcia Ishii-Eiteman
21
Marcia Ishii-Eiteman
The IAASTD discussed agroecology primarily in terms of its scientific and practi-
cal dimensions (McIntyre et al. 2009a-d), while also recognizing that agroecology
“stems from the interaction of scientific and traditional knowledge,” rooted in
profound respect for the environment and Mother Earth, “as well as [people’s]
traditions, culture and history” (McIntyre et al. 2009e). As a movement, agro-
ecology has the ability to join others – food sovereignty, Indigeneity (Figueroa-
Helland et al. 2018) – in suggesting “a dialogue of different ways of knowing”
(McIntyre et al. 2009e) that challenges assumptions behind dominant ap-
proaches to “development” (Mignolo 2020). Drawing on empirical evidence,
the IAASTD found that agroecology contributes to:
22
IAASTD, agroecology and new ways forward
determination and the right to organise; center farmer and Indigenous leaders
in national, regional and international decision-making processes;
• Establish supportive economic policies, financial incentives and market op-
portunities to overcome structural barriers: evaluate and internalise the social,
health and environmental costs of external input-intensive production systems;
remove perverse incentives that continue dependence on hazardous inputs
and industrial-scale monocropping; and incentivize ecological practices that pro-
vide public, environmental and ecosystem health benefits; and
• Strengthen institutional supports: implement comprehensive agrarian reform
that ensures equitable and secure access to, control over and ownership of pro-
ductive resources by peasant and small-scale farmers and Indigenous peoples;
revise intellectual property rights to uphold farmers’ rights to save, breed and
exchange seed and disallow land, gene and water grabs by corporations; and
establish equitable trade arrangements that enable farmers to meet their food
and livelihood security needs.
a) the need for transformative change of our food and agricultural systems;
b) a key role for agroecology in such a transformation;
c) the necessity to overcome entrenched structural obstacles to change; and
d) the imperative to center the knowledge, participation and leadership of front-
line, peasant and Indigenous communities in moving towards systems transfor-
mations.
23
Marcia Ishii-Eiteman
peoples who are co-creating not only the agroecological but also the liberatory
epistemic systems to nourish their communities and sustain life on the planet.
References
Figueroa-Helland, L., C. Thomas and A. Pérez Aguilera, 2018. Decolonizing food systems: food sovereignty, Indige-
nous revitalization and agroecology as counter-hegemonic movements. Persp Global Dev Tech 17: 173-201.
Ishii-Eiteman, M., 2009. Food sovereignty and the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science
and Technology for Development. In Patel, Raj (Guest Editor). Grassroots Voices Special Section: Food Sover-
eignty. J Peasant Studies 36(3):663-706. July 2009. At:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03066150903143079
Khothari, A., F. Demaria and A. Acosta, 2014. Buen Vivir, Degrowth and Ecological Swaraj: Alternatives to sustain-
able development and the Green Economy. Development 57(3–4): 362–375. doi:10.1057/dev.2015.24
McIntyre, B. D., H. R. Herren, J. Wakhungu and R. T. Watson (eds), 2009a. International Assessment of Agricultural
Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: Global Report. Island Press, Washington DC.
McIntyre, B. D., H. R. Herren, J. Wakhungu and R. T. Watson (eds), 2009b. International Assessment of Agricultural
Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: North America & Europe Report. Island Press, Washing-
ton DC.
McIntyre, B. D., H. R. Herren, J. Wakhungu and R. T. Watson (eds), 2009c. International Assessment of Agricultural
Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: Sub-Saharan Africa Report. Island Press, Washington DC.
McIntyre, B. D., H. R. Herren, J. Wakhungu and R. T. Watson (eds), 2009d. International Assessment of Agricultural
Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: East & South Asia & the Pacific Report. Island Press,
Washington DC.
McIntyre, B. D., H. R. Herren, J. Wakhungu and R. T. Watson (eds), 2009e. International Assessment of Agricultural
Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: Latin America and the Caribbean Report. Island Press,
Washington DC.
Mignolo, W., 2020. Sustainable development or sustainable economies? Ideas towards living in harmony and pleni-
tude. In Global Coloniality and the World Disorder. Translated into Mandarin, to be published by the University
Press of the National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan.
Pesticide Action Network North America, 2009. Agroecology and Sustainable Development: findings from the
International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. Berkeley, CA. At:
http://www.panna.org/resources/agriculture-crossroads
Pimbert, M. 2018. “Global status of agroecology: a perspective on current practices, potential and challenges.”
Econ Pol Weekly Vol LIII No 41, 13 October 2018.
24
10-Year Comparison
Cereal production
Billions of tonnes
2.75
2.50 2.7
2.3
2.25
2.00
1.75
1.50
1.25
337kg 354kg
per capita per capita
2008 2018
1.00
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Global cereal production in billion tonnes (rice milled equivalent) and cereal production per person
Sources
I FAOSTAT - Data - Population - Annual population - Total Population - Both sexes http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/OA
2 FAOSTAT - Data - Production - Crops - Production Quantity http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC
3 FAO Food and Agriculture Organization (2010). Food Outlook: Global Market Analysis, June 2010.
http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/dd06885e-aa13-5370-aaf8-c57979be2746/
4 FAO Food and Agriculture Organization (2019). Food Outlook: Biannual Report on Global Food Markets, May 2019.
http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ca4526en
25
Erik Mathijs
In addition, we were, and still are, ill-prepared to deal with such interconnected
and highly dynamic issues. Due to the success of technological advances and
substitution, the issue of resource scarcity has rarely featured on political or re-
search agendas in recent decades. However, concerns about the availability of
essential natural resources are now firmly back on worldwide agendas. These
concerns have been further heightened by the emergence of ‘new scarcities’
26
2011 EU Report
with respect to climate and biodiversity. A feature of today’s concern is the at-
tempt to understand the complexities surrounding these scarcities, which in
themselves involve a number of different dimensions.The interactions between
the different dimensions and between the different scarcities themselves, are
key to finding a rationale and sustainable route forward. It is essential to ensure
that decisions are made that are conducive to the emergence of a more sus-
tainable world. Given that the 2008/9 financial crisis has turned into an enduring
political crisis, the depth and scale of which is still taking shape, it is clear that
the need for a global approach to sustainable resource use is increasingly at
odds with the trend of protectionism and ‘resource nationalism’.
Figure 1: Scheme of interactions between scarcities. The size of the arrows indicates the intensity of the interac-
tions. Arrows in both directions indicate complex, non-linear feedbacks. Source: Freibauer et al. (2011)
Next, echoing the messages of the IAASTD and others, the report brought to
light that foresight studies and policy documents always use language or discourse
that combines into a consistent storyline or narrative that reflects underlying
worldviews and paradigms. These are sometimes made explicit, but are mostly
implicit, particularly when the narrative reflects a dominant paradigm. Making
these underlying worldviews explicit is a first step towards better understanding
our possible futures. The danger of such narratives is that they are simplistic in
that they do not capture the full complexity of underlying systems.The 3rd SCAR
Foresight Exercise identified two main narratives that it used as lenses or per-
spectives that act as an entry point for analyzing scarcities and transitions.
The 3rd SCAR Foresight Exercise referred to the dominant narrative as the ‘Pro-
ductivity Narrative’ and the alternative narrative as the ‘Sufficiency Narrative’.
27
Erik Mathijs
As authors we believed that these two concepts best summarized the under-
lying worldviews (see box below for detailed explanation). We emphasized that
the two narratives represent extremes of a likely future pathway of agriculture
and food. In reality it is expected that a mix of both extremes will be pursued
and be necessary to deal with the diversity in trends, cultures and lifestyles.
The Productivity Narrative’s main assumption is that economic growth is the
only way forward for human development. Issues such as social inequality, re-
source scarcities and pollution are not ignored, but rather considered as con-
straints thus ignoring the underlying complexity of socio-ecological systems.
Demand is considered to be exogenous, i.e., determined by
In the Sufficiency external factors external to the agro-food system. The social
Narrative, demand impacts of new technologies, as reflected in intellectual pro-
perty right issues and market power, are often underestimated.
is considered to be This narrative also includes the assumption that ecosystems
endogenous, i.e. part are best preserved if the existing cropland areas are subject
of the agro-food to massive intensification, in a way that can stop further ex-
system and hence tension of cropland into forests and other natural ecosystems.
influenceable. This assumption might seem correct when examining the glo-
bal level of production, consumption and use of resources such
as land, but when looking at the processes at stake, there is no evidence that
intensification can lead to halting of the extension of cropland.
The Sufficiency Narrative’s main assumption is that there are limits to growth
imposed by the Earth’s finite resources and finite assimilative capacity and by
the vulnerability of its ecosystems that provide essential services to mankind. It
believes that agro-ecological innovations and behavioural changes and changes
in supply chains reducing demand are sufficient conditions to meet the world’s
food demand in 2050. Demand is considered to be endogenous, that is, part of
the agro-food system and hence influenceable. However, economic, social and
cultural barriers to a transition towards sufficiency are insufficiently taken into
account by studies using this narrative.This narrative also contains an assumption
that diversity is a better source of resilience, for the variety of systems consid-
ered: ecosystems and biodiversity, food patterns, markets, supply chains, agricul-
tural production systems.
The effect of narratives can bear significant influence on policy and are in them-
selves generally not neutral. Resources (for instance for research) are often dis-
tributed according to the logic of the dominant narrative. The impact of this is
that other perspectives – such as agro-ecology – have been given much less
resources. In addition, many existing technologies have neglected important
pieces of knowledge and retarded or prevented innovative solutions to emerg-
ing problems. Capacity building in some fields of research have to then be re-
created from scratch, as in the field of agro-ecology. The report argues that
research policies should give specific emphasis to building research capacity on
ecosystem services that look at the ecological, social and economic conditions
28
Two narratives in a world of scarcities
I now prefer to call these narratives the Efficiency and Sufficiency Narratives –
in line with writers such as Wolfgang Sachs and Joseph Huber. While we pre-
sented the Efficiency and Sufficiency Narratives as extremes on a continuum, I
now believe that we should consider them as necessary complements. In other
words, efficiency is a necessary but not sufficient condition for sustainability and
vice versa, sufficiency is a necessary but not sufficient condition for sustainability.
We need both. This echoes the writings of the scholars mentioned earlier, but
basically goes back to the Brundtland definition of sustainable development that
combines the concept of needs with that of limitations.
29
Erik Mathijs
1. Well-being: food and agricultural systems should serve the well-being and quality of life
of all stakeholders involved: farmers and agribusiness should earn a sufficient income
producing secure, safe and healthy food for consumers as well as public goods; fair ac-
cess by all to a healthy food is critical for food security and well-being.
2. Resource use efficiency and optimality: given the increasing scarcities in vital resources,
resources should be used as efficiently as possible (by avoiding waste, recycling and redu-
cing our footprint), but they should also be used optimally, that is, where their contribu-
tion is greatest (by applying the cascading principle of resource contribution); this might
imply radical changes in the way we look at the use of resources, shifting from an ap-
proach in terms of productivity to an approach in terms of sufficiency, where important
changes in consumption patterns play an important role.
3. Resource conservation: to avoid the irreversible loss of natural resources, critical natu-
ral resources, including biodiversity, land and water should be maintained, taking into ac-
count the interaction between scarcities.
4. Diversity and inclusion: food and agricultural systems should reflect the territorial di-
versity present within the EU and worldwide; diversity may be instrumental for the re-
silience of our systems, but should also enhance the equitable access to affordable and
healthy food and to natural resources.
30
Two narratives in a world of scarcities
ducing energy and material use on the consumer side in an absolute manner,
including prevention of the rebound effect”.
Endnote
1 Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/research/scar/pdf/scar_3rd-foresight_2011.pdf
References
Freibauer, A., Mathijs, E., Brunori, G., Damianova, Z., Faroult, E., Girona i Gomis, J., O’Brien, L., Treyer, S., 2011. Sustain-
able food consumption and production in a resource-constrained world. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union. ISBN: 978-92-79-19723-9.
Huber, J., 2000.Towards industrial ecology: sustainable development as a concept of ecological modernization, Journal
of Environmental Policy and Planning, 2:4, 269-285.
Reichel, A., 2016. Sufficiency in business strategies. In: Sufficiency – Moving beyond the gospel of eco-efficiency,
Friends of the Earth Europe, Brussels.
Sachs, W., 1999, Planet Dialectics. Explorations in Environment and Development. Zed Books, London/New York.
Principles for more resilient food systems and future research priorities in the EU (from Freibauer et al. 2011, p. 185)
31
10-Year Comparison
Availability of calories
World 2,792
2,908
3,719
Northern America
3,752
Europe 3,362
3,380
3,304
Northern Africa
3,308
Eastern Asia 2,909
(including China) 3,171
3,064
Western Asia
3,070
Per capita amount of energy (kcal) in food available for human consumption per day according to different world
regions. The regional aggregates refer to a 3-year average period.
Sources
I FAO Food and Agriculture Organization (2019). Food Security Indicators. Additional useful statistics - Dietary Energy Supply
(DES). Update 9 October 2019. bit.ly/FoodSecIndicators
2 FAOSTAT – Data – Food Balance – Food Balances (old methodology and population) http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FBSH
3 Berners-Lee, M., Kennelly, C., Watson, R. and Hewitt, C.N., 2018. Current global food production is sufficient to meet human
nutritional needs in 2050 provided there is radical societal adaptation. Elem Sci Anth, 6(1), p.52. DOI:
http://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.310
32
Update
Molly D. Anderson
The need to transform the global food system could not be clearer as multiple
reports over the past decade have illuminated the toll of greenhouse gas emis-
sions from the food system, soil erosion and degradation, loss of biodiversity,
and unjust compensation and conditions of work for farmers and farmworkers.
The response from most businesses has not been encouraging, however. Rather
than fundamentally change their business models, they have doubled down on
minor modifications of their products and major investment in lobbying and at-
tempting to influence public opinion. The “Innovation Principle” in the EU is a
thinly veiled attempt to circumvent existing environmental and public health
safeguards. It calls for a new kind of impact assessment to ensure that whenever
policy or regulatory decisions are under consideration the impact on innovation
as a driver for jobs and growth should be assessed and addressed (ERF, n.d.). Its
supporters, the industry lobby group European Risk Forum,
come mainly from chemical, fossil fuel and tobacco sectors – The EU “Innovation
not renowned for their scrupulous attention to the public in- Principle” is a thinly
terest. veiled attempt to
circumvent existing
The World Economic Forum (WEF) and the IAASTD offer
safeguards.
stark contrasts in the purpose of innovation. The IAASTD
focused on impacts to smallholders who make up most of the world’s food in-
secure people, as well as most of the farming population. For WEF (2018), the
‘Transformative Twelve’ innovations that could deliver significant impacts to food
systems by 2030 include alternative proteins, nutrigenetics for personalized nu-
trition, “big data and advanced analytics for insurance”, and “microbiome tech-
nologies to enhance crop resilience”. It points to 80% of the poor people in
the world living in rural areas and dependent on agriculture, but does not ex-
plain how the “transformative twelve” will help them. In fact, the beneficiaries
seem to be the companies that come to Davos each year, including companies
pushing the “Innovation Principle”.
33
Molly D. Anderson
killed beneficial organisms and acidified soil so much that its productivity has
plummeted. Reliance on fossil fuels in every food system activity is feeding the
climate catastrophe. Yet each of these “innovations” was heralded as a break-
through to greater yields and productivity when it first appeared.
34
Update – Innovation for whom
References
ERF – European Risk Forum. N.d. What is the innovation principle? http://www.riskforum.eu/innovation-princi-
ple.html
Haxeltine, A., Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J., Kunze, I., Longhurst, N., Dumitru, A. and O’Riordan, T., 2018. Conceptuali-
zing the role of social innovation in sustainability transformations. Pp. 12-25 In: Backhaus, J., Genus, A., Loerk, S., Va-
dovics, E. and Wittmayer, J. (eds.) Social Innovation and Sustainable Consumption: Research and Action for
Societal Transformation. London: Routledge.
Holland, N., 2019. The “innovation principle”: Industry’s attack on EU environmental and public health safeguards.
Corporate Europe Observatory, Brussels. At: https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/attachments/brief-
ing_innovation_principle_final.pdf
Popovich, N., Albeck-Ripka, L. and Pierre-Louis, K., 2019. 95 Environmental rules being rolled back under Trump.
New York Times, December 21, 2019.
Quist, D., Heinemann, J., Myhr, A., Aslaksen, J. and Funtowicz, S., 2013. Hungry for innovation: from GM crops to
agroecology. Pp. 458-485 In: Late Lessons from Early Warnings II: Science, Precaution, Innovations. Copenhagen,
Denmark: European Environment Agency.
World Economic Forum, in collaboration with McKinsey and Company, 2018. Innovation with a Purpose: The role
of technology innovation in accelerating food systems transformation. At:
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Innovation_with_a_Purpose_VF-reduced.pdf
Molly D. Anderson is the William R. Kenan Jr. Professor of Food Studies at Middle-
bury College in Vermont. She is interested in food system resilience, human rights
in the food system, and bridging interests and concerns of academicians and com-
munity-based activists. She is a member of networks working from the local to the
international scale, including the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food
Systems (IPES-Food).
35
10-Year Comparison
Cereal utilisation
18.2% 21.8%
34.8%
35.6%
47.0%
42.6%
2008 2018
Food Feed Other uses
Utilisation of world cereal production (wheat, rice as milled equivalent and coarse grains) according to purpose
of use.
Sources
I FAO Food and Agriculture Organization (2010). Food Outlook: Global Market Analysis, June 2010.
http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/dd06885e-aa13-5370-aaf8-c57979be2746/
2 FAO Food and Agriculture Organization (2019). Food Outlook: Biannual Report on Global Food Markets, May 2019.
http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ca4526en
36
Update
Pat Mooney
Corporate concentration all along the industrial food chain seemed contentedly
oligopolistic – having gone as far as anyone thought regulators could tolerate
and (thanks to joint ventures and cross-licensing arrangements) beyond anything
the giants would need to beat back upstarts. Still licking their wounds from the
GMO fiasco,Terminator Seeds had been rejected a second time and the smart
money was hiding Climate-Smart in its data cloud. With Occupy hot after Wall
Street there was even hope that State Street might screw up the nerve to take
on the 1% or, at least, their companies.
At the first link in the Food Chain, Civil Society Organizations were rightfully
railing that the six big Gene Giants with more than two thirds of the commercial
seed and pesticide markets, should be broken up. But nobody thought further
consolidation was possible.Though disenfranchised and demoralized, the public
sector – both in research and regulation – seemed stabilized in servitude where
the private sector wanted them. How the food system has changed! Here’s a
summary of six big changes we didn’t prepare for:
1. The “Shock Doctrine” narrative: First, the UK’s Stern Report and then the
climate negotiations collapse in Copenhagen in 2009 set the stage for the so-
called “Climate-Smart Agriculture” and a bold new agribusiness narrative. It’s
simple and persuasive: Faced with a growing population, increasing nutritional
demands, climate change and biodiversity loss, agriculture will experience more
change in the next few decades than it has in the last 10,000 years. Only Cli-
mate-Smart technologies can get us through this and only if governments clear
the way for the big guns of corporate science to risk their investments and
merge and converge as necessary. Naomi Klein laid out the corporate strategy
in her 2006 book, “Shock Doctrine” – the same year as the Stern Report.
37
Pat Mooney
minds and best tools in the hands of the biggest companies, the Public Sector
has given itself a frontal lobotomy, surrendering its punitive power for a begging
bowl. Not unique to agribusiness, this has most obviously played out in the ae-
rospace industry with the Boeing 737max and with the ever-unfolding scandal
around diesel car emissions, which has spread beyond Volkswagen to snare al-
most the entire automobile industry. On the food front, it plays out in govern-
ment capacities to regulate chemical toxins (glyphosate et al.) and food safety
(where health issues have multiplied as food inspectors have evaporated).
5. Stakeholders vs. steak eaters: Or, the ultimate takeovers may already be be-
hind us since BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street, the world’s three biggest
asset managers, picked up shares in all of the major companies along all of the
38
Update – Corporate multilateralism at the UN
links in the food chain. As Jennifer Clapp and her colleagues at the University of
Waterloo have taught us, when Bayer, Monsanto, Dow, DuPont, Syngenta and
BASF sat down to negotiate a couple of years ago, the only party that sat behind
them and could see all of the cards on the table were the three asset managers.
And, at the same time, they can look over at the other tables and see games
being played by commodity traders and food processors. Multi-stakeholder dia-
logues are a farce when smallholder producers, the real stakeholders, are forced
to shadowbox with the asset managers, the steak eaters, behind the biggest
governments and corporations.
6. R&D vs. PR The final major development since the IAASTD has been the ac-
celeration of agribusiness propaganda – the trend away from R&D in favour of
PR. For the Shock Doctrine narrative to work, governments and the public have
to believe that the agrifood industry is truly capable of solving our problems,
that they “get” their social responsibilities and understand that their business has
to change.This means that the input companies must promise to reduce the en-
vironmental damage of most pesticides and fertilizers.This also means that John
Deere is committed to food security not data monopoly. This also means that
food processors like Unilever and Nestlé will reduce packaging and eliminate
non-reusable plastics.The problem – especially with R&D – is that it really is high
risk and expensive whereas money spent on PR always yields returns.The reality
is that the demand for plastics has never been greater and is projected to be-
come greater still. For all their talk, the big processors of palm oil admit that they
still can’t stop buying the illegal products of burned-down forests and slave la-
bour; that despite their commitments, the handful of chocolate manufacturers
confess that child labour and slavery on cocoa farms is increasing.
The new multilateralism: All of these developments are facilitated by the cor-
porate pressure for a new relationship between States and corporations. Cham-
pioned by the World Economic Forum, companies are arguing that the world
needs a new form of multilateralism that allows the corporate CEO and the
State CEO to negotiate as equals. Officially, of course, they call for the participa-
tion of the world’s biggest – and most compromised – aid and environment
NGOs, in-house unions and domesticated producer organizations but these are
welcomed as the cheerleaders in the background not as negotiators at the table.
This is nowhere been more evident than in Davos’ insistence that the UN Se-
cretary-General convene a World Food Systems Summit in the final quarter of
2021. For the first time in UN history, a Summit has been managed and structu-
red by the agrifood industry. We’ve never needed another IAASTD more.
In 1997, Pat Mooney co-founded the Rural Advancement Fund International (re-
named ETC Group in 2001). He received the Right Livelihood Award in 1985 and
the Pearson Peace Prize in 1998. He (co-)authored several books on the politics
of biotechnology and biodiversity. ETC's work emphasizes plant genetic resources,
agricultural biodiversity, and biotechnology.
39
Ulrich Hoffmann
40
2013 UNCTAD Report
This IAASTD+10 report provides plenty of examples of giving up external-
input and pollution-intensive industrial agriculture and adopting agro-ecological
and more socially inclusive and equitable production practices.These examples
undoubtedly show that transition can work and, on a limited scale, is already
happening. But these harbingers of transition cannot thrive without societal sup-
port, nor be uncoupled from an analysis of the bigger eco-
nomic and policy issues necessary to send the right signals One of the main
and create incentives for farmers and customers alike. causes of slow pro-
The pressure for action for a fundamental transformation of
gress is the lack of
our agro-food system is very high, but there is a clear lack of economic incentives.
adequate and effective behavioral change of farmers. This is
despite the fact that suitable truly sustainable production methods, management
approaches and techniques are well known, readily available and, under certain
conditions, economically viable even under the current economic framework.2
As the UNCTAD Trade and Environment Review 2013 pointed out, however,
the sheer scale at which modified production methods would have to be adopt-
ed, the significant governance issues, the power asymmetry problems in food
input and output markets as well as the current international trade rules for
agriculture pose considerable challenges.
One of the main causal factors for inaction or slow progress is the lack of eco-
nomic, and to some extent cultural, incentives for applying reproductive agri-
cultural practices. There are virtually no market mechanisms for agricultural
production that encourage ecosystem and reproductive agricultural and soil
management.
