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 


Process 2018-2019

3 July 2019 

Launch of the HLPE Report

Background document


food-2343893_192014 May 2019

CFS Advisory Group and Bureau meeting

A draft proposal on the process and timeline of the policy convergence topic on Agroecology and other innovations is submitted for debate and discussion. Regarding the discussion at the Joint meeting of the CFS Bureau and Advisory Group on 14 May on this topic, CSM is deeply concerned about attempts to avoid discussions on the process that will follow the HLPE report on agroecology and other innovations before its launch. This approach is unprecedented in the CFS: discussions about the follow-up of an HLPE report were always held before an HLPE report was launched, to make sure that the policy convergence process after the launch is clear to everybody. We also note that in all previous processes, the offer of diplomats to facilitate a policy process was warmly welcomed. Read CSM Contributions below to learn more.

Background documents:


farm-1737182_192028 January 2019

CFS Advisory Group and Bureau meeting

CFS Proposal for a follow-up policy process after the launch of the HLPE Report on Agroecology and other innovations


Process 2017-2018


FAO:Alessia Pierdomenico4 October – 5 November 2018 (Extended to 19 November)

HLPE e-consultation on the zero draft of the Report

All information on the process here!


lavender-3479492_1920February 2018

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


Lago Atitlán Panajachel (26).JPGDecember 2017

Collective contributions of the CSM Working Group on the Scope of the Report

Read CSM Working Group’s Submission to the online consultation



November 2017

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


fruit-3247447_1920October 2017

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.