Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance (AFSA) comments

on draft V0 of the CFS HLPE Report

“Agroecological approaches and other innovations for sustainable agriculture and food systems

that enhance food security and nutrition”

About the Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance (AFSA)

The Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance (AFSA) is a farmer-led collaboration of organisations and individuals

working together towards a food system in which people have the opportunity to choose, create and

manage their food supply from paddock to plate. AFSA is an independent organization and is not aligned

with any political party. Currently we have 230+ individual, organisational, business and farm members.

These members include national networks such as the Australian City Farms and Community Gardens

Network, peak bodies such as the Victorian Farmers Markets Association and the Victorian Local Governance

Association, the City of Melbourne, and leading environmental organisations such as Humane Choice,

MADGE and Gene Ethics.

AFSA’s activities include: raising awareness about the impacts of cheap imports on farmers, advocating for

fair pricing for farmers selling to the domestic market, connecting Australian farmers for farmer-to-farmer

knowledge sharing, and representing the voice of famers for regulations and standards concerning food and

agriculture. Our constitution gives farmers control of decisions that have a material impact on their efforts to

grow food ethically and ecologically.

We work extensively with primary food producers and consumers across every state and territory in

Australia. Our committee has consisted of published academics and lecturers from RMIT, Deakin University,

University of Tasmania, University of Sydney, and the Queensland University of Technology. We have also

had representation from farmers from every state, and local advocates and campaigners such as Open Food

Network, Food Connect, Friends of the Earth, Regrarians, Fair Food Brisbane, and the Permaculture Network.

1

We are a part of a robust global network of farmer-led organisations involved in food security and food

sovereignty policy development and advocacy. Our involvement includes support for the Australasian

representative on the Civil Society Mechanism (CSM) of the Food and Agriculture Organisation’s (FAO)

Committee on World Food Security (CFS) and participation in the CSM Agroecology Workstream, as well as

active membership with the International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty (IPC). We are also a

member of Urgenci: the International Network for Community-Supported Agriculture, and have strong links

to Slow Food International and its Australian chapters.

In 2016, AFSA set up the Legal Defence Fund to support small-scale farmers, artisanal producers, and the

broader community through legal policy, reform, and advocacy work. We contribute to legal reform

consultations to support the growing food sovereignty movement and provide guidance to producers on a

range of matters including planning permit guidance, compliance issues, food safety standards, and legal

requirements for supply of agroecological farm produce and artisan food. The LDF aims to identify and act

on emerging legal issues and trends in Australia and overseas relevant to food sovereignty, and do so by

building strong and productive relationships with stakeholders. As an ongoing goal, the LDF is producing an

evidence-based, prioritised list of the regulatory threats which require immediate responses.

AFSA’s general comments on draft V0 of the CFS HLPE Report “Agroecological approaches and

other innovations for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and

nutrition”

We take note of the HLPE’s recognition that the global food system is at a crossroads, and new

directions are needed to achieve Food Security and Nutrition (FSN) and Sustainable Food Systems

(SFS).

The stated goals are: to improve resource efficiency, strengthen resilience, secure social equity /

responsibility, enhance ecological footprint, and ensure the four pillars of FSN: Availability, Access,

Utilization, Stability, to which a fifth has now been added: Agency.

This new pillar of Agency focuses on “empowerment of citizens in defining and securing their own

food and nutritional security, requiring sociopolitical systems wherein policies and practices may be

brought forth by the will of citizens and be reflected in governance structures to enable the

achievement of FSN for all.”

How Agroecology addresses these aims:

Agroecology addresses all the dimensions of FSN and SFS, and can support their realisation.

2

It is a comprehensive system emphasizing traditional, cultural, seasonal, and local knowledge that is

continuously innovating to respond to complex ecological changes.

To do so, an enabling legal and policy environment that protects, respects, and fulfils human rights

and supports ecological systems to flourish is key.

Accordingly, we would like to highlight the following:

Human Rights

Human rights, particularly women’s rights should be a central frame in the HLPE report, as it is

intrinsic to the realisation of the Right to Food.

Human rights, and particularly women’s rights are the central vehicle through which the agency of

individuals and communities to build on existing biocultural diversity can be protected, respected,

and fulfilled.

The language of human rights, and women’s rights rather than empowerment should be used

throughout the document to inform policy development. The emphasis is currently not strong

enough overall, and women’s rights are not explicitly mentioned. This should be corrected.

Both human rights and one of its components, the Right to Food can be realised through

agroecology in the context of food sovereignty through sustaining and strengthening mutually

beneficial relationships between social and ecological systems.

