“Climate Smart Agriculture” isn’t. Agroecology is. [Reblogged from IATP's ThinkForward]

My newest piece, on the pernicious and co-optational threats of “climate smart” agriculture. Co-written with IATP’s president, Juliette Majot.

Posted October 8, 2014 by Dr. M. Jahi Chappell   Juliette Majot

Used under creative commons license from northwestcollegeag.

As the science and practice of agroecology provides a way forward to address food insecurity, rural poverty, climate change, drought and water scarcity it is encountering an intentionally misleading campaign called “Climate Smart Agriculture,” being promoted by the World Bank, FAO, and newly launched corporate-dominated Global Alliance for Climate Smart Agriculture. Do not be fooled by the title. Climate Smart Agriculture incentivizes destructive industrial agricultural practices by tying it to carbon market offsets based on unreliable and non-permanent emissions reduction protocols.

While Climate Smart Agriculture is designed to expand carbon markets and serve the interests of agribusiness and the financial industry, the practice of agroecology boasts a scientifically valid response to climate change and is designed for the purpose of rebuilding decentralized, just, and sustainable agricultural systems. This differentiation is extremely important as we anticipate further erroneous claims that Climate Smart Agriculture and agroecology are interchangeable concepts. They are not.

Below are a few significant new developments and emerging opportunities:

  • The FAO’s Symposium on Agroecology last month helped solidify the scientific legitimacy of agroecology, as well as growing support within the FAO. In his closing comments, FAO DG Da Silva quoted directly from a letter signed by 70 scholars and organized by IATP, which openly opposed the “Climate Smart Agriculture” model and promoted the scientific and social legitimacy of agroecology. The letter was also recognized by several country governments and in media reports. The FAO is now exploring a series of regional meetings on agroecology in the coming year. Despite this new level of support, there are clearly conflicting views within FAO about agroecology, which speaks to the need for intensified and targeted campaigning to take advantage of the opening provided by Da Silva’s recent comment and upcoming meetings. Sign on to support a U.N.-wide agroecology initiative.
  • The Global Alliance for Climate-Smart Agriculture (GACSA), launched in New York in late September, has refueled opposition by civil society organizations (CSOs) critical of its vague governance structure; the tying of agriculture to carbon markets;  and the power of corporate members to drive and profit from CSA objectives. The undefined approach of CSA has no scientific backing and further, will intentionally repeat the worst mistakes of green revolution agricultural practices. Vociferous opposition to the GACSA is legitimate and necessary, and a range of CSOs including IATP are calling for a rejection of GACSA.
  • The FAO Committee on Food Security meeting in mid-October 2014 presents another opportunity to advance agroecology. The CFS is a rare international process in which civil society has a place at the table. It provides critical space for the inclusion of agroecology and food sovereignty in formal negotiated texts related to myriad policy rules, including guidelines for land tenure and responsible agricultural investment. IATP staff serve on the CFS High Level Panel of Experts and actively engage in the civil society mechanism to influence CFS emerging priorities.

Because it is embraced by multiple movements, groups and actors—scientists, NGOs, social movements, consumers, and scholars—agroecology is the epitome of “simultaneously bottom-up and top-down” solutions. Scientists, farmers and activists agree that agroecology is the way to go.

IATP is working hard in an expanding network of people and organizations to actively promote agroecology and expose the myths of the Climate Smart Agriculture model.

- See more at: http://www.iatp.org/blog/201410/climate-smart-agriculture-isn%E2%80%99t-agroecology-is#sthash.DDmtcdp3.dpuf

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Four new faculty positions in sustainability at Leuphana University

Originally posted on Ideas for Sustainability:

By Joern Fischer

Leuphana University Lueneburg is unique in Germany, in that it has a substantial proportion of the university dedicated to sustainability. The “Faculty of Sustainability” hosts about 25 professors from the social sciences, natural sciences and humanities, and has a strong emphasis on inter- and transdisciplinarity. We have just advertised four new faculty positions. They are listed below. Because the deadline is very soon (26 Oct 2014!!), please help distribute these advertisements as widely as possible. We’re keen on recruiting a diversity of sustainability scholars from around the world — if you have a strong track record, think about applying!

1. Junior Professorship Sustainability Science (W1)

Applicants should have a university degree in a relevant field for sustainability science and in depth understanding of sustainability science. A further requirement is a track record in engaging with sustainability problems and solutions at systemic but especially at normative and transformative levels. Proven…

View original 462 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Worth Mentioning: New pub out (and an old one)

I’ve got a new piece out, led by Alexandra-Maria Klein and a number of other colleagues, in the form of a book chapter in the new book Global Forest Fragmentation, just released from CAB International. Our chapter is titled “Forest islands in an agricultural sea,” and covers the literature on ecosystem interactions and services from forests and between forests and agriculture. (It therefore, naturally, comments on the interminable land-sparing/sharing debate.) A full abstract below for those interested in that sort of thing.

The “oldie” is actually precisely our piece on land-sharing & sparing, and trying to move forward, written with many of the same colleagues as above. It was published last year in Conservation Letters, and is basically just what it says on the tin: “Land sparing versus land sharing: moving forward.” The piece is open access, so you can enjoy it in all its glory for free. But here’s just a taste (the first hit is always, erm, more free):

To address the challenges of biodiversity conservation and commodity production, a framework has been proposed that distinguishes between the integration (“land sharing”) and separation (“land sparing”) of conservation and production. Controversy has arisen around this framework partly because many scholars have focused specifically on food production rather than more encompassing notions such as land scarcity or food security. Controversy further surrounds the practical value of partial trade-off analyses, the ways in which biodiversity should be quantified, and a series of scale effects that are not readily accounted for. We see key priorities for the future in (1) addressing these issues when using the existing framework, and (2) developing alternative, holistic ways to conceptualise challenges related to food, biodiversity, and land scarcity.

