News

24.09.2020 |

New book calls for accelerated transformation of our food systems

Cover of the new book
Cover of the new book

The COVID-19 pandemic exposes sharp injustices and system wide failures of today’s prevailing food and agriculture systems - injustices that had already been accelerating over the past decade, which has proven to be the most destructive period of food production and consumption in modern history. In their new book “Transformation of our food systems - the making of a paradigm shift”, 40 international experts describe the highlights and trends in food production since 2009, when the ground-breaking IAASTD report was published, starting a paradigm shift in the perception of the global food system.

Will COVID-19 and its impacts on world food systems catalyse a real transformation of highly dysfunctional and destructive practices all along the food chain? “Business as usual is not an option” was the provocative message of more than 400 authors of the UN- and World Bank-led International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, published in 2009. It is probably still the most comprehensive assessment of global agriculture. One decade later there seems to be worldwide agreement amongst most international scientists, politicians, civil society and businesses, that our food systems are in urgent need of a fundamental transformation in order to withstand the enormous challenges of today and tomorrow. The climate and biodiversity crises, unprecedented exhaustion of natural resources, rising malnutrition and its health impacts are amongst the most pressing reasons for this. This past decade was the most destructive period of food production and consumption ever – not only with respect to ecosystems, but also the social and cultural fabric of rural communities around the globe.

In their book “Transformation of our food systems – the making of a paradigm shift”, 40 eminent food system experts, most of them authors and review editors of the initial IAASTD, have now taken stock of the developments of global food systems over the past decade. Presenting 13 follow-up landmark scientific reports and UN agreements as well as 15 updates and 13 infographics on key emerging trends and topics, the authors take the reader on a journey to the most important developments. They have been personally involved in the making of many of these reports, and they take a look behind the scenes of politics and science.

World Food Prize winner and former co-president of the IAASTD Hans Herren, together with an NGO representative in the IAASTD bureau, food and farming activist Benny Haerlin, convened an IAASTD+10 advisory group of 16 to help edit the book and compile its key messages. “This combination of international views and perspectives is a treasure trove for decision-makers and activists, scholars and practitioners along the food systems chain,” said Benny Haerlin. “It not only talks about transformation, it also shows how it can be done and where it is already happening.”

The book is published in the run-up to this year’s only virtual High Level Special Event of the UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS), where for the first time agroecology will be at the centre of discussions and where decision-makers will also reflect about global efforts needed to “build back better” after COVID-19. “This book clearly proves from various perspectives that the agroecological approach is by far the most important and fundamental pathway to ‘build back better’ and to make the shift towards sustainable food systems,” says Hans Herren. The book is also a critical contribution to the “Food Systems Summit 2021”, being organized under the auspices of the United Nations.

09.09.2020 |

Study shows the potential of agroecology to adapt to climate change

Biovision
Small farmers from Meru County, Kenya, practicing agroecology (Photo: Peter Lüthi/Biovision)

Agroecology can increase the ability of agricultural systems to adapt to climate change and strengthen their resilience. This is the main finding of a study published in August by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and Biovision Foundation. The study warns that climate change has negative impacts on food systems and the livelihoods of farmers worldwide, undermining current efforts to improve food security and nutrition. It is increasingly posing problems for farmers in sub-Saharan Africa who are faced with irregular rainy seasons, droughts, storms and floods which destroy their harvests. The authors point out that there is an urgent need for a transformational change of our food systems towards more sustainability and resilience. “The study at hand, mobilizing international and national level assessments and scientific methodologies, provides solid evidence that biodiverse agroecological systems built on local communities increase resilience to climate change,” FAO’s René Castro and Frank Eyhorn, CEO of Biovision Foundation, write in the foreword to the report. “Agroecology is not a silver bullet, but it provides urgently needed impulses and principles to transform food systems in line with the sustainable development goals.”

The research question of the study was: “How can agroecology foster climate change adaptation, mitigation and resilience through practices and policies?” In order to find answers, the authors analysed the international policy arena, in particular in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and they conducted a meta-analysis of peer-reviewed scientific studies on agroecology. In addition, they looked at two case studies in Kenya and Senegal that assess both, the policy potential of agroecology and the technical potential of agroecology to foster climate resilience on farm-level in the respective countries. Their main finding from the meta-analysis was that there is robust scientific evidence which demonstrates that agroecological methods including organic farming increase climate resilience. This is because they build on key elements that involve adaptability to climate change. “Agroecology increases the adaptive capacity and reduces the vulnerability of agroecosystems, mainly through improved soil health, biodiversity and high diversification of species and genetic resources within agricultural production systems,” the authors write. For example, agroecological methods increase soil organic matter (carbon sequestration). “Healthy soils are the key to sustainable agriculture and to food systems that can deal with the challenges of climate change and guarantee food security,” said Adrian Müller, co-author of the meta-analysis who works for the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) that also contributed to the study. “Implementing agroecology in practice, and organic farming, results in soil health and therefore deserves comprehensive support.”