Farming is the most significant human management system of the planet. Farmed
landscapes account for more than half of the terrestrial area of our planet and
even a bigger share of its biological production.3 In other words, human existence
on the planet largely rests upon how we manage our farmland and soils.This has
important implications for agricultural policies, because it means that managing
farmland, soils and ecosystems is almost as important as producing agri-food prod-
ucts. But farmers are not encouraged by market signals and
mechanisms to be land, groundwater, soil and biodiversity The monetary value
stewards. On the contrary, modern day farming has removed of agricultural ecosys-
much of the land husbandry and stewardship that was pre- tem services is estima-
viously an integral part of a regenerative farming system.
ted to be much higher
Prevailing market forces encourage agricultural production that than the total value
is entirely modeled after the industrial recipe, with a mechanistic of agricultural pro-
view of nature and a linear external-input-intensive production duction.
approach, largely removed from its ecological and location-spe-
cific context. The model consciously and knowingly disconnects or violates eco-
logical rules believing that the inevitable collateral damage will be taken care of by
41
Ulrich Hoffmann
other technological interventions and remedies, from which other industries again
profit. Globalization has reinforced competition and has globally turned the role
of the food system into a mechanism that transforms synthetic fertilizers via crop
plants into nutrients for people (and animals) in the cheapest way.
While many observers recognize the urgent need for transformation, too much
hope is pinned on the potential of modern techno-fixes to mitigate the effects
of resource-mining agriculture. There is no doubt that some new technological
developments can reduce the environmental impact of industrial agriculture. But
the danger is that a reliance on such fixes simply slows down the deployment of
real solutions, thus prolonging our trajectory towards resource mining. In addition
transformation will require a change of the incentive structure
The most powerful and thus the related market signals.
mechanism for
change would be There are almost no market mechanisms in place for under-
the removal of taking the important task of managing the agriculture landscape
and the resource base for farming, and currently there is a lim-
energy subsidies. ited potential for such mechanisms to emerge. Even if they did
they might never reach the extent required, considering that the value of agri-
cultural ecosystem services is estimated to be much higher than the total value
of agricultural production and even global GDP.5 At present the market is still
driving farmers the other way, into more and more specialization and mono-
cultures and less stewardship of natural resources.6
Against this background, for decades many scholars have pointed to the need for
internalization of the social and environmental costs and compensation for ecosys-
tem services as the silver bullet for overcoming market failure and ill-conceived eco-
nomic incentives for farmers. This would however require very extensive and
complex regulation and government intervention. Such mechanisms have been pro-
posed for more than half a century and very little progress has been made so far.
42
How to cope with largely disfunctional market signals?
There are many other potential problems with payments for ecosystem ser -
vices, some of which are not initially seen. It also means that more ecosystems
are ‘commodified’ and integrated in the global economy. This could lead to a
new frontier of exploitation, where rich countries use land in developing coun-
tries as a ‘dumping’ ground for their waste, e.g. by paying for climate compen-
sation to allow continued emissions in the industrial countries.
In the light of the conceptual considerations listed above and the undoubted
level of urgency, most fruitful and likely to encourage interest amongst farmers
is to roll out one or two powerful mechanisms that would serve to change the
entire incentive structure - rather than the far tougher challenge of conceiving
famers to embrace a fully different system. The most powerful measure one
should consider in this regard is the removal of energy subsidies.
Higher costs for energy will then cascade through the system and make things that
today seem ‘efficient’ and ‘rational’ appear like lunacy and completely irrational. Con-
sequently, many of the fallacies of today’s system will automatically disappear, in par-
ticular production systems based on external-input-dependent, highly specialized
production, mass transport of food and cold chains for fresh convenience foods.
The consequent ‘freed’ financial means from reduced energy subsidies can then be
redirected towards compensating (or rather rewarding) farmers for providing en-
vironmental goods and services, bearing in mind the limitations listed above. An
example of this compensation would be incentives for carbon sequestration in soils,
which would increase soil fertility, mitigate climate change, arrest soil erosion, and
encourage farmers to implement other regenerative agriculture practices.
Another key hurdle for agricultural transformation is the lack of political will to
limit or correct the power asymmetries in international food supply chains
through competition or anti-trust regulation. Farmers are therefore autono-
mously seizing the opportunity to sever the links with their classical markets,
which are now dominated by large food processors, traders and retailers.10
43
Ulrich Hoffmann
Policy makers at local and community level can support such a development
by a host of policy measures, such as changes in land planning and public pro-
curement. In several countries, municipalities have become members of com-
munity-supported farms and purchase vegetables, fruit and sometimes meat
for schools directly from farms. Territorial food initiatives that address sustain-
ability problems and reinject democracy into food systems have also been rolled
out, including the use of ‘food policy councils’12, and through other kinds of in-
centives that include free space for farmers’ markets and making public land
available on favorable terms.
44
How to cope with largely disfunctional market signals?
Endnotes
1 Available at: https://unctad.org/en/pages/PublicationWebflyer.aspx?publicationid=6662
2 See also Abrecht S., Fuchs N., Hoffmann U. (2018). Agricultural Transformation Review (Vol.1): Soil stewardship
reinvented. Issued by the Federation of German Scientists, Berlin. Available at: https://ag-trans-review.org/ and Van
der Ploeg, J. D. (2009). The New Peasantries: Struggles for Autonomy and Sustainability in an Era of Empire and
Globalization. Earthscan Publications.
3 For a more elaborate analysis see: Rundgren, G. (2015). Global Eating Disorder, Regeneration, Uppsala, p. 121 ff.
4 Haerlin B., Fuchs, N., Willing O. (2018). Für einen integralen Produktivitätsbegriff und eine selbstbewusste Bio-
bewegung. Ein Diskussionsbeitrag der Zukunftsstiftung Landwirtschaft in der GLS Treuhand zum Thema „Bio 3.0“,
Bochum, Germany. Available at: www.zukunftsstiftung-landwirtschaft.de /media/Dokumente_Aktuelle_Meldun-
gen/ZSL_zu_bio_3_0_11Pkt.pdf
5 The monetary value of nature’s services is estimated by several studies as high as some $125-145 trillion for
the year 2007 – that is two or three times higher than the annual global GDP, estimated at $55 trillion (Con-
stanza, R., De Groot, R., Sutton, P., Van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S.J., Kubiszewski, I., Farber, S., Turner, R.K., 2014.
Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, Vol. 26, pp. 152-158 as well as
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) (2018). Measuring what matters in agriculture and food
systems: a synthesis of the results and recommendations of TEEB for Agriculture and Food’s Scientific and Econo-
mic Foundations report. UN Environment, Geneva. Available at: http://www.teebweb.org/publication/measuring-
what-matters-in-agriculture-and-food-systems-a-synthesis/).
6 Historically unprecedented low interest rates in most developed countries have recently boosted investment
in acquisition of farmland in expectation of speculative gains. This has contributed to significant increases in farm-
land prices. One would expect that higher land prices would encourage land/resource stewardship, but actually
they increased the pressure on productivity and profitability improvements further expanding, for instance, the
production of flexi-monocrops such as maize or soy beans for feed, food and fuel.
7 FAO (2007). The State of Food and Agriculture 2007. Rome. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-a1200e.pdf
8 World Bank (2008). World Development Report 2008. Washington, D.C. Available at: http://documents.world-
bank.org/curated/en/587251468175472382/pdf/41455optmzd0PA18082136807701PUBLIC1.pdf
9 Dobbs, T.L. and J. Pretty 2008. Case study of agri-environmental payments: The United Kingdom. Ecological
Economics 65, pp. 765-775.
10 Whereas in many developing countries direct marketing by peasant farmers is by far still the most important
selling track, in the European Union only about 2% of the total volume of fresh food is sold directly from produc-
ers to consumers (European Commission (2015). You are part of the food chain: Key facts and figures on the
food supply chain in the European Union. EU Agricultural Markets Briefs, No. 4. Available at:
https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/markets-and-prices/market-briefs/pdf/04_en.pdf).
11 It is estimated that buying from independent shops generates about 2.5 times as much local income as buy-
ing from supermarkets, because local shops also tend to buy local services (Transition Town Totnes, 2012. Eco-
nomic Blueprint for Totnes & District: Our local food economy. Transition Town Totnes).
12 For more information in this regard see: International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (2019).
Towards a common food policy for the European Union. Brussels, pp. 87-88. Available at: http://www.ipes-
food.org/_img/upload/files/CFP_FullReport.pdf
13 It remains to be seen whether the new “Farm to Fork initiative on a fair, healthy and environmentally friendly
food system” as part of the new European Green Deal will really trigger far-going transformations on the ground.
Ulrich Hoffmann, a German economist, had a chair on trade and international finan-
cial relations at the Institute on Economics for Developing Countries in Berlin before
joining the UN secretariat in the mid-1980s. He worked for the secretariat of the
UN Conference on Trade and Environment (UNCTAD) in Geneva, focusing on pro-
duction and trade of commodities, issues of sustainable resource management, and
the transformation of agriculture. For many years, he was principal editor of one of
UNCTAD’s flagship publications: Trade and Environment Review. After retiring from
UNCTAD in 2015 he was a senior associate at the Research Institute on Organic
Agriculture (FiBL) and the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).
45
20-Year Comparison
200
161.5
150
115.0
100
50
$15.19 $57.36
0
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Price fluctuations for a barrel of Brent crude oil (in US dollars) and for food commodities (Food Price Index in
points). This index measures monthly changes in international prices of a basket of food commodities (cereals,
oilseeds, dairy products, meat and sugar).
46
Update
Steve Suppan
The WTO adapted the PSE methodology and assumptions in the AoA Aggre-
gate Measures of Support (AMS) to categorize government support that is de-
coupled from current product specific prices, and permitted “Green Box”
support, e.g. pest and disease control. Product specific market price supporting
47
Steve Suppan
policies are put in an Amber Box of ‘trade distorting’ policies (WTO, 2003)
while whole farm income insurance is deemed not trade distorting (Congres-
sional Research Service, 2019). Indeed, because the AMS limits are so high for
developed countries, it is possible for their agricultural exports to be AMS com-
pliant even when they are sold at below the cost of production, an unfair and
anti-competitive trading practice that the AoA does not discipline (Murphy and
Hansen-Kuhn, 2019).
Calculations by Karen Hansen-Kuhn based on USDA Commodity Costs and Returns, OECD Producer Support
Estimates and USDA Agricultural Marketing Services Grain Transportation Report Datasets.
There is a consistent trend of dumping of key U.S. agricultural goods, i.e., their
sale at below the cost of production. In the chart above, the percentage of the
price that is dumped is above the zero line. While this trend generally reversed
when prices soared in 2008 and again in 2012, it has resumed for most crops
since then, undermining farmers both in developing countries and the U.S.
48
Update – Trade and market policy
there should be no gap, i.e. no government policy induced domestic price dis-
tortion deviating from the world prices for the globally traded commodities.
World prices should be determined by transactions on the most price influential
commodity exchanges. The transactions should ‘discover’ the futures contracts
prices that are benchmarks for the Free on Board (FoB) prices for agricultural
commodities (Balasubramaraniam, 2020).
However, in reality, as financial institutions have become dominant in physical
commodity futures markets, the historic role of futures prices as benchmarks
for setting domestic forward prices, e.g. at grain elevators, and subsequently FoB
prices, has become less reliable (UNCTAD 2011). For example, the failure of
wheat futures to converge with cash prices at the expiration of the futures con-
tract meant that the futures price did not serve as a reliable
benchmark for forward contracting. The Chicago Mercantile Attempts to regulate
Exchange explains convergence failure as a problem of wheat the participation of
contract design, rather than the dominance of the wheat con- financial actors have
tract by financial actors (Suppan, 2019).
been defeated by
Attempts to regulate the participation of financial actors with lobbying, litigation
no or only highly attenuated connection to the processing, and defunding of
merchandising or use of physical commodities have been de- regulatory agencies.
feated by lobbying, litigation and defunding of regulatory
agencies, e.g. in the proposed speculative position limits rule of the U.S. Com-
modity Futures Trading Commission. As a result, U.S. commodity futures markets
and market participants, the most globally price influential for many commodi-
ties, are de facto or de jure largely “self-regulated” (Gibbon, 2013).
In the World Bank’s theory and research, “sustained deviation of domestic prices
from world prices in either direction leads to substantially sub-optimal out-
comes and slows the rate of economic growth; and (…) as international food
prices reflect global scarcity or surplus, their transmission to domestic prices
can help improve the global responsiveness of the food system to shocks”
(Zorya, Townsend and Delgado, 2012). If world commodity prices were not
themselves subject to price distortion by financial actors and anti-competitive
business practices, then the World Bank loan and policy conditionalities might
provide development country policy makers with useful advice. But to the ex-
tent that international food prices do not simply reflect global supply and scar-
city, developing country policy makers may be better advised to guide domestic
agricultural policy in accord with domestic price formation, rather than guide
that policy according to international prices over which they have no influence
in futures market trading.
49
Steve Suppan
References
Balasubramaraniam, K., 2020. Who sets the price of commodities? Investopedia.
Congressional Research Service, 2019. Agriculture in the WTO: Rules and Limits on U.S. Domestic Support.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2018. The State of Agricultural Commodity
Markets: Agricultural Trade, Climate Change and Food Security.
Gibbon, P., 2013. Commodity Derivatives: Financialization and Regulatory Reform. Danish Institute for Internatio-
nal Studies Working Paper.
Murphy, S., Hansen-Kuhn, K., 2019. The true cost of US agricultural dumping, Renewable Agriculture and Food
Systems 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170519000097,
International Organization of Securities Commissions, 2018. Update to the Survey on Principles for the Regula-
tion and Supervision of Commodity Derivatives Markets.
Organization for Agricultural Development and Cooperation (OECD), 2019. Agricultural Policy Monitoring and
Evaluation.
Schott, J. and Jung, E., 2019. The WTO’s Existential Crisis: How to Salvage Its Ability to Resolve Trade Disputes. Pe-
terson Institute for International Economics.
South Centre, 2017. Analytic Note on The WTO’s Domestic Support Negotiations.
Suppan, S., 2019. Regulating agricultural futures markets to benefit producers, processors and consumers. Institute
for Agriculture and Trade Policy.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), 2011. Price Formation in Financialized
Commodity Markets: The Role of Information.
Wise, T., 2004. The Paradox of Agricultural Subsidies: Measurement Issues, Agricultural Dumping and Policy Re-
form. Global Development and Environment Institute.
World Trade Organization, 2003. Domestic Support.
Zorya, S., Townsend, R. and Delgado, C., 2012. Transmission of global food prices to domestic prices in developing
countries: why it matters, how it works, and why it should be enhanced. World Bank.
Steve Suppan is a Senior Policy Analyst at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Pol-
icy (IATP), a non-profit, non-governmental organization headquartered in Minneapo-
lis, Minnesota USA and with offices in Washington, DC, Hallowell, Maine and Berlin,
Germany. In 25 years with IATP, he has traveled to 38 countries to explain U.S. agri-
cultural, trade, climate change and commodity market policy to governments and
non-governmental organizations. He contributed to the IAASTD Global Report.
50
20-Year Comparison
1,000 40
500 20
0 0
1997 2007 2017 1997 2007 2017
60 120
30 60
0 0
1997 2007 2017 1997 2007 2017
Import value (in billions USD) Export value (in billions USD)
Value of agricultural imports and exports of all countries worldwide combined, of the world’s currently
47 least developed countries (LDCs), Africa and South America from 1997 to 2017 in billion US dollars
51
Michael Bergöö & Mayumi Ridenhour
As the gavel came down for the last time late on the evening of 2 August 2015,
one of the most complex negotiations of recent times was brought to a suc-
cessful end. On that evening, all 193 UN Member States agreed on 17 SDGs
to end poverty, protect the planet, and improve the lives and prospects of
everyone, everywhere. As part of the
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Develop-
ment which set out a 15-year plan to
achieve the goals, the SDGs provide an
evidence-based holistic blueprint to the
most pressing challenges of our time such
as eradicating poverty, ending hunger,
creating jobs, and ensuring access to
healthcare and education, healthy ecosys-
tems, and gender equality. In times of in-
creased geopolitical tensions and a general weakening of multilateralism, bringing
together more than 190 countries in one room to agree on an ambitious
agenda to transform the world was momentous.
52
2015 UN SDGs
General Assembly. Hans R. Herren was invited to present on a panel, and we
also organized an informal exchange with Member State delegates and observ-
ers to discuss what a food-related goal could potentially look like.
Even before we started, it was mostly agreed that issues such as malnutrition,
women, and small-scale food producers would be prioritized.There seemed to
be a consensus that they would be included in a food-related goal. However, it
became apparent that many of the more complex and novel
approaches and at the time rather progressive suggestions such It took thousands
as multifunctional agriculture or multi-stakeholder assessments of coffees in the UN
of national food systems would require further refinement and Vienna Café to en-
many more hours of discussion.
sure that important
In addition, it became apparent that for many Member States IAASTD messages
the entire concept of “sustainable development,” firmly estab- made it into the
lished in Stockholm in 1972 at the UN Conference on the SDGs.
Human Environment, was still unclear, especially now that they
were asked to boil it down into a limited number of concrete global goals and
targets. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), while groundbreaking,
took a narrower approach that focused solely on developing countries and
aimed to address the symptoms and not the root causes of poverty. Sustainable
food systems are critical to achieving many development goals, from safe access
to food to healthy ecosystems and even conflict resolution. However, the po-
tential of sustainable food systems to combat global challenges that was recog-
nized in the IAASTD was not taken up in the MDGs.
Finally, how to create a systemic plan of action with co-benefits between issues,
such as between agriculture and climate change, land degradation or youth em-
ployment – to name a few – was not obvious to governments. They were still
used to working in silos. Taking an integrated and systemic approach was new
to many of them. With this context in mind, when the post-2015 negotiations
started in spring 2013 it was not completely clear that there would be a goal
on agriculture, and even less so that the goal would include “sustainable agri-
culture” in its title or make a reference to food systems.
53
Michael Bergöö & Mayumi Ridenhour
of discussions on what would become SDG 2, we attended all the OWG meet-
ings and SDG negotiations as observers, organized several side-events to shed
light on the many benefits of sustainable food systems, produced dozens of
one-pagers and discussion papers with language suggestions and rationales, en-
gaged in hundreds of bilateral meetings with negotiators, representatives of UN
agencies and the secretariat, civil society, business and academia, and drank thou-
sands of coffees in the infamous Vienna Cafe.
Most of the SHIFT elements made it into the SDGs (S, H, F and T), due to the
outcome from this roundtable, as well as the efforts and perseverance of many
Member State delegates and non-governmental actors.
The I from the SHIFT message was reflected in the inclusion of the reference of
the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) in the Agenda 2030 Declaration
(Paragraph 24). While many agriculture and food security experts were aware
of the value added and expertise of the CFS, this was not immediately apparent
to many of the negotiators.Therefore, efforts were successfully made to include
language outlining the important role and inclusive nature of the CFS to support
the achievement of SDG 2.This reference is very valuable since it establishes the
CFS with its multi-stakeholder approach as instrumental in the implementation
as well as the follow up and review of Agenda 2030, particularly those elements
related to agriculture, food security, and nutrition. This recognition of the CFS
also increases the likelihood that concepts from the IAASTD and agreed upon
at the CFS (e.g. “sustainable food systems”, and to a lesser extent “agroecology”)
will be accepted and supported in future sustainable development discussions
54
How the IAASTD helped shape the SDGs
2.4: By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient
agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, that help maintain
ecosystems, that strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme
weather, drought, flooding and other disasters and that progressively improve land
and soil quality
that take place at the UN Headquarters in New York and beyond. One example
of this occurring was in 2017 when “agroecological principles” were for the first
time mentioned in a resolution by the UN General Assembly.
In order to promote the shift towards more sustainable food systems and ensure
that the right language was included in the SDGs and Agenda 2030, we had to
build awareness and widely disseminate our message. We quickly learned that the
best way to be recognized and heard was to work in partnerships. We therefore
approached various organizations to receive feedback on our positions, exchange
valuable information about the issues and the process, and increase the credibility
of our messages. In civil society circles, the findings of the IAASTD helped us to
garner support and build a coalition around the key messages.We also collaborated
with representatives from UN agencies, particularly the Rome-based agencies
(FAO, WFP, and IFAD), well-established experts on issues around sustainable agri-
culture, food security and nutrition.This collaboration included key representatives
from these agencies supporting and speaking at our side events. We also worked
together with various partners on language to include in position statements.
Looking more closely at Target 2.3, the focus on increasing the productivity and
incomes of small-scale food producers, particularly women, and ensuring their
access to productive resources and assets, clearly demonstrates that most Mem-
55
Michael Bergöö & Mayumi Ridenhour
Although most of the wording of this target was not very contentious, there
were still calls from some Member States to not only increase agricultural pro-
ductivity, but to increase production as well.This was something that was not in
line with the IAASTD since there is evidence that an unqualified increase in
production has had and would continue to have negative impacts on people
(e.g. working conditions) and the planet (depletion of natural resources). Even
though some Member States requested the inclusion of “increase production,”
this kind of detrimental language was prevented from being included in Target 2.3.
Under Target 2.4, we worked hard to ensure that it echoed the Rio+20 Decla-
ration’s call, in which we were already heavily involved with proposing IAASTD
wording, for a much needed transformation to sustainable and resilient agriculture
and food systems that conserve natural resources and ecosystems and realize a
land-degradation neutral world. We were pleased to see that many of these ele-
ments are included in both Target 2.4 and also Target 15.3 (“(…) strive to achieve
a land degradation-neutral world”). For example, the inclusion of resilient agricul-
tural practices is significant since we cannot achieve sustainable development with-
out ensuring that our food production adapts to the effects of climate change.
However, one obstacle we were not able to surmount was the reluctance by many
Members States to agree on “sustainable food systems,” a term and concept that
applies to both the production and the consumption of food. In particular, emerging
economies argued strongly for the qualifier “production” and a sole focus on the
production side of food systems.This was because many of them were faced with
a two-sided challenge:While they were still combatting hunger among some groups
of their populations, they did not want to put (unnecessary) restrictions on how
their emerging middle-class would consume food and emit greenhouse gases. De-
spite the fact that the exact language we wanted was not included in the final doc-
ument, we still believe that this was a good starting point because the pressure to
transform the way we produce and consume food globally continues.
56
How the IAASTD helped shape the SDGs
chairs maintained control of the drafting throughout the negotiations, which was
different from previous negotiations, for example in Rio+20.This was, in our view,
one of the success factors that contributed to an ambitious set of SDGs. At one
point, the discussions on the means of implementation (MOI) were partly shifted
into the more politicized “Finance for Development” forum, which probably did
not help to increase the ambition level on the MOI-targets. Given all these variables,
it was not easy to secure IAASTD’s specific messaging in negotiations that were at
times chaotic and the attention of the Member States was elsewhere.
However, we can wholeheartedly say that the IAASTD provided us, our partners,
and most importantly, negotiators with an invaluable source of evidence-based
information and concepts, which we then tried to boil down to 2-liners and bring
into the SDGs. Some elements never made it in (agroecology, food governance
issues, the right to food) or were weakened at the last minute (sustainable food
systems). From today’s perspective, we might say that they may have just been
ahead of their time.The IAASTD helped us connect the dots between issues that
would not have been seen as an obvious interlinkage (e.g. food systems and stable
institutions). It helped us and the negotiators to stay on course towards a coherent
and ambitious SDG 2.
Throughout the process, we were reminded at various instances that the IAASTD
– signed by 58 governments and called by some the IPCC of agriculture – was
considered controversial in some circles, in particular among large-scale agriculture
producers and proponents of GMOs.This sometimes forced us to omit the source
of our rationales for change. But it did not prevent us from working hard to use
Agenda 2030 as an opportunity to highlight IAASTD’s call for a radical transfor-
mation. Because the IAASTD and the Agenda 2030 have something in common:
they are both a transformative plan of action for people, planet and prosperity.