I’m relatively proud of Box 1, which rather roughly outlines “three competing discourses” in food security: food production, food security, and food sovereignty.

Box 1: Three overlapping discourses on food

conl12084-gra-0001

Figure (inset). Summary of key themes addressed in different discourses on food. Note that dominant themes in the different discourses are highlighted to draw out key differences. Themes other than those listed also may be addressed within a given discourse.
Food production: technology-focused. Much literature on the written history of hunger has come at it from the perspective of “too many people, too little food,” and thus has looked at remedying famine and chronic hunger through increasing food production. Gains in productivity from the Green Revolution are widely thought to have prevented millions of people from starving (Evenson & Gollin 2003), and to have “benefited virtually all consumers in the world” (Pingali 2012). Reduced prices due to higher food supplies are thought to particularly help the poor, because they spend relatively more of their income on food (Pingali 2007).
Food security: states-focused. Food security can be defined as physical and economic access by all people in a society at all times to enough culturally and nutritionally appropriate food for a healthy and active lifestyle (e.g., Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO] 1996). This multidimensional definition was developed in response to research showing that “starvation is the characteristic of some people not having enough food to eat. It is not the characteristic of there not being enough food to eat. While the latter can be a cause of the former, it is but one of many possible causes” (Sen 1981). Further, lower prices from higher food productivity can even cause increased hunger, because they can reduce profits and wages for poor farmers (Stone et al. 2002; Aksoy & Isik-Dikmelik 2008).
Food sovereignty: people-focused. Food sovereignty defines “the rights of local peoples to determine their own agricultural and food policy, organize production and consumption to meet local needs, and secure access to land, water, and seed” (Wittman 2010). It is viewed by proponents as a corrective to the inadequacies of “food security,” which “avoided discussing the social control of the food system. As far as the terms of food security go, it is entirely possible for people to be food secure in prison or under a dictatorship” (Patel 2009). Food sovereignty is based on the idea(l)s of political agency and autonomy. It insists that the optimal configuration of a food system should not be taken for granted and left purely to markets or possibly unrepresentative governments, and instead must involve deliberative action by citizens at local and regional, as well as national levels (Chappell 2013).

There is an interesting new paper on sparing & sharing out in PNAS, I should note, by Hertel et al., finding that “Global market integration increases likelihood that a future African Green Revolution could increase crop land use and CO2 emissions”. They find that “sparing” appears to have happened in the past, and that it would not happen in the short-term if Africa intensified, but would in the long-term. It is a very sophisticated paper, though I have one specific reservation about their model that I will get into some other time. I also have a broader reservation that I will get into right now: that they say measuring reality vs. the counterfactual–i.e., what would have happened had history gone differently (in this case, lack of agricultural intensification from the Green Revolution)–and that this is the better test of sparing (rather than whether or not intensification and agricultural land use are contemporaneously negatively correlated). My problem is their assumption of the counterfactual–that is, that the scenarios they model are the most likely or suitable alternative history. But a sensitivity analysis is not enough to determine this–it seems likely, if not probable, that there would have been a regime change–or many of them–had the Green Revolution not occurred (or occurred  differently or for different reasons). So they assert that they have now done the “proper” test to detect land-sparing, but choice of counterfactual is not something that can come from on high, or even be easily tested for accuracy. (It is, after all, an alternative history.) But considering that the Green Revolution is so-named because the idea was that producing more agriculturally would head off a “Red”–i.e., communist–revolution, it seems a little rich to claim that one has found a “proper” counterfactual, assuming that nothing else had changed but the rate of increase of agricultural productivity.

Anyway, an argument for another time. Here is the abstract for the newest piece, sportsfans:

Forest islands in an agricultural sea

Under the current scenario of continuing human population growth, achieving high agricultural yield while conserving forest biodiversity is challenging scientists and policy makers alike. There is ongoing debate as to whether biodiversity should be integrated on the same land (land sharing) or separated from agriculture (land sparing). Here, we present examples of land-sharing practices (agroforestry systems and multipurpose forests) and demonstrate that forest biodiversity conservation does not necessarily compromise crop yield. There is no simple trade-off between biodiversity and yield, and the complexity of crop yield-biodiversity relationships has not yet been fully investigated, at either the habitat or the landscape scale. We argue that land-sparing management has to be considered at different spatial scales. Agriculture in large-scale land sparing (intensive agriculture separated from forest remnants) generally does not benefit much from ecosystem services mediated by forest biodiversity, but small forest remnants can enhance biodiversity in large agricultural and forestry plantations. Small-scale land sparing (intensive agriculture connected to forest remnants) promotes beneficial organisms and their associated ecosystem services. In such landscapes, wild beneficial organisms, e.g. a diversity of pollinators, can enhance and stabilize crop pollination in intensively managed fields due to spillover from forests into crop fields. Functional connectivity of forest remnants (single trees, treelines, hedgerows and forest patches) in high-input agricultural landscapes can enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services, but future research needs to consider connectivity at various land-sparing scales to evaluate their conservation effectiveness. Furthermore, landscape developments minimizing possible adverse consequences of forest conservation on crop production are currently often overlooked but need to be considered in future research and landscape planning. We argue that both land sharing and land sparing can promote biodiversity without compromising high yields, and that a combination of management strategies at different spatial scales, including the maintenance of forest connectivity, may most effectively safeguard both biodiversity and livelihood security.