The two case studies from Kenya and Senegal also showed that farmers who participated in agroecological projects were able to cope better with the consequences of climate change and ensure their food security. Another finding of the report is that that the interdisciplinary and systemic nature of agroecology is key for its transformational power. But those characteristics also present a challenge: The implementation of agroecological methods is knowledge-intensive, and its promotion in education, extension services and research therefore requires appropriate strategies. However, current laws, policy instruments and strategies are not yet adequate. The authors also provide some recommendations on how to take full advantage of agroecology’s potential. They argue that, given the sound knowledge base, fostering agroecology to build resilience should be recognised as a viable climate change adaptation strategy. Second, they stress the need to address barriers to the scaling-up of agroecology: Improved access to knowledge and understanding of systemic approaches should be fostered across all sectors, stakeholders and scales. “Policies need to provide an enabling environment and a level playing ground for enhancing the adoption of agroecological principles. Evidence-based policy setting is therefore the need of the hour,” Castro and Eyhorn stress in the foreword. In addition, the authors highlight that further comparative research on the multidimensional effects of agroecology is needed. Decisive action is required now. “The decision-makers are now being called upon to set a new course – in the direction of agroecology,” urges Eyhorn. (ab)

22.08.2020 |

Earth Overshoot Day: COVID-19 has reduced our ecological footprint

Earth
Humanity has already used up nature’s budget for the entire year (Photo: CC0)

August 22 marks Earth Overshoot Day this year – the day humanity has used up all the resources nature can sustainably supply and renew in a year, according to data from international sustainability organization “Global Footprint Network” and York University in Toronto. For the rest of the year, we will be living on resources borrowed from future generations. COVID-19 has caused our Ecological Footprint to contract, pushing the date of the day back more than three weeks compared to last year, when Earth Overshoot Day fell on July 29th. Over the last years, the date has been creeping up the calendar and this is the first time since 2009 that the date arrived later. However, this does not mean that there is reason to celebrate: “Sustainability requires both ecological balance and people’s well-being ensured over the long-term, therefore this year’s sudden Ecological Footprint contraction cannot be mistaken for progress,” said Global Footprint Network CEO Laurel Hanscom. Although Coronavirus-induced lockdowns caused the global Ecological Footprint to contract by almost 10%, maintaining current levels of resource consumption would require the equivalent of 1.6 Earths. But the unprecedented current disruption provides decision-makers with the challenge and chance of relaunching our economies in a way that allows us to live within the means of our planet.

To determine the date of Earth Overshoot Day for each year, Global Footprint Network calculates the number of days of that year that Earth’s biocapacity suffices to provide for humanity’s Ecological Footprint. This is achieved by contrasting the world’s demand on nature (ecological footprint), including demand for food, timber, fibres (cotton) and space for urban infrastructure with the planet’s ability to replenish resources and absorb waste, including carbon dioxide emissions. Global overshoot began in the early 1970s. Since then, an ecological debt has been accumulated which is equivalent to 18 Earth years. This means that it would take 18 years of our planet’s entire regeneration to reverse the damage from overuse of natural resources, assuming it was fully reversible. But a change of course is possible: “Many solutions exist that can be adopted at the community level or individually to significantly impact the kind of future we invest in, one decision at a time: how we produce the food we eat, how we move around, how we power ourselves, how many children we have, and how much land we protect for wildlife,” says Global Footprint Network. For example, reducing the carbon footprint by 50% would get us from consuming the resources of 1.6 Earths down to 1.1 Earths and move the date of Overshoot Day by 93 days. If we move the date 5 days each year, humanity would be using less than one planet before 2050.