Endnote
1 https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/
Mayumi Ridenhour is a Manager on the Foundation Relations team at the World Wild-
life Fund-US where she manages foundation relationships for high-priority conserva-
tion projects around the world. She holds a J.D. from the University of Maryland
School of Law and a B.A. degree from McGill University in Montreal. As the Advocacy,
Networking & Communications Advisor for the Millennium Institute, she worked to in-
fluence the Sustainable Development Goals and the post 2015 development agenda.
After working for the Swiss Humanitarian Aid in Liberia, Michael Bergöö joined Biovi-
sion Foundation in 2013 as Advocacy Manager during the post-2015 negotiations. He
then joined the Executive Committee to expand Biovision’s program in Switzerland
and to initiate the Swiss chapter of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network
(SDSN). Today Michael works for ClimateView – a Swedish software startup helping
cities and countries achieving carbon neutrality. Michael holds a MA in political science
from University of Lausanne.
57
10-Year Comparison
2008 2018
2008 2018
Global area of genetically modified crops in 2008 and 2018 by trait (above) and by crop type (below). Herbicide
tolerance and/or insect resistance includes both single and stacked traits.
58
Update
Angelika Hilbeck & Eugenio Tisselli
59
Angelika Hilbeck & Eugenio Tisselli
60
Update – Digitalization
operations are considered as mere sources for data extraction, as well as targets
of digital surveillance schemes. Context-based social values are not understood
as important elements of agriculture, and therefore not considered in the de-
velopment of ICTs.
Agroecology: Respecting the integrity of farmers and their communities, as well
as their ecosystems, by placing them at the centre, and avoiding socially and eco-
logically disruptive practices. Promoting farmers’ full ownership of tools, method-
ologies and data, by integrating their views, ideas and values at every step of the
ICT cycle. If farmers are compensated properly for their work and investments,
they have the means to mechanize and get help for their operations.
Endnotes
1 https://www.lely.com/farming-insights/robotic-milking-concept/
2 Baumann 2018. Bayer_CMD_London_2018-12-05_Investor_Handout_Group-1-
https://www.investor.bayer.de/de/nc/events/archiv/2018/capital-markets-day-2018-london/
References
Rockström et. al., 2009, A safe operating space for humanity.
Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), 2011. At: www.fao.org/ag/save-and-grow
UNCTAD, 2013, Wake up before it is too late
Ajena, F., 2018. Agriculture 3.0 or (Smart) Agroecology? Green European Journal, 20. November 2018; At:
https://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/agriculture-3-0-or-smart-agroecology/
Bekaroo, G., Bokhoree, Ch., Pattinson, C., 2016. Impacts of ICT on the natural ecosystem: A grassroot analysis for
promoting socio-environmental sustainability. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 57, DOI:
10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.147
Angelika Hilbeck is a senior scientist and lecturer at the Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology in Zurich, with Ph.D. and Master degrees in Agricultural Biology and En-
tomology. Her research focuses on biosafety and risk assessment of GMOs in the
context of agroecology and biodiversity. Since 2011, she leads an ‘ICT for Agroecol-
ogy’ research project in Tanzania in collaboration with Swissaid. She was a lead author
of the Global Chapter 3 and Synthesis Report on Biotechnology of the IAASTD.
Eugenio Tisselli is a computer scientist, with a transdisciplinary Ph.D. in media art
and environmental sciences. He has developed software platforms and sociotechni-
cal methodologies for participatory research and collaborative documentation in
rural and urban contexts. His current research focuses on the design and develop-
ment of the ICT for an agroeocology framework, in collaboration with the Swiss
Federal Institute of Technology and Swissaid.
61
Jacqueline McGlade
UNEP’s International Resource Panel Working Group on Food Systems first re-
port came at a time when the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was
fresh in the minds of governments and societies around the world (UNEP
2016a). Its main conclusion was that agriculture would benefit from being em-
bedded in the wider context of resource-smart food systems. As Achim Steiner,
then Under-Secretary General of the United Nations and UNEP Executive Di-
rector said, “A food systems lens goes beyond the
classic production-centred discussions to connect
all activities concerned with the food we eat …
[we] need to transition to more resource-smart
food systems, an imperative for the achievement of
at least 12 out of the 17 Sustainable Development
Goals”.
62
2016 UNEP Report
sions. Farmers and food producers were seen as the world’s largest group of
natural resource managers and as such critical agents of change.
Panel members agreed that the resource use and requirements of the global
food consumption called for a better understanding of the food system as a
whole, and in particular its role as a node for resources such as water, land, and
biotic resources on the one hand and the varied range of social practices that
drive the consumption of food on the other. The thinking reflected the findings
of the IAASTD report, i.e. that agriculture needed to be treated as part of the
larger system of sustainable resource management (UNEP 2016a). The basic
idea was that food systems needed to deliver food security and healthy diets
for people and to do so sustainably from a resource perspective.The underlying
premise was that food systems had to become resource-smart by improving
the efficiency of production, as well as by reducing food demand through mini-
misation of food waste, dietary changes and reduction of resource-intensive
foods. Food systems were integral to sustainable development.
Food regimes
The seeds of resource-smart-food came out of a response to the 2008 financial
crisis and the rethinking of economic recovery through the Global Green New
Deal (UNEP 2009), which saw food security as being radically affected by fi-
nancial institutions far from the people actually producing food. It took as its
point of departure the hegemony of the food regime which dealt with food
and the wider politics of food (and agricultural) relations from field to plate
through ‘the political structuring of world capitalism, and its organization of agri-
cultures to provision labour and/or consumers in such a way as to reduce wage
costs and enhance commercial profits’ (McMichael, 2013).The environment was
never considered in this dialectic.
63
Jacqueline McGlade
64
Resource-smart food systems
agriculture. It also covered linkages to new dominant values such as wellbeing and
health. It also opened up the space for non-agricultural actors to co-design better
health and environmental outcomes. For example, governmental programmes for
nutritious school meals stimulating local farmer’s options and crop choices.
65
Jacqueline McGlade
erating livelihoods and improving health, education and food security whilst pro-
tecting ecosystem services such as clean water, biodiversity and cultural heritage.
The world has many millions of rural farmers, many barely making enough to
provide food or school fees or medicine. With well-devised policies on land
stewardship and well articulated product regulations, many different biobased
industries could be established to the benefit of local farmers. Using the princi-
ples of agroecology and regenerative agriculture for improving soil health and
productivity, all streams of organic waste from crops and vegetation can be pro-
cessed through integrated composting and into the industrial production of
bioplastics and lubricants. Expanding the co-production of these products and
resilient crops within the setting of rural communities living in a healthy, biodi-
verse environment with intact ecosystem services, is another way that farmers
can become key player in the circular bioeconomy.
In the circular bioeconomy, farmers are not only part of the resource-smart
food system, they are land stewards with the potential to transform our eco-
nomies (Palahí et al. 2020). As the potency of these ideas gain traction, it is
useful to recall that they are a legacy of the IAASTD findings and the UNEP
2016 report which showed the world how to think about agriculture in the
wider context of environment and natural resources.
66
Resource-smart food systems
Endnote
1 https://www.resourcepanel.org/sites/default/files/documents/document/media/food_systems_summary_report_-
english.pdf
References
Palahí, M. et al., 2020. Investing in Nature to Transform the Post COVID-19 Economy. A 10-point Action Plan to
create a circular bioeconomy devoted to sustainable wellbeing. The Solution Journal 11, June 2020.
https://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/article/investing-nature-transform-post-covid-19-economy-10-point-action-
plan-create-circular-bioeconomy-devoted-sustainable-wellbeing/
UNEP 2009. Rethinking the economic recovery: a global green new deal. Barbier, E. et al. UNEP, Nairobi.
https://www.cbd.int/development/doc/UNEP-global-green-new-deal.pdf
UNEP 2011. Decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth, A Report of
the Working Group on Decoupling to the International Resource Panel. Fischer-Kowalski, M., Swilling, M., von
Weizsäcker, E.U., Ren, Y., Moriguchi, Y., Crane, W., Krausmann, F., Eisenmenger, N., Giljum, S., Hennicke, P., Romero
Lankao, P., Siriban Manalang, A., Sewerin, S. UNEP, Nairobi. 174pp ISBN: 978-92-807-3167-5
UNEP 2012. Measuring water use in a green economy. A Report of the Working Group on Water Efficiency to
the International Resource Panel. McGlade, J., Werner, B., Young, M., Matlock, M., Jefferies, D., Sonnemann, G., Al-
daya, M., Pfister, S., Berger, M., Farell, C., Hyde, K., Wackernagel, M., Hoekstra, A., Mathews, R., Liu, J., Ercin, E., Weber,
J.L., Alfieri, A., Martinez-Lagunes, R., Edens, B., Schulte, P., von Wirén-Lehr, S., Gee, D. UNEP, Nairobi. 91pp. ISBN:
978-92-807-3220-7
UNEP 2015. Options for decoupling economic growth from water use and water pollution. Report of the Inter-
national Resource Panel Working Group on Sustainable Water Management. UNEP, Nairobi. 78pp. ISBN Num-
ber: 978-92-807-3534-5
UNEP 2016a. Food Systems and Natural Resources. A Report of the Working Group on Food Systems of the
International Resource Panel. Westhoek, H, Ingram J., Van Berkum, S., Özay, L., and Hajer M. UNEP, Nairobi. 164pp.
ISBN: 978-92-807-3560-4
UNEP 2016b. Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools. A
Report of the Working Group on Land and Soils of the International Resource Panel. Herrick, J.E., O. Arnalds, B.
Bestelmeyer, S. Bringezu, G. Han, M.V. Johnson, D. Kimiti, Yihe Lu, L. Montanarella, W. Pengue, G. Toth, J. Tukahirwa,
M. Velayutham, L. Zhang. UNEP Nairobi. 96pp. ISBN: 978-92-807-3578-9
67
20-Year Comparison
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Transnational land deals greater than 200 hectares with a concluded contract according to area size under con-
tract in the respective year based on Land Matrix data as of April 2020.
68
Update
Ward Anseeuw
During that very same period as the IAASTD Report was published, following
the food price crisis of 2008-2009, a new ‘global land rush’ developed. It entailed
large-scale land acquisitions mainly by private investors (but also by public in-
vestors and agribusiness) buying farmland or leasing it on a long-term basis to
produce agricultural commodities, i.e. raw materials for global industrial value
chains. These investors responded to the prospects of a growing demand for
food, animal feed, fuels and fibre, combined with the liberalisation of trade and
investment regimes and increased price volatility – all factors that fuelled the
new global rush for land (Anseeuw et al. 2012). It was also a response to invi-
tations by numerous host governments, mainly in Africa and Asia, which instead
of promoting endogenous growth of small and medium-sized family farms as
promoted by the IAASTD, were exploiting this hype as an
opportunity to attract private, mainly international capital. In A new global land
view of reduced public spending and Official Development rush was fuelled by a
Assistance (ODA), these investments were presented as so- growing demand for
lutions contributing to the countries’ agricultural revitalisation food, animal feed, fuels
- directly through large-scale investment or through a positive
and fibre.
pull-effect integrating the host countries’ small-scale farming
sector (Cotula et al. 2009). Such investments, focussing on the development of
large-scale agricultural estates, would enhance their national food security sit-
uation and develop rural infrastructure. So went the narrative.
This rush for land primarily affected agrarian economies, mainly in Africa and
Asia. Lands that in the early 2000s seemed marginal to investment interest were
being sought by international investors and speculators in quantities hitherto
unseen. Between 2000 and 2016, with a peak in 2010, foreign investors acqui-
red 42.2 million hectares of land around the globe. 26.7 million hectares were
for farming purposes, according to a Land Matrix report that covers a thousand
69
Ward Anseeuw
concluded agricultural deals (Nolte et al. 2016). Africa accounts for 42% of these
deals, and about 10 million hectares of land. This being said, few are the deals
that are producing effectively: Presently, about 10 years after the hype of acqui-
sitions, only 27% of the area is showing effective production-related activities
(from land preparation to crop production), although effective production is
increasing on the still active deals (Land Matrix 2019). Managerial and technical
difficulties related to the implementation of large land deals in often isolated,
difficult ecological, political, bureaucratic and socio-economic environments ex-
plain this low implementation, as well as high failures. In Madagascar for example,
out of the 53 deals identified since 2000, only four are still active today. Not
only do these failed deals not contribute to the promised expectations with
regards food security and development; in most of the cases, land rights – which
have changed in the process – are not returned to local (so-
Foreign land acquisi- metimes displaced) populations. Even though the global land
tions increase com- rush has now ebbed, new acquisitions are still being recorded,
mercial pressure on contributing to growing commercial pressures on land.
land and weaken land
rights of the local In addition, in general, these processes tended to fuel unrea-
listic expectations on the part of the host countries and local
population. populations: contribution to food security, creation of jobs, as
well as development of productive and non-productive infrastructure such as
schools, hospitals, besides others, are generally lower than expected. Very few,
if any cases have led to an effective agrarian transformation, particularly since a
common characteristic of such offshore production models and farm enterpris-
es is the lack of local integration, sometimes even referred to as enclave econ-
omies (White et al. 2012). Contrary to the call of the IAASTD to implement
at the national and international level, using governance mechanisms to respond
to unfair competition and agribusiness accountability, these acquisitions reflect
an increasing control by international farm enterprises over land-based pro-
ductive cycles – primary agricultural production in particular – representing far-
reaching trends of vertical integration.
70
Update – Access to land
priation and displacements, it also affects land rights of the rightful owners and
occupiers of the land, while exacerbating land concentration and inequalities.
Overall, instead of the options of action promoted by the IAASTD, the out-
sourcing of the development of the agricultural sector by host governments in
the South to international farm enterprises simply represented a quick fix. The
results were marginal and led to mostly negative impacts for food security and
development at large, rather than a process of genuine structural agrarian trans-
formation based on endogenous small and medium-sized farm development.
However, more recently, international interest in land has triggered domestic
interest as well: and the question remains, do these domestic investments reflect
opportunities for local agricultural development or do they present a new wave
of domestic land grabs by urban elite (Jayne et al. 2019)?
References
Anseeuw, W., Alden Wily, L., Cotula, L., Taylor, M., 2012. Land rights and the rush for land. Rome, International Land
Coalition, Research report, 84p.
Anseeuw, W.; Boche, M.; Breu, T.; Giger, M.; Lay, J.; Messerli, P.; Nolte, K., 2012. Transnational land deals for agriculture
in the Global South. Analytical Report based on the Land Matrix Database. Bern/Montpellier/Hamburg,
CDE/CIRAD/GIGA, Research report, 64p.
Cotula, L., Vermeulen, S., Leonard, R., Keeley, J., 2009. Land grab or development opportunity? Agricultural invest-
ment and international land deals in Africa. London/Rome, IIED/FAO/IFAD, research report, 130p.
Jayne, T.S., Muyanga, M., Wineman, A.; Ghebru, H., Stevens, C., Stickler, M., Chapoto, A., Anseeuw, W., Van Der West-
huizen, D., Nyange, D., 2019. Are medium-scale farms driving agricultural transformation in sub-Saharan Africa?
Agricultural Economics, 2019, p.1-21.
Land Matrix, 2018, 2019, 2020. www.landmatrix.org (last visited 03 February 2020).
Nolte, K., Chamberlain, W., Giger, M., 2016. International Land Deals for Agriculture. Fresh insights from the Land
Matrix: Analytical Report II. Bern/Montpellier/Hamburg, CDE/CIRAD/GIGA, Research report, 69p.
White, B., Borras, S.M., Hall, R., Scoones, I., Wolford, W., 2012. The new enclosures: critical perspectives on corpo-
rate land deals. The Journal of Peasant Studies Vol. 39, Nos. 3–4, July–October 2012, 619–647.
Dr. Ward Anseeuw, a development economist and policy analyst, is a research fel-
low at the Agricultural Research Centre for International Development (CIRAD).
He is presently seconded to the International Land Coalition as a Senior Technical
Specialist responsible for “Knowledge, Learning, Innovation and data”. For the last
12 years, he was seconded to the University of Pretoria, as a senior research fellow
to the Post-Graduate School of Agriculture and Rural Development and as the co-
director of the Center for the Study of Governance Innovations (GovInn) – which
he founded in 2012.
71
Emile A. Frison
When I was appointed Director General of the International Plant Genetic Re-
sources Institute in 2003, I recognized that it was the right moment to move
beyond an exclusive focus on plant genetic resources; the time had come to fully
embrace the complexity of agrobiodiversity that constitutes the reality of farm-
ers’ daily lives across the world. Understanding how agrobiodiversity contributes
to better nutrition, resilience, stability and sustainability be-
came a significant part of the research agenda at the Institute.
This shift led to the Institute’s name change to ‘Bioversity In-
ternational’, reflecting the broadening of the agenda.
72
2016 IPES Report
of the need to take a broader systems approach and to deepen our work on
the role of agrobiodiversity in improving the lives of smallholder farmers.
This was the first report that made a systematic comparison between the in-
dustrial model of agriculture (the dominant paradigm) and the emerging diver-
sified agroecological system from an economic, environmental, nutritional, health,
social and cultural point of view. The report pointed to the fact that the focus
on productivity increases of industrial agriculture was at the expense of numer-
ous unsustainable negative environmental, health and social consequences. Con-
sequences that were being considered as ‘unavoidable’ negative externalities,
paid for by society at large, and presented as necessary to ‘feed the world’.
The IPES-Food report is unique in the depth of its analysis of the political econ-
omy and the identification of eight ‘lock-ins’ that prevent, or are significant ob-
stacles to, the necessary paradigm shift to diversified agroecological systems.
These ‘lock-ins’ are described below.
73
Emile A. Frison
other interests such as ensuring resources for local food production. In addition,
in spite of the risks and problems associated with export orientation and re-
gional monocultures, including price volatility, environmental degradation and
competition for land, various policy measures have continued to incentivize ex-
port orientation.
74
From uniformity to diversity
75
Emile A. Frison
One lock-in that was not sufficiently addressed in the recommendations of the
2016 IPES-Food report was the concentration of power.This issue was tackled in
a subsequent report by IPES-Food entitled: “Too Big to Feed” published in 2017.
76
From uniformity to diversity
This is encouraging, but major efforts from policy makers and private enterprise
are still needed to overcome the lock-ins listed above. Overcoming these will
be key to ensuring that agroecology becomes the new, mainstream, dominant
model.
Endnote
1 http://www.ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/UniformityToDiversity_FULL.pdf
77
10-Year Comparison
Meat production
+20%
337
300
282
+26%
200
209
166
+10%
100 128
116
0
World Developing countries Developed countries
2008 meat production (in billions of tonnes) 2018 meat production (in billions of tonnes)
Meat production worldwide, in developing and developed countries in million tonnes carcass weight equivalent
for the years 2008 and 2018 – and the corresponding increase in per cent
Sources
1 FAO Food and Agriculture Organization (2009). Food Outlook: Global Market Analysis, June 2009. Total meat statistics (thou-
sand tonnes, carcass weight equivalent) www.fao.org/tempref/docrep/fao/011/ai482e/ai482e00.pdf
2 FAO Food and Agriculture Organization (2019). Food Outlook: Biannual Report on Global Food Markets, May 2019.
http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ca4526en
3 OECD/FAO (2019). OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2019-2028, OECD Publishing, Paris/Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. https://doi.org/10.1787/agr_outlook-2019-en
78
Update
Robert G. Wallace
SARS-CoV-2 and the other novel pathogens are not just matters of an in-
fectious agent or clinical course. They cannot be fixed merely by the latest in
vaccines and other prophylaxes, as important as these biomedical interventions
may be. Farther out, the webs of ecosystemic relations that industry and state
power have pinned back to their own advantage have had a foundational effect
on the emergence and evolution of these new strains (RG Wallace et al. 2015).
The wide variety of pathogens, representing different taxa, source hosts, modes
of transmission, clinical courses, and epidemiological out-
Monoculture pro-
comes, mark different parts and pathways of something of
the same regimens in land use and value accumulation spread duction drives the de-
across the world. forestation and devel-
opment that increases
We find this new context reproduced region by region. De- the rate of pathogen
spite differing in their particularities, local circuits of pro-
spillover from wildlife.
duction operate within the same web of global expropriation
and its environmental impacts. At one end of the production circuit, the com-
plexity of primary forest typically bottles up “wild” pathogens. Logging, mining,
and intensive plantation agriculture drastically streamline that natural complexity
(R Wallace et al. 2018). While many pathogens on such “neoliberal frontiers”
die off with their host species as a result, a subset of infections that once burned
79
Robert G. Wallace
out relatively quickly in the forest, if only by the irregular rate of encountering
their typical host species, are now propagating much more widely across sus-
ceptible populations.
Ebola offers a now archetypical example (RG Wallace and R Wallace 2016).
Ebola Makona, the Zaire ebolavirus variant underlying the regional outbreak in
West Africa 2013-2015, appeared conventional in its initial genetics, case fatality
ratio, incubation period, and serial interval. Unlike previous outbreaks that wiped
out a village or two, however, Makona infected 35,000 people, killing 11,000,
leaving bodies in the streets of major capital cities.
How to account for the difference if not by the Ebola virus itself? It is instead
the socioecological background through which the pathogen spread – from
local environmental and social spaces out to global relational geographies – that
shifted. Multilateral structural adjustment and a multinational land rush en-
croached upon regional forests and truncated medical infrastructure. New in-
cursions of monoculture plantation – palm oil, sugar cane,
Of the 39 documen- cotton, and macadamia among other crops – were tied to
ted transitions from new rounds in land enclosure, consolidation, and commodi-
low to high pathogeni- zation of previous subsistence trading. These shifts increased
city in avian influenzas, the interface between Ebola-bearing species of bats attracted
to such plantations and the now partially proletarianized la-
all but 2 occurred in borers who cultivated them. The resulting increases in Ebola
commercial poultry spillover likely accelerated the emergence of a human-to-
operations. human infection (Rulli et al. 2017, Olivero et al. 2017).
Diseases of other taxa tag the other end of the circuit of production. Highly
pathogenic and suddenly human-adapted avian and swine influenzas typically
first emerge as newly identifiable infections in intensive operations located closer
to major cities in both fully industrialized countries and those in the middle of
undergoing economic transitions to more industrialized regimes. Of the thirty-
nine documented transitions from low to high pathogenicity in avian influenzas
from 1959 on, Dhingra et al (2018) identified all but two occurred in commer-
cial poultry operations, typically of tens or hundreds of thousands of birds.
80
Update – Infectious diseases
Other pathogens emerge in more complex origins across these circuits. SARS-
1 and now SARS-2, our COVID-19 strain, appear to have emerged out of mixed
niches spread across their associated regional circuits of production. Non-human
SARS specimens have been isolated in greater Hubei, Wuhan’s province, as far
back as 2004, in both bats – Shortridge’s horseshoe bat and the greater horse-
shoe bat – and farmed masked palm civets (Hu et al. 2005, Tang et al. 2006).
The isolates appear part and parcel of a wide range of animal SARS distributed
across China, including in adjacent provinces Anhui and Jiangxi, well within Wu-
han’s wild foods catchment, but also as far south as Guangdong, another source
from which SARS-2 may first have arisen (Forster et al. 2020).
References
Challender, D.W.S., Sas-Rolfes, M., Ades, G.W.J., Chin, J.S.C., Ching-Min Sun, N. et al., 2019. Evaluating the feasibility
of pangolin farming and its potential conservation impact. Global Ecology and Conservation, 20:e00714.
Dhingra, M.S., Artois,J., Dellicour, S., Lemey, P., Dauphin, G. et al., 2018. Geographical and historical patterns in the
emergences of novel Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) H5 and H7 viruses in poultry. Front. Vet. Sci., 05
https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2018.00084
Forster, P., Forster, L., Renfrew, C. and Forester, M., 2020. Phylogenetic network analysis of SARS-CoV-2 genomes.