Find out about your paywall’d copy here!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Review: Kate Raworth’s ‘Doughnut Economics’

Originally posted on Food (Policy) For Thought:

Man, sometimes you just have to catch yourself in moments of pure luck. Like today, after a morning spent in glorious summer weather hammering out the last formatting issues of my thesis, when I was able to attend a lunch seminar (who said there was no free lunch in economics?) with the inspiring Kate Raworth and have a 2-hour chat afterward with her as well as some senior researchers in ecology, animal genetics, food systems and the like from SLU. What did we talk about? Basically, how to change the world. And economics education. But most of all, Raworth’s suggestion for a new framing of the global challenges and goals as we move from the Millennium Development Goals to the Sustainable Development Goals as of next year: the so-called “doughnut” of the safe and just operating space for humanity.

life-ring-graph-2_0

 

As Raworth explained, she was inspired by and built on…

View original 1,356 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Enough Is Enough [ISEE recap 1]

Originally posted on Food (Policy) For Thought:

Español

Ohhhhh ecological economics, where to start… At the conference there were more than 100 different sessions with 3 – 5 presentations each, so it was actually pretty overwhelming to figure out where to go and who to listen to. Plus, one of the great attractions, but also of the main complications is the interdisciplinarity of the field – there was work on social psychology and group organization (holla! that was us!), ideas on a completely new monetary system that blew my mind, very in-depth presentations on planetary boundary quantifications, for example in land use, and so much more!

What really blew me away though were the keynote speakers. They were all very well-chosen, combining great insights with impressive public speaking skills to make for very enjoyable first sessions of the day.

On the first day, Johan Rockström gave an update on his Planetary Boundaries framework (which I explained in…

View original 1,538 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

ThinkForward Cross-Post: Recognizing Food Sovereignty

Originally posted on IATP’s ThinkForward, September 23, 2014 by Dr. M. Jahi Chappell

Community to Community Development, one of the co-winners of the 2014 Food Sovereignty Prize

IATP, as a member of the U.S. Food Sovereignty Alliance, is excited to join our partners and allies in congratulating the Union of Agricultural Work Committees (UAWC) of Palestine and Community to Community/Comunidad a Comunidad, as co-winners of the 2014 Food Sovereignty Prize. Food sovereignty, which demands that the shape of food and agricultural systems must be designed by and responsive to the needs of those who produce, distribute and consume food, rather than by the demands of markets and corporations, is very much part of the values and objectives of IATP. It calls for a democratization and decentralization of food systems—two vital principles that UAWC and C2C are both striving for in their own work.

As the USFSA states in their press release announcing the winners:

Their stories of continuous struggle to defend the rights of their communities – farmers and fishers in the occupied Palestinian territories and migrant Mexican farm workers in Washington State, both seeking to produce their own food, on their own land, in their home communities – stand in stark contrast to the storylines coming from agribusiness: that technological changes to crops can meet human needs and resolve hunger.

Palestine has been under Israeli occupation for decades and this summer faced heightened pressure, including thousands killed and many more injured from bombings, destruction of homes, schools, hospitals, farms, and fishing boats, and hundreds of arrests without due process, and the continued building of settlements on Palestinian farmland. UAWC builds farmers cooperatives and seed banks, and supports women’s leadership, while continuing to seek its members’ human rights to food, land, and water.  “This important prize inspires UAWC to carry on its work in defending Palestinian farmers’ rights against the brutal Israeli violations, both through supporting small-scale farmers and fishermen toward their food sovereignty and rights to land and water, and also through coordination with local and international movements for social justice and human rights,” said Khaled Hidan, General Director of the Union of Agricultural Work Committees in Palestine.

In Washington State, amid failed immigration policies that criminalize working families, Community to Community Development has supported and worked with immigrant farm workers to develop farm worker-owned cooperatives, organize a successful nutrition education project called Cocinas Sanas, and promote domestic fair trade in regional assemblies and meetings. Most recently, C2C has supported an emerging farm worker union, Familias Unidas por la Justicia, and organized a national boycott of Sakuma Farms, their employer, who withheld pay, provided poor housing, and has since retaliated against the workers. Familias Unidas por la Justicia recently won a settlement for wage theft and had a Superior Court Judge rule uphold their right to organize – but their fight is not over.  “In honoring Community to Community, the USFSA honors indigenous farmworkers in the U.S. Displaced by NAFTA, these peasant farmers from Mexico are practicing a tradition of struggle for justice. Together, C2C and Familias Unidas are promoting food sovereignty in rural Washington State and challenging the corporate agricultural interests that are controlling our food system,” said Rosalinda Guillen, Executive Director of Community to Community Development.

The Food Sovereignty Prize, founded in 2009, “spotlights grassroots activists working for a more democratic food system.” Honorees are groups that have raised public awareness, organized on-the-ground action, and/or developed and implemented programs and policies recognizing the importance of collective action in bringing about social change; who have built global linkages into their work, and prioritized the leadership of women, indigenous peoples, people of color, migrant workers and other food providers marginalized by the global food system.

As opposed to the World Food Prize, which honors individuals and emphasizes increased production through technology, the Food Sovereignty Prize “champions solutions coming from those most impacted by the injustices of the global food system. In honoring those who are taking back their food systems, the Food Sovereignty Prize affirms that nothing short of the true democratization of our food system will enable us to end hunger once and for all.”

The Food Sovereignty Prize ceremony, which I will be attending as a representative of IATP, will take place at the Iowa Historical Building in Des Moines, Iowa on the October 15, 2014. It will be refreshing to join groups focused on the key elements of providing sustainability and food security—scientifically validated factors like women’s rights, social change and social and economic justice—and not just on agricultural production: a factor that, without justice, means little for helping people rather than simply profits.

Read more about this year’s winners here and the U.S. Food Sovereignty Alliance here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Matthew Di Carlo: The Fatal Flaw of the Reformers

Originally posted on Diane Ravitch's blog:

Matthew Di Carlo of the Shanker Institute says that the reformers cannot succeed, despite their best intentions, because they over promise what they can accomplish. Whether it is a promise of closing the achievement gap in short order, turning around 1,000 schools a year for five years, college for all, or making every single child proficient by the year 2014, they set goals that might–if all goes well–be achieved in decades, but cannot be achieved in a few years. They say “we can’t wait,” as if their sense of urgency will surely cause obstacles to crumble. But the obstacles are real, and genuine change requires time, patience, will, and the collaboration with teachers that reformers think they can bypass.