This is supported by Olivier de Schutter’s 2011 submission to the UN Human Rights Council on

“Agroecology and the Right to Food”.1 In his report, then Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food de

Schutter identifies agroecology as “a mode of agricultural development which not only shows strong

conceptual connections with the right to food, but has proven results for fast progress in the

concretisation of this human right for many vulnerable groups in various countries and

environments” (p1)

This is further supported by the Right to Food Nutrition Watch, a flagship publication of the Global

Network for the Right to Food and Nutrition, which comprises of a number of organisations across

1 De Schutter, O. (2011). Agroecology and the right to food. Report presented at the 16th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council [A/HRC/16/49], 8.

3

the world. Since 2013, the publication has formed joint action of public interest civil society

organisations and social movements to act in concert for the realisation of one of the most violated

human rights worldwide - the human right to adequate food and nutrition. Issue 10 of this

publication seeks to realise the Right to Food by contributing analyses of the dynamics of

digitisation, dematerialisation and financialisation to the debate surrounding food in the digital age2.

Innovation

Agricultural innovation is defined in the HLPE zero draft report as “the process by which

individuals, communities or organisations generate changes, including the design, production or

recycling of goods and services and the relevant institutional relations that are new to their

context and promote transformative differences for stakeholders”.

However, innovation should be defined according to a much broader historical and cultural

context.

It should be acknowledged that agricultural innovation has been taking place for thousands of

years (not just over the last century) and has continuously adapted to changing social and

ecological developments.

The collective work of humankind in partnership with ecological systems themselves has been

central in developing the resilient and diverse food system that exists today. This evolving

relationship of coproduction underpins agroecology and differentiates it from “other

innovations”.

Innovation and public policy

We commend the statement that “an imperative for assessing successful innovation systems

should be not the perceived economic benefit of a new product or practice as calculated in a

controlled or research context, but the benefit to the livelihoods and well-being in local

situations, as perceived by stakeholders”.

We also commend the recognition of the key role “social processes of innovation, the

fundamental role of local knowledge and adaptation, and the need for change to be built on 2 https://www.righttofoodandnutrition.org/

4

continuity with the past and to be embedded in local circumstances (Joly 2018; van der Veen,

2010)” (lines 30-31) and the following discussion to line 40 in Section 2.1.1 of the draft report:

Typology of innovations.

We would like to add that the report should note the key stakeholders in any development or

assessment of innovation are rural peoples, particularly women, youth and indigenous peoples,

whose livelihoods and well-being are of primary importance.

Any collaborative development of “new innovations” (with public research institutions, for

example) should be democratic and in the service of these communities who still produce the

majority of the world’s food, and are the key stewards of biodiversity.

Any assessment rubric for successful innovation should therefore be democratically defined, co-

developed, and led by rural peoples’ ecological knowledge and practices.

Rather than treating smallholder farmers as beneficiaries of aid, they should be seen as experts

with knowledge that is complementary to formalised expertise.

Digitalisation and Data Technology

Digitalisation of the food supply chain is only mentioned in Section 2.4 of the draft report:

Reducing Food Losses and Waste.

Lines 33-36 note “The digitalization of the food supply chain with the use of big data and the

internet of things will provide new practical insights into existing and emergent food loss and

waste scenarios and facilitate interventions to reduce food losses (Irani et al., 2018). Multi-

stakeholder perspectives need to be taken into account to develop the innovation systems that

are acceptable to all and which address economic, environmental and social impacts of the

innovations (Mourad, 2016).”

The use of digital technologies to reduce FLW is a positive application. However, this is not the

only application of big data and digitalisation of the food chain. This rapidly evolving field and

associated emerging issues require much more critical investigation and analysis.

5

Section 3.3.5 Access to technology and innovation: who benefits makes the important

observation that “a critical assessment of a given technology has to be made in light of who

benefits, who bears the costs” (p74, line 24-5). We would add the crucial question of technology

ownership, as this relates directly to the terms of access, use, benefit, and responsibility of any

technology.

In the discussion on whether new digital technologies are suitable for agroecological production,

it is noted that such technologies are “often clearly market oriented and might be costly tools for

farmers.” Other areas of concern include:

Innovative data technology has been shown to decrease the material value of food in a process

called dematerialisation. The Right to Food and Nutrition Watch publication highlighted above

highlights the costs associated with marketing innovation and data collection and its impact on

the real cost of food. 66% of the price we pay for food can be attributed to marketing,

distribution and technology3.

