CSM Working Group on Agroecology
Ali Aii Shatou – IPACC (Cameroon)
Antonio Gonzalez – MAELA (Guatemala)
Rodolfo Gonzalez Greco – La Via Campesina (Argentina)
Alberta Guerra – ActionAid USA (Italy)
Martín Drago – Friends of the Earth (Uruguay)
Stefano Prato – SID (Italy)
To see the full list of the Working Group click here
To join the WG send an email to email@example.com
4 October – 5 November 2018 (Extended to 19 November)
HLPE e-consultation on the zero draft of the Report
All information on the process here!
Selection of the HLPE Project Team for the Report on Agroecology
The HLPE Steering Committee has appointed the Team Project for the Report. You can take a look at their short bios here
Collective contributions of the CSM Working Group on the Scope of the Report
HLPE online consultation on the Scope of the Report
HLPE online consultation on the scope of the Report: Agroecological approaches and other innovations for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition
Extract from the MYPoW 2018-2019 approved by the Plenary Session of CFS 44
Agroecological approaches and other innovations for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition (2019) Rationale
54. The global food system is at a crossroads. In the face of a rapidly growing population, increased pressure and competition over natural resources, increasingly severe consequences of climate change and the loss of biodiversity, sustainable and innovative approaches need to be developed to successfully combat hunger and malnutrition. It is key to promote more sustainable food systems that produce more with more socio-economic benefits and with less environmental consequences.
55. Sustainable approaches and interventions have to address the challenges behind poverty and inequality, unsustainable diets and consumption patterns, soil degradation, land and water scarcity, climate change and loss of biodiversity. Given the challenges that food systems have to address in order to ensure food security and nutrition now and in the future, CFS seeks to build a better understanding of the roles that agroecological and other innovative approaches, practices and technologies can play. Proposed scope
56. The HLPE is requested to produce a report presenting evidence on the potential contribution of agroecological and other innovative approaches, practices, and technologies to creating sustainable food systems that contribute to food security and nutrition.
57. The HLPE is invited to analyze and provide evidence on the different approaches which could help CFS stakeholders develop a common understanding, and consider the trade-offs that will need to be made by policy-makers, farmers and other stakeholders when considering the adoption of different approaches.
58. Although particular attention to agroecological approaches is envisaged in the HLPE report, the Committee recognizes that there is no single practice for achieving food security and nutrition and sustainable and resilient food systems. The role of agroecological and other innovative approaches, practices and technologies in adapting existing knowledge and practices to specific conditions should be elaborated.
59. The Committee seeks to be informed through the report on possible synergies and integration between different approaches and on the common and distinguishing features of agroecological approaches in the spectrum of innovative approaches, practices and technologies to enhance the sustainability of agriculture. CFS 2017/44/8 Rev.1 13
60. The analysis of the contribution of agroecological and other innovative approaches, practices and technologies to meet future food demand in a sustainable manner should pay attention to the following elements:
Potential to deliver at scale and have an impact on global food security and nutrition, with particular attention to food availability, economic aspects as well as socio-economic impacts, such as on employment;
Contribution to improve resource efficiency, minimize negative environmental impact, strengthen resilience and secure social equity and responsibility;
Examples of context-specific solutions associated with different stages of agricultural development and diverse local situations; Types of markets and regulations that can create an enabling environment for the development of these approaches and for a positive impact in terms of food security and nutrition;
Possible barriers to the adoption of certain practices and ways to address them, including controversies, uncertainties, risks and challenges associated to the development of these approaches;
Review of extensive body of existing scientific and empirical evidence on the impacts of approaches which are being used to advance food security and sustainability. Objectives and expected outcomes
61. The objective for the Committee is to build understanding on the type of interventions, enabling policies and tools, institutional arrangements and organizational changes that enable and incentivize positive changes in sustainable agriculture and food systems.
62. The report and policy outcomes determined by the Committee should help countries achieve progress on SDG 2 (in particular 2.4 on sustainable food production systems and resilient agricultural practices and 2.A on increasing investment in rural infrastructure, agricultural research, extension services and technological development), on SDG 6 (in particular 6.3 on reduction of water pollution and 6.4 on promotion of water-use efficiency) and on a number of others such as SDG 8 on sustainable economic growth, SDG 9 on resilient infrastructure and innovation, SDG 12 on sustainable consumption and production patterns and SDG 15 on sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems. Process
63. To accommodate the needs of the Committee, the HLPE is requested to launch the report by March 2019 in order to give enough time to CFS stakeholders to analyze and review the evidence presented to draw lessons from those innovative approaches that contribute to food security and nutrition and sustainable agriculture and food systems. Should the HLPE need more time, the Committee may reconsider its timeframe for finalising policy discussions based on the report.
64. A facilitator will be selected among CFS Members to lead the process of identifying the areas of agreement and/or policy recommendations to be presented to the Committee for endorsement. Costs of the HLPE which need to be covered through extrabudgetary contribution
65. Note – the costs represent the full anticipated HLPE running costs for the period of the MYPoW, including the production of the two reports requested by CFS. A large proportion of HLPE costs are fixed, but are entirely funded through voluntary contributions.
66. The CFS workstream costs below relate to interpretation and translation. The need for these services may vary depending on the processes determined for follow up on each report.