Hubris has its limits.

View original

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Text of Scientists’ Support Letter for the International Symposium on Agroecology, 18-19 September, 2014

As previously posted (originally on IATP and subsequently here), nearly 70 scientists and scholars of sustainable agriculture and food systems sent an open letter to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) yesterday, praising the organization for convening an International Symposium on Agroecology for Food and Nutrition Security.

The text of the letter is reprinted below.

Updated 23 Sept 2014: 6 names added to signatories, denoted by “***”.

Scientists’ Support Letter for the International Symposium on Agroecology, 18-19 September, 2014

As scientists and scholars working in sustainable agriculture and food systems, the undersigned praise the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (the FAO) for organizing and convening the International Symposium on Agroecology for Food and Nutrition Security.

This Symposium comes at an opportune time as climate change, continued food insecurity and rural poverty present myriad challenges to sustainability. Agroecology, especially when paired with the developing principles of food sovereignty and food justice, offers opportunities to address all of these problems to an extent not matched by other approaches or proposals. This is why agroecology has been endorsed by the former UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food Olivier De Schutter[1]; the 10,000-member Ecological Society of America[2]; through the formation and statements of the Latin American Society for Agroecology[3]; in the scientific report of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD); by La Vía Campesina, the world’s largest organization of peasant farmers; by a growing number of research institutions around the world and most recently, further endorsed by over 250 scientists and experts[4].

As the organizers and attendees of the Symposium likely already know, these groups—and the undersigned—view agroecology as a well-grounded science, a set of time-tested agronomic practices and, when embedded in sound socio-political institutions, the most promising pathway for achieving sustainable food production. Agroecology integrates multiple fields into a unique “trans-discipline”, drawing on ecology, agronomy, political economy, and sociology, among other fields. It can be considered a science, a set of practices, and a social movement for distributive and procedural justice. In fact, without these elements of justice—which are often lacking in other approaches (for example, “climate-smart agriculture” or “sustainable intensification”)—no approach can be scientifically assessed as “sustainable” according to most established definitions of sustainability[5]. The procedural justice element has been associated with the growing conceptualization of and movement for “food sovereignty”—the right for people to design and decide on the shape of their own food system within their own localities, to the maximum extent practicable, with the maximum possible participation.

Based on established research and science, we affirm that:

  1. No approach can be called sustainable without explicit planning for and realization of procedural AND distributive justice;
  2. With regards to food and agriculture, this means specifically and substantively addressing issues around who gets access to resources and the processes to determine this access. Empirically established pertinent resources include: education, land, gender equity, infrastructure, credit, market access, affordable inputs and affordable food.[6] Means of “value-adding” and processing must also be available for farmers. (These issues may be thought of in terms of distributive justice.) Procedurally, point (1) may be addressed by ensuring the active and equitable participation of small farmers and the food insecure in all decisions affecting them. Allowing the sole decision-making at any stage to be undertaken by government officials, development experts, multi-national corporations or wealthy donors can interfere with appropriate local processes that Nobel Laureate Elinor Ostrom found could be robustly and sustainably effective in managing resources, given the right facilitating factors[7].
  3. Agroecology is uniquely positioned to support the realization of these principles and needs.

The evidence for the contributions of agroecology are amply documented, including in the reports and letters mentioned above (e.g. as found in the footnotes of this missive). Highlighted peer-reviewed work has examined the numerous benefits to both social and ecological systems—from ecosystem services[8], to lowering the amounts of synthetic inputs and reducing run-off[9], increasing nutrition security and supporting women’s empowerment[10], and improving resilience and mitigation and adaptation to climate change[11]. Agroecological practices can also substantially boost yields in areas where productivity increases may be most needed[12], and support vital biodiversity and environmental conservation objectives[13].

Important and productive questions to be addressed by agroecologists include the strong and well-replicated empirical observations of greater per-unit-area productivity or higher land efficiency ratios of smaller farms; total farm and landscape ecosystem service provision and productivity (instead of yield measured for single crops on farms and landscapes producing multiple goods), and the means of promoting and maintaining agroecological models that will support and provide public goods, resilience, food security, and farmer autonomy. Notably, despite the broad promise, none of the areas of agroecology have seen the levels of investment in research, education, and extension seen for input-intensive conventional agriculture[14]. This may be due to the fact that the provision of public goods, avoidance of negative externalities[15] and the lower commercial input needs of agroecological farmers provide ample services to society, but fewer possibilities for private gains to large corporate concerns who supply and buy food and agricultural products.

The idea that simply making more food with less land and other inputs—sustainable intensification—will lead to a smaller overall land use in agriculture has historically not been the case[16]. Theory and empirical observations show that the determinants of land use and land areas under cultivation are far more complex[17]. Proponents of sustainable intensification have themselves acknowledged that intensification without carefully crafted policies will not necessarily lead to lower land-use[18]. However, what has not been emphasized is that carefully crafted policies that promote equitable access to land, credit, markets and inputs, along with environmentally-sound farming methods, are able to preserve nature and provide food security in many, if not most, cases[19]. Focusing on “intensification first”, or in the absence of these policies, risks failures in achieving sustainability or alleviating poverty and food insecurity[20].

We suggest that “climate smart agriculture” and “sustainable intensification” cannot be alternative terms for agroecology as they do not include the transdisciplinary breadth nor the specific experimental and empirical depth of established agroecology. A sound and scientifically-supported approach must pursue climate mitigation and adaption strategies as part of a larger approach under the umbrellas of agroecology and food sovereignty. Under these two concepts, established and innovated methods are used to provide greater farmer security, greater diversity and greater autonomy. They draw on an active but under-supported research agenda and a tradition of strong partnerships and leadership from farmers. In contrast, the exact conditions of “climate-smart agriculture” and “sustainable intensification” are not only vague but also subject to abuse through misleading or incomplete definitions. Agroecology’s long history, existing discourse[21], and better-defined transdisciplinary space[22] help guard against such dangers.