PNAS, 117(17): 9241-9243.
Hu, W., Bai, B., Hu, Z., Chen, Z., An, X., Tang, L., Yang, J., Wang, H. and Wang, H., 2005. Development and evaluation
of a multitarget real-time Taqman reverse transcription-PCR assay for detection of the severe acute respiratory
syndrome-associated coronavirus and surveillance for an apparently related coronavirus found in masked palm
civets. J. Clin. Microbiol., 43:2041-2046.
Jones B.A., Grace, D., Kock, R., Alonso, S., Rushton, J., Said, M.Y., McKeever, D., Mutua, F.,Young, J., McDermott, J. and
Pfeiffer, D.U., 2013. Zoonosis emergence linked to agricultural intensification and environmental change. PNAS 110:
8399–8404.
81
Robert G. Wallace
Li, X., Gao, Y. , Wang, C., and Sun, B., 2020. Influencing factors of express delivery industry on safe consumption of
wild dynamic foods. Revista Científica, 30(1):393-403.
Olivero, J., Fa, J.E., Real, R., Márquez, A.L., Farfán, M.A., Vargas, J.M., Gaveau, D., Salim, M.A., Park, D., Suter, J., King, S.,
Leendertz, S.A., Sheil, D. and Nasi, R., 2017. Recent loss of closed forests is associated with Ebola virus disease out-
breaks. Nature Scientific Reports, 7:14291.
Olson, S.H., Parmley, J., Soos, C., Gilbert, M., Latorre-Margalef, N., Hall, J.S., Hansbro, P.M., Leighton, F., Munster, V. and
Joly, D., 2014. Sampling strategies and biodiversity of influenza A subtypes in wild birds. PLoS One, 9(3):e90826.
Rulli, M.C., Santini, M., Hayman, D.T.S. and D’Odorico, P., 2017. The nexus between forest fragmentation in Africa
and Ebola virus disease outbreaks. Nature Scientific Reports, 7:41613.
Tang, X.C., Zhang, J. X., Zhang, S.Y. et al., 2006. Prevalence and genetic diversity of coronaviruses in bats from China.
Journal of Virology, 80(15):7481-7490.
Wallace, R., Chaves, L.F., Bergmann, L.R., Ayres, C., Hogerwerf, L., Kock, R. and Wallace, R.G., 2018. Clear-Cutting
Disease Control: Capital-Led Deforestation, Public Health Austerity, and Vector-Borne Infection. Springer, Cham.
Wallace, R.G. et al., 2015.The dawn of Structural One Health: A new science tracking disease emergence along cir-
cuits of capital. Social Science & Medicine, 129:68-77.
Wallace, R.G. and Wallace, R. (eds). 2016. Neoliberal Ebola: Modeling Disease Emergence from Finance to Forest
and Farm. Springer, Cham.
Xiao, K., Zhai, J., Feng,Y., Zhou, N., Zhang, X. et al. 2020. Isolation and characterization of 2019-nCoV-like coronavirus
from Malayan pangolins. bioRxiv. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.17.951335v1.
82
10-Year Comparison
Meat supply
125124
120
100
84 83
80 81
77
60 61 60
53 52
40 41 43
13 14
4 4
0
India LDCs World South China Russia EU Brazil USA
Africa
Meat supply in kilogram per person per year in the BRICS countries, the EU, the world’s least developed coun-
tries (LDCs) and the global average. Data for 2007 and 2017 from FAO Food Balances (2017 figures were calcu-
lated on a slightly amended methodology and with revised population figures).
83
Alexander Müller & Nadine Azzu
84
2018 TEEBAgriFood Report
whelming. The same is valid in relation to the fact that small scale farmers and
workers in the food chain are often underpaid and many are poor; conglome-
ration of food businesses continue at a global scale, industrial production of
seeds and fertilizers is moving towards oligopolies, and major global food brands
can be found all over the world; six out of ten global health risks for humans
are caused by food; and one third of all food, annually, is wasted.
These considerations beg the following questions: (i) how can we tell if the food
system is not working, and is broken – i.e. what are the characteristics or indi-
cators of a functioning food system?; and (ii) based on these
characteristics, what metrics should be used to measure the To date, the “success”
performance of the food system? of a food system is
measured with simple
To date, the “success” of a food system is predominantly mea- economic metrics:
sured with simple economic metrics: productivity (output per
unit of input), and yields per hectare. In recent decades the productivity and yields
increases in yields are impressive both in terms of per hectare per hectare.
productivity (in some parts of the world), and in the amount
of food produced globally. According to FAO the world is currently producing
enough calories for there to be enough for everybody. No one should go to
bed hungry. So why are there so many hungry people? Measured against these
two predominant success indicators positive results are shown. According to
these indicators we are producing enough food, so everyone should be fed.
But this is not the case.Therefore, currently productivity is not the problem, but
rather access to food. People are hungry because they are poor.
Let us approach the question “is the food system broken?” from a different, en-
vironmental perspective. The impact of agricultural production has been ana-
lysed in several studies3 and the results are – again – pretty clear: the agriculture
sector is to a large extent responsible for the degradation of natural resources
and is one of the main emitters of greenhouse gases. As a nature-based industry,
agriculture is therefore undermining its own foundation. From this perspective,
there is a contradiction. Additionally, the agriculture sector is responsible for a
massive loss of biodiversity (e.g. insects for pollination) while at the same time
it is dependent on genetic resources.
Therefore, the question is, are we measuring the success or failure of the food
system against the right indicators, or do we need new metrics for measuring
and valuing the performance of food systems accurately. We are proposing to
reflect all capital (produced, natural, human and social) and associated costs (ex-
ternalities, both positive and negative) in the valuation of food systems.
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Agriculture and Food (TEEB-
AgriFood) was designed to illustrate how best to capture the complex reality
of “eco-agri-food” systems in a holistic manner. The aim was to move beyond
85
Alexander Müller & Nadine Azzu
the risks and limitations inherent in simplistic metrics such as “per hectare pro-
ductivity” and to develop a metric that covers the whole system and not only
parts of it.
86
“It’s the economy, stupid!”
To conclude: What is at the core of the problem must now be at the centre of
our attention – the findings of TEEBAgriFood call for research, politics and all
ongoing multi-stakeholder processes to reassess our hitherto central economic
beliefs. Nothing less is required to create a new economic foundation for sus-
tainability. Without this reassessment, more systems will be broken.
Endnotes
1 http://teebweb.org/agrifood/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Layout_synthesis_sept.pdf
2 Here we focus solely on the economics of the food system. Questions of access to food, poverty and stability
of supply including trade are outside the remit of this essay and will need to be considered additionally. We are
however convinced that a new economy for sustainability needs to be in the centre.
3 FAO. 2011. The state of the world’s land and water resources for food and agriculture (SOLAW) – Managing
systems at risk. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome and Earthscan, London.
IPCC. 2019. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, de-
sertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial eco-
systems [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.- O. Pör tner, D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade,
S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas,
E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, J. Malley, (eds.)]. In press.
IPBES. 2019. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of
the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. S. Díaz, J. Settele, E. S.
Brondízio E.S., H. T. Ngo, M. Guèze, J. Agard, A. Arneth, P. Balvanera, K. A. Brauman, S. H. M. Butchart, K. M. A. Chan,
L. A. Garibaldi, K. Ichii, J. Liu, S. M. Subramanian, G. F. Midgley, P. Miloslavich, Z. Molnár, D. Obura, A. Pfaff, S. Polasky,
87
Alexander Müller & Nadine Azzu
A. Purvis, J. Razzaque, B. Reyers, R. Roy Chowdhury,Y. J. Shin, I. J.Visseren-Hamakers, K. J. Willis, and C. N. Zayas (eds.).
IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. 56 pages.
IPBES. 2018. The IPBES assessment report on land degradation and restoration. Montanarella, L., Scholes, R., and
Brainich, A. (eds.). Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Ser-
vices, Bonn, Germany. 744 pages.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2014. Global Biodiversity Outlook 4. Montréal, 155 pages.
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. 2017. The Global Land Outlook, first edition. Bonn, Ger-
many
4 The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). 2018. Measuring what matters in agriculture and food
systems: a synthesis of the results and recommendations of TEEB for Agriculture and Food’s Scientific and Economic
Foundations report. Geneva: UN Environment.
5 http://teebweb.org/agrifood/reports/ The TEEBAgriFood report was written and reviewed by 150 people from
more than 30 countries analyzing all aspects of today’s food systems. Its system approach goes beyond the concept
“from farm to fork” because it starts with the natural resource base and also takes into account both human and
planetary health.
6 https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/why-gdp-by-philipp-lepenies-2016-08?barrier=accesspaylog.
7 Sandhu, H., Scialabba, N.E., Warner, C. et al. Evaluating the holistic costs and benefits of corn production systems
in Minnesota, US. Sci Rep 10, 3922 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-60826-5
Alexander Müller is the Managing Director of the TMG ThinkTank for Sustainability.
Previously, he worked as State Secretary in the German Ministry for Consumer
Protection, Food and Agriculture. He later served as Assistant-Director General of
the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, responsible for the Department
for Natural Resources and Environment. He then led the TEEBAgriFood-Project
hosted by UN Environment.
88
Update
In agrochemicals, for example, the top four combine for 65.8 percent of global
sales, and for commercial seeds this figure is 53.2 percent. Notably, Bayer [Mon-
santo], ChemChina [Syngenta] and Corteva [DuPont and Dow] are among the
top four in both of these sectors. Animal pharmaceuticals, beer and farm equip-
ment also have global four-firm concentration ratios that exceed 40 percent.
89
Philip H. Howard & Mary K. Hendrickson
are more regionally concentrated include more than 50 percent for fertilizers,
18 percent for milk processors, and 10 percent for grocery retailers (Shand &
Wetter 2019; IFCN 2019). In some nations the top 4 or fewer firms in key in-
dustries combine for more than 90 percent of sales (e.g. gro-
The top four agro- cers in Australia; beer in Brazil, Mexico, Japan, South Africa
chemical companies and South Korea).
combine for 65.8
percent of global sales. These figures may underestimate the power of dominant
firms, particularly as asset management firms have increased
ownership of multiple firms in the same sector in recent years, further reducing
incentives to compete (Torshizi & Clapp 2019). Vanguard and BlackRock, for
example, have investments in all of the leading firms in a number of food and
agricultural industries, such as seeds, animal feed, dairy processing and meat pro-
cessing.
Although these trends have been resisted, and alternatives had success in certain
industries (e.g. organic food, craft brewers), the most successful of these are
typically imitated or acquired by dominant firms (Howard 2017). This process
may unintentionally open new avenues of growth for dominant firms, thus fur -
ther reinforcing their power (Bichler & Nitzan 2017).
Policymakers have not only failed to respond to these trends, they have actively
contributed to them – most have not sufficiently grasped that transnational agri-
business firms, particularly those emerging from North America and Europe,
operate globally to find the cheapest inputs and to sell where they can make
the most profit. National competition authorities are now inadequate to address
consolidation across borders – those in the EU and the United States, for exam-
ple, approved the acquisition of Monsanto by Bayer, forcing only limited dives-
titures. This de facto approved the merger globally, essentially forcing the hand
of other competition authorities who may have considered
The top ten fertilizer other anti-competitive implications.
companies have more
than 50 percent of In other regions, neo-mercantilist or state capitalism has
global market share. emerged, with capital’s interests even more closely aligned
with national geopolitics (Belesky & Lawrence 2019). The
governments of China and Brazil, for example, have encouraged food and agri-
culture firms headquartered in these nations (e.g. meat processors, grain traders,
seed/pesticide firms) to expand globally via major acquisitions. Changes to re-
gulations and court decisions have typically increased intellectual property pro-
tections and created more barriers to entry for smaller firms, which have
subsequently been codified in international trade regimes.
90
Update – Industry Concentration
and return to shareholders has been prioritized over societal goals of equity,
food security and resilience. When forced into global markets, farmers in every
region are subsumed into a global intellectual property regime, giving up rights
to save seed and to repair their equipment, and losing ownership of their own
data. Constrained choices in consolidated markets (Hendrickson 2015) limit
their ability to manage crops and livestock to enhance biodiversity (IPES-Food
2017). Opaque feedback loops means global consumers, especially affluent ones,
have little understanding of food consumption’s impact on farmers, rural com-
munities or distant ecologies. In a consolidated global food system, the focus
on productivity and shorter term thinking has created new risks just as humanity
faces an unprecedented climate crisis (Nyström et al 2019).
References
Belesky, P. and Lawrence, G., 2019: Chinese state capitalism and neomercantilism in the contemporary food re-
gime: contradictions, continuity and change, The Journal of Peasant Studies, 46(6), 1119-1141.
Bichler, S., and Nitzan, J., 2017. Growing through sabotage: Energizing hierarchical power (No. 2017/02). Working Pa-
pers on Capital as Power.
Euromonitor, 2019. Alcoholic Drinks Global Industry Overview. August.
Hendrickson, M. K., 2015. Resilience in a concentrated and consolidated food system. Journal of Environmental
Studies and Sciences, 5(3), 418-431.
Howard, P. H., 2017. Craftwashing in the U.S. beer industry. Beverages, 4(1), 1.
IFCN, 2019. Top 20 Milk Processors List 2018. IFCN Dairy Research Network. September 25.
IPES-Food, 2017. Too Big to Feed: Exploring the Impacts of Mega-Mergers, Consolidation and Concentration of
Power in the Food System. International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems.
Nyström, M., Jouffray, J., Norström, A.V. et al., 2019. Anatomy and resilience of the global production ecosystem.
Nature 575, 98–108.
Shand, H. and Wetter, K. J., 2019. Plate Tech-Tonics: Mapping Corporate Power in Big Food. ETC Group. At:
https://etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/files/etc_platetechtonics_a4_nov2019_web.pdf
Torshizi, M. and Clapp, J., 2019. Price effects of common ownership in the seed sector. At:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3338485
91
María E. Fernandez
92
2018 UN Declaration
• Consultation in policy design (Article 2.3): States shall consult and cooperate
in good faith with peasants and other people working in rural areas through
their own representative institutions, engaging with and seeking the support of
those who could be affected by decisions before they are made;
• Women’s rights (Article 4.2): States shall ensure that peasant women and other
women working in rural areas enjoy, without discrimination, all the human rights
and fundamental freedoms including: training and education; equal access to fi-
nancial services, marketing facilities and appropriate technology. They will also
be ensured equal access to land and natural resources and equal or priority
treatment in land and agrarian reform and land resettlement schemes;
• Organization and Collective bargaining (Article 9.1): Peasants and rural wor-
kers have the right to form and join organizations, trade unions, cooperatives
or any other organization or association of their own choosing for the pro-
tection of their interests, and to bargain collectively;
• Food Sovereignty (Article 15.4): Peasants and rural workers have the right to
determine their own food and agriculture systems (recognized by many States
and regions as the right to food sovereignty). This includes the right to partici-
pate in decision-making processes on food and agriculture policy and the right
to healthy and adequate food, produced through ecologically sound and sustain-
able methods that respect their cultures.
93
María E. Fernandez
• Control over seeds technology and medicine (Article 19): Peasants and rural
workers have the right to seeds, the right to the protection of traditional
knowledge relevant to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture and the
right to equitably participate in sharing the benefits arising from the utilisation
of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture.
• Foster periodic events at local, state and national level that give public reco-
gnition to the historical and continuing role in land, forest and biodiversity man-
agement that explicitly “award” contributions of rural people – men and
women – to knowledge and technology generation.
Below are two examples of efforts to support rural communities in the man-
agement of natural resources upon which they – and we – depend.
94
UNDROP – The UN Declaration on the rights of peasants
The communities who are members of ACOPOF have faced constant chal-
lenges over the years including: conflict between the rights of community mem-
bers and non-members; failure of member communities to fulfil obligations and
how to deal with the apparent absence of state support while faced with the
incursion of illegal land appropriations for the establishment of cattle ranches
affecting 30 to 50% of the concessionary. ACOFOP fostered alliances at national
and international level, enabling effective campaigning which in turn guaranteed
a renewal of the concessions in 2021.7
As Milner et.al. (2019) have pointed out, successful community forestry in the
Maya Biosphere Reserve is tied to the development of institutions that learn
through negotiation, and embed learning into their regulatory practices. Each
area of negotiation involves navigating specific tensions; between keeping rules
and changing them; between establishing unity and linking diverse interests; be-
tween listening carefully and speaking persuasively; between defending territorial
rights and addressing internal power dynamics.These tensions constantly threat-
en to undo the possibility of collective action, but they also keep participation
open, fostering inquiries that lead to enhanced participation.
95
María E. Fernandez
In the Central Western Ghats of India forests are owned by the state Forest
Department (FD) and can be classified as protected forest, reserve forest and
minor forests. Degraded forests in reserve forest and minor forest zones are
managed by Village Forest Committees.These are registered organizations that
bring together the FD with local communities under India’s Joint Forest Man-
agement program.The research was carried out in three villages with high forest
cover, because of the wide variety of non-timber forest products used by the
communities, their large sociocultural and ethnic diversity, high
UN Member States local dependency on forest resources and villagers’ willingness
are now charged with to participate in the research.
focusing on peasants Women and men participants from three villages actively en-
and rural workers in gaged in knowledge mapping activities. Participants found the
a different manner competitive angle of identifying which groups had most
than before. knowledge about the different topics identifies particularly
motivation. They were keen to complete the exercises even
when these took over 2 hours. Additionally, many participants from disadvan-
taged ethnic groups as well as illiterate and younger women explained that it
was their first experience speaking in front of a mixed gender and multi-ethnic
group in plenary. An elder woman from the Naik community in Salkani ex-
plained that, ‘this is the first time that most of us, both men and women, spoke
out in front of a group of people. Initially we were shy and hesitant, but after a
while it brought out confidence within and among us.’ Participants expressed
that bringing differentiated sets of knowledge together increased the knowledge
held individually and collectively, ensured that different perspectives could be
recognised and valued, and provided a more comprehensive picture of the
breadth of local knowledge on NFTs.
96
UNDROP – The UN declaration on the rights of peasants
97
María E. Fernandez
larger and more powerful and uncertified farmers have been able to slow down
the process. Over the past ten years we have come a long way in building sup-
port for a more sustainable resource management agenda. We will need to find
better ways to allow the voices of smaller farmers, fisherfolk and indigenous
communities to be heard.
Endnotes
1 https://undocs.org/pdf?symbol=en/A/RES/73/165
2 https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/rtd.pdf
3 https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf
4 https://www.weltagrarbericht.de/fileadmin/files/weltagrarbericht/IAASTDBerichte/SynthesisReport.pdf
5 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300
6 https://acofop.org/en/
7 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X19303924?dgcid=coauthor
8 https://www.cgiar.org/research/program-platform/forests-trees-and-agroforestry/
9 2012 Fernandez, M.E; (unpublished) Rome, Bioversity Internacional
10 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14728028.2016.1247753
María Fernandez was a member of the Scenario research group for the IAASTD.
She has been an Honorary Research Fellow at Bioversity International in Rome
and a Visiting Professor at the National University Rodriguez de Montoya in Ama-
zonas, Peru. María Fernandez is an independent consultant active with the Interna-
tional Support Group (https://isginternational.org) of which she is a founding
member. Her areas of special expertise include: stakeholder participation, gender
relations in agriculture and natural resource management.
98
Update
Ben White & Jan Douwe van der Ploeg
The first is the ageing of farming populations, all over the world. In many coun-
tries (high, middle and low income) in a timespan of only three decades the
proportion of farmers under age 35 has halved while those aged 55 and over
have doubled. Second is the widely-reported aversion of today’s relatively well-
educated young rural men and women to farming futures. And third is these
young rural people’s increasing spatial and sectoral mobility (White, 2020).
Young people’s aversion to farming is often seen as a main cause of the rising
average age of farmers. But is it true that young people no longer have sufficient
interest in engaging in farming? This assumption is largely based on data con-
structed by state administrative systems (Ploeg, 2013), and
this can create its own problems. For example, there may be Over the past 30
many farms that are legally still owned by ‘an old patriarch’ years, the proportion
but which, in practice, have been already run for quite some of farmers under age
time by one or more of the children. In national statistics, such
farms appear to be run by an aged farmer without a succes-
35 has halved.
sor and doomed to disappear. Then there is the opposite
case, of the many young men and women who would like to start farming but
cannot get access to the land (Rete, 2012: 36), some of whom migrate else-
where in order to make their dream come true.They too do not appear in the
statistics. In summary, farms with youngsters and youngsters wanting to farm
are too often filtered out of statistics.
We also have to take into account that officially produced statistical trends are
averages, which can conceal important countertendencies. We will briefly discuss
here two such countertendencies. Organic agriculture, at least in the Northwest
of Europe, and perhaps also elsewhere, offers such a countertendency.The per-
centage of organic farms that pass to the next generation is nearly twice as
high as conventionally managed farms (Vijn, 2010: 22-23). Even more intriguing
is that a substantial number of organic farms give birth to two or more new
99
Ben White & Jan Douwe van der Ploeg
organic farms that are run by the children. This is easy to explain: on the whole
incomes are better in organic farms, debts are lower and the people involved
experience more joy and satisfaction in their jobs. However, all this escapes
from statistics.
In surveys of rural youth aspirations in Asia, Africa and Latin America, when
young men and women are asked some form of the question “what would you
like to do when you grow up?”, they overwhelmingly mention secure, salaried
work while farming comes far down on the list. However, if the same surveys
ask “what would make farming an attractive option for you?” farming emerges
as a possible option – if land and inputs are available and if farming is at least
partly commercially oriented and combined with other income sources in plu-
riactive livelihoods. Young people’s desire for an economic existence indepen-
dent from their parents is strong, and they express a clear understanding of the
constraints which make access to land and to successful farming difficult, at least
while they are still young.
100
Update – Demographic Change
It is not surprising, then, that so many rural school-leavers opt for trajectories
of migration and non-farm work. But this is not necessarily a once-for-all, per-
manent decision. Many of today’s “young farmers” are in fact former out-mi-
grants who have then returned to the village and to farming (White, 2020: Ch. 5).
Initiatives to support young farmers should include both, those from farming
backgrounds and newcomers, male and female, and should take into account
the characteristic patterns of youth trajectories today, especially their multidi-
rectional mobility and pluriactive livelihoods combining farm and non-farm in-
comes. This requires creative promotion of opportunities for young rural men
and women to engage in farming, and investment in infrastructures making rural
areas attractive places for young men and women to live and work.
101
Ben White & Jan Douwe van der Ploeg
References
FAO and IFAD, 2019. United Nations Decade of Family Farming 2019–2028. Global Action Plan. Rome: Food
and Agricultural Organization of the UN, and International Fund for Agricultural Development.
Gurr, M., 2017. Limits of Liberation: Youth and Politics in Brazil’s Landless Workers Movement. PhD dissertation,
Syracuse University.
HLPE, 2013. Investing in Smallholder Agriculture for Food Security. Report by the High Level Panel of Experts on
Food Security and Nutrition. Rome: FAO, Committee on Food Security.
Ploeg, J.D. van der, 2013. The Virtual Farmer: Past, Present and Future of the Dutch Peasantry, Royal van Gorcum,
Assen, the Netherlands
Ploeg, J.D. van der, 2017. Differentiation: old controversies, new insights, The Journal of Peasant Studies, DOI:
10.1080/03066150.2017.1337748
Rete Rurale Nazionale, 2012, Young People's Perception of Rural Areas: A European Survey carried out in eight
Member States. Rome: MIPAAF
Vijn, M., 2010, Gezocht: opvolgerrs (m/v), Ook biologische en multifunctionele bedrijven hebben een tekort aan
opvolgers, EKOLAND 12-2010
White, B., 2020. Agriculture and the Generation Problem. Black Point: Fernwood Publishing and Rugby: Practical
Action
Jan Douwe van der Ploeg is professor emeritus of Rural Sociology at Wageningen
University in the Netherlands and adjunct professor in the sociology of agriculture
at the College of Humanities and Development Studies (COHD)of China Agricul-
tural University in Beijing. He specialized in the comparative analysis of rural devel-
opment processes. His recent publications include “The New Peasantries” (Rout-
ledge, 2018, second edition) and “Peasants and the Art of Farming” (Fernwood
Publishing, 2013).