Digitalisation, according to the Global Network for the Right to Food and Nutrition, increasingly

informatises and commodifies the production of food. Agricultural inputs such as seeds are

transformed into digitised objects such as through sequence genetic information gathering from

seeds for patent protection. These business models have failed to protect the physical exchange

of real seeds by peasants but rather to allow control of the food system by global corporations

that aim to profit from patents.

Governance

The table on page 36 of the HLPE draft report suggests that agroecology does not address

governance issues. However, the relational and democratic orientation of agroecology does

intrinsically inform governance practices at all scales. This dimension is discussed in the literature

cited in the report (and elsewhere) but has not been sufficiently elaborated on in the report.

In this regard, we can collectively learn a lot from Indigenous conceptions of governance across the

world.

3 https://www.righttofoodandnutrition.org/

6

For example, Dr. Mary Graham, Australian Aboriginal elder and Associate Adjunct Professor of the

School of Political Science and International Studies at the University of Queensland writes, teaches,

and speaks extensively on Indigenous governance practices in Australia.

Dr. Graham highlights that the “land is law”, that is, governance practices follow what ecology

teaches us: that “everything is connected, and that everything and everyone is better when we have

connected diversity. A truly ecological politics will connect us to each other, to and within nature,

and to democracy – to our own agency. It will see us all as the protagonists in our own lives, but

within supportive, enabling, diverse and connected communities”.4

Dr Kyle Whyte, member of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation, is Timnick Chair in the Humanities and

Associate Professor of Philosophy and Community Sustainability at Michigan State University. Dr

Whyte writes, teaches, and speaks on moral and political issues concerning climate policy and

Indigenous peoples, and the ethics of cooperative relationships between Indigenous peoples and

climate science organizations.

Whyte notes that Indigenous environmental education directly addresses the cultivation of moral

responsibilities including trust, consent, and accountability5, which underpin social and ecological

relationships and governance principles.

Indigenous sustainability principles and practices are not only oriented to ensuring healthful

community relationships, but are crucial to the right to Indigenous self-determination in the context

of settler colonialism. He notes that “[i]n terms of sustainability, a crucial facet of the self-

determination of peoples such as Indigenous nations and communities is the responsibility and the

right to make plans for the future using planning processes that are inclusive, well-informed,

culturally-relevant, and respectful of human interdependence with nonhumans and the

environment.”6

The interdependence of ecological and social governance described in the examples above is central

to agroecology. This relationship should be fully integrated into the HLPE report in regards to

governance.

4 https://soundcloud.com/behind_the_lines_98_3/2-mary-graham-indigenous-conceptions-of-governance?in=behind_the_lines_98_3/sets/green-institute-conference 5 Whyte, K. P. (2018). Reflections on the Purpose of Indigenous Environmental Education. Handbook of Indigenous Education, 1-21.6 Whyte, K. (2017). What do indigenous knowledges do for indigenous peoples? In Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Learning from Indigenous Practices for Environmental Sustainability. Edited by M.K. Nelson and D. Shilling, 57-82. Cambridge University Press.

7

Supporting Public Policy for Agroecology

The incentive structures which such policies create to encourage the shift towards sustainable

farming should be regularly tested and re-evaluated with the participation of the beneficiaries,

transforming policy into a mode of “social learning rather than an exercise of political authority.”7

Policies should encourage and enable knowledge sharing from farmer to farmer, since practices are

often specific to an agroecological zone.

Participation of rural peoples who produce the majority of the world’s food in policy processes can

ensure that policies and programmes are truly responsive to the needs of vulnerable groups.

The process of participation in policy development should be shaped from the outset by the groups

most affected, and focus on ensuring their Right to Food to achieve FSN and SFS.

Gender issues are incorporated into less than 10 per cent of development assistance in agriculture,

and women farmers receive only 5 per cent of agricultural extension services worldwide.

Specific, targeted schemes should ensure that women are empowered and encouraged to

participate in this construction of knowledge.

Olivier de Schutter has also argued for the development of public policies that are both

environmentally sustainable and socially just to create an enabling environment for such sustainable

modes of production8.

Support for agroecological practices will fail to achieve the desired results if markets are not

organised to protect farmers from volatile prices and the dumping of subsidised products on their

local markets, which can seriously disrupt local production.

The financialisation of food also impacts uptake of agroecological practices. Financialisation relates

to the dominant role played by financial markets in limiting the choice of foods produced.