If we are to further the socially responsible goals of sustainable agriculture, food security, and climate change mitigation and adaptation, then logically we must build on these foundations within agroecology. Other approaches cannot similarly count on the science, practices and movements behind agroecology, yet we know that all three, particularly social movements, are as crucial as scientific and technical innovation in sustainably implementing the right to food. Although agroecology does increase yields in many important cases, the centrality of procedural and distributive justice as parts of the agroecological tradition might be remembered with this simple phrase: “No intensification without representation.” Efforts to realize such representation may be practically seen in examples like Empowered Participatory Governance[23], the Just Sustainability Paradigm[24], and many elements of specific approaches like participatory budgeting, deliberative polling, the principles of subsidiarity, and many of the examples elucidated by Ostrom and colleagues[25].

We therefore call upon FAO member states and the international community to build upon the proceedings of this Symposium in order to launch a UN-system wide initative on agroecology as the central strategy for addressing climate change and building resilience in the face of water crises: an initiative centered around social, cultural, and food sovereignty issues in agriculture and food systems. We see such an activity as becoming one of the pillars of the future work of the Committee on World Food Security as it develops the Global Strategic Framework on Food Security and Nutrition while making an invaluable contribution to discussions and negotiations about agriculture within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change process and the post-2015 Sustainable Development agenda.

We look forward to seeing a discussion of our proposal at the forthcoming Committee on World Food Security meeting 13-18 October 2014.

Sincerely,

M. Jahi Chappell, Ph.D.
Director of Agroecology and Agricultural Policy
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
Visiting Scientist, Washington State University
Minneapolis, MN, USA

* All institutional affiliations provided for identification purposes only and do not imply endorsement by the respective institutions.

**Please direct return correspondence to Dr. M. Jahi Chappell at jchappell@iatp.org. Correspondence will be forwarded to the following individuals who have endorsed the letter.

Signing on behalf of:

David J. Abson, Ph.D.
Research fellow, Future of Ecosystem Services (FuturES) Research Center, Faculty of Sustainability
Leuphana University
Lüneburg. Germany

Miguel A. Altieri, Ph.D.
Professor of Agroecology
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, CA, USA

Molly D. Anderson, Ph.D.
Partridge Chair in Food & Sustainable Agriculture Systems
College of the Atlantic
Bar Harbor, ME, USA

Catherine Badgley, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, Residential College, Museum of Paleontology
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Kirsten Valentine Cadieux, Ph.D.
Research Associate in Sociology and Geography, Society and Environment
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN, USA

Jill Carlson, M.S.
Madison, WI, USA

Ademir Antonio Cazella***
Dr. em Ordenamento Territorial, Coordendor do Programa de Pós Graduação em Agroecossistemas (PGA)
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC) do Brasil

Sandra Andrea Engelmann, Master’s in Geography
Professora do Instituto Federal do Paraná
Campo Largo – PR – Brasil

Miguel Ángel Escalona Aguilar, Ph.D.
Profesor de la Facultad de Ciencias Agrícolas
Universidad Veracruzana
Xalapa, Veracruz, México

Bruce G. Ferguson, Ph.D.
Research Professor and Department Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, Environment and Society
El Colegio de la Frontera Sur
San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico

Luiz Carlos Pinheiro Machado Filho, Ph.D.
Professor; Secretário de Relações Internacionais (SINTER) – UFSC
Secretary for International Affairs – UFSC
Florianópolis, SC – BRASIL

Joern Fischer, Ph.D.
Professor, Faculty of Sustainability
Leuphana University Lueneburg, Germany

Charles A. Francis, Ph.D.
Professor of Agronomy & Horticulture
University of Nebraska – Lincoln
Lincoln, NE, USA

Harriet Friedmann, Ph.D.
Visiting Professor, Agrarian, Food and Environmental Studies
International Institute of Social Studies (ISS) Erasmus University Rotterdam
Professor Emeritus and Fellow, Munk School of Global Affairs
University of Toronto
Toronto, ON, Canada

Ryan E. Galt, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Human Ecology; Provost Fellow, Agricultural Sustainability Institute
University of California, Davis
Davis, CA, USA

Stephen R. Gliessman, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of Agroecology
University of California, Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz, CA, USA

Katherine E. Goodall, Ph.D.
Botany Postdoctoral Fellow
Wellesley College
Wellesley, MA, USA

Garrett Graddy-Lovelace, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, American University’s School of International Service
Washington, DC, USA

Emily Green-Tracewicz, M.Sc.
PhD Student, Individual Interdisciplinary PhD Program; Research Assistant, Crop and Soil Sciences
Washington State University
Pullman, WA, USA

Doug Gurian-Sherman, Ph.D.***
Director of Sustainable Agriculture and Senior Scientist
Center for Food Safety
Washington, DC, USA

Jan Hanspach, Ph.D.
Postdoctoral Researcher, Faculty of Sustainability
Leuphana University Lueneburg, Germany

Amber A. Heckelman, M.A., M.S.
Ph.D. Student, Land & Food Systems
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, Canada

Eric Holt-Giménez, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy
Oakland, CA, USA

Maria José Hötzel, Ph.D.
LETA – Laboratório de Etologia Aplicada e Bem-estar Animal
Departamento de Zootecnia e Desenvolvimento Rural
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina
Florianópolis, SC, Brasil

Alastair Iles, S.J.D.
Associate Professor of Environmental Science, Policy and Management; Faculty Co-Director, Berkeley Food Institute
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, CA, USA

Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
Pesticide Action Network North America
Oakland, CA, USA

Nicholas Jordan, Ph.D.
Professor, Agroecology
University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
MN, USA