The “Global Footprint Network” has identified five major areas which offer significant opportunities to address ecological overshoot and improve sustainability: cities, energy, food, planet and population. Our food systems are currently using 50% of the planet’s biocapacity. What we eat matters! Diets which help reduce the carbon-intensity of food and the impact of food production on biodiversity are not only healthier but also have a lower ecological impact. The organisation has calculated that a nutritionally balanced, vegetarian diet has an Ecological Footprint that is 2.5 times lower than that of one comprised mainly of animal-based proteins. The Chinese government has committed itself to reducing meat consumption by 50% by 2030. This would reduce the Ecological Footprint by 377 million global hectares and move the date of Overshoot Day back 5 days, including by reducing methane emissions. Reducing food waste in another solution. About one third of the food produced in the world for human consumption still gets lost or wasted. Cutting food waste in half would move Earth Overshoot Day 13 days. “The past does not necessarily determine our future. Our current choices do. Through wise, forward-looking decisions, we can turn around natural resource consumption trends while improving the quality of life for all people,” the network tries to motivate each of us to make an individual contribution in order to move the date. (ab)

06.08.2020 |

Decline in pollinators threatens US crop yields, study

Wildbee
Wild bee species are in decline (Photo: CC0)

Declines in bee populations and other pollinators could negatively affect crop yields in the US, according to new research published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. The study led by Rutgers University researchers found that a lack of pollinators could translate directly into decreased yields of key crops such as apples, cherries and blueberries. “We found that many crops are pollination-limited, meaning crop production would be higher if crop flowers received more pollination,” said senior author Rachael Winfree from the School of Environmental and Biological Sciences at Rutgers University–New Brunswick. “We also found that honey bees and wild bees provided similar amounts of pollination overall,” she added. The authors stress that their study is the first to evaluate the contribution of wild pollinators to crop pollination at the national scale in the US in such a comprehensive way.

The importance of pollinators for crop production is well-known. “Pollination by insects is a critical ecosystem service that is necessary for production of most crops, including those providing essential micronutrients, and is thus essential for food security,” the study notes. In the US alone, the production of pollinator-dependent crops is valued at over $50 billion per year. And recent evidence suggests that both European honeybees and some native wild bee species are declining. The authors highlight, however, that a decline in pollinators will only affect crop yield if yield is limited by a lack of pollination. In order to get more information, the researchers established a nationwide study to assess the extent of pollinator limitation in seven crops at 131 farms across the United States and in British Columbia, Canada. Through this multi-state Integrated Crop Pollination Project, coordinated by Michigan State University, the scientists collected data on insect pollination of crop flowers and yield for apples, highbush blueberries, sweet cherries, tart cherries, almond, watermelon and pumpkin. “For each crop, we selected study farms within economically important areas for the national production of that crop, so these farms were representative of the majority of production in terms of growing conditions, pollinator communities and farm management practices,” they outlined in the study design.

The researchers found that apples, sweet cherries, tart cherries and blueberries showed evidence of being limited by pollination, indicating that yields are currently lower than they could be if pollinators were more abundant. Another finding is that wild bees and honeybees provided comparable amounts of pollination for most crops, even in agriculturally intensive regions. However, the proportion of visits by honeybees or wild bees differed greatly by crop. Wild bees accounted for the largest proportion of pollination visits in pumpkin (74.6%) but did not visit almond trees. The proportion of wild bee visits was higher for cherry and apple than for blueberry. The economic value of honeybees and wild bees was also estimated based on their relative contributions to crop pollination. The researchers estimated the nationwide annual production value of wild pollinators to the seven crops they studied at over $1.5 billion. “At the national level, we estimated the value of wild pollinators to be highest in apple, with a value of $1.06 billion, with significant value also in sweet cherry ($145 million), watermelon ($146 million), pumpkin ($101 million), blueberry ($50 million) and tart cherry ($32 million),” they wrote in the paper. The value of wild bee pollination of all pollinator-dependent crops would be much greater.

The findings of the study suggest that adopting practices that conserve or augment wild bees, such as enhancing habitat to support blooming trees and shrubs and wildflowers, or using managed pollinators other than honey bees, is likely to boost yields. Increasing investment in honey bee colonies is another alternative growers can consider to reduce the risk of limited pollination. “Managing habitat for native bee species and/or stocking more honey bees would boost pollination levels and could increase crop production,” said professor Rachael Winfree. The study also points to the fact that pesticides are a major threat to pollinators. According to data cited in the study, US farms currently spend about $9 billion annually on pesticides and about $23 billion on fertilizer. “In cases where pollination is limiting, there may be little benefit to spending large amounts of money on pest control,” the authors conclude. (ab)

25.07.2020 |

Scientists call for a shift to agroecology in order to protect biodiversity

AG
Agriculture can promote or reduce biodiversity (Photo: CC0)

A shift to sustainable agriculture is needed in order to halt biodiversity loss and restore nature, a team of scientists argues in an article in the journal „Nature Ecology and Evolution“. They call for the integration of agroecological principles in the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) which will be adopted at the 15th Convention of the Parties (COP15) meeting in China now to be held in 2021 due to the coronavirus pandemic. The biodiversity conference will be discussing targets to reduce threats to biodiversity. The researchers around Dr Thomas Cherico Wanger from Westlake University China and University of Göttingen explain in their article how agroecological principles can help meet these biodiversity targets. “We argue that the GBF must include conservation actions in agricultural landscapes based on agroecological principles (…) in the three ‘2030 Action Targets’ to reach its goals of biodiversity recovery,” they wrote in the journal. “Agroecology is widely recognized as a necessary transformation in order to achieve food system sustainability.” More than 360 scientists from around the world share this view and have signed the article.