Speculation of financial products linked to crops such as soy beans, capital venture investment in

farming, and food production logistics, has significant influence over what foods are produced, how,

7 De Schutter, O. (2011). Agroecology and the right to food. Report presented at the 16th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council [A/HRC/16/49], 8. Cited in http://www.tammijonas.com/2011/12/20/why-agroecology-is-essential-to-food-security/8 De Schutter, O. (2011). Agroecology and the right to food. Report presented at the 16th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council [A/HRC/16/49], 8. Cited in http://www.tammijonas.com/2011/12/20/why-agroecology-is-essential-to-food-security/

8

and for whom. This pressing issue should be addressed in policy reforms that support agroecology,

but is absent from the HLPE draft report.

Policies should therefore guide public research, support services, and markets to protect and

strengthen grassroots collective work to build efficient, resilient, equitable, and ecologically robust

futures for all through embracing agroecological principles and practices.

3. Cases, stories, experiences

The following cases highlighting the benefits of agroecology have been drawn from Olivier de Schutter’s

2011 submission to the UN Human Rights Council on “Agroecology and the Right to Food”9 which have been

summarized in AFSA President Tammi Jonas’ “Why Agroecology is Essential to Food Security”10

Assessments have found that the average crop yield increase was even higher for agroecology

projects than the global average of 79 per cent at 116 per cent increase for all African projects and

128 per cent increase for projects in East Africa.

Kenya’s ‘push pull’ strategy uses plant insect-repellents, stock fodder crops amongst corn, and

Napier grass at edges to attract & trap pests. The push-pull strategy doubles maize yields and milk

production while, at the same time, improves the soil. Further, some communities have started

‘seed and farming resource hubs’ where communities cooperate to share and build a repository of

farming knowledge and seeds.

In Japan, farmers found that ducks and fish were as effective as pesticide for controlling insects in

rice paddies, while providing additional protein for their families.

An optimal solution that could be an exit strategy from fertiliser subsidy schemes would be to link

fertiliser subsidies directly to agroforestry investments on the farm in order to provide for long-term

sustainability in nutrient supply, and to build up soil health as the basis for sustained yields and

improved efficiency of fertilizer response. Malawi is reportedly exploring this “subsidy to

sustainability” approach.

9 De Schutter, O. (2011). Agroecology and the right to food. Report presented at the 16th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council [A/HRC/16/49], 8.10 http://www.tammijonas.com/2011/12/20/why-agroecology-is-essential-to-food-security/

9

Nicaragua after Hurricane Mitch: On average, agroecological plots lost 18 per cent less arable land to

landslides than conventional plots and had 69 per cent less gully erosion compared to conventional

farms. Recently, the democratically elected government failed to protect the operation of small-

scale farms from market destabilisation caused by class conflict.

On-farm experiments in Ethiopia, India, and the Netherlands have demonstrated that the physical

properties of soils on organic farms improved the drought resistance of crops.

In the Yunnan Province in China, after disease-susceptible rice varieties were planted in mixtures

with resistant varieties, yields improved by 89 per cent and rice blast disease was 94 per cent less

severe than when the varieties were grown in monoculture, leading farmers to abandon the use of

fungicidal sprays.

The Australian Context

The Food and Farming System in Australia

Australia’s current regulatory and commercial environment prioritises expensive, high-tech solutions.

However, our national food system is struggling under the burden of worsening public health, undemocratic

concentration of market power, and an unsustainable focus on narrowly defined economic outcomes. The

current regulatory requirements ensure the oligopoly of the big operators over smaller farmers, and

multinational corporations over small and medium independent enterprises that are the lifeblood of our

regional and rural communities. This narrow and misaligned focus is paid for in rural inequity, highlighted by

our shrinking rural communities, consistent lack of investment in extensive rural infrastructure and

significantly poorer social and mental health outcomes11 for these communities.

The simplistic message of ‘scale up production and export more’ is not assisting ailing rural communities.

Australian producers are being forced to adapt quickly to climate changes that happen in months and years,

not decades12. In addition, increasing the demand on farmers to produce more with the focus on chemical

fertilisers, genetically modified crops, and intensified livestock production systems does not lead to a

sustainable system.

We take the view that while we need to support our farmers with access to markets, encouraging more

intensive, large-scale, and export-focused farming is not the solution to long-term food security and food

sovereignty in Australia.

11 http://www.crrmh.com.au/index.php/our-work/research-projects/armhs12 Stokes C & Howden M. (Eds.) 2010. Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change: Preparing Australian Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries for the Future. CSIRO PUBLISHING.