Alexandra-Maria Klein, Dr. Prof.***
Professor of Nature Conservation and Landscape Ecology, Faculty of Environment and Natural Resources
University of Freiburg
Freiburg, Germany

Jack Kloppenburg, Ph.D.
Professor of Community and Environmental Sociology
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Madison, WI, USA

Claire Kremen, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, Policy and Management
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, CA, USA

Anna Lappé, M.I.A.
Founder/Director, Real Food Media Project & Small Planet Institute and Fund; Author; Contributor, Al Jazeera America
Oakland, CA, USA

Frances Moore Lappé
Co-Founder, Small Planet Institute; Author; Right Livelihood Award Winner; Recipient of 18 honorary doctoral degrees
Cambridge, MA, USA

Jacqueline Loos, M.Sc.
Ph.D. Candidate, Sustainable Landscapes, Faculty of Sustainability Science
Leuphana University
Lüneburg, Germany

Pedro Antonio Macario Mendoza, Ph.D.
Departamento de Agricultura, Sociedad y Ambiente
El Colegio de la Frontera Sur
Mexico

Kathleen McAfee, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, International Relations
San Francisco State University
2014 Fellow: Rachel Carson Center for Environment and Society
Munich, Germany

Philip McMichael, Ph.D.
Professor and Chair, Department of Development Sociology
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY, USA

Nathan McClintock, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Toulan School of Urban Studies & Planning
Portland State University
Portland, OR, USA

Friederike Mikulcak, M.Sc.
PhD Fellow, Sustainable Landscapes
Leuphana University Lueneburg
Lueneburg, Germany

Albie Miles, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Sustainable Community Food Systems
University of Hawai’i, West O’ahu
Kapolei, HI, USA

Maywa Montenegro de Wit
Ph.D. Candidate in Environmental Science, Policy, and Management; Communications Coordinator, Center for Diversified Farming Systems
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, CA, USA

James R. Moore, M.S.***
Ph.D. Pre-Candidate, Biology
Washington State University Vancouver
Vancouver, WA, USA

Helda Morales, Ph.D.
Professor/Researcher, Departamento de Agricultura, Sociedad y Ambiente
El Colegio de La Frontera Sur
San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas, México

Ezequiel Antonio de Moura
Biólogo e Educador, Instituto Federal do Paraná
Mestrando em Desenvolvimento Territorial Sustentável – UFPR
Paraná – Brasil

Danielle Nierenberg, M.S.***
President, Food Tank: The Food Think Tank
Chicago, IL, USA

Clara I. Nicholls, Ph.D.
President, Latin American Scientific Society of Agroecology; Professor of Agroecology
Universidad de Antioquia
Antioquia, Colombia

Dale Nimmo, Ph.D.
Alfred Deakin Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Life and Environmental Science
Deakin University
Melbourne, Australia

Johan Oldekop, Ph.D.
EU Research Fellow, International Forestry Resources and Institutions (IFRI)
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Marcia Ostrom, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, School of the Environment and Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources
Washington State University
Wenatchee, WA, USA

Damian Parr, Ph.D.
Research & Education Coordinator, Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems (CASFS); Lecturer, Environmental Studies Department
University of California – Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz, CA, USA

Raj Patel, Ph.D.
Research Professor, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs
University of Texas, Austin
Austin, TX, USA

Ivette Perfecto, Ph.D.
George W. Pack Professor of Natural Resources, School of Natural Resources and Environment
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Christine M. Porter, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor and Wyoming Excellence Chair in Community & Public Health; Food Dignity Project Director and Principal Investigator; Division of Kinesiology & Health
University of Wyoming
Laramie, WY, USA

Dr. Pedro Pablo del Pozo Rodríguez***
Profesor Titular; Vicerrector
Universidad Agraria de La Habana Cuba
Habana, Cuba

John E. Quinn, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Biology
Furman University
Greenville, SC, USA

Prof. Dr. Clarilton Ribas
Pós Doutor em Sociologia; Professor Associado IV na
Universidade Fedaral de Santa Catarina
Florianópolis – SC – Brasil

Dianne E. Rocheleau, Ph.D.
Professor of Geography and Global Environmental Studies
Clark University
Worcester, MA, USA

Ricardo J. Salvador, Ph.D.
Director and Senior Scientist, Food & Environment Program
Union of Concerned Scientists
Washington, DC, USA

Valter Roberto Schaffrath, Ph.D.
Professor e Pós Doutorado em Recursos Naturais e Ambiente
Instituto Federal do Paraná – IFPR
Paraná – Brasil

Mindi Schneider, Ph.D.
Convenor, Agrarian, Food and Environmental Studies
International Institute of Social Studies (ISS)
The Hague, Netherlands

Ilyas Siddique, Ph.D.
Adjunct Professor of Agroecosystems, Department of Crop Science, Center of Agrarian Sciences
Federal University of Santa Catarina
Florianópolis, SC, Brazil

Mateus José Falleiros da Silva, D.Sc.
Professor, Eixo Tecnológico de Recursos Naturais – Agroecologia
Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia do Paraná – IFPR
Paraná – Brasil

Fábio Kessler Dal Soglio, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil

Doreen Stabinsky, Ph.D.
Professor of Global Environmental Politics
College of the Atlantic
Bar Harbor, ME, USA

Steve Suppan, Ph.D.
Senior Policy Analyst for Market Regulation, Trade and Technology
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
Minneapolis, MN, USA

Paul Thiers, Ph.D.
Associate Professor; Program Leader for School of Politics, Philosophy and Public Affairs
Washington State University Vancouver
Vancouver, WA, USA

Paul B. Thompson, Ph.D.
W.K. Kellogg Chair in Agricultural, Food & Community Ethics; Dept. of Ag. Food & Resource Economics; Dept. of Community Sustainability
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI, USA