The authors first highlight the important role of agriculture, which takes up more than one third of the global landmass and ensures the survival of a growing world population. But agriculture also has its downsides: “Habitat conversion and conventional farming practices – including heavy use of agrochemicals – have negative effects on biodiversity, even spilling into protected areas,” the authors write. Agriculture endangers approximately 62% of all threatened species worldwide. But this does not need to be the case. “Agroecology has the potential to change the way we ‘do agriculture’,” said co-author Professor Teja Tscharntke from the University of Göttingen. If designed appropriately, agricultural landscapes can provide habitats for biodiversity, promote connectivity between protected areas, and increase the capacity of species to respond to environmental threats, the authors stress. “Diversification at the field, farm and landscape scale holds large promises to make food systems more sustainable; however, farmers alone cannot achieve this major transformation. Action is required across the entire supply chain, from the processing industry to distributors to the consumers.”

According to the authors, stopping and reversing the trend in species decline through agroecological production is not only good for biodiversity but also for farmers. Sustainable and diversified farming systems enhance biodiversity, pollination and reduce the impact of pathogens and pests, thus reducing the use of synthetic pesticides, a major cause of biodiversity loss. Farmers benefit from diversified systems through increased economic resilience, reduced dependency on agrochemical inputs, and in subsistence systems more diverse and nutritious foods. The authors are optimistic that the frequently mentioned yield gap between conventional and agroecological production will further diminish through diversification, new varieties and crop combinations. “The importance of agroecology to change agriculture and protect biodiversity has been recognized by many top level organizations, in the scientific community, and by practitioners,” stressed Dr Wanger. The authors especially refer to a recent report of the High-Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS), which looked at agroecological and other innovative approaches that can enhance food security and nutrition and help achieve global sustainability goals.

The scientists also highlight the need to promote and adapt the research on agroecology in order to advance sustainable agriculture. They argue that future research on agroecological production needs to depart from traditional research approaches and increasingly engage in multi-stakeholder networks to define options that work in practice and across scales. For example, the participation of indigenous peoples and local communities in decision-making processes should be promoted to incorporate their perspective on and knowledge about agroecological approaches. In addition, policy makers should be supported through easily accessible advisory services to promote change in the wider socioecological landscape, incentivize local innovation systems and increase budget allocations for agroecological transition. The authors write that it is also necessary to enable public and private funding for long-term research programmes which are more apt for the timescales that agroecological interventions operate on. “We hope that our comprehensive research agenda will help to chart the path to sustainable, diversified agriculture and biodiversity conservation in the future,” said Dr Tscharntke. (ab)

13.07.2020 |

World hunger increases for fifth year in a row, UN report

Market
Two billion people do not have access to nutritious food (Photo: CC0)

The number of undernourished people in the world has increased by more than 60 million people since 2014 and countries around the world continue to struggle with multiple forms of malnutrition, warns a report released on Monday by five UN agencies. According to “The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World”, an estimated 687.8 million people, or almost one in every ten people, were chronically undernourished in 2019, up from 678.1 million in the previous year. This is the fifth increase in a row. If this trend continues, the number of undernourished people will exceed 840 million by 2030 even without the negative effects that COVID-19 will likely have on hunger. The report suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic may add up to 132 million people to the total number of undernourished in the world in 2020 depending on the economic growth scenario. This means that the world is not on track to achieve the second Sustainable Development Goal (SDG2) which aims to end all forms of hunger and malnutrition by 2030. “Beyond hunger, a growing number of people have had to reduce the quantity and quality of the food they consume,” the heads of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the International Fund for Agricultural Development, UNICEF, the World Food Programme and the World Health Organisation write in their joint foreword to the report. In 2019, 746 million people were facing severe food insecurity and more than 1.25 billion people experienced food insecurity at moderate levels. “This situation could deteriorate if we do not act immediately and boldly,” the UN agencies warn in the foreword.