102
10-Year Comparison
Global area planted with genetically modified crops (GMOs) in millions of hectares and as a percentage share of
total cropland (arable land and land under permanent cultures)
Sources
I International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM
Crops, editions 2007 to 2018 (ISAAA Brief 37-2007 to ISAAA Brief 54-2018: Executive Summaries).
http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/default.asp
2 FAOSTAT (2020). Data – Inputs – Land Use – Area – Arable land and Land under permanent crops
http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/RL
103
Kate Brauman & Bob Watson
Trends in nature’s contributions to people2 and how they are affected by bio-
diversity loss
People depend on nature, and while some core contributions of nature have
increased, the global assessment of IPBES found that most of nature’s contribu-
tions are in decline. Nature plays a critical role in providing
many material goods, and, since 1970, agricultural pro-
duction, fish harvest, bioenergy production and harvest of
materials have increased (IPBES 2019: 2.3.5). The value of
agricultural crop production, $2.6 trillion in 2016, has increa-
sed approximately threefold since 1970, and raw timber
harvest has increased by 45 per cent, reaching some 4 bil-
lion cubic meters in 2017, with the forestry industry provi-
ding about 13.2 million jobs (FAO 2019). In addition, nature,
through its ecological and evolutionary processes, sustains
the quality of the air, fresh water and soils on which huma-
nity depends, distributes fresh water, regulates the climate,
provides pollination and pest control and reduces the im-
pact of natural hazards (IPBES 2019: 2.3.1). However, most
of these regulating contributions of nature, as well as its non-
material contributions – inspiration and learning, physical and psychological ex-
periences, and supporting identities – are in decline (IPBES 2019: 2.3.5). Declines
in 14 of the 18 categories of nature’s contributions to people evaluated (Figure
1) indicate that gains in material contributions are often not sustainable. For
example, land degradation has reduced productivity in 23 per cent of the global
104
2019 IPBES Report
terrestrial area (IPBES 2018), and between $235 billion and $577 billion in an-
nual global crop output is at risk as a result of pollinator loss (IPBES 2016). Mo-
reover, declines in the diversity of nature reduce humanity’s ability to choose
alternatives in the face of an uncertain future.
There are often trade-offs in the production and use of nature’s contributions
(IPBES 2019: 2.3.5). Giving priority to the production of food, feed, fiber and
bioenergy can result in ecological changes that reduce other contributions of
nature to quality of life, including regulation of air and water quality, climate reg-
ulation and habitat provision, as well as non-material contributions. Synergies
also exist, such as sustainable agricultural practices that en-
hance soil quality, thereby improving productivity and other
ecosystem functions and services such as carbon sequestra-
559 of the 6,190
tion and water quality regulation. In addition, benefits and bur- domesticated breeds
dens associated with the production and use of nature’s of mammals used for
contributions to people are often distributed unequally food and agriculture
across space and time and among different segments of so- (over 9 per cent) had
ciety, social groups, countries and regions. Some of these tra-
deoffs may benefit some people at the expense of others,
become extinct by
particularly the most vulnerable, as may changes in techno- 2016.
logical and institutional arrangements. For example, although
food production today is sufficient to satisfy global needs, approximately 11 per
cent of the world’s population is undernourished, and diet-related disease drives
20 per cent of premature mortality, related both to undernourishment and to
obesity (FAO 2017).
105
Kate Brauman & Bob Watson
Figure 1. Global trends in the capacity of nature to sustain contributions to good quality of life from 1970
to the present, which show a decline for 14 of the 18 categories analyzed. Data supporting global trends
and regional variations come from a systematic review of over 2,000 studies (IPBES 2019: 2.3.5.1). For
many categories, two indicators are included that show different aspects of nature’s capacity to contribute
to human well-being. Figure from IPBES 2019 [1].
106
Agriculture and biodiversity
Most of nature’s contributions are co-produced with people, but while anthro-
pogenic assets – knowledge and institutions, technology, infrastructure and fi-
nancial capital – can enhance or partially replace some of those contributions,
some are irreplaceable (IPBES 2019: 2.3.2). Loss of diversity, such as phylogenetic
and functional diversity, can permanently reduce future options, such as wild
species that might be domesticated as new crops and be used for genetic im-
provement (IPBES 2019: 2.2.3.4.3). People have created substitutes for some
contributions of nature, but many of these are imperfect or financially prohibitive
(IPBES 2019: 2.3.2). For example, high-quality drinking water can be achieved
either through ecosystems that filter pollutants or through human-engineered
water treatment facilities. Similarly, coastal flooding from storm surges can be
reduced either by coastal mangroves or by dikes and sea walls. In both cases,
however, built infrastructure can be extremely expensive, incur high future costs
and fail to provide synergistic benefits such as nursery habitats for edible fish or
recreational opportunities. More generally, human-made replacements often do
not provide the full range of benefits provided by nature.
The average per capita consumption of materials (e.g., plants, animals, fossil fuels,
ores, construction material) has risen by 15 per cent since 1980 (IPBES 2019:
2.1). Producing, consuming and disposing of these materials has generated un-
precedented impacts (IPBES 2019: 2.1): since 1980, greenhouse gas emissions
have doubled, raising average global temperatures by at least 0.7 degrees Cel-
sius, while plastic pollution in oceans has increased tenfold. Over 80 per cent of
global wastewater is being discharged back into the environment without treat-
ment, while 300–400 million tons of heavy metals, solvents, toxic sludge and
other wastes from industrial facilities are dumped into the world’s waters each
year. Excessive or inappropriate application of fertilizer can lead to run off from
fields and enter freshwater and coastal ecosystems, producing more than 400
hypoxic zones which affected a total area of more than 245,000 km2 as early
as 2008. The rate of change in the direct and indirect drivers differs among re-
gions and countries.
107
Kate Brauman & Bob Watson
While, globally, climate change has not been the most important driver of the
loss of biodiversity to date, it is projected to be as, or more, important than the
other drivers in the coming decades (IPBES 2019: 2.1.17). In addition, climate
change will interact with other drivers, exacerbating their impact. Climate change
adversely affects genetic variability, species richness and populations, and eco-
systems. In turn, loss of biodiversity can adversely affect climate, for example,
deforestation and conversion of grasslands and mangroves increases the atmos-
pheric abundance of carbon dioxide. Climate change, through changes in tem-
perature, precipitation and pests, also has an adverse impact on agricultural
production.Therefore, the issues of climate change, loss of biodiversity and agri-
culture must be addressed together.
Potential solutions
We personally think that protecting and improving our environment is critical.
To do so, we must engage with a broad range of people, especially indigenous
and local communities. We need to understand how they are impacted and
develop adaptation strategies together. A technological fix imposed from above
is no solution. One key area we’re passionate about is changing the food system,
including removing agricultural subsidies, reducing food waste, and reconsidering
diets. In addition, making the agricultural sector both more climate friendly and
more climate resilient will be a huge challenge, and one we look forward to
seeing a diverse community take on.
Urgent and concerted efforts are needed to address the direct drivers together
with the root causes of nature deterioration, such as poor governance, unsus-
tainable economic systems, social inequalities, lack of cross-sectoral planning and
appropriate incentives, and unsustainable social narratives and values (IPBES
2019: 6).
Nature and the benefits it provides can be conserved, restored and used sus-
tainably while simultaneously meeting other global societal goals. Feeding hu-
manity and enhancing the conservation and sustainable use of nature are
complementary and closely interdependent goals that can be advanced through
sustainable agriculture, aquaculture and livestock systems, the safeguarding of
native species, varieties, breeds and habitats, and ecological restoration. Specific
actions include promoting sustainable agricultural practices, such as good agro-
ecological practices, multifunctional landscape planning and cross-sectoral in-
tegrated management that supports the conservation of genetic diversity and
associated agricultural biodiversity. Further actions to simultaneously achieve
108
Agriculture and biodiversity
As noted earlier, there has been a world-wide decline in the populations and
diversity of wild pollinators and hence pollination services
(IPBES 2016).This has been accompanied by seasonal colony We are passionate
loss of western honey bees in some regions of the world. about changing the
Therefore, it is important to maintain healthy pollinator com-
food system, removing
munities through (i) agroecological farming practices, (ii)
strengthening existing diversified farming systems, and (iii) in- agricultural subsidies,
vesting in ecological in- frastructure by protecting, restoring reducing food waste,
and connecting patches of natural and semi-natural habitats and reconsidering
throughout productive agricultural landscapes.These need to diets.
be complemented by reducing the risk of lethal and non-let-
hal effects of pesticides, particularly insecticides such as neonicotinoids, on pol-
linators. This could be facilitated by the use of integrated pest management.
Honey bees need to be protected from a broad range of parasites, including
Varroa mites, by placing greater emphasis on hygiene and control of pathogens.
Another key set of key actions include steering away from the current limited
paradigm of economic growth and the use of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
as a measure of economic growth to one which incorporates natural capital
into national accounting systems, recognizes both market, non-market and social
values of biodiversity in decision-making, eliminates harmful agricultural, energy
and transportation subsidies, provides incentives for sustainable production and
consumption, embraces a circular economy and recognizes the social costs of
environmental degradation.
109
Kate Brauman & Bob Watson
through national recognition of land tenure, access and resource rights in accor-
dance with national legislation, the application of free, prior and informed consent,
improved collaboration, fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the
use of resources and co-management arrangements with local communities.
Endnotes
1 See at https://ipbes.net/global-assessment
2 The IPBES global assessment predominantly used the term “nature’s contributions to people,” which is more in-
clusive than the common term “ecosystem services”
References
IPBES, Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, 2019. IPBES Secretariat: Bonn,
Germany.
FAO, FAOSTAT Statistical Database, 2019. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
IPBES, Summary for policymakers of the assessment report on land degradation and restoration of the Intergovern-
mental Science- Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, 2018. IPBES Secretariat: Bonn, Germany. p. 44.
IPBES, Summary for policymakers of the assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on pollinators, pollination and food production, 2016. IPBES Secretariat: Bonn,
Germany.
FAO, Intergovernmental Technical Working Group on Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture - Status
of Animal Genetic Resources, in Comission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, 2016. Food and Agri-
culture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy.
FAO, I., UNICEF, WFP and WHO; The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2017. Building resilience
for peace and food security, 2017. FAO: Rome.
IAASTD, Agriculture at a Crossroads: Global Report, 2009. Island Press: Washington, DC.
Kate Brauman PhD. is the Lead Scientist for the Global Water Initiative at the Uni-
versity of Minnesota’s Institute on the Environment. Her research integrates hydrol-
ogy and land use with economics and policy to better understand how water use
by people affects the environment and our ability to live well in it. Dr. Brauman was
a Coordinating Lead Author for the IPBES Global Assessment.
Sir Robert Tony Watson’s career has included scientific advisor in OSTP, White
House; chief scientist, World Bank; chief scientific advisor, UK DEFRA; and strategic
director for the Tyndall Center, UEA, UK. He has chaired, co-chaired or directed the
WMO/UNEP stratospheric ozone depletion assessments, Global Biodiversity As-
sessment, MA, IPCC, IAASTD, and IPBES, and UK National Ecosystem Assessment
and its Follow-on.
110
Update
Jack A. Heinemann
The most contentious biotechnologies are of the category called ‘modern bio-
technology’.1 Modern biotechnologies including genetic engineering have made
profound contributions to fundamental genetic science and medicine, at least
as a research tool. However, in agriculture in particular, there
has been a large scale although globally asymmetric adoption Most traits of agri-
of GMOs, almost exclusively plants, too. cultural importance
are multigenic. For
The use of GM plants in agriculture remains a small propor-
tion of world agriculture and a minority proportion of the
example, drought
agriculture in all countries except for a few in South America. stress changed
Adoption of GM agriculture globally as well as the number expression of over
of GM plants that are commercially available, has increased 10,000 genes in
in the last decade, but modestly. In some places, it has also sorghum plants.
disappeared. The assessment of the IAASTD was that such
forms of modern biotechnology were highly specialised.This made them of lim-
ited value to small-scale farmers especially in developing countries, and these
are the farmers that are the major food producers.
111
Jack A. Heinemann
Regulatory RNA
Regulatory RNA molecules alter the expression of genes. The most common
type of regulatory RNA molecule is a double-stranded RNA (dsRNA). Nearly
all organisms so far tested use dsRNA gene regulatory pathways. In eukaryotic
organisms, such as fungi, plants and animals, dsRNA molecules cause RNA in-
terference (RNAi). Most often this causes gene silencing. RNAi may be reversed
within a generation, or in some cases leads to intergenerational effects (Heine-
mann 2019).
Site-directed nucleases
SDNs are commonly known for procedures referred to as gene/genome edit-
ing. SDNs have the potential to increase the rate at which intended modifica-
tions are created at intended locations. SDNs such as ZFNs or TALENs may be
constructed to recognise a target sequence of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA
molecule, or as in the case of CRISPR/Cas, the SDN recognises its target using
an oligonucleotide (DNA or RNA) co-factor.
Genome editing techniques are not new (Itakura and Riggs 1980), but the SDNs
have made it possible to apply the techniques to a wider range of species with
a greater target flexibility. Applied as an engineered gene drive, an SDN has a
level of automation that was not available to earlier tools.
112
Update – Assessment of modern biotechnologies
behind the capacity to alter traits using RNA and SDNs comes from a codeve-
loping revolution in chemistry and mechanical manipulation that increases the
scale of application. The technology for transferring RNA, DNA and proteins
into living tissues and cells has advanced to the stage where genetic engineering
can now be done using topical or “spray-on” agents at landscape scales, with
rapid repeat exposures or manipulation of multiple targets (for a large list of
examples, see Heinemann and Walker 2019).
Evaluation
Fundamentally, the IAASTD saw that the contribution of modern biotechnolo-
gies to agriculture was out of balance with approaches that emphasised the
multifunctionality of the agroecosystem. The new capacities also have not elim-
inated socio-economic, environmental or human health concerns, though they
may shift the risk to hazards that have not been considered for older products
(CBD 2017).
It is unlikely that the new modern biotechnology tools that have become more
widely available for commercial deployment in agriculture will significantly alter
the conclusions of the IAASTD. Core choices made by developed economies
to increasingly devolve research and development to the private sector, and
therefore to the structures and incentives that drive the private sector (Quist
et al. 2013), are expected to groom applications of these new tools in the same
way as the previous ones. The ultimate market concentration that results, re-
duces options for agriculture in both developed and developing countries be-
cause modern biotechnology has mainly served green revolution-type demands
on breeding to fit high input and uniform agroecosystems.
There is no convincing evidence that the new generation of tools will change
the role of modern biotechnology. However, some of the advances in related
technologies, such as in “omics technologies” used to survey the changes intro-
duced into organisms made using gene technologies, could help to advance
characterisation of GMOs intended for use in the environment (NASEM 2016).
The traits that are being developed for commercial release so far are either
minor variants (e.g. non-browning apple and potato) or relevant to pesticide
use (e.g. environmental transformation technologies). The interest in applying
the techniques to improved nitrogen fixation in non-legumes, drought and other
abiotic stress tolerances and climate change mitigation through animal genetics
is high, but the evidence of significant progress is no greater than with the re-
combinant DNA techniques.
113
Jack A. Heinemann
Abbreviations
CRISPR Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats
dsRNA double-stranded RNA
GM Genetically Modified
GMO(s) Genetically Modified Organism(s)
DNA Deoxyribonucleic Acid
RNA Ribonucleic Acid
RNAi RNA interference
SDN Site Directed Nuclease
TALEN(s) Transcription Activator-Like Effector Nuclease(s)
ZFN Zinc Finger Nuclease
114
Update – Assessment of modern biotechnologies
Endnote
1 For definitions please refer to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and Codex
Alimentarius.
References
CBD. Report of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Synthetic Biology, 2017. in: UNEP, ed; 2017. At:
https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/aa10/9160/6c3fcedf265dbee686715016/synbio-ahteg-2017-01-03-en.pdf
Gilbert, N., 2016. Frugal farming. Nature 2016; 533:308-310
Heinemann, J.A., 2019. Should dsRNA treatments applied in outdoor environments be regulated? Environ Int
2019;132:104856
Heinemann, J.A.,and Walker, S., 2019. Environmentally applied nucleic acids and proteins for purposes of enginee-
ring changes to genes and other genetic material. Biosafety Health 2019;1:113-123
Itakura, K. and Riggs, A.D., 1980. Chemical DNA synthesis and recombinant DNA studies. Science 1980;
209:1401-1405
Leakey, R.R.B., 2019. From ethnobotany to mainstream agriculture: socially modified Cinderella species capturing
‘trade-ons’ for ‘land maxing’. Planta 2019; 250: 949-970
NASEM, 2016. Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. Washington, DC: The National Acade-
mies Press
Ono, R., Yasuhiko, Y., Aisaki, K.I., Kitajima, S., Kanno, J. and Hirabayashi, Y., 2019. Exosome-mediated horizontal gene
transfer occurs in double-strand break repair during genome editing. Commun Biol 2019; 2:57
Quist, D., Heinemann, J.A., Myhr, A.I., Aslaksen, J., Funtowicz, S., 2013. Hungry for innovation in a world of food:
Pathways from GM crops to agroecology. in: Gee D., ed. Late Lessons from Early Warnings: Science, Precaution
and Innovation. Copenhagen: EEA
Varoquaux, N., Cole, B., Gao, C. et al., 2019. Transcriptomic analysis of field-droughted sorghum from seedling to
maturity reveals biotic and metabolic responses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2019;116:27124-27132
Xu, L., Naylor, D., Dong, Z. et al., 2018. Drought delays development of the sorghum root microbiome and enri-
ches for monoderm bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2018; 115:E4284-E4293
115
Marie de Lattre-Gasquet
Agrimonde-Terra is now a tool for dialogue and learning for use by decision-
makers, food producers, non-governmental organizations and researchers. By
using the Agrimonde-Terra method, scenarios for land use and food security in
Tunisia2 were successfully prepared and, following this, on-going trends relative
to land use in sub-Saharan Africa3 have been identified.
116
2018 Agrimonde-Terra
The third scenario “Land use for multi-active and mobile households” (House-
holds) links strong individual mobility between rural and urban areas and the
development of farm and off-farm employment, to the emergence of hybrid
diets. This scenario is based on traditional and modern value chains in a globa-
lized world, where family farms and cooperatives are major actors in land use.
The fourth scenario “Land use for food quality and healthy nutrition” (Healthy)
assumes that due to the increasing cost of malnutrition, a radical move towards
healthy diets occurs. This move is fueled by global cooperation and public poli-
cies in the context of climate change stabilization and implies that there is a re-
configuration of the agricultural system which is backed by new alliances
between stakeholders.
The scenarios listed above do not have the same consequences on the five di-
mensions of land use (listed below) nor on the availability of food. A comparison
between them therefore helps to draw lessons for the future.
Lessons learnt include the point that unless there is a major increase in the eco-
nomic and social performance of food systems in some regions, notably in India
and sub-Saharan Africa, ensuring world food availability in 2050 will involve ex-
panding the world’s agricultural land area to the detriment of forest areas, with
major differences between scenarios. It also demonstrates that trade of agri-
cultural products will play a key role in improving world food
access in 2050, and that increasing food and nutritional di- To achieve healthier
versity towards healthier diets in 2050, while limiting agricul-
diets in 2050, more
tural land expansion and deforestation will require greater
diversification in cropping and livestock systems. diverse cropping and
livestock systems are
At least two scenarios are clearly not able to ensure sustai- needed.
nable world food and nutrition security in 2050: the first “Me-
tropolization” scenario and the fifth “Communities” scenario. Furthermore, two
scenarios have ambiguous results: the “Regionalization” and the “Households”
scenarios. Only the “Healthy” scenario seems likely to be able to meet the ob-
jective of world food and nutrition security in 2050 (reducing not only overnu-
trition and related diseases, but also undernutrition). This could be achieved at
the cost of a limited expansion in agricultural land area at the world level. Ho-
wever, in this scenario, there are potential tensions between the objectives of
food security and climate change stabilization, unless agroforestry and farming
practices relating to agroecology and sustainable intensification are adopted.
117
Marie de Lattre-Gasquet
- The variety of alternative assumptions for 2050 for the direct drivers (urban-
rural relationships, farm structures, cropping systems, livestock systems and
forest systems) and the external drivers (global context, food diets, and climate
change) of land use change, the five scenarios and the method for building
them. Three scenarios (Metropolization, Regionalization and Households) are
based on current competing trends identified in most regions of the world.Two
scenarios involve potential breaks that could change the entire land use and
food security system (Communities and Healthy).
Getting healthy food requires certain types of cropping systems. These include
sustainable intensification (i.e. intensification of production combined with the
reduction of environmental impacts, input substitution or maximizing input ef-
ficiency thanks to new technologies) and/or agroecology. In addition, specific
118
Land use and food security in 2050
Quantitative hypotheses induce very different changes in food diets from 2010
to 2050 across the regions (see figure below). In India and eastern, central and
southern Africa (ECS Africa), all pathways involve an increase in the daily calorie
availability per capita. As a sharp increase in population is also expected in both
regions (especially in ECS Africa), this means that food consumption will increase
significantly under all pathways. In addition, all pathways result in a rise in the
share of animal products in diets (meat, dairy and eggs).
Food diets in 2010 (initial) and in 2050 under the different food diet pathways in various eastern, central
and southern (ECS) Africa and in West Africa.4
119
Marie de Lattre-Gasquet
120
Land use and food security in 2050
soil quality and the storage of organic carbon in soils (thus yield potentials)
could be very interesting options in this case, since they simultaneously work
towards the objectives of food security and climate change stabilization.
In the future, one of the key options for public policy will be to discuss the
global organization of trade due to recent important changes increased inter-
national trading of agricultural and food products, new financial actors and in-
termediaries, new transport routes and harbors, new norms and standards,
spreading of pests and diseases, etc.
121
Marie de Lattre-Gasquet
vation and energy transition. The scope of the challenge is complex, with many
overlapping and interlinked issues that cut across sectors, territories and actors;
changing the course of ongoing trends requires systemic transformation, public
policies and consistent action from a wide range of actors. It requires a common
vision. There are a number of on-going initiatives at territorial or national levels
that support this vision, policy-makers must listen to these and take them into
account.
Endnotes
1 Le Mouël C., de Lattre-Gasquet M., Mora O. (eds) (2018), “Land Use and Food Security in 2050: a Narrow
Road”, Agrimonde-Terra, Ed. Quae, https://agritrop.cirad.fr/588816/1/ID588816.pdf
2 de Lattre-Gasquet M, Moreau C, Elloumi M, Ben Becher L. 2017.Vers un scénario « Des usages agro-écologiques
des terres pour une alimentation diversifiée et de qualité et un système alimentaire territorialisé » en Tunisie en
2050. OCL 24(3): D306.
3 See chapter 15 and de Lattre-Gasquet M. et Giordano T., 2019. Quelles perspectives pour l’agriculture et la sé-
curité alimentaire en Afrique subsaharienne en 2050? Réalités Industrielles, août 2019, p. 50-56.
4 Source: Le Mouël et al., 2018, Figure A2.1, p.387-388
5 de Jouvenel H., 2004. An invitation to foresight. Futuribles, Paris, 90 p.
122
Update
Frédéric Lançon
In relation to the urbanization process, at the global scale, since 2006 more than
50 % of the world’s population now live in urban areas, however this percentage
remains lower in poorer countries. For instance, in low-income food deficit
countries, only 33% of the population is urban, underlining the point that the
urbanization rate is not the only determinant of food dependency. It also shows
123
Frédéric Lançon
that the urban transition is far from complete in poorer countries and that the
pressure from urban food demand on both rural supply and import will further
expand in the coming decade.