10

Farmers committed to producing healthy, sustainable food for their local communities should have

assistance, support and training for the continual necessary transition to genuinely sustainable forms of

production. Small-scale farmers across Australia are already engaged in sustainable practices to provide

nutritious food for their communities while caring for the soil they grow on.

Agroecology and its Potential: A Case Study from Australia.

The Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance defines agroecology as the application of ecology to the design and

management of sustainable agroecosystems13. It is a whole-of-system approach to agriculture and food

systems development based on local food system experiences. It links human and ecological health, culture,

economics and social wellbeing in an effort to sustain agricultural production, healthy environments, and

viable food and farming communities.

For example, in farming this is achieved through using renewable resources such as biological nitrogen

fixation, using on-farm resources as much as possible and recycling on-farm nutrients. Agroecology aims to

minimise toxins and conserve soils by using perennials, no-till or reduced tillage methods, mulching,

rotational grazing, and mixed-species paddock rotations. Intercropping and cover cropping draw in beneficial

insects and keep moisture in the soil. Integrated livestock ensure a symbiotic relationship between soils and

animals. Pests, diseases and weeds are carefully managed instead of ‘controlled’ with damaging chemicals.

Efforts are made to adapt plants and animals to the ecological conditions of the farm rather than modifying

the farm to meet the needs of the crops and animals.

From an economic view, agroecological farmers in Australia and elsewhere aim to avoid dependence on a

single crop or products. They seek out diverse markets and many rely on Community Supported Agriculture

(CSA), farmers’ markets, ‘pick your own’ marketing, value-added products, processing on-farm and agro-

tourism. These direct connections and regular engagement with local and urban consumers are of material

benefit to the profitability of farmers, and importantly, they are also of further benefit to the economic and

social health of rural communities.

Jonai Farms, Eganstown, Victoria, Australia.

Jonai farms is a resilient, diverse family farm that raises happy, tasty, heritage-breed pastured pigs and

cattle. Jonai animals are free to roam, root, and wallow as they would in the wild. It is the farmers’ own

decision to eat only meat from animals raised ethically that ultimately led to their decision to join the

growing movement of small farmers who place animal welfare first. Jonai Farms does not support eaters to

eat meat with abandon, but supports the Slow Meat mantra, ‘eat better meat, less.’

13 http://www.agroecology.org/

11

Agroecological practice at Jonai Farms

The farmers at Jonai explicitly base their farming practices on agroecology.

“Passionate about agroecology, we've weaned ourselves off purpose-grown grain for the pigs,

reducing feed costs and creating a net ecological benefit by diverting organic waste from landfill, and

exiting the agro-industrial model of segregating feed production from livestock farming. Our animals

contribute to optimum soil health as multiple species are rotated around the farm to grow fertility

and diversity on the paddocks.”

Agroecological practice and local, sustainable economic development

Their website transparently describes the community-supported development of their farm:

After being the first farm in Australia to crowdfund major infrastructure in 2013 to build a licensed

butcher’s shop on the farm, we succeeded again in 2014 and built a licensed curing room and

commercial kitchen to make farmstead cured meats and a range of charcuterie, as well as bone

stocks and lard-based soap, to ultimately deliver a full nose to tail no-waste offering. ‘Waste’ from

the boning room is processed and fed out to a small flock of Australorp laying hens to complete the

nutrient cycle on the farm, taking us from 'paddock to plate' to 'paddock to paddock'. Jonai Farms is

a thriving example of community-supported agriculture (CSA) - a locally-based solidarity economy

membership model – with a 12-year waiting list for Melbourne (and a bit shorter for regional

memberships).

Food Sovereignty

In support of food sovereignty, the farmers at Jonai state:

Jonai farms enacts food sovereignty, which asserts everyone's right to culturally appropriate,

nutritious and delicious food grown in ecologically-sound and ethical ways, and peoples' right to

collectively determine our own food and agriculture systems.

Jonai Core Values & Objectives

ValuesWe value the pigness of the pigWe value holistic decision making – ecological/social/financialWe value an aromatically & aesthetically pleasing farmWe value direct connections with our customers & suppliers (social, ecological, financial)We value so-called waste material for re-use &/or feed on the farmWe value labour over capital & strive to do things for ourselvesWe value patience – nature takes time, & patience tastes delicious

12

ObjectivesTo raise animals ethically, ecologically, & economicallyTo have control of the means of productionTo sell directly via: CSA, farm gate, restaurantsTo enact and be a voice for agroecology and food sovereignty

13