This year’s figure of almost 690 million undernourished people is much lower than the 821 million people in 2018 from last year’s report. The authors argue that updates for many countries have made it possible to estimate hunger in the world with greater accuracy this year. The current estimate is based on new data on population (2019 revision of the World Population Prospects), food supply and more importantly, new household survey data that enabled the revision of the inequality of food consumption for 13 countries, including China. Revising the undernourishment estimate for China going back to the year 2000 resulted in a significantly lower number of undernourished people worldwide because China has one-fifth of the global population. “While still facing food security and nutrition challenges, China has made impressive economic and social development gains since the last update that were not reflected in previous assessments,” the authors write. Despite the revision, the upwards trend in the number of people affected by hunger globally continues.

The hungry are most numerous in Asia, but the figure is expanding fastest in Africa. Approximately 55.4% of the world’s undernourished people, or 381.1 million people, live in Asia, mostly in southern Asian countries, followed by Africa with 250.3 million (36.4%) and Latin America and the Caribbean with 47.7 million (6.9%). If current trends persist, the distribution of hunger in the world could change substantially, turning Africa into the region with the highest number of undernourished in 2030. By 2030, Africa could be home to 433 million undernourished people, followed by Asia with 329 million. Not only is the number of undernourished people on the rise, but also the share of undernourished people in the total population. The prevalence of undernourishment increased from 8.6% in 2014 to 8.9% of the world population in 2019. Africa remained the region with the highest share (19.1% of the total population). The situation is especially alarming in Eastern Africa, where more than a quarter of the population (27.2%) is undernourished and in Middle Africa, which includes countries such as Chad and Congo, were 29.8% of the population is undernourished. In Asia, 8.3% of the population are affected while the share is 7.4% in Latin America and the Caribbean.

The report also introduces new analysis of the cost and affordability of healthy diets around the world. According to the report, the cost of a healthy diet, which for example includes the consumption of at least 400 g of fruits and vegetables per day, exceeds the international poverty line (established at USD 1.90 purchasing power parity (PPP) per person per day), making it unaffordable for the poor. The price of even the least expensive healthy diet is at five times the price of filling stomachs with starch only. Nutrient-rich dairy, fruits, vegetables and protein-rich foods (plant and animal-sourced) are the most expensive food groups globally. The latest estimates are that a staggering 3 billion people or more cannot afford a healthy diet. In sub-Saharan Africa and southern Asia, this is the case for 57% of the population. But not a single region, not even North America and Europe, is spared. “It is unacceptable that, in a world that produces enough food to feed its entire population, more than 1.5 billion people cannot afford a diet that meets the required levels of essential nutrients and over 3 billion people cannot even afford the cheapest healthy diet. People without access to healthy diets live in all regions of the world; thus, we are facing a global problem that affects us all,” the UN agencies write. The report argues that a global switch to healthy diets would also deliver enormous savings. Such a shift would allow the health costs associated with unhealthy diets, estimated to reach US$ 1.3 trillion a year in 2030, to be almost entirely offset; while the diet-related social cost of greenhouse gas emissions, estimated at US$ 1.7 trillion, could be cut by up to three-quarters. (ab)

26.06.2020 |

HLPE calls for policy shifts to radically transform food systems

Market
Food systems need to change (Photo: CC0)

A radical transformations of food systems is needed in order to achieve food security and nutrition for all, a new report finds. According to the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE), the science-policy interface of FAO’s Committee on World Food Security (CFS), the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed and exacerbated the challenges that food systems were already facing and made it obvious that the global community is falling short on Agenda 2030’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), especially on ending hunger and malnutrition in all its forms (SDG 2). “We are currently not on track to deliver against SDG2 by 2030,” said Martin Cole, Chairperson of the HLPE Steering Committee during the online launch of the report. “The next decade must focus on accelerating the implementation of policies and innovative solutions, if we are to ensure global food and nutritional security for future generations,” Cole added. The report first looks at concepts and frameworks around food security and nutrition, analyses current trends, challenges and potential opportunities in food systems and recommends promising policy directions that are vital for meeting SDG2.

The first chapter updates conceptual and policy frameworks. Understandings of the concept of food security have changed and evolved in important ways over the past 50 years, the authors explain. The most widely used definition of the concept today is: “Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food which meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.” This definition features four dimensions that have been seen as central pillars to the concept over the past decades: Availability of food, access to food, utilization (referring to nutritional uptake) and stability (referring to the constancy of the other three dimensions). “Although the above four dimensions of food security remain central to the concept, they still miss some elements that have come to be seen as essential for transforming food systems in the direction needed to meet the SDGs,” the authors write. They call for agency and sustainability to be elevated as key dimensions of food security. Agency refers to the capacity of individuals or groups to make their own decisions about what foods they eat, what foods they produce and how that food is produced, processed and distributed within food systems. It also refers to their ability to engage in processes that shape food system policies and governance. Sustainability refers to the long-term ability of food systems to provide food security and nutrition in a way that does not compromise the economic, social and environmental bases for future generations.

The second chapter addresses current trends and challenges with regard to food systems. Progress on SDG2 has been uneven. The number of people suffering from hunger in recent years has increased. More than 820 million people in the world are chronically undernourished and the COVID-19 crisis has exacerbated the situation. Some 1.9 billion adults around the world are overweight, and about one-third of those people or 650 million people are obese. At the same time, approximately 1.5 billion people suffer from one or more forms of micronutrient deficiency, for example a lack of vitamin A or iron. In addition, food environments in different contexts are deteriorating and food safety is an ongoing concern. Food system livelihoods also continue to be precarious for many of the world’s most vulnerable and marginalized people and there are wide differences in productivity. The report also points to the fact that there are enormous external costs linked to the way food systems currently operate and food systems have crossed several of the “planetary boundaries” that establish a safe operating space for humanity to ensure long term sustainability.

The report recommends four policy shifts to achieve more sustainable food systems and thus SDG2. First, the most promising policies support radical transformations of food systems. According to the authors, “policies that promote a radical transformation of food systems need to be empowering, equitable, regenerative, productive, prosperous and must boldly reshape the underlying principles from production to consumption.” They point out that such policies empower the most vulnerable and marginalized food system actors, promote regenerative production practices, such as agroecology, and support the development of diverse distribution networks, such as territorial markets, which help to overcome economic and sociocultural challenges such as uneven trade, concentrated markets and persistent inequalities by supporting diverse and equitable markets that are more resilient. Second, policies that appreciate the interconnectedness of different systems and sectors are required to ensure more regenerative, productive and resilient food systems. The authors argue that initiatives and policies that build on lessons about inter-system connections from past crises, or current such as the COVID-19 pandemic, are also important.

Thirdly, the report calls for policies which have a broader understanding of hunger and malnutrition. Policies that address hunger and all forms of malnutrition require food systems that are equitable, empowering, sustainable, healthy and nutritious. The report finds that policies in this area support nutrition-driven agricultural production, food environments to encourage healthy diets and the availability of diverse, local fruits and vegetables. Other policies improve nutrition, including infant and child nutrition, and are aimed at improving rates of exclusive breastfeeding up to six months of age. Measures that address specific forms of malnutrition are also important, especially for the most marginalized populations. Fourth, the HLPE calls for policies that develop context-specific solutions, taking local conditions and knowledge into account, in order to achieve more resilient, productive and empowering food systems. “Measures must tackle the distinct challenges that arise in diverse types of rural and urban contexts, including support for small-scale farming systems as well as support for access to healthy foods in urban areas that link up with small-scale producers in rural areas.” HLPE’s “theory of change” is that the four critical policy shifts together work to bring about more sustainable food systems that support the six dimensions of food security and ultimately support the realization of the right to food and the achievement of the SDGs. (ab)

11.06.2020 |

Report calls for shift to agroecological research in Africa

Agrar
Farmers, extension workers and researchers in Mozambique (Photo: Julio Onofre Rainde, bit.ly/2_CC_BY-NC-ND_2-0, bit.ly/JORainde)

Only a fraction of agricultural research funding in Africa is being used to support sustainable agricultural practices, while the majority of funding still goes to industrial agriculture. This is the message of a new report published by Biovision, IPES-Food and the Institute of Development Studies on June 10. The authors argue that around the world, farms, communities and regions are engaging in agroecological transitions, and delivering impressive results. Agroecology combines different plants and animals, and uses natural synergies – not synthetic chemicals – to regenerate soils, fertilize crops, and fight pests. The report estimates that around 30% of farms worldwide have redesigned their production systems around agroecological principles. However, this has not yet translated into a meaningful shift in funding flows that go to sub-Saharan Africa. Investments by philanthropic foundations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and major donor countries still reinforce the status quo in agricultural research, the report finds. “Most governments, both in developing and developed countries still favour ‘green revolution’ approaches, with the belief that industrial agriculture is the only way to produce sufficient food,” said Biovision president Hans Herren. “The same goes for the Gates Foundation and its development agency AGRA. But these approaches have failed. They have failed ecosystems, farming communities, and an entire continent,” Herren added.

The report found that as many as 85% of projects funded by the Gates Foundation, the world’s biggest philanthropic investor in agri-development, are limited to developing industrial agriculture, or increasing its efficiency. This was via targeted approaches such as more efficient use of water, pesticides, livestock vaccines, fertilisers or reductions in postharvest losses. Only 3% of Gates-funded projects in Africa included elements of agroecosystem redesign. In Kenya, one of Africa’s leading recipients of agricultural research money, more than 70% of projects carried out by research institutes were limited to supporting industrial agriculture and/or increasing its efficiency. “A Green Revolution narrative dominates in Kenya, leading to an emphasis on efficiency and markets rather than ecological sustainability, equity and well-being,” according to the report. But at least 13% of projects by Kenyan research institutes are agroecological and another 13% focus on replacing synthetic inputs with organic alternatives. The good news is that 51% of Swiss-funded agricultural research projects had agroecological components, and 41% of those projects also included aspects of socioeconomic and political change like decent working conditions and gender equality. Only 13% of the projects funded by the Swiss focused only on industrial agriculture and efficiency-based approaches. But there is still much room for improvement because even the better-performing Swiss programmes lacked truly systemic approaches. The authors highlight that individual components of agroecology (e.g. agroforestry, complex crop rotations) tended to be addressed in isolation.

The report calls for a meaningful shift in funding flows and argues that change can’t come soon enough. “With the compound challenges of climate change, pressure on land and water, food-induced health problems and pandemics such as COVID, we need change now. And this starts with money flowing into agroecology,” says Herren. This view is supported by Olivia Yambi, co-chair of IPES-Food, an independent expert panel that works towards the transition to sustainable food systems worldwide. “We need to change funding flows and unequal power relations. It’s clear that in Africa as elsewhere, vested interests are propping up agricultural practices based on an obsession with technological fixes that is damaging soils and livelihoods, and creating a dependency on the world’s biggest agri-businesses. Agroecology offers a way out of that vicious cycle,” Yambi said.

The report also includes a series of recommendations for bilateral donors, philanthropic funders and scientific research institutes which want to advance agroecological research in sub-Saharan Africa and beyond. The first recommendation is to focus on operational elements of agroecology as a first step in a well-sequenced strategy for transformation. The authors recommend a focus on core practices and principles (e.g. closing natural resource cycles, agroforestry, inter-cropping and crop rotation, push-pull technology, system of rice intensification) to introduce agroecology to new actors. They call on donors to shift towards long-term, pooled funding models; including the removal of obstacles to funding subsequent phases of the same project or programme. The authors stress the need to co-design projects with farmers and communities and increase the share of funding going to African organisations. “Support the development and functioning of bottom-up alliances with the involvement and ownership of farmers’ groups, researchers, NGOs and social movements; use these alliances as a key partner in knowledge generation and sharing,” they write in the executive summary. Another recommendation is to introduce agroecology to research and training institutes by developing agroecological curricula at colleges and universities and launch a network of decentralised centres of excellence on agroecology in sub-Saharan Africa. (ab)

15.05.2020 |

Conventionally bred plants and animals are not patentable, EPO rules

Veg
Conventionally bred plants are not patentable (Photo: CC0)

Plants and animals derived from conventional breeding are not patentable in Europe. This is the conclusion of the Enlarged Board of Appeal, the highest judicial authority at the European Patent Office (EPO), which had repeatedly come under strong criticism for granting such patents. On May 14, the board issued its long-awaited opinion G3/19, which concludes that plants and animals exclusively obtained by means of an essentially biological process are excluded from patentability under the European Patent Convention. However, this does not apply to patents granted before 1 July 2017 and patent applications which were filed before that date and are still pending. “I strongly welcome the opinion of the Enlarged Board of Appeal. It will bring greater legal certainty for patent applicants, and the general public, on what is a sensitive and complex issue that has legal, societal and economic implications,” said António Campinos, President of the European Patent Office. He announced that the EPO will act in accordance with the clarifications provided in the Enlarged Board’s opinion and implement them in its examination practice in close consultation with stakeholders.