Regarding competition between rural and urban areas for labour, it should also
be emphasized that migration is no longer the major driver of the urbanization
process. Urbanization is mostly fueled by natural urban population growth (i.e.
most urbanites are born in cities). Conversely, rural-urban migration does not
lead to a decline of rural populations; in sub-Saharan Africa,
On average 50% of rural populations will continue to increase until the middle
staples consumed in of the century.
rural areas in West
Africa are purchased. An on-going rural population increase will result in both high-
er requirements in rural employment (which can be genera-
ted by food production), and in additional food demands within these rural
areas. Another counterintuitive dimension of the food system in a rural-urban
perspective is that a high share of rural food consumption is purchased from
food markets and not produced and consumed within the household. In West
Africa Expenditure and Consumption surveys indicate that on average 50% of
staples (cereals and tubers) consumed in rural areas are purchased, the share
is even higher for meat products (75%).
Urban food supply combines a number of food chains that source food either
from imports or from the rural hinterland. While imported food chains are
often governed by large scale corporations using formal retailing networks (su-
permarkets), local food chains rely on smaller scale trading and labor-intensive
processing entities that are often informal. Small scale informal trade and food
street vendors play a key role in mitigating “food deserts” in fast growing mar-
ginal and poor urban areas where formal food retailing networks are absent.
This ensures better access to the food supply for vulnerable populations.
Local food chains play a strategic role in linking rural areas to urban consumers,
ensuring job opportunities along the whole chain. The densification of rural
areas support the emergence of secondary urban centers which also, in turn,
play a critical role in the organization of the local food chain hubs through the
provision of services to traders and processors.
At the global level, the urbanization process is clearly marked by the increasing
share of large cities; in 1950 60% of the urban population were living in cities
with less than 300 000 inhabitants, in 2020 this share declined to 40%, while
13% of urbanites are now living in megapolis of more than 10 million inhabitants.
However, in low income countries, the urban population living in smaller cities
still represent 50 % of the total urban population. In Sub-Saharan Africa in 2000,
100 million urbanites lived in cities with less than 300 000 habitants, by 2020
this figure had increased to 218 million. Food chain intermediaries, often based
124
Update – Urbanization and food security
References
Fox, S., 2017. Neglected drivers of urbanisation in Africa. International Growth Centre Blog.
Bricas, N., Tchamda, C., and Mouton, F., 2016. L'Afrique à la conquête de son marché alimentaire intérieur. Enseig-
nements de dix ans d'enquêtes auprès des ménages d'Afrique de l'Ouest, du Cameroun et du Tchad. AFD.
Mora, O., Lançon, F., and Aubert, F., 2018. 9. Urbanization, Rural Transformation and Future Urban-Rural Linkages.
Land Use and Food Security in 2050: a Narrow Road, 138.
Moriconi-Ebrard, F., Harre, D., and Heinrigs, P., 2016. Urbanisation Dynamics in West Africa 1950-2010: Africapolis
I, 2015 Update. OECD Publishing.
Tacoli, C., and Vorley, B., 2015. Reframing the debate on urbanisation, rural transformation and food security. IIED
Briefing.
United Nation, World Urbanization Prospects, 2018. At: https://population.un.org/wup/Download/
125
10-Year Comparison
Obesity
13.2%
12.8%
12.1% 12.4%
11.4% 11.7%
11.0%
10.7%
10.4%
10.1%
9.8%
2007 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Prevalence of obesity among adults (both sexes) worldwide in per cent. According to the WHO definition, a per-
son with a Body Mass Index (BMI) greater than or equal to 30 is considered obese. BMI is calculated by weight
in kilograms divided by height in metres squared.
Sources
1 WHO World Health Organisation (2017). Global Health Observatory data repository: Prevalence of obesity among adults,
BMI >_30, crude. Estimates by WHO region. https://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.main.BMI30CREGv?lang=en
2 WHO World Health Organisation (2020). Obesity and overweight: Key facts. Updated 3 March 2020.
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight
126
Update
Anita Idel
Globally, grazing is as important for non-arable land as it is for the world’s ex-
tremely fertile bread baskets: “Savanna, steppe, prairie, or pampas: They're all
grasslands, the globe's most agriculturally useful habitats”
(Nunez 2020). According to global
estimates, grassland
Discussing soil fertility, most scientists are not aware of the soil stores 50 % more
common origin of these areas:The extremely fertile (former)
carbon than forest soil
grass plains on our planet with black chernozem soils are
steppes which developed through the co-evolution of grasses worldwide.
and grazing animals. Grazing induces a growing impulse in grasses.These possess
huge amounts of fine roots and a root-shoot-ratio from 2-20 to 1. That’s why
the resulting carbon storage is mostly root-derived (Bakker et al. 2013). The
roots of today are the soil organic matter of tomorrow.
The black soils of the North American prairies, the Ukraine grasslands, the Hun-
garian Puszta, the Baragan Steppe in Romania as well as those in Kazakhstan,
Mongolia and China (Manchuria) or the subtropical Pampas in Argentina and
Uruguay not only all have high fertility, but also have the same origin by grazing.
A high share of mineral loess loam was a good precondition for the develop-
127
Anita Idel
ment of soil organic matter, but it became stimulated from above – through
grazing.
Grassland provides the livelihood for one tenth of the world’s population. The
FAO estimates, that for 100 million people in dry regions and probably another
100 million people in other regions, grazing animals are the only available income
source (FAO 2020). ”Mobile pastoralists (…) may also offer
The ecological poten- one of the greatest hopes for mitigating climate change“
tial of grazing animals (Davis and Nori 2008).
found little reflection
in the IAASTD reports. The IAASTD process recognised the world’s mobile and
semi-mobile pastoralists as important groups among indige-
nous societies – but mainly for socioeconomic reasons, because their grazing
animals are key to satisfying their basic needs. Unfortunately, the ecological po-
tential of pastoralists and their grazing animals has been and still is massively
underrated and found little reflection in the IAASTD reports.
There are three main reasons why the vast potential of grazing is often over-
looked:
Sustainable cattle grazing on permanent grassland does not compete with other
uses and therefore does not happen at the expense of human food production.
128
Update – Sustainable grazing
Endnote
1 Carbon has a molecular weight of 12g/mol, while CO2 has a molecular weight of 44g/mol (due to the addition
of two oxygen molecules). Hence 1 kg of carbon, if oxidized, will release 3.67 kg of CO2.
References
Bakker, P., Berendsen, R. L., Doormbos, R. F., Wintermans, P. and Pieterse, C., 2013. The rhizosphere revisited: root
microbiomics. In: Front. Plant Sci.| https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2013.00165/full
Conant, Richard T., 2010. Challenges and opportunities for carbon sequestration in grassland systems. A technical
report on grassland management and climate change mitigation. Plant Production and Protection Division. At:
FAO. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/documents/climate/AGPC_grassland_webversion_19.pdf
(last access 03. May 2020)
Dass, P., Houlton, B., Wang, Y. and Warlind, D., 2018. Grasslands may be more reliable carbon sinks than forests in
California. Environ. Res. Lett. 13 074027. At: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aacb39/pdf (last
access 03. May 2020)
Davies, J. and Nori, M., 2008. Managing and mitigating climate change through pastoralism. Policy matters pp -162.
At:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228417188_Managing_and_mitigating_climate_change_through_pas
toralism/link/555cb60308ae86c06b5d3e73/download (last access 03. May 2020)
FAO, 2020. Livestock on grazing lands. http://www.fao.org/3/x5304e/x5304e03.htm (last access 03. May 2020)
Idel, A. and Reichert, T., 2013. Livestock production and food security in a context of climate-change and environ-
mental and health challenges. In: Wake up before it is too late. Transforming Agriculture to cope with climate
change and assure food security. UNCTAD Trade and Environment Review 2013, Hoffmann, U. (Ed.) Geneva. At:
http://unctad.org/en/ pages/PublicationWebflyer.aspx?publicationid=666 / https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLi-
brary/ditcted2012d3_en.pdf
Idel, A., 2020. The value of sustainable grazing for soil fertility, climate and biodiversity. In: Idel, A. and Beste, A.: The
myth of climate smart agriculture – why less bad isn’t good. (Ed) Martin Haeusling, MEP
Nunez, C., 2020. Grasslands, explained. At: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/habitats/grasslands
(last access 03. May 2020)
Dr. Anita Idel is a veterinarian and a mediator who is working on issues related to
agrobiodiversity and animal health since 1985. She holds an assistant professorship
at the University of Münster on animal husbandry. Dr. Idel was a lead author for
IAASTD and in 2013 won the Salus-Medea Award for her book “Die Kuh ist kein
Klima-Killer!” (Cows are not Climate Killers!), as well as in 2019 the Lammsbräu
Sustainability Award.
129
Boyd Swinburn
Think of the global responses to other crises. In 2007-2008, the global financial
crisis galvanised world leaders into pouring trillions of dollars into rescue packages,
130
2019 Lancet Commission
including bailouts of the private financial institutions who created the crisis in the
first place.The 2019-2020 Covid-19 pandemic, galvanised governments and inter-
national organizations into creating a coordinated lock down of cities and people
movement based on precautionary and preventive principles. The world can col-
lectively implement drastic actions if the threat is acute and the fear level is high.
The food system crisis is slower (decades rather than months) and the fear
level is relatively low.This is despite the inexorable rise in obesity in all countries,
the inadequate progress in reducing undernutrition in many African and South-
East Asian countries, and the existential threats of climate change and environ-
mental damage that our food systems are helping to drive. What has been the
political response to the food system crisis? Where is the
coordinated rallying of government responses? Where is the We have made
sense of threat and urgency? Where are the headlines? considerable strides at
the levels of paradigms
A clue to the weak responses to the food system crisis can but the policy action
be found in the opening pages of the IAASTD report. In the
Statement by Governments section, three countries, Australia, on the ground has
Canada and the United States of America, did not approve remained sluggish.
the final report. They undoubtedly also used their political
clout throughout the process to water the report down as much as possible
to minimise its impact on business as usual. Business as usual, of course, is that
large agricultural sectors in the rich countries use their considerable lobby
power over their governments to maintain agricultural policies and subsidies in
their commercial favour.
The politics in the last decade have not changed enough amongst the rich coun-
tries to support the implementation of the excellent actions proposed in the
IAASTD report. In fact, the food industry’s market power has become even more
concentrated into fewer mega-corporations and their lobbying expertise has be-
come even more sophisticated. At the international level, the US political forces
driving their own national and commercial agendas remain a huge barrier to
achieving the collective international action needed to address the food systems
crisis.
Interestingly, the IAASTD report started with a push from private sector and
the World Bank around biotechnology and specifically transgenics. However, the
highly-consultative process undertaken with a wider group of stakeholders ex-
panded the agenda to include reducing hunger and supporting sustainable de-
velopment. This agenda setting occurred in the era of the Millennium Devel-
opment Goals (MDGs), which did not include non-communicable diseases
(NCDs), acknowledged at the time to cause 60% of all deaths, 80% of which
were in low and middle income countries (LMICs)3. The figure shows how
NCDs have risen as a proportion of total disease burden for all countries but
especially in LMICs (shown as low and middle Socio-Development Index).
131
Boyd Swinburn
Undernutrition was centre stage and obesity was not even considered in the
MDGs. We are now in the era of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
which gives due prominence to the world’s dominant health problems of NCDs
and wraps undernutrition and obesity together into ‘malnutrition in all its forms’.
This is great progress towards the holism needed for collective action.
The IAASTD report placed itself clearly in the technical space (agricultural
knowledge, science, and technology). We have learnt over the past decade that
the technical barriers are far less important and more easily fixed than the political
and commercial barriers. Major reports from the UN and international agree-
ments now pay more attention to implementation issues and monitoring and re-
porting systems for accountability. More attention is also paid to managing conflicts
of interest, although this is still far from ideal and commercial vested interests are
still very dominant in the development of national food policies and subsidies.
132
The agriculture and health nexus
equities and the neoliberal economic policies that are creating them. It might
be more cautious about public-private partnerships with those industries that
are party to the problem. It might highlight even more the systemic view of
food and agricultural systems and explicitly champion the shift from considering
food as an economic commodity to increase GDP, export earnings, and com-
pany profits to food as a common good for human health, ecological health, so-
cial equity and economic prosperity for all.
The 2009 IAASTD report was a forerunner of many subsequent reports that
bring together the silos of agriculture, health, climate, social equity, and econo-
mics.The 2019 Lancet Commission on Obesity report on the Global Syndemic
of obesity, undernutrition and climate change was one such report. I had both
hopes and fears about joining up three major, unsolved global problems into a
single conceptual entity. My hope was that it would allow people see beyond
the visible manifestations of obesity, undernutrition and climate change into their
common underlying drivers in the food systems, transport systems, land use
and urban design. My fear was that it would further heighten people’s ‘complex-
ity confusion’ and disillusionments about getting meaningful
action. It turned out my hopes triumphed over my fears. One major paradigm
Once it is pointed out, people really see the connectedness shift in the last decade
between problems, understand the commonalities of their
has been the NOVA
drivers and look for double- or triple-duty actions.
classification of foods
In 2013, FAO and WHO had a joint meeting called ‘Meeting based on their level of
of the minds’ which brought health and agriculture together processing.
around the table on the theme of ‘nutrition-sensitive agricul-
tural policies.’ It was surprising to me how far apart the minds were at that meet-
ing – it seemed like health was trying to impose its agenda on a reluctant
agriculture which was in turn defending its existing priorities. In retrospect, this
jostling about the purposes of agriculture was probably just the process of two
huge silos getting to know and trust each other. Since then, the narrative and col-
laboration has moved much more onto a common agenda of collective food sys-
tem approaches to the crises of climate change and malnutrition in all its forms.
While that narrative has good high-level traction, the power politics still play out
on the ground and policy actions on food systems, while heading in the right di-
rection, remain painfully slow.The national legal and economic measures countries
are adopting to achieve carbon neutrality tend to leave out agriculture or delay
its inclusion.This is partly because of the complexity of accounting for agricultural
emissions of methane and nitrous oxide within carbon budgets but it is also be-
cause of the lobby power of the agricultural sector and the challenges of creating
just transitions for the farmers whose livelihoods are affected.
One major paradigm shift in the last decade has been the NOVA classification
of foods based on their level of processing rather than nutrient composition.4
The categories of unprocessed or minimally processed foods, processed culinary
133
Boyd Swinburn
ingredients (like flour, oil and salt) or processed foods (like cheese and bread
which can be made domestically) are not closely associated with health prob-
lems. However, the foods defined as ultra-processed food are industrial formu-
lations of multiple food constituents and additives and contain little if any whole
foods. It is this group of hyperpalatable foods which tends to contain high levels
of salt, sugar and fat and a high consumption of them is related to nutritional
health damage – mainly for obesity and NCDs. These foods also exacerbate
undernutrition with empty calorie foods, like instant noodles, sugary drinks and
processed snacks, displacing more nutritious food. Vast agricultural lands and
subsidies are dedicated to the raw materials for ultra-processed foods such as
wheat, sugar and corn. The IAASTD report pointed to this problem but in the
intervening decade, considerable evidence has accumulated implicating these
ultra-processed food products as core drivers of obesity and NCDs.
The options laid out in the IAASTD report for addressing the nutritional burden
of NCDs reads like all the subsequent reports on the issue: food systems di-
rected towards quality and diversity of foods rather than quantity and price;
multi-sectoral policy responses with a strong emphasis on regulation rather than
a reliance on education and individual behavioural change; fiscal measures, such
as taxes and subsidies, that align with health; monitoring systems for accounta-
bility, and; international agreements on labelling and marketing practices.
134
The agriculture and health nexus
The need for a broad approach to food safety is evident in the IAASTD report
and this has been underlined by recent events: the probable cancer-causing prop-
erties of the commonly used herbicide glyphosate; the threat to fruit and vege-
table production from pesticide-induced declines in pollinator populations, and
the emerging novel infectious diseases, such as coronavirus, arising from agricul-
ture and food systems.The strong regulatory approach applied to standard food
safety practices, such as food handling and storage requirements to prevent food-
borne infectious diseases, could be expanded with definitions of food safety
which encompass longer-term, population-wide or ecosystem threats from food.
Many of the potential systemic actions to address the Global Syndemic directly
apply to agriculture. The most powerful lever for re-orienting any system is to
change its underlying purpose and values.6 For agriculture, the paradigm shift
from extractive to restorative agriculture is underway at a high level and in
pockets locally. To make a difference globally, this nascent movement will need
to reach inside millions of farm gates around the world where small farmers, in
particular, are struggling to maintain a livelihood. National policy statements
about agriculture as a positive force for human health, ecological health, and so-
cial equity as well as economic prosperity would set the directions for policy,
regulatory and economic levers to be applied to achieve this outcome.
135
Boyd Swinburn
Endnotes
1 Swinburn BA, Kraak VI, Allender S, et al. The Global Syndemic of Obesity, Undernutrition, and Climate Change:
The Lancet Commission report. Lancet. 2019 Feb 23;393(10173):791-846. https://www.thelancet.com/commis-
sions/global-syndemic
2 International assessment of agricultural knowledge, science and technology for development (IAASTD): synthesis
report with executive summary: a synthesis of the global and sub-global IAASTD reports / edited by Beverly D.
McIntyre, Hans R Herren, Judi Wakhungu, and Robert T Watson. Island Press, Washington DC 2009
3 World Health Organisation. 2008-2013 Action Plan for the Global Strategy for the Prevention and Control of
Noncommunicable Diseases. WHO, Geneva 2008
4 Monteiro, C.A., Cannon, G., Lawrence, M., Costa Louzada, M.L. and Pereira Machado, P. 2019. Ultra-processed
foods, diet quality, and health using the NOVA classification system. Rome, FAO.
5 World Obesity Federation. The Global Syndemic of Obesity, Undernutrition and Climate Change: The Lancet
Commission report. A Policy Brief for national and municipal governments, civil society, funders, businesses, and in-
ternational agencies. Available at: https://marlin-prod.literatumonline.com/pb-assets/Lancet/stories/commissions/obes-
ity-2019/GlobalSyndemicCommission_policybrief.pdf
6 Meadows, DH. Thinking in systems. Edited by Wright, D. Earthscan, London 2009
Boyd Swinburn is Professor of Population Nutrition and Global Health at the Uni-
versity of Auckland. His research centres on community and policy actions to pre-
vent childhood obesity, and reduce, what he coined, ‘obesogenic’ environments. He
leads the INFORMAS initiative to monitor and benchmark food environments in
over 45 countries. He led two Lancet Series on Obesity and co-chairs the Lancet
Commission on Obesity. He co-chaired World Obesity Policy & Prevention section
2009-2019.
136
Update
A big challenge is child malnutrition. Child stunting and wasting affect 151 million
and 51 million children respectively.The causes of stunting in children are mainly
due to inadequate diet and hygiene during pregnancy and the first 2 years of
life (also known as the “1,000 days”). Maternal undernutrition generally results
in fetal undergrowth and underweight child at birth. Inadequate breastfeeding
and inappropriate non-affordable formula milk or comple-
mentary food are major factors that contribute to malnu- The valorization of
trition in children. A recent report suggests that only 2 in cultivated biodiversity
5 children meet minimum meal frequency.
and neglected nutri-
Adult malnutrition is multifaceted and one of the causes tious species would
is the consumption of energy-dense foods rather than nu- sustain healthier diets.
trient-dense ones. This is also characterized as ‘nutrition
transition’ that has resulted in substantial increases in the intake of sugar, salt
and saturated fats, at the expense of a reduced consumption of whole grains,
pulses, vegetables and fruits. In countries across the South, dietary diversity is
positively associated with nutritional adequacy (coverage of nutritional needs);
however, people living in urban environment are nowadays consuming more
‘western’-type food that are energy-dense, with limited dietary diversity, rather
than their traditional local foods.
The broad approach to reduce all three forms of malnutrition must be based
on the promotion of healthy, diversified and sustainable diets. Sustainable diets
137
Marie Josèphe Amiot
National policies can support a healthy supply of processed foods and beve-
rages, targeting a reduction of sugar, salt and saturated fat quantities.. Food re-
formulation help consumers eat healthily and sustainably. Dietary guidelines and
packaged food labelling policies are key to guide consumers to healthier food
choices.
Biodiversity can contribute to food security and improved nutrition. The valo-
rization of cultivated biodiversity and neglected or underutilized nutritious spe-
cies, such as leafy edible plants, would be a means to sustain food systems and
healthier diets (Hunter et al. 2019).
138
Update – Nutrition and health
Food waste and food loss lead to the discarding of huge amounts of nutrients
and there is therefore a need to reduce them by investing in technology, practi-
ces and new norms to avoid spoiling the most perishable foods along the chain.
References
FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO, 2018. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2018. Building
climate resilience for food security and nutrition. FAO.
Micronutrient Initiative, 2010. Micronutrient Initiative Annual Report 2009–2010.
Burlingame, B. and Dernini, S., 2010. Sustainable Diets and Biodiversity: Directions and Solutions for Policy, Re-
search and Action. FAO.
Lamine, C. et al., 2019. Crossing sociological, ecological and nutritional perspectives on agrifood systems transiti-
ons: towards a transdisciplinary territorial approach. Sustainability 11, 1-18.
IPCC, 2019. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change,
desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terres-
trial ecosystems.
Verger, E. O. et al., 2018. A “Fork-to-Farm” multi-scale approach to promote sustainable food systems for nutri-
tion and health: A perspective for the Mediterranean region. Frontiers in Nutrition 5, 1-8.
Hunter, D. et al., 2019. The potential of neglected and underutilized species or improving diets and nutrition.
Planta 250 (3), 709-29.
Marie Josèphe Amiot is a Senior Scientist and Nutritionist in the Division of Nutri-
tion, Chemical Food Safety and Consumer Behaviour of the French National Re-
search Institute for Agriculture, Food and Environment (INRAE). Her fields of
expertise include micronutrients, plant bioactive substances, preventive nutrition,
dietary recommendations, food and nutritional security and sustainable food sys-
tems.
139
Alexander Wezel
Agroecological approaches
and other innovations
In June 2019, the HLPE report on “Agroecological approaches and other
innovations for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food
security and nutrition”1 was released. This report is the first FAO report
dealing prominently with agroecology. It suggests a concise set of 13 agro-
ecological principles and points out that there has been much less invest-
ment in research on agroecological approaches than on other innovative
approaches.
The High Level Panel of Experts for Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) is the
global level science-policy interface of the Committee on World Food Security
(CFS) and the foremost evidence-based, inclusive, international and intergov-
ernmental platform for food security and nutrition (FSN). The HLPE provides
a comprehensive overview of the topics selected by the
CFS, based on the best available scientific evidence and con-
siders different forms of knowledge. HLPE strives to clarify
contradictory information and knowledge, to elicit the back-
grounds and rationales of controversies, and to identify
emerging issues.
140
2019 FAO Report
Agroecology is a dynamic concept that has gained prominence in scientific, agri-
cultural and political discourse in recent years. It is increasingly promoted as
being able to contribute to transforming food systems by applying ecological
principles to agriculture. These principles allow for the regenerative use of na-
tural resources and ecosystem services while also addressing the need for so-
cially equitable food systems within which people can exercise choice over what
they eat and how and where it is produced. Agroecology embraces a science,
a set of practices and a social movement and has evolved over recent decades
to expand in scope from a focus on fields and farms to encompass whole agri-
culture and food systems.
Social movements associated with agroecology have often come about in re-
sponse to agrarian crises and operated in tandem with broader efforts to initiate
141
Alexander Wezel
(i) How much food needs to be produced to achieve FSN (food security and
nutrition); centred on whether FSN is mainly a problem of availability or more
an issue of access and utilization?
(ii) Could agroecological farming systems produce enough food to meet global
demand for food?
(iii) How to measure the performance of food systems, taking into account
the many environmental and social externalities that have often been neglected
in past assessments of agriculture and food systems?
In respect of ii) the answer of many agriculture experts is yes, however con-
trasting opinions exist amongst other experts, who see conventional agriculture
with innovation and biotechnology as more suitable. For both proponents it is
valid that the points under i) need to be considered. Here it has to be stated
that conventional agriculture in its present form has hitherto not been able to
provide sufficient food and FSN. For FSN in developing countries, the report
provides different examples - whereby agroecological approaches and practices
can positively influence a variety of factors. For example, increased food provi-
sion of families in critical phases during the year with food availability shortage,
or improved nutrition of small children. Other examples show that increased
142
Agroecological approaches and other innovations
diversification in plant production enhanced diversity of diets, and with this dif-
ferent health factors also improved. The diversification in production also in-
creased resilience to climate change impacts. Moreover, positive influences on
the economic situation of households can be stated as well as for women em-
powerment.
143
Alexander Wezel
The HLPE report is the first FAO report or publication to deal prominently with
agroecology. The acceptance of agroecology as one of the pathways and alternatives
to develop sustainable agriculture and food systems in the policy arena officially
started in 2014, when FAO organized a first International Symposium on Agroecology
for Food Security and Nutrition, followed later by 7 regional meetings from 2015 to
2017 in Latin America, Africa, Asia and Europe. A second International Symposium
was convened by FAO in 2018 on scaling up agroecology to achieve the Sustainable
Development Goals. Here former FAO Director-General José Graziano da Silva
called for healthier and more sustainable food systems – stating that agroecology can
contribute to such a transformation, and that in addition, it offers multiple benefits,
including increasing food security and resilience.This opened up the way or the scaling
up of the agroecology initiative of FAO, for the HLPE report, and policy debates.
Although the HLPE report can be seen as an important step forward, the outcomes
and recommendations could have been more specific and progressive. It is clear that
some messages and recommendations have been diluted for political reasons and
to accommodate commonly agreed views and positions of stakeholders in the CFS
to not put too much emphasis on agroecology as a solution to change current agri-
culture and food systems. For example, the wording “agroecological approaches and
other innovations” often appear with critical and controversial points in order to not
indicate a necessary pathway, solution or recommendation to change present systems
and policies. However it should be noted that the expert authors made clear requests
as to where and where not to place agroecology in their final draft. But overall this
report demonstrates clearly that the potential and contribution of agroecology for
the development of sustainable agriculture and food systems, the need for a paradigm
change and new policies to support alternative systems can no longer be ignored by
policy makers, governments or agribusiness sector stakeholders.
Overall, the most important and urgent policy change that is necessary is a shift from
the yield maximising paradigm that ignores its associated negative environmental and
social externalities. Policies should support farmers and production systems that make
the best use of natural resources, harness ecosystem services and ecological pro-
cesses sustainably, and are not harmful to environmental and human health. Policies
should also be harnessed to counteract concentrations of power in supply chains
and agri-food businesses that are a barrier of change and hinder a transition towards
more sustainable food systems that deliver a fairer share of economic benefits for
both producers and consumers.
144
Agroecological approaches and other innovations
moting alternatives to their use and rewarding practices that produce without
them.
Furthermore, more support should be given to food value chain innovation
platforms and innovation. One important recommendation is supporting the
development of local and regional markets, processing hubs and transportation
infrastructures that provide greater processing and handling capacities for fresh
products from small and medium-sized farmers who adopt
agroecological and other innovative approaches and improve Performance metrics
their access to local food markets. must consider all envi-
ronmental, social and
And finally, investments in public and private research and de- economic impacts.
velopment should be increased and support programmes in
agroecological and other innovative approaches (the report shows that funding
for research in agroecology is very low compared to conventional agriculture).
In addition, investment should be increased to develop and support transdisci-
plinary research conducted through innovation platforms that foster co-learning
between practitioners and researchers, and the horizontal dissemination of ex-
perience among practitioners (e.g. farmer-to-farmer networks, communities of
practice and agroecological lighthouses).
Endnote
1 http://www.fao.org/3/ca5602en/ca5602en.pdf
145
10-Year Comparison
Undernourishment
10.2%
9.6%
9.1% 9.2% 9.0%
8.8% 8.9% 8.8% 8.7% 8.9% 8.9%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Shar
Sharee of undernourished people in the w
world
orld population
Prevalence of undernourishment (PoU) worldwide in per cent. FAO’s calculation of the minimum dietary energy
requirement (global average 2019: 1827 kcal) is based on demographic data for each country, taking into account
age and sex, weight, height or physical activity level of the population.
146
Update
Bernard Hubert
147
Bernard Hubert
2. ‘Functional integrity’ stresses the vulnerability that may arise from a lack of un-
derstanding of the systemic interactions of production practices and innovations
with processes of ecological and social renewal. It understands agriculture as a
system, which embodies complex and poorly understood value commitments
and ecosystem relationships. Here, policy strategies focus on resilience, the avoid-
ance of irreversible effects and systemic understandings de-
“Functional integrity” signed to mitigate unintended consequences. The issue is to
strategies focus forestall irreversible changes in an agroecosystem and to bet-
on a systemic ter understand critical trajectory-changing points.
understanding to
The notion of ‘functional integrity’ presupposes crucial ele-
mitigate unintended ments that are reproduced over time in a manner or at a rate
consequences and that is contingent upon previous system states and upon in-
increase resilience. teractions of different living communities within the system.
The elements to be maintained might be soil fertility, crops,
domestic animal herds, wildlife populations, know-how on management practices
or product processing, or even human institutions such as the family, rights re-
gimes, specified markets, or the state. Extensive livestock farming is illustrative,
where stocking rates are challenged by herds mobility: forage, non-forage plants
such as brush, wildlife, and products (milk, meat, wool or landscape services) ex-
hibit complex relationships. These elements of ‘range systems’ can remain in a
dynamic equilibrium for extended periods of time, but disequilibrium can appear
suddenly (or with a substantial time lag) as a consequence of critical changes in
the reproductive capacity of any single element. Human practices can threaten
functional integrity if they drive the system into states from which reproductive
processes cannot recover. At the same time, human practices are part of the
system, and functional integrity can be disrupted in many ways, including simple
failure to perform an action that is crucial to reproducing some system element
or to maintain it in a changing environment (economics, policy, climate change,
consumer behaviour),
148
Update – The need for a conceptual paradigm shift
Making changes in our social systems relies on how knowledge capacities, social
institutions and human incentives can be regenerated, taking care of the coexis-
tence of a pluralism in concepts and approaches in order to ‘act always so as to
increase the number of choices’ (following von Foerster, 2002)4. Cultural per-
spectives on the relationship between nature and culture must change to give
priority to relationships and interactions, rather than emphasizing the split be-
tween humans and nature.
Endnotes
1 Larrère C. et Larrère R., 2015 : Penser et agir avec la nature. Une enquête philosophique. Ed. La Découverte,
Paris, 334 p.
2 Hubert B; and Ison R., 2011: Institutionalising understandings: from resource sufficiency to functional integrity. In
A paradigm shift in livestock management: from resource sufficiency to functional integrity. Kammili T., Hubert B.
and Tourrand J.-F., Dirs., Cardère Ed. : 11-16.
3 Thompson P.B., 1997: The varieties of sustainability in livestock farming. In Livestock Farming systems. More than
food production, Proc. 4th Int. Symp. on Livestock Farming Systems, Aug. 1996, Foulum (Denmark), in: Sorensen J.T.
(Ed.), EAAP Publication No. 89, Wageningen Pers, Wageningen, 1997, pp. 5–15.
4 von Foerster, H. & Poerkson, B., 2002: Understanding Systems. Conversations on Epis¬temology and Ethics.
IFSR International Series on Systems Science and Engineering, 17. Kluwer Academic, New York and Carl-Auer,
Heidelberg.
149
Marta G. Rivera-Ferre
150
2019 IPCC Report
multiple direct and indirect drivers of natural resource management (related
to food, water and energy securities). Indeed, roughly 49% of ice-free land is di-
rectly used to produce the food we eat and agriculture uses about 70% of
global fresh water use. But about a quarter of ice-free land is subject to human-
induced degradation endangering the livelihoods and food
security of billions of people, and climate change can exacer- 49% of ice-free land is
bate these degradation processes. Thus, following a holistic directly used to pro-
view, the report looked at land from a food security per-
duce the food we eat,
spective (including all four dimensions of food security), also
referring to the strong correlations between land degradation and agriculture makes
and poverty. Under the message that land is under growing up for some 70% of
human pressure, the SRRCL suggested that land is also part global fresh water use.
of the solution to climate change. From 2007-2016, land has
acted as a carbon sink removing about one third of total CO2 emissions and
one fifth of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (IPCC, 2019). But for land
being able to be part of the solution, substantial changes regarding how we ma-
nage land and how we produce and eat food are required. In other words, the
report calls for a transformation of the system.
To properly explore how we can transform agriculture and food systems, a sys-
temic approach to food is required. This allows understanding the close rela-
tionship between the different components of the system (from production to
consumption), develop supply-side (e.g. livestock and crop production) and de-
mand-side (e.g. dietary change) options and analyse how they behave both in
terms of adaptation and mitigation, including the role that different actors play
in the system. Otherwise, fragmented and sectorial analyses, studying only one
part of the reality deliver wrong and too generic conclusions. One example of
this was the highly-repeated message that due to the expected growing popu-
lation we needed to produce 50% more food by 2050 (FAO 2017). Despite
the fact that we clearly need to increase the production of food in some parts
of the world, this message, based on demographic and consumption trends, did
not consider what happens along the food chain in terms
of food loss and waste, nor the current overconsumption From 2007-2016, land
trends in many parts of the world. Thus, this number has
has acted as a carbon
now been contested (HLPE, 2019).
sink removing about
With regard to the GHG emissions related to the pro- one fifth of total
duction and consumption of food, the SRCCL estimates greenhouse gas emis-
a significant contribution of 21-37% of total anthropogenic sions.
emissions, of which 14-28% correspond to agriculture and
land use and 5-10% correspond to emissions outside the farm gate (Table 1).
Considering that approximately one third of the produced food is never con-
sumed, it is estimated that food losses and waste along the food chain constitute
8-10% of total GHG emissions. But emissions and land uses are not isolated
from consumption patterns, they reinforce each other. In the last decades, global
151
Marta G. Rivera-Ferre
Table 1. GHG emissions (Gt CO2eq yr-1) from the food system and their contribution (%) to total anthro-
pogenic emissions. Mean of 2007-2016 period.
diets have transitioned towards ultra-processed food and increasing animal food
products that we can source from different parts of the world.
Thus, from the SRCCL we understand how food systems contribute to climate
change, but we also need to assess the potential mitigation and adaptation
(M&A) options to climate change both from the demand and supply sides.The
SRCCL puts special efforts in assessing the synergies, trade-offs and co-benefits
between M&A of the different options analysed, that is, which of these options
allow to reduce GHG emissions, adapt to climate change, and ideally, contribute
to carbon sequestration. In the executive summary of chapter 5 of the SRCCL
we can read: “Supply-side options include increased soil organic matter and erosion
control, improved cropland, livestock, grazing land management, and genetic im-
provements for tolerance to heat and drought. Diversification in the food system (…)
is a key strategy to reduce risks (medium confidence). Demand-side adaptation,
such as adoption of healthy and sustainable diets, in conjunction with reduction in
food loss and waste, can contribute to adaptation through reduction in additional
land area needed for food production and associated food system vulnerabilities.
ILK can contribute to enhancing food system resilience” (Mbow et al., 2019).
152
The contribution of the IPCC to a change of paradigm
And, what is the relationship with the IAASTD (2009)? First, both reports con-
clude that “business as usual is not an option”. Further, some of the SRCCL mes-
sages are very close to those delivered by the IAASTD ten years earlier. Of
those, I highlight: i) the relevance of indigenous knowledge and local knowledge
(ILK) in achieving sustainable food systems and just development; ii) the need
of biodiversity enhancement in the food chain and the importance of agroeco-
logical practices; and iii) the need to empower women as main actors in provi-
sioning food for their families.
153
Marta G. Rivera-Ferre
key element for increasing performance and efficiency that may translate into
increased resilience and reduced risks (Mbow et al., 2019). On-farm biodiversity
conservation is considered as an M&A practice, particularly together with the
use of agroecological practices, and with neglected and underutilised species
playing a central role (Mbow et al., 2019). In the SRCCL, attention is paid to
the need to favour seed sovereignty.
Smith et al. (2019) suggest that the promotion of local seed-saving initiatives,
including seed networks, banks and exchanges, and non-commercial open
source plant breeding, can help protect local agrobiodiversity and can often be
more climate resilient than generic commercial varieties, although the impacts
on food security and overall land degradation are inconclusive.They document
the increased ability of farmers to revive and strengthen local food systems and
that studies have reported more diverse and healthy food in areas with strong
food sovereignty networks, with women, in particular, getting more benefits
from seed banks for low-value but nutritious crops.
154
The contribution of the IPCC to a change of paradigm
because their work often goes unrecognised (Rao 2005; Nelson and Stathers
2009).
Endnote
1 See https://www.ipcc.ch/report/srccl/
References
Hurlbert, M. B., Fletcher, A., Rivera Ferre, M.G., Mahadevia, D., Vincent, K., 2019. Gender in inclusive approaches to
climate change, land and sustainable development. In: IPCC, 2019.
IPCC, 2014. Climate Change 2014 – Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. (Cambridge University Press, 2014).
IPCC, 2019. Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation,
sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. Shukla, P.R., Skea,
J., Calvo Buendia, E. et al. (eds.). In press.
155
Marta G. Rivera-Ferre
Khalafzai, A. K., and Nirupama, N., 2011. Building Resilient Communities through Empowering Women with Infor-
mation and Communication Technologies: A Pakistan Case Study. Sustainability 3 (1): 82–96.
Mbow, C., Rosenzweig, C., Barioni, L.G. et al, 2019: Food Security. In: IPCC, 2019.
Morton, J., Denton, F. Ford, J., Kimutai, J., McElwee, P., Rivera Ferre, M.G., Stringer, L., 2019. Indigenous and local
knowledge (ILK). In: IPCC, 2019.
Nelson, V., and Stathers, T., 2009. Resilience, power, culture, and climate: A case study from semi-arid Tanzania, and
new research directions. Gender and Development 17: 81–94.
Podlashuc, L., 2009. Saving Women: Saving the Commons. in Eco-Sufficiency and Global Justice: Women Write
Political Ecology (ed. Salleh, A.) 324. Pluto Press
Rao, N., 2005. Gender equality, land rights and household food security: Discussion of rice farming systems. Economic
and Political Weekly 40: 2513–2521.
Rivera-Ferre, M. G., Ortega-Cerdà, M. and Baumgärtner, J., 2013. Rethinking Study and Management of Agricultural
Systems for Policy Design. Sustainability 5 (9): 3858–75.
Smith P., Bustamante, M., Ahammad, H., Clark, H., Dong, H., Elsiddig, E.A. et al., 2014: Agriculture, forestry and other
land use (AFOLU). In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to
the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R.,
Sokona,Y. et al., (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA 811–922.
Smith, P., Nkem, J., Calvin, K. et al., 2019: Interlinkages Between Desertification, Land Degradation, Food Security and
Greenhouse Gas Fluxes: Synergies, Trade-offs and Integrated Response Options. In: IPCC, 2019.
Thompson, J., and Scoones, I., 2009. Addressing the Dynamics of Agri-Food Systems: An Emerging Agenda for Social
Science Research. Environmental Science & Policy, Special Issue: Food Security and Environmental Change,
12 (4): 386–97.
Marta G. Rivera-Ferre is the Director of the Chair Agroecology and Food Systems
at the University of Vic – Central University of Catalonia. She has a multidisciplinary
profile in the analysis of food systems as socio-ecological systems. Her research
focuses on alternative agri-food systems and on feminist and commons theories as
to be adopted in agri-food research. She has also worked on the role of local tra-
ditional agri-food knowledge in relation to an adaptation to climate change. She
participated in the IAASTD, the IPCC (since 2010) and the IPBES (from 2020).
156
Update
The two different concepts of state led development that are commonly used
within globalization are ‘Rough Unsustainable’ and ‘Sustainable Development’.
Both originated in Western cosmology2 to benefit the state and a few corporate
businesses, both are based on “growth”, presuppose an economy of “accumu-
lation” and exploitation.They both lead to increasing inequality and assume that
society is part of the economy rather than the economy being
an aspect of socio-cultural organizations (Table 1). The “Sustainable
Development” option
The design and implementation of this kind of “development” is not conducive to
(Sachs 2010) is based on a system of ideas, beliefs, emotions, Indigenous peoples’
and institutions that are distinctly different from Buen Vivir. At food production or
the foundation of Buen Vivir is Indigenous autonomy and In-
digenous community-based research (ICBR) that nurtures life ancestral vision.
as a whole. This is a conceptual approach arising especially from Indigenous
peoples emphasizing living in harmony with nature. Yet despite Indigenous food
systems’ contribution to feeding the world, the IAASTD paid little attention to
Indigenous autonomy and ICBR. Nevertheless, despite chronic research funding
shortages, both have continued to grow and innovate on most continents, while
enabling different types of Indigenous learning to boost Buen Vivir across multiple
dimensions (Tebtebba 2010, 2012, 2008, PRATEC 1998).
157
Tirso Gonzales & Walter D. Mignolo
Table 1: Agroecology & Buen Vivir and state led global scenarios. Source: Elaborated by Tirso Gonzales.
Based on Mignolo, 2016; Gonzales & Hussain, 2016; Sachs 2010
Both, the Rough Unsustainable and the so-called Sustainable Development share
the same definition of development that precludes the possibility of thinking of
Indigenous Sustainable Economies and Buen Vivir. Similarly, the dispute between
Rough and Sustainable Development permeates the tension between re- and
de-westernization.The formation of BRICS countries de-link in many ways from
Western designs, but does not question “development” (e.g. China) as the only
possible horizon for a global economy.
158
Update – Indigenous autonomy
Sustainable Economies
There is however a third approach-scenario, “Sustainable Economies”, which de-
links economies from the SDGs and from re- and de-westernizing state-led pro-
jects alike.The Sustainable Economies Project follows neither one of the “Devel-
opment” approaches nor the IAASTD, but is based on Indigenous cosmologies
and praxes of living. After IAASTD, the challenge remains to embrace a new
mindset that allows us to think of de-linked Sustainable Economies. For these to
flourish, we must learn from, support and interact with Indigenous cosmologies
and praxes. Sustainable Economies shall be created and managed by Indigenous
leaders and communities (Tebtebba 2012, 2010; Mignolo 2020, Esteva 2015).
ICBR has been successfully tested and validated its methods with a variety of In-
digenous Think-Tank institutions such as the Tebtebba Foundation, PRATEC;
AGRUCO and the Universidad de la Tierra as well as with Indigenous NGOs, a
cluster of European-funded individuals and institutions and the scholarly fields of
Indigenous and Modernity/Coloniality Studies (Gonzales & Hussain 2016, Teb-
tebba 2012, 2010).
Indigenous autonomy has its own resolve (Esteva 2015) and has been imprinted
in the expression Sumak Kawsay in Quichwa, Suma Qamaña in Aymara, and
translated into Spanish as Buen Vivir and adopted by non-Indigenous “Latin”
Americans. Buen Vivir encourages sustainable development and agroecology sup-
porters to look forward at the same time that they look backward (Ñawpaman
Puni, in Quechua) and “becoming Native to this Place” (Jackson 1994). By becom-
ing native to the place, country and planet human beings make the Rough Un-
sustainable Development untenable.
The challenge re- and de-westernization face is to take seriously the paradigm
of diverse and sustainable economies. The “development” concept is simply not
relevant.
159
Tirso Gonzales & Walter D. Mignolo
Endnotes
1 De-westernization´s main characteristics are political and economic rather than geographic and refer to all
countries that desire an end to international dependency based on the legacies of the 1944 Bretton Woods
Conference and the US dollar’s global dominance and that delink from economic decisions made by the WB,
IMF, United States and the European Union.
2 Cosmology and cosmo-vision are two Western concepts, one underlining the logos and the other the eyes, shat-
tering all other forms of expressing the experience of Pachamama, which is the Quechua-Aymara equivalent to the
regional Greek cosmos and Latin universum. Aymara intellectuals talk about ‘cosmo-con-vivencia’, that is, the experi-
ence of the cosmos (vivencia) as well as living in harmony with the cosmos (convivencia, that is, con-viviality).
References
Esteva, G., 2015. The Hour of Autonomy, In Latin American and Caribbean Ethnic Studies, 10:1, 134-145.
Gonzales, T., 2015. An Indigenous Autonomous Community-Based Model for Knowledge Production in the Peru-
vian Andes, In Latin American and Caribbean Ethnic Studies, 10:1, 107-133.
Gonzales, T. and Hussain, M., 2016. Indigenous autonomy, community-based research, and development aid.
Sumaq Kawsay in three epistemic scenarios. In AlterNative 2016: 266-281.
Mignolo, W., 2020. Sustainable Development or Sustainable Economies? Ideas Towards Living in Harmony and
Plenitude. Global Coloniality and the World Disorder. Translated into Mandarin, to be published by the University
Press of the National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan.
PRATEC, 1998. The Spirit of Regeneration: Andean Culture Confronting Western Notions of Development. (Eds)
Frederique Apffel-Marglin and PRATEC (the Andean Project for Peasant Technology). Zed Books.
Sachs, W., 2010. The Development Dictionary. A Guide to Knowledge as Power. (Ed) Wolfgang Sachs. Zed Books
Tebtebba, 2010. Towards an Alternative Development Paradigm. Indigenous Peoples Selfdetermined Develop-
ment, (Eds) Tauli-Corpuz, V., Enkiwe-Abayao, L. and de Chavez, R. Tebtebba Foundation.
Tebtebba, 2012. Sustaining and Enhancing Indigenous People’s Self-determined Development: 20 Years After Rio.
(Eds) J. Cariño, K. Wessendorf, M. E. Regpala, R. de Chavez, and T. Gonzales. Tebtebba Foundation.
Tebtebba, 2008. Indicators Relevant for Indigenous Peoples: A Resource Book. (Ed) Mara Stankovitch. Tebtebba
Foundation
Tengö, M., Hill, R. Malmer, P. et al., 2017. Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—lessons learned
for sustainability. In Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 26:17–25.
Figueroa-Helland, L., Thomas, C., Aguilera, A.P., 2018. Decolonizing food systems: Food sovereignty, indigenous re-
vitalization, and agroecology as counter-hegemonic movements. In Perespectives on Global Development and
Technology 17 (2018): 173-201.
160
10-Year Comparison
Micronutrient deficiencies
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Prevalance of anaemia in pregnant women aged 15-49 by WHO region, defined as the percentage of women
with a haemoglobin concentration of less than 110 grams per litre for pregnant women
Sources
1 WHO World Health Organisation (2017). Global Health Observatory data repository: Prevalence of anaemia in pregnant
women - Estimates by WHO region https://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.main.ANAEMIAWOMENPWREG?lang=en
2 WHO World Health Organisation (2014). Global Nutrition Targets 2025: Anaemia Policy Brief. WHO/NMH/NHD/14.4.
https://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/globaltargets2025_policybrief_anaemia/en/
3 UN United Nations (2020). Global indicator framework for the SDGs and targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Deve-
lopment. Adopted by the General Assembly (A/RES/71/313) with refinements contained in E/CN.3/2018/2, E/CN.3/2019/2 and
E/CN.3/2020/2. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/Global%20Indicator%20Framework%20after%202020%20review_Eng.pdf
161
Lauren Baker, Barbara Gemmill-Herren, Fabio Leippert
Beacons of hope:
accelerating transformations to
sustainable food systems
In 2019, the Global Alliance for the Future of Food and Biovision Foundation
for Ecological Development published the report “Beacons of Hope: Acce-
lerating Transformations to Sustainable Food Systems.”1 The report illustra-
tes the positive impacts of food systems on the environment, livelihoods
and health.The initiatives selected as Beacons of Hope are not only a source
of inspiration for food systems transformation, but also help to better un-
derstand how to support and facilitate these transformative processes.