L. Ann Thrupp, Ph.D.
Executive Director, Berkeley Food Institute
University of California Berkeley
Berkeley, CA, USA

Dr. Rémy Vandame
Researcher
El Colegio de la Frontera Sur
Chiapas, Mexico

John Vandermeer, Ph.D.
Asa Gray Distinguished University Professor, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Hans van der Wal, Ph.D.
Investigador Titular “A”, Grupo Académico de Agroecología
El Colegio d ela Frontera Sur
Villahermosa, Tabasco, México

Shiney Varghese, M.A., PGDRM
Member of the UN CFS High Level Panel of Experts on Water for Food Security and Nutrition
Senior Policy Analyst for Water, Agroecology and Global Governance
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
Minneapolis, MN, USA

Dr. A. Cristina de la Vega-Leinert***
Ernst-Moritz-Arndt Universität Greifswald, Institut für Geographie und Geologie
Lehrstuhl für Nachhaltigkeitswissenschaft und Angewandte Geographie
Greifswald, Germany

Oane Visser, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
International Institute of Social Studies (ISS)
The Hague, The Netherlands

Hannah Wittman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Faculty of Land and Food Systems
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, Canada

*** Indicates signatories added to the letter subsequent to its original delivery.

——-

[1] Olivier De Schutter. 2014. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Final Report: The Transformative Potential of the Right to Food, Document A/HRC/25/27. (New York: United Nations, 2014).

[2] Ecological Society of America (ESA). “Letter to Dr. Catherine Woteki, under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics and Chief Scientist of the United States Department of Agriculture.” (Washington, D.C.: ESA, 2013).

[3] See http://agroeco.org/socla/.

[4] Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). “Scientist Statement of Support for Public Investment in Agroecological Research.” (Cambridge, MA: UCS, 2014). http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/solutions/strengthen-healthy-farm-policy/agroecology-research-scientist-statement.html.

[5] Jacqueline Loos, David J. Abson, M. Jahi Chappell, et al. “Putting Meaning Back into ‘Sustainable Intensification’.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12 (2014): 356-361.

[6] De Schutter, Report of the Special Rapporteur; High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE). Investing in Smallholder Agriculture for Food Security: A Report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. (Rome: Committee on World Food Security, 2013); Joern Fischer, David J. Abson, Van Butsic, et al. “Land Sparing Versus Land Sharing: Moving Forward.” Conservation Letters 7 (2013): 149–157.

[7] Ecological Society of America (ESA). “Elinor Ostrom 1933-2012.” Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 94 (2013): 17-19.

[8]  Claire Kremen and Albie F. Miles. “Ecosystem Services in Biologically Diversified Versus Conventional Farming Systems: Benefits, Externalities, and Trade-Offs.” Ecology and Society 17 (2012): 40.

[9] Adam S. Davis, Jason D. Hill, Craig A. Chase et al. “Increasing Cropping System Diversity Balances Productivity, Profitability and Environmental Health.” PLoS ONE 7 (2012): e47149; Jennifer Blesh and Laurie. E. Drinkwater. “The Impact of Nitrogen Source and Crop Rotation on Nitrogen Mass Balances in the Mississippi River Basin.” Ecological Applications 23 (2013): 1017-1035; Sieglinde S. Snapp, Malcolm J. Blackie, Robert A. Gilbert, et al. “Biodiversity Can Support a Greener Revolution in Africa.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107 (2010): 20840-20845.

[10] Rachel Bezner-Kerr. “Gender and Agrarian Inequality at the Local Scale.” In Agricultural Systems: Agroecology and Rural Innovation for Development, edited by Sieglinde S. Snapp and Barry Pound, 281-308. (Burlington, MA: Elsevier, 2008); Andrew D. Jones, Aditya Shrinivas and Rachel Bezner-Kerr. “Farm Production Diversity Is Associated with Greater Household Dietary Diversity in Malawi: Findings from Nationally Representative Data.” Food Policy 46 (2014): 1-12.

[11] Eric Holt-Giménez. “Measuring Farmers’ Agroecological Resistance after Hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua: A Case Study in Participatory, Sustainable Land Management Impact Monitoring.” Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 93 (2002): 87-105; Nadia El-Hage Scialabba and Maria Müller-Lindenlauf. “Organic Agriculture and Climate Change.” Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 25 (2010): 158-169; Brenda B. Lin, M. Jahi Chappell, John Vandermeer, et al. “Effects of Industrial Agriculture on Global Warming and the Mitigation Potential of Small-Scale Agro-Ecological Farms.” CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition, and Natural Resources 6 (2011): 1-18.

[12] Jules N. Pretty, Camilla Toulmin and Stella Williams. “Sustainable Intensification in African Agriculture.” International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 9, (2011): 5-24; Catherine Badgley, Jeremy K. Moghtader, Eileen Quintero, et al. “Organic Agriculture and the Global Food Supply.” Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 22, (2007): 86-108; Snapp et al., “Biodiversity Can Support a Greener Revolution”. Although many “before-after” case studies have been dismissed because one cannot control for what factor was “agroecology” per se (or “organic” or other related terms) as opposed to effects from confounding factors that may have changed over the same time—including farmer learning, education, etc.—these “before-after” cases are instructive in showing the possibilities with the broader dissemination of agroecological principles and practices.

[13] Chase D. Mendenhall et al. “Predicting Biodiversity Change and Averting Collapse in Agricultural Landscapes,” Nature 509, no. 7499 (May 8, 2014): 213–17, doi:10.1038/nature13139; Luke O. Frishkoff et al., “Loss of Avian Phylogenetic Diversity in Neotropical Agricultural Systems,” Science 345, no. 6202 (September 12, 2014): 1343–46, doi:10.1126/science.1254610.

[14] Liz Carlisle and Albie Miles. “Closing the Knowledge Gap: How the USDA Could Tap the Potential of Biologically Diversified Farming Systems,” Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development  3 (2013):  219–225, doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2013.034.025

[15]  Jules Pretty et al. “Policy Challenges and Priorities for Internalizing the Externalities of Modern Agriculture,” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 44, no. 2 (2001): 263–83.