„No Patents on Seeds!“, a coalition of non-governmental organisations, rejoiced at the news. “For more than ten years we have been fighting against patents such as those on broccoli, tomatoes, peppers, melons and cereals. Therefore, we welcome this verdict in the name of the European public, gardeners, farmers and consumers,” said Martha Mertens from “Friends of the Earth Germany”. She stressed that plants and animals are not invented by industry. “Knowledge of methods of breeding plants and animals continues to evolve as a common good from the activities of farmers and breeders over centuries.” For this reason, conventionally bred plants and animals have to be kept available for further breeding, Mertens added. Katherine Dolan commented for the seed saving organisation ARCHE NOAH: “We hope the new verdict will help to put an end to a decade of complete legal absurdity and chaotic decision-making at the EPO. However, there is still a huge risk that big corporations, such as Bayer (previously Monsanto) will try to abuse patent law to take control of our daily food,” Dolan said. “The problem is not yet solved. Further political decisions still have to be taken to close the existing loopholes.”

The loopholes „No Patents on Seeds!“ is worried about refer to the distinction between patentable technical inventions and the random processes used in conventional breeding. Unless there are adequate definitions, ‘technical toppings’ such as those describing random mutations, can still be used to claim plants and animals as ‘inventions’. There are several examples which demonstrate how companies circumvent current prohibitions, such as European patents on barley and beer, melons or lettuce. In 2019, Carlsberg, one of the world’s largest breweries, filed further patent applications covering barley plants derived from conventional breeding, their usage in brewing as well as the resulting beer, research by ‘No Patents on Seeds!’ had shown. As with similar patents granted by the EPO, these patent applications for barley do not involve any technical inventions or the use of methods of genetic engineering which would justify patenting them. “Instead, well known processes were used to trigger random mutations: seeds from barley plants were brought into contact with chemicals to speed up the mutation rate and enhance genetic diversity. Afterwards, further crossing and selection was carried out to breed plants with desirable characteristics,” said „No Patents on Seeds!“. The NGO coalition therefore calls for further political decisions to close these existing loopholes. (ab)

07.05.2020 |

World food prices drop sharply in April, FAO

Cereal
Cereal prices dropped in April (Photo: CC0)

World food commodity prices declined for the third month in a row in April, largely due to the negative impacts on international food markets arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). The FAO Food Price Index averaged 165.5 points in April, down 5.7 points (3.4%) from March. This is the lowest level since January 2019. The index, which measures monthly changes in international prices of a basket of food commodities (cereals, oilseeds, dairy products, meat and sugar), was published on May 7. All sub-indices of the Food Price Index registered significant declines in April – except the cereal price index which declined only marginally, as international prices of wheat and rice rose significantly while those of maize dropped sharply. The UN food agency said that international rice prices increased by 7.2% from March, mainly due to temporary export restrictions by Viet Nam, and wheat prices rose by 2.5%. Contrary to this, prices of coarse grains, including maize, fell by 10%, driven by reduced demand for its use for both animal feed and biofuel production.

The FAO Sugar Price Index reached a 13-year low, declining 14.6% from the previous month. The FAO experts attribute this to collapsing international crude oil prices which reduced demand for sugarcane to produce ethanol. The FAO Vegetable Oil Price Index dropped 5.2% in April, driven lower by falling palm, soy and rapeseed oil values. The FAO Dairy Price Index fell by 3.6%, “with butter and milk powder prices posting double-digit drops amid increased export availabilities, mounting inventories, weak import demand and diminished restaurant sales in the northern hemisphere,” FAO informed. The downward trend also affects the FAO Meat Price index, which declined 2.7%. “The COVID-19 pandemic is hitting both the demand and supply sides for meat, as restaurant closures and reduced household incomes lead to lower consumption and labour shortages on the processing side are impacting just-in-time production systems in major livestock producing countries,” said FAO Senior Economist Upali Galketi Aratchilage.

On Thursday, FAO also released its monthly “Cereal Supply and Demand Brief” with includes estimates for global cereal supply and demand in 2019. FAO’s estimate for 2019 world cereal production stands at around 2,720 million tonnes, up 65.3 million tonnes (2.5%) from the reduced 2018 level, mainly due to increases in wheat, maize, and barley outputs. The forecast for world cereal utilization for 2019/20 has been reduced by 24.7 million tonnes compared to the previous edition of the Brief, as a result of COVID-19 impacts on economic growth, energy markets, and, to a lesser extent, feed demand. The reduction is largely a result of the downward revision of maize utilization, mostly in the United States of America and China, reflecting a sudden slowdown in feed and industrial demand. The report points out that lower utilization rates will lead to higher world cereal stocks at the close of 2020 seasons. Stocks are projected at 884 million tonnes by the close of the 2020 seasons, slightly up from 870 million tonnes in 2018. (ab)

Donors

Donors of globalagriculture Bread for all biovision Bread for the World Misereor Heidehof Stiftung Hilfswerk der Evangelischen Kirchen Schweiz Rapunzel
English versionDeutsche VersionDeutsche Version