IAASTD’s Legacy
The questions you pose dictate the answers you get. For some, the central
question asked related to the future of food is “how can net calorie availability
be delivered in the most efficient way possible?” For others it is “how can we
feed all people well and equitably through a diversity of channels without harm-
ing the planet?” In 2009, IAASTD posed the question: “how can we reduce hun-
ger and poverty, improve rural livelihoods and facilitate
equitable, environmentally, socially and economically sustai-
nable development through the generation of, access to, and
use of agricultural knowledge, science and technology?"
Through the process of exploring and answering the ques-
tion IAASTD created a conceptual framework for food sys-
tems transformation that informed our work on the
“Beacons of Hope” report. In the Beacons of Hope report
we sought to understand “how do we accelerate the trans-
formation toward healthy, equitable, renewable, resilient, in-
clusive, and culturally diverse food and agriculture systems?”
Embedded in the questions are inherent objectives for the
food system, and either narrower or broader conceptual
frameworks for addressing food system challenges and op-
portunities in the 21st century. IAASTD positioned these food systems objecti-
ves as broad and interconnected, with the potential for facilitating a number of
co-benefits across the system. There are three ways that IAASTD continues to
inform the global discussion:
162
2019 Global Alliance & Biovision
1. By introducing a holistic systems perspective: examining food systems in the
context of both the full value chain – from inputs to consumption and waste –
and a wide breadth of interconnections and impacts;
2. By promoting an inclusive process to generate the report and compile rele-
vant knowledge: interdisciplinary, both regional and global, multi-thematic, multi-
spatial, multi-temporal, multi-stakeholder and intergovernmental, open and
transparent in relationship to mechanisms for input and peer review;
3. By considering diverse knowledge and evidence: not only scientific, but other
relevant knowledge paradigms including Indigenous, farmer and traditional
knowledge, the role of diverse institutions, governance, markets, and trade. His-
torical analysis was considered, as well as future-casting to 2050 in order to in-
form recommendations.
This framework for considering food systems is more relevant than ever as we
grapple with the complexity of climate, biodiversity, health and equity challenges
and the ways they manifest locally and globally. It is important to remember
that 10 years ago, when IAASTD was published, few were talking about food
systems transformations. Over the last year there have been multiple reports
published and processes calling for systems transformations, with the recognition
that multiple transformations across food systems are critical to meet the Sus-
tainable Development Goals, biodiversity and climate targets.
163
L. Baker, B. Gemmill-Herren, F. Leippert
Global Alliance for the Future of Food members and Biovision Foundation for
Ecological Development have the great privilege of supporting a wide range of
food systems initiatives seeking to address these interrelated crises. We wanted
to illustrate the positive impacts of food systems so clearly described in the
IAASTD (Global Report, 21).
Around the world “Beacons of Hope” are working to transform food systems.
Thousands of initiatives are contributing inspiring, creative, and necessary solu-
tions to urgent global issues such as climate change, migration, urbanization, and
the need for healthier communities and more sustainable diets. The Beacons of
Hope report sought to amplify their stories and better understand their impact
in order to strengthen our understanding of the transformation process.
164
Beacons of hope
In 1996, Hill and McRae explored possible transitions from conventional to sus-
tainable agriculture, developing the Efficiency-Substitution-Redesign Framework.
This framework has been adapted to apply to the food system as a whole. Gliess-
man (2016) extends Hill and MacRae’s Efficiency-Substitution-Redesign Frame-
work to analyze five levels of agroecological food systems transitions. The Hill
and MacRae and Gliessman frameworks helped us to: a) conceptualize transition
phases; b) evaluate the depth of transitions; c) distinguish between incremental
and transformational change; and d) identify transformative elements of the tran-
sition process as we developed the food system transformation framework.
Theoretical constructs for sustainability transitions beyond food systems are also
instructive. Sustainability transitions are seen as processes that are long term, mul-
tidimensional, and creating fundamental transformations that cause shifts in estab-
lished socio-technical systems to more sustainable modes of production and
consumption (Geels 2002 and 2011). The environmental and
social problems that sustainability transitions are addressing ge- Food system
nerally require many years, if not decades, for the full effect of
transition pathways
changes to take place, and inevitably involve multiple solutions
rather than “silver bullets” (Lachmann 2013). are less technology-
oriented, and instead
The “Multilevel Perspective” elaborated by Geels is a well- depend on social
known and debated transition theory. When reviewing the processes of learning
literature and discussing the MLP with sustainability transition
experts it became clear that applying the MLP to food systems is a challenge.
Energy and transportation sustainability transitions can more easily be mapped
to a set of technological solutions and to how technological changes are incor-
porated in social functions (Geels 2002). In contrast, food system transition
pathways are likely less technology-oriented, and instead depend on building
165
L. Baker, B. Gemmill-Herren, F. Leippert
social networks and social processes of learning. Nonetheless the MLP concept
of “niches” – initiatives that promote alternatives to the dominant practices and
rules and that can serve as transformative elements – has shown itself to be
useful concept applied to Beacons of Hope.
From our analysis of the Beacons of Hope case studies, key elements in the
transformation to sustainable food systems were identified.These included: pro-
tecting, promoting, and supporting family farmers and Indigenous communities
producing food using agroecological and diversified approaches and principles;
co–creation of knowledge, and knowledge exchange and dissemination; deve-
loping cooperative ownership models; emphasizing ideas of circular and solida-
rity economy; reinforcing the importance of culturally relevant and place–specific
sustainable diets; establishing participatory approaches and inclusive governance;
166
Beacons of hope
identifying new market mechanisms; adopting new holistic metrics; and, engaging
in policy development.
Transformation pathways
Going forward, we are building on and deepening this important work. A vibrant
network of change agents has been engaged in the Beacons of Hope and we
see great potential to link these initiatives, deepen our analysis about food sys-
tems transformations, better understand transformation pathways, and build the
evidence of their positive impacts. The next phase of Beacons of Hope includes
linking this work into the global policy agenda and forging local-global linkages.
We return now to the central contribution of IAASTD articulated above. By in-
troducing a holistic systems perspective, promoting an inclusive process, and con-
sidering diverse knowledge and evidence, IAASTD continues to inform and guide
our systemic view, our approach, the breadth of knowledge and diversity of re-
search methods and evidence needed to navigate the complexity of food sys-
tems transformations in the current political and ecological moment.
Endnotes
1 https://foodsystemstransformations.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/BeaconsOfHope_Report_082019.pdf
2 https://foodsystemstransformations.org/masipag/
3 The Global Alliance for the Future of Food is a strategic alliance of philanthropic foundations working together
and with others to transform global food systems now and for future generations. Biovision Foundation for Eco-
logical Development is a not–for–profit, non–denominational, politically independent foundation based in Zürich,
Switzerland that supports the dissemination and application of sustainable ecological approaches to alleviate po-
verty and improve food security in Africa and beyond.
4 https://foodsystemstransformations.org/eosta/
5 https://foodsystemstransformations.org/climate-resilient-zero-budget-natural-farming-cr-zbfn/
167
L. Baker, B. Gemmill-Herren, F. Leippert
References
Anderson, C. R., Bruil, J., Chappell, M. J., Kiss, C., Pimbert, M. P., 2019. From transition to domains of transformation:
Getting to sustainable and just food systems through agroecology. Sustainability, 11(19), 5272.
Biovision Foundation for Ecological Development and Global Alliance for the Future of Food, 2019. Beacons of
Hope: Accelerating Transformations to Sustainable Food Systems. n.p.: Global Alliance for the Future of Food.
Friedmann, H., 2017. Paradox of transition: Two reports on how to move toward sustainable food systems, 2017.
Development and Change 48(5):1210–226.
Friedmann, H. and McMichael, P., 1989. Agriculture and the state system:The rise and decline of national agricultures,
1870 to the present. Sociologia Ruralis 29(2):93–117.
Gaitán-Cremaschi, D., Klerkx, L., Duncan, J., Trienekens, J. H., Huenchuleo, C., Dogliotti, S., Rossing, W. A., 2019. Cha-
racterizing diversity of food systems in view of sustainability transitions. A review. Agronomy for sustainable deve-
lopment, 39(1), 1.
Geels, F.W., 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multilevel perspective and
a case-study. Res Policy 31:1257–1274.
Geels, F.W., 2011. The multilevel perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms. Environ.
Innov. Soc. Transitions 1:24–40.
Gliessman, S.R., 2016.Transforming food systems with agroecology. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 40:3,
187–189.
Hill, S. B., and MacRae, R. J., 1996. Conceptual framework for the transition from conventional to sustainable agri-
culture. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 7(1):81–87.
IAASTD, 2009. Agriculture at a crossroads. IAASTD International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science
and Technology for Development: Global Report. WashingtonDC: Island Press, 590. At: http://bit.ly/Agricultureata-
Crossroad (accessed December 4, 2013).
IPES-Food, 2017. Unravelling the Food–Health Nexus: Addressing practices, political economy, and power relations
to build healthier food systems. The Global Alliance for the Future of Food and IPES-Food.
McMichael, P., 2009. A food regime genealogy. Journal of Peasant Studies 36(1):139–69.
Dr. Lauren Baker is the Director of Programs at the Global Alliance for the Future
of Food. Lauren has more than 20 years of experience facilitating cross-sectoral re-
search, policy and advocacy for sustainable food systems in non-profit, academic,
business, policy and philanthropic contexts. Previously, Lauren led the Toronto Food
Policy Council, a citizen advisory group embedded within the City of Toronto.
Dr. Barbara Gemmill-Herren, until she retired in 2015, was Delivery Manager for
the Major Area of Work on Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity at the UN Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO). She was previously Executive Director of En-
vironment Liaison Centre International, an international environmental non-govern-
mental organization based in Nairobi, Kenya. Barbara has contributed to major
global initiatives related to pollination, ecosystem services, true cost accounting and
agroecology.
Fabio Leippert works in Biovision's Policy & Advocacy Team on issues relating to
agroecology and climate change at the international level as well as at the country
level. He holds a Master in Conservation Biology and an MAS ETH in development
cooperation. As a biologist he is particularly interested in the dynamics between
biodiversity, climate change and agriculture and a systemic and sustainable ap-
proach to agriculture and food systems.
168
Looking Forward
Colin R. Anderson & Molly D. Anderson
169
Colin R. Anderson & Molly D. Anderson
of a spectrum that spans status quo to transformative (Figure 1). It is also possible
to identify approaches to agroecology that are more “reformist” in nature and that
inadvertently or explicitly frame agroecology as a technical approach centered
around specific production practices that are clearly void of these transformative
elements.These often consider agroecology as one tool in the toolbox rather than
a paradigm for transformation.They tend to focus on improved resource efficiency
and reduced ecological footprint but give limited attention to the political and
social processes that lock in the dominant system and undermine agroecology.
Figure 1: One way to view different representations of agroecology is along a spectrum from status quo to
transformative. Any publication or resource should be viewed critically and readers might ask themselves:
Who is publishing this and why? What is the underlying message and aspirations of the authors/creators
of this resource? To what extent does this resource resonate with a transformative agroecology?
● Philanthropists (e.g. CIDSE, Global Alliance for the Future of Food, Agroecology Fund)
● Governmental agencies
170
Looking forward – Resources on agroecology
171
Colin R. Anderson & Molly D. Anderson
Figure 2: CIDSE’s principles and facets of agroecology presented here in infographic form.
2. Practices/case studies
A growing number of case studies at the farm, community or regional level pro-
vide either examples of agroecological practices or of how specific areas have
made a transition to agroecology. These were often generated to demonstrate
that producers are using agroecology now and that, when undertaken in an en-
abling environment, agroecology can provide multiple benefits and outcomes.
They are intended to inspire and inform. Many of these case studies include con-
crete descriptions of locally adapted agroecology on farms or in territories, high-
lighting markets, the integration of appropriate technologies, biological or
collective approaches to pest-control, women-led efforts or other dimensions
of agroecology.The most powerful case studies in this category provide examples
of a particular practice (e.g. water harvesting), while also discussing the political
dimensions of the issue and practice and including voices of practitioners them-
selves – especially non-dominant perspectives (such as women, youth, lower
caste, indigenous, etc.). This resource type often includes pictures, diagrams or
film/videos.
• AFSA: The African Food Sovereignty Alliance and the Oakland Institute provide
an excellent set of regionally specific case studies9 (Figure 3) of agroecology fea-
turing a blend of examples that combine practical and political considerations.
• La Revuelta Al Campo: The “Revolt in the Fields” project website10 has a series
of agroecology related videos from examples in Spain.
172
Looking forward – Resources on agroecology
Figure 3: A screenshot of agroecology practice case studies at the African Food Sovereignty Alliances Website.
3. Policies
The relationship between policy and agroecology is complex (see: Giraldo and
McCune 2019); therefore, any simple list of policies that support agroecology
is a risky oversimplification without an explanation of the context. Further, some
lists of policies for agroecology have inclusion criteria that are quite open and
not subject to vetting against principles of agroecology.Thus, many of the policies
indicated may just as easily support corporate-led, climate-smart or even con-
ventional agriculture. With this in mind, some attempts have been made to col-
lect and present policies that promote agroecology. For example:
173
Colin R. Anderson & Molly D. Anderson
of the policy, focusing on the “purpose and specific objectives, institutional frame-
works and main forms of support.”
• ALISEA Library of Policy Documents:The ALISEA online library16 lists a range
of documents related to agroecology policy – many of which are excellent re-
sources not just for the Southeast Asia region but for anyone interested in policy.
174
Looking forward – Resources on agroecology
175
Colin R. Anderson & Molly D. Anderson
• The open source Agroecology Map27, based in Brazil (Figure 5), aims to help
bring urban and rural people together to create and strengthen collaborative
networks to exchange experiences and strengthen agroecology.
• Other maps are not specifically focused on agroecology per se, but are built
around key dynamics and initiatives in a transformative agroecology. The Com-
munity Seed Map28, for example, maps people and programs working on seed
saving and sharing. The Open Food Network29 is an online platform and global
open source community where producers, stores, consumer groups, etc. can join
and be listed on the map to connect in local/territorial food systems.
176
Looking forward – Resources on agroecology
Concluding thoughts
The growing body of rich and diverse publications and resources is indicative
of a robust effort to advance a politically-rooted agroecology as a transformative
paradigm for social justice and sustainability in food systems. Yet, it is important
to think critically about the resources available, as many of these are framing
agroecology in subtle ways that can redefine its meaning, reduce the political
dimensions and serve to co-opt agroecology to reinforce the status quo.
177
Colin R. Anderson & Molly D. Anderson
The recent uptake of agroecology, including by institutions like the FAO and some
national governments, has led to a backlash with agroecology as the object of fierce
attacks and confrontations.These interventions are directly obstructing agroecology
(e.g. blocking policy) and also serve to confuse policy-makers and citizens so that
they cannot distinguish easily among different pathways. This division mirrors the
stark divide in the international arena between actors intent on preserving ex-
tractive food systems that focus on profit-making and exploitative practices versus
those seeking equitable, sustainable and democratic food systems.
While many of the publications and sources reviewed here are excellent re-
sources, it is also important to point out that many of the sources of information
and inspiration for agroecology are embedded in local practices that have not
been documented at all, even though they may be powerfully transformative
for local actors. Local actors may not refer to their work as agroecology; there-
fore, it is important to connect with and learn about the kinds of political and
practical work on food systems that people are doing with their hearts, heads
and hands in each locale. It is also important to remember that different kinds
of organizations, institutions and authors have vastly uneven funding and power
to produce these publications, with former colonial governments holding most
of the money and doling it out very selectively based on their own interests.
This means that organizations with deep pockets such as corporations and FAO
can produce slick products with wide marketing reach that often overshadow
grassroots movements and local voices.
178
Looking forward – Resources on agroecology
Endnotes
1 available in EN, ES and FR, http://www.agroecologynow.com/video/ag/
2 CropLife, an organization that represents biotechnology industry, have created an infographic, webpage and
quiz on agroecology and is one of the most glaring example of co-optation. Their construction of agroecology
clearly advances corporate interests, redefines agroecology so it is open for indiscriminate use of chemicals and
violates many of the principles of agroecology.
3 https://www.foodsovereignty.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Declaration-of-the-International-Forum-for-
Agroecology-Nyeleni-2015.pdf
4 https://www.cidse.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/EN_The_Principles_of_Agroecology_CIDSE_2018.pdf
5 http://www.fao.org/3/i9037en/i9037en.pdf
6 http://www.fao.org/3/ca5602en/ca5602en.pdf
7 https://www.agroecology-pool.org/methodology/
8 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21683565.2015.1130765
9 https://afsafrica.org/case-studies-agroecology/
10 https://larevueltaalcampo.wordpress.com/
11 https://whyhunger.org/images/agro/agroecology-putting-food-sovereignty-in-action.pdf
12 https://ma.boell.org/fr/2018/11/29/femmes-et-agro-ecologie-en-afrique
13 https://ali-sea.org/online-library/
14 https://infoagro.net/sites/default/files/2018-06/Persp45_Sabourin_ENG.pdf
15 http://www.fao.org/agroecology/policies-legislations/en/
16 https://ali-sea.org/online-library/
17 https://viacampesina.org/en/schools/
18 https://www.eurovia.org/eaken/
19 https://agroecologia.espora.org
20 https://ipam-global.org
21 https://afhvs.wildapricot.org/Degree-programs
22 http://www.sustainableaged.org/projects/degree-programs/
23 http://www.enoas.org/index.php?page=7
24 https://www.eur-organic.eu/en/79292
25 https://www.agroecology-europe.org/study-train/study-programme-der/
26 https://www.agroecologynow.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/MappingForFoodSystemChangeSep26.pdf
27 https://mapadaagroecologia.org
28 https://www.communityseednetwork.org/map
29 https://www.openfoodnetwork.org/find-your-local-open-food-%20network/
30 https://scholar.google.com
31 https://www.crcpress.com/Political-Agroecology-Advancing-the-Transition-to-Sustainable-Food-Systems/
Molina-Petersen-Pena-Caporal/p/book/9781138369221
32 https://developmentbookshop.com/agroecology-science-and-politics
33 https://www.agroecologynow.com/bibliography-on-agroecology-transitions-and-transformation/
34 https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/wjsa21/43/7-8?nav=tocList
35 https://www.agroecologynow.com/agroecology-publications/special-issue-transitions/
36 http://www.fao.org/3/ca5602en/ca5602en.pdf
37 http://www.fao.org/agroecology/database/detail/en/c/443639/
38 https://agroecologyresearchaction.org/
39 https://www.agroecology-europe.org/
40 www.secure.mg
41 https://www.ileia.org/about-farming-matters/
42 https://nyeleni.org/spip.php?rubrique80
43 https://www.soberaniaalimentaria.info/
44 http://newsletters.fao.org/q/16vqgXU7ECi/wv
45 http://www.biodiversidadla.org/Revista
46 https://www.arc2020.eu/tag/agroecology/
47 https://civileats.com/category/farming/agroecology/
179
Colin R. Anderson & Molly D. Anderson
References
Anderson, C.R., Bruil, J., Chappell, M.J., Kiss, C., Pimbert, M.P., 2019a. From Transition to Domains of Transformation:
Getting to Sustainable and Just Food Systems through Agroecology. Sustainability 11. At: https://doi.org/10.3390/
su11195272
Anderson, C.R., Binimelis, R., Pimbert, M.P., Rivera-Ferre, M.G., 2019b. Introduction to the Symposium on Critical
Adult Education in Food Movements: Learning for Transformation in and Beyond Food Movements—the Why,
Where, How and the What Next? Agriculture and Human Values 36: 521-529. doi: 10.1007/s10460-019-09941-2
Anderson, C.R., Maughan, C. and Pimbert, M.P., 2019. Transformative agroecology learning in Europe: building con-
sciousness, skills and collective capacity for food sovereignty. Agriculture and Human Values 36: 531-547. At:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-018-9894-0
De Schutter, O., 2011. Agroecology: A Tool for Realizing the Right to Food. E. Lichtfouse (ed.), Agroecology and
Strategies for Climate Change, Sustainable Agriculture Reviews 8, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-1905-7_1
Giraldo, O.F. and McCune, N., 2019. Can the State Take Agroecology to Scale? Public Policy Experiences in Agroe-
cological Territorialization from Latin America. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 43: 785-809. doi:
10.1080/21683565.2019.1585402
Gonzáles De Molina, M., Petersen, P. F., Peña, F.G., Capor, F.R., 2019. Political Agroecology: Advancing the Transition
to Sustainable Food Systems. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
High-Level Panel of Experts, 2019. Agroecological and Other Innovative Approaches for Sustainable Agriculture
and Food Systems that Enhance Nutrition and Food Security. Report #14, Committee on World Food Security,
Rome: FAO.
IPES-Food, 2016. From Uniformity to Diversity: A Paradigm Shift from Industrial Agriculture to Diversified Agroe-
cological Systems. http://www.ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/UniformityToDiversity_FULL.pdf
La Via Campesina, 2017. Toolkit: Peasant Agroecology Schools and the Peasant-to-Peasant Method of Horizontal
Learning. At: https://viacampesina.org/downloads/pdf/en/TOOLKIT_agroecology_FINAL.pdf
Méndez,V.E., Bacon, C.M. and Cohen,R., 2013. Agroecology as a Transdisciplinary, Participatory, and Action-Oriented
Approach. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 37: 3-18.
Nyéléni Movement for Food Sovereignty, 2015. Declaration of the International Forum for Agroecology; Nyéléni
Forum for Food Sovereignty: Sélingué, Mali, 2015.
Rivera-Ferre, M.G, 2018. The Resignification Process of Agroecology: Competing Narratives from Governments,
Civil Society and Intergovernmental Organizations. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 42: 666-685. At:
https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2018.1437498
Rosset, P., Val, V., Barbosa, L.P. and McCune, N., 2019. Agroecology and La Via Campesina II. Peasant Agroecology
Schools and the Formation of a Sociohistorical and Political Subject. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems
43(7-8): 895-914. At: https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1617222
Molly D. Anderson is the William R. Kenan Jr. Professor of Food Studies at Middle-
bury College in Vermont. She is interested in food system resilience, human rights
in the food system, and bridging interests and concerns of academicians and com-
munity-based activists. She is a member of networks working from the local to the
international scale, including the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food
Systems (IPES-Food).
180
A future for all, naturally
“I have the mango fruit flies under control,” says Mararet Siaronji (r.) in delight. © Peter Lüthi / Biovision
Sharon Nehrenheim:
s.nehrenheim@biovision.ch
+41 (0)44 512 58 13
The Foundation on Future Farming, based in Bochum Germany, is a charitable foundation promot-
ing agroecological and organic innovation in agriculture. It’s focus is on maintaining and developing
the diversity, free reproducibility and regional and local adaptation of seed. Based upon these
principles, organic breeders create new varieties serving the needs of modern organic farming. In
addition, the Foundation supports on-farm educational measures, research and publications as well
as non-profit activities of small farmers and NGOs.
The Foundation’s Berlin office engages in networking and campaigning on global, European and
German agricultural policies, including the use of new technologies and their control. Since ten
years, it maintains a bi-lingual website on the original IAASTD report and subsequent publications.
In addition, the Foundation runs an educational field of 2000 square meters in Berlin, symbolizing
the individual share of the world’s citizens (7,5 billion) in the total cropland of this planet (1,5 billion
hectare). The field conveys a sensual experience „my 2000 square meters“, especially to young
people and families of, adding in depth information and suggestions about their personal impact
on agricultural and food systems, including climate change, biodiversity, soil erosion and fair and
equitable food production and prices.
The Foundation‘s work is made possible by annual donations of numerous people, companies and
institutions. It welcomes support and partnerships.
https://www.zukunftsstiftung-landwirtschaft.de
https://www.stop-genedrives.eu/en
https://www.globalagriculture.org
https://www.arc2020.eu
https://www.2000m2.eu