[16]  Thomas K. Rudel, Laura Schneider, Maria Uriarte, B. L. Turner, Ruth DeFries, Deborah Lawrence, Jacqueline Geoghegan et al. “Agricultural intensification and changes in cultivated areas, 1970–2005.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, no. 49 (2009): 20675-20680

[17]  Michele Graziano Ceddia, Nicholas Oliver Bardsley, Sergio Gomez-y-Paloma, and Sabine Sedlacek. “Governance, agricultural intensification, and land sparing in tropical South America.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, no. 20 (2014): 7242-7247; B. L. Turner and Paul Robbins. “Land-change science and political ecology: Similarities, differences, and implications for sustainability science.” Annual review of environment and resources 33 (2008): 295-316.

[18]  Ben Phalan, Rhys Green, and Andrew Balmford. “Closing yield gaps: perils and possibilities for biodiversity conservation.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 369 (2014): 20120285.

[19]  Fischer et al., “Land sparing vs. Land sharing.”

[20] Lisa C. Smith, Amani E. El Obeid, and Helen H. Jensen. “The geography and causes of food insecurity in developing countries.” Agricultural Economics 22, no. 2 (2000): 199-215; Thomas J. Bassett and Alex Winter-Nelson. The atlas of world hunger. University of Chicago Press, 2010; Raju J. Das. “The green revolution and poverty: A theoretical and empirical examination of the relation between technology and society.” Geoforum 33, no. 1 (2002): 55-72.

[21] Stephen R. Gliessman. Agroecology: the ecology of sustainable food systems. CRC Press, 2007.

[22] V. Ernesto Méndez, Christopher M. Bacon, and Roseann Cohen. “Agroecology as a transdisciplinary, participatory, and action-oriented approach.” Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 37, no. 1 (2013): 3-18.

[23] Archon Fung and Erik Olin Wright, eds. Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance. (London: Verso, 2003).

[24] Julian Agyeman. Sustainable communities and the challenge of environmental justice. (New York: New York University Press, 2005).

[25] Amy R. Poteete, Marco A. Janssen, and Elinor Ostrom. Working together: collective action, the commons, and multiple methods in practice. (Princeton University Press, 2010).

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Scientists praise and challenge FAO on agroecology

Originally Posted by Dr. M. Jahi Chappell on IATP’s ThinkForward blog, September 17, 2014

http://www.iatp.org/blog/201409/scientists-praise-and-challenge-fao-on-agroecology

Used under creative commons license from faoalc.

Nearly 70 scientists and scholars of sustainable agriculture and food systems sent an open letter to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) today, praising the organization for convening an International Symposium on Agroecology for Food and Nutrition Security. Given the multiple, overlapping challenges posed by continued food insecurity, rural poverty, climate change, drought and water scarcity, the letter calls for a solid commitment to agroecology from the international community.

According to the letter, agroecology’s broad base in science and society means it is uniquely suited to address today’s challenges in food and agricultural systems. It can be considered a science, a set of practices, and a social movement for food sovereignty and justice. As a science, agroecology integrates multiple disciplines into a “trans-discipline,” drawing on fields such as ecology, agronomy, political economy and sociology. As a set of practices, it can provide multiple benefits to society and the environment, from reducing pollution from agriculture and supporting the conservation of the environment to boosting nutrition security and improving resilience in a changing climate. As a movement, it can address the vitally important issues of distributive and procedural justice in food and agriculture—that is, who gets access to what resources and how to decide. The letter points out that, according to well-established science, social movements and addressing distributive and procedural justice are just as crucial as scientific and technical innovation in sustainably implementing the right to food.

International institutions are currently using a variety of different terms, with different meanings, to identify a way forward for agriculture and food systems to address critical crises including climate change and food security. The FAO and other international institutions like the World Bank have supported other approaches which they call “climate-smart” agriculture and “sustainable” intensification. The letter criticizes these as vague terms that are subject to abuse through misleading or incomplete definitions. In contrast, agroecology is a holistic approach with a long history and an extensive body of knowledge grounded in science and in the experiences and leadership of farmers themselves.

The scholars call on FAO member states and the international community to build upon the proceedings of this symposium in order to launch a U.N. system-wide initiative on agroecology as the central strategy for addressing climate change and building resilience in the face of water crises. Such an initiative could form one of the pillars the future work of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) and make an invaluable contribution to negotiations about agriculture within the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change process and the post-2015 Sustainable Development agenda. The letter closes with a hope that the FAO will consider this proposal at the forthcoming Committee on World Food Security meeting on October 13–18, 2014.

Read the group sign-on letter to the FAO for more.

- See more at: http://www.iatp.org/blog/201409/scientists-praise-and-challenge-fao-on-agroecology#sthash.ctTsZLxZ.dpuf

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The Growth of Wealth and the Rate of Return on Capital

AgroEcoDoc:

Interesting analysis of Piketty.

Originally posted on Rugged Egalitarianism:

Justin Wolfers has posted some slides purporting to deal with the arguments of Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Unfortunately, the discussion outlined in Wolfers’s slides suggests that while he has read some of the more prominent recent responses to Piketty –  including Lawrence Summers’s review of Piketty in Democracy: A Journal; a recent paper by Per Krussel and Tony Smith on Piketty’s second fundamental law of capitalism; and some posted comments on Piketty by Debraj Ray –  he doesn’t seem to have read much of Piketty himself. I say this because Wolfers repeats some of the same interpretive errors that appear in those other works, despite the fact that the errors are quite easy to avoid, and even obvious, to anyone who has worked directly with Piketty’s text.

I commented on some of Debraj Ray’s criticisms of Piketty in my post “Why Is r >…

View original 1,036 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment