Details

Parallel Learning Events:

Integration and action for sustainable landscapes and livelihoods

11.30 – 13.00 Choice of one of 13 Learning Events

No Organisational lead Learning Events title Room
1 CIFOR The ‘land sharing or land sparing’ conundrum 2, 2nd floor
2 Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Brazil Sustainable development of the fish supply chain – lessons from Brazil 3, 2nd floor
3 CIAT, ILRI, CATIE & Embrapa LivestockPlus – How can sustainable intensification of livestock production through improved feeding practices help realize both livelihood as well as environmental benefits? 4, 2nd floor
4 Embrapa & R3ZIS How can developing countries advance towards a more sustainable agriculture? A concrete experience on development of a science-based tropical agriculture in Brazil 5, 2nd floor
5 IFOAM & Biovision How can affordable, accessible, inclusive and resilient food and farming systems be achieved through Ecological and social intensification? 6, 2nd floor
6 Farming First Achieving and measuring sustainable intensification: the role of technology, best practices and partnerships 7, 2nd floor
7 WFP How can the most food insecure and vulnerable people contribute to and benefit from sustainable development? 8, 2nd floor
8 WFP, PHI, IFOAM & Biovision How we can reshape food access and consumption patterns to ensure nutritional needs while fostering healthy and sustainable eating habits worldwide? 10, 2nd floor
9 SIANI From field to fork to field: nutritious food and nutrient cycling to enhance health, wealth and resilience Room A, Mezzanine Floor
10 FAO Which are the loss and waste “hotspots” in food systems which can be targeted and what options are available at the levels of infrastructure, farming practices, processing, distribution and household habits? Room B, Mezzanine Floor
11 GFRAS & World Farmers’ Organisation Agriculture Knowledge Systems – How can the potential of rural advisory services be mobilized? Room C, Mezzanine Floor
12 IFAD, ICRAF & EcoAgriculture Partners How can we measure the multiple benefits for smallholder farmers that underlie resilience? Room D, Mezzanine Floor
13 GFAR How can agricultural innovation better empower women and their key roles in food and nutrition security? Room E, Mezzanine Floor

Learning Event 1

The ‘land sharing or land sparing’ conundrum

Time and Room: 11.30 – 13.00 in room 2, 2nd floor

Organisers: Robert Nasi; CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees, Agroforestry; CIFOR

Summary >>

The global human population is estimated to grow to 9 billion by 2050. Not only will there be more mouths to feed, but increasingly wealthy societies will demand a more (animal) protein-rich diet, which will require considerable additional land and investment. With much of the world’s productive land already under some form of cultivation, policy makers are struggling to reconcile the need to grow additional food with the need to avoid encroaching on already threatened natural ecosystems, especially forests.

Some advocate a process of “land sharing”, whereby agricultural production takes place within complex multi-functional landscapes. Others favour “land sparing”, where agricultural production on already cultivated or marginal lands is maximized, so that other areas are set aside for the conservation of biodiversity.

Although the “land sparing” versus “land sharing” debate presents itself as a black or white choice there are in fact many shades of grey in trying to optimize land-use , dependent on a multitude of interacting factors: be they geographical, ecological, economic, social and political. This Learning Event will explore the various shades of grey characterizing this question as the basis for some tangible recommendations.

Objectives

Our purpose is to have the audience understand the complexity of the issue and to propose practical recommendations about the land sharing or land sparing question. We hope to increase our understanding of the conditions and information needed to decide in a given context whether sharing, sparing or a mix of both are required to achieve progress in designing sustainable landscapes.

Programme

Chair: Sven Wunder, Principal Scientist and Head of the Brazil office, CIFOR
Rapporteur: Andrew Wardell, Director of the Forests and Governance Program, CIFOR
5 mins Introduction to learning event, Sven Wunder
10 mins ‘Mato Grosso: realising the land-sparing potential from increased agricultural productivity’, Bernardo Strassburg, the International Institute for Sustainability, Brazil [ view presentation ]
10 mins ‘Land-sparing or Land-sharing: Strategies for Green Growth in Kilombero Cluster in the Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania’, Sara Scherr, EcoAgriculture Partners [ view presentation ]
10 mins ‘Sustainable development in Africa requires both sparing and sharing in a multifunctional landscapes’, Sara Namirembe, World Agroforestry Centre [ view presentation ]
10 mins ‘Assessing land use strategies for food production and biodiversity in India and Ghana’, Ben Phalan, Cambridge University [ view presentation ]
45 mins Moderated discussion and closing remarks

View a summary of key messages from this event

Biographies

Organizer: Robert Nasi has been living and travelling extensively in Africa, Asia and the Pacific undertaking research activities in the fields of ecology and management of tropical forests for the last 30 years. He joined CIFOR in August 1999 and held several research and management positions in the organization (principal scientist, biodiversity programme leader, programme director). He is currently the Director of the CGIAR Research Program on “Forests, Trees and Agroforestry”.

Chair: Sven Wunder is an environmental economist who has worked for Danida and IUCN. Since 2000, he has been at CIFOR, and is currently acting as Principal Scientist and Head of the Brazil office. Main work areas have been payments for environmental services (PES), deforestation, and forest-poverty linkages. He has worked on all three tropical continents, but is specialized in Latin America, having lived in Colombia, Ecuador and Brazil.

Rapporteur: Andrew Wardell is Director of the Forests and Governance Program at CIFOR and has over thirty years experience working on natural resource management issues in more than twenty South-East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa countries. He has a Bachelor of Science in Agricultural Botany from the University of Reading, a Master of Science in Forestry and its relation to Land Use from the University of Oxford, and a Doctor of Philosophy exploring the legacy of British colonial rule on contemporary forest policy and practice in Ghana from the University of Copenhagen.

Speakers/panelists:

Sara Namirembe has worked in both academic (Makerere University) and NGO sectors. Prior to joining the World Agroforestry Centre, she was with the Katoomba Payments for Ecosystems Services Incubator programme of Forest Trends. Sara has extensive experience in facilitating collaborative/participatory natural resource management and conservation. She facilitated institutional and community networks to develop collaborative action plans for managing forest resources in the Kasyoha-Kitomi Forest landscape, Albertine Rift.

Ben Phalan is a conservation biologist and has been based at the University of Cambridge since 2005. He works on biodiversity conservation, with a focus on agriculture and forests in developing countries, particularly in West Africa. He collaborates with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre and BirdLife International. His current research includes empirical evaluation of land sparing, land sharing and other strategies, and assessment of spatial overlap between conservation priorities and areas where commodity crop expansion is likely.

Sara J. Scherr is President of EcoAgriculture Partners, an international NGO that works with agricultural communities and their conservation, market and government partners to manage ‘ecoagriculture landscapes’ to both improve production and livelihoods and enhance ecosystem services and biodiversity. An agricultural and natural resource economist, Dr. Scherr is an international expert on tropical agriculture and agroforestry, land degradation, and payments for ecosystem services, and has provided leadership in international development of ecoagriculture. She currently serves as a member of the United Nations Environment Program Advisory Panel on Food Security and the Katoomba Group Board of Directors.

Bernardo Strassburg is the founder and executive director of the International Institute for Sustainability, in Rio de Janeiro. After completing a degree in Economics and a MSc in environmental planning (focused on land-use change and ecosystem services in the Amazon), Bernardo worked for the Brazilian Ministry of Environment as an environmental analyst in Eastern Amazon. His PhD in Environmental Science focused on issues related to Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD). He has led a number of projects in the interface of REDD, Biodiversity, Improved Land-Use and Financial Incentives.

Key messages and justification

  1. Key messages
    • Intensively managed agro-ecosystems can be combined with protected areas or low intensity managed systems at the landscape level where intensification is possible;
    • In several contexts, intensification is not possible and land sharing options (e.g. shifting cultivation practices and smallholder production systems) may be more effective to produce food and protect environment;
    • The choice is not between land sparing or land sharing but rather on how to best apply a mix of both depending on the socio-ecological system considered and the anticipated trajectory of change;
  2. Existing evidence:Several recent studies have argued in favour of one or other end of the continuum from full land sparing to full land sharing (thus reviving a decade-old question of integration vs. segregation in natural resource management). Unfortunately a recent review shows that at least for the objective of biodiversity conservation, there is virtually no published evidence which meets basic tests of adequacy . Case studies in (e.g. Ghana and India) show that land sparing is a better option whereas others (e.g. Brazil and Australia) tell a different story. The differences depend to a large degree on what objectives are considered, how they are measured, and at what scale. There is a need to extend existing work to consider multiple objectives and to measure them properly in a range of contexts.Among the possible objectives to be considered when determining land-use strategies, one can think of adequate nutrition, income and land tenure security for local people, conservation of biodiversity conservation and provision of ecosystem services.The Poverty and Environment Network (cifor.org) has shown how important forest resources are in terms of providing a diverse diet which, in turn, improves overall nutrition and health. This research has also shown that managed forests combined with agriculture in multi-functional landscapes act as a food security safety net and reduce the vulnerability of the rural poor to the vicissitudes in climate and other environment-related shocks.Collaborative work in West Africa (primarily Sierra Leone and Guinea) has shown that a wide range of goods and services can be provided within a forested landscape, while maintaining, and even enhancing in some cases, food production. (blog.cifor.org)Recent research on biofuels has found that large-scale agribusiness schemes could continue fuelling extensive forest clearance, and compete with traditional land use systems, thus displacing local people or threatening livelihoods when land acquisition as well as resulting land use change is not effectively regulated. These threats are exacerbated by weak national and international systems of governance that are unable to effectively protect customary land use rights, or regulate environmental impacts. (ecologyandsociety.org)
  3. What is needed to expand from a few cases towards a more generalized multifunctional landscape approach for better environmental protection and improved food security?Several economic, governance, and technical issues still impede further advance towards multifunctional landscapes. Among these the high opportunity costs of maintaining forests and the limited economic benefits, if any, from improved management practices; the persistence of land tenure and land-use planning issues; or a general failure to enforce regulations because of the lack of finances or qualified human resources. As a results, the fate and history of many formerly forested landscapes have been determined by polarized decisions to convert forestlands to agriculture, pasturelands or plantations, or to conserve them as protected areas, often without due consideration of the interests or incentives of forest-dependent communities and farmers.Governance plays a key role in determining which goods and services are given priority and how benefits are distributed ["The more that powerful groups of humans value a particular service, the more likely they are to drive a landscape toward mono-functionality" ]. Weak and unclear tenure and access right regimes have proven particularly problematic, and the perspectives of local women have counted for even less.At the global level, multilateral environmental agreements establish objectives, obligations and opportunities for national policies and strategies, but rarely harness or recognize the potential of community-managed forests and agroforestry to advance environmental objectives. New innovative multi-level governance systems and networks that favour/promote partnerships among public, private sector, transdisciplinary approaches and champions are needed to allow for the desired expansion of multifunctional landscapes.
  4. When do these actions need to take place, and who needs to take them?Multifunctional landscapes (integrated or segregated) will only develop as the concerted effort of many stakeholders: from local communities to international processes supported by innovative integrated research (like the one proposed in the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry, cifor.org) to inform the decision making, the donor community and both national and sub-national governments. In particular, research needs to contribute answering some remaining fundamental questions. Is a landscape based on land sparing a multifunctional landscape, because different parts of the landscape have different functions? At what grain size should various landscape functions be segregated or integrated? For what objectives or functions?Obstacles in the way of multiple-use management could be surmounted by (i) creating a political support through either proactive (e.g. creating specific land-use units, accepting a redistribution or a waiver on royalties from extractive industries) or, at least, neutral (e.g. no undue interference from the State) policies and regulations; (ii) pushing and rewarding the production sector to engage in certification; (iii) involving all the actors in the land-use planning and the development of management plans.Successful examples show that starting funds are needed to cover initial transaction costs to establish the various negotiation platforms and to gather the necessary data on which to base the land-use planning. Global donors need to consider these needs for seed funding but given that such properly implemented multiple-use management systems at the landscape level would likely sequester more carbon that the business-as-usual single use management, these existing initiatives could be benefiting directly from REDD+ funding.Sources(i)
    • Fisher et al., 2008. Should agricultural policies encourage land sparing or wildlife-friendly farming? Front. Ecol. Environ. 6(7):380-385
    • DeFries, R., C. Rosensweig, 2010. Towards a whole-landscape approach for sustainable land use in the tropics. PNAS 107(46):19627-19632
    • Lambin, E.F., P. Meyfroidt, 2011. Global land use change, economic globalization and the looming land scarcity. PNAS 108(9):3465-3472
    • Gutiérrez V.H. et al., 2011. High-yield oil palm expansion spares land at the expense of forests in the Peruvian Amazon. Environ. Res. Lett. 6 (2011) 044029 (5pp)
    • Phalan et al., 2011. Reconciling Food Production and Biodiversity Conservation: Land Sharing and Land Sparing Compared. Science 333, 1289 (2011); and the following exchanges between Fisher et al. and Phalan and colleagues in Science 334, 593 (2011)
    • Van Noordwijk, M., T. P. Tomich, H. De Foresta, and G. Michon. 1997. To segregate – or to integrate? The question of balance between production and biodiversity conservation in complex agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Today 9

    (ii)
    Phalan, B., A. Balmford, R. E. Green, and J. P. W. Scharlemann. 2011. Minimising the harm to biodiversity of producing more food globally. Food Policy 36:S62–S71.

    (iii)
    Selman, P. 2009. Planning for landscape multifunctionality. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy Fall 2009, Vol, 5, Issue 2, pp. 45-52

Learning Event 2

Sustainable development of the fish supply chain – lessons from Brazil

Time and Room: 11.30 – 13.00 in room 3, 2nd Floor

Organiser: Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Brazil

Objectives

Fish production can play a central role in developing areas deprived of public policies and investments. However, in order to accomplish this it is essential to link scientific knowledge with a model of sustainable supply chain along with economic elements to ensure the viability of the proposed models and also the governance capable of structuring supply chains and production models.

This Learning Event will draw lessons from Brazil to encourage debate around sustainable development of the fish supply chain.

Programme

Chair: Edvaldo Magalhães, Secretary of Forestry Development, Industry, Trade and Sustainable Services by the State Government of Acre
Rapporteur: Mariangela de Lorenzo
5 mins Introduction to learning event, Chair
15 mins Aquaculture and Sustainability – Wagner Valenti, Senior Research Scientist and Professor at Sao Paulo State University
15 mins Socioeconomic perspectives of the fish productive chains – Antonio Alves, Chief of Office of the Government Relationship Department at BNDES (National Bank of Development)
15 mins Public Policies for the Sustainable Development of Fishery and Aquaculture – Luis Sabanay, Chief of Strategic Affairs and Institutional Relations of the Ministry of Fishing and Aquaculture
40 mins Moderated discussion in plenary

View a summary of key messages from this event

Biographies

Wagner Valenti is a Senior Research Scientist and Professor at the Sao Paulo State University – UNESP, Brazil. He has served the aquaculture profession through teaching, R&D and the development of national policies since 1981. He has published over 100 papers, books, book chapters and scientific articles and has been selected as keynote or plenary speaker on several national and international conferences. Dr. Valenti has served the World Aquaculture Society as Vice-President and as Director. At present, he is the head of the Brazilian Research Network on Sustainable Aquaculture, which is supported by Brazilian Ministry of Fishery and Aquaculture, to develop methods to evaluate the sustainability of the aquaculture systems used in Brazil. In addition, he coordinates many research projects on sustainable and integrated aquaculture and is editing an international book on measuring aquaculture sustainability.

Antonio Alves is the Chief of Office of the Government Relationship Department at BNDES (National Bank of Development) since 2009 and he was granted his Economics Ph.D degree at the University of Rio de Janeiro in 2001. He was the senior Consultant of Brazil’s Executive Director Office at the World Bank Group; the Economist Advisory Staff of Casa Civil of the Presidency of Brazil until 2009 and; Chief of Advisory Staff of Casa Civil of Presidency of Brazil from 2005 to 2008. He has been working cooperatively with the Ministry of Fishing and Aquaculture for two years focusing mutual efforts on projects directed to the marginalised population of Brazil.

Luis Sabanay is the Chief of Strategic Affairs and Institutional Relations of the Ministry of Fishing and Aquaculture since 2007. He was the executive manager of the Southern Region at the Republic Presidency – Especial Bureau of Fishing and Pisciculture working for a Non-profit Governmental Admnistration Sector in Paraná, Santa Catarina e Rio Grande do Sul from 2003 to 2006. He was also the planning advisor at the Town Hall of Florianópolis organization political sector at Florianópolis and Region in Brazil from 1993 to 1996.

Learning Event 3

LivestockPlus – How can sustainable intensification of livestock production through improved feeding practices help realize both livelihood as well as environmental benefits?

Time and Room: 11.30 – 13.00 in room 4, 2nd floor

Organisers: Nathan Russell (CIAT) with ILRI, CATIE, Embrapa

Summary >>

Developing countries have the highest potential in the world for increasing food production while reducing emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The livestock sector offers particularly significant opportunities for sustainable and climate-friendly intensification.

Livestock raised on forages, crop residues, and other locally produced feeds play a central role in agricultural production across the tropics, using 70% of all agricultural land and providing livelihoods for a billion people. But these systems also contribute significantly to GHGs emissions, with livestock production estimated to account for 15-18% of all agricultural emissions.

This learning event will demonstrate how livestock keepers can help realize both livelihood as well as environmental benefits by using improved feed resources and simple feeding practices. The discussion will center on diverse livestock production systems in the developing world that illustrate a concept referred to as “LivestockPlus.” These systems show significant potential to produce more meat and milk, enhance livelihoods, improve natural resource management, reduce GHG emissions per unit of livestock product, and sequester carbon effectively. The solutions presented range from new methods involving cut-and-carry forages and the use of crop residues in intensive systems of Asia and sub-Saharan Africa to improved pasture-based systems in Latin America.

Objectives

The main objectives of this learning event are to:

  • Raise awareness of concrete options from around the world for using improved feeding resources to enhance both the livelihood and environmental benefits resulting from sustainable intensification of livestock production.
  • Given that the key messages of this event run counter to much current thinking about livestock, share and discuss scientific evidence that demonstrates the benefits of improved feeding practices, particularly their potential for contributing significantly to climate change mitigation while improving livestock production.
  • Foster debate and discussion of possible strategies for large-scale implementation of economically and ecologically sustainable and climate-friendly livestock intensification strategies, such as the use of payment for environmental services (PES) schemes to provide smallholders with stronger incentives to adopt improved forages and other feeding practices.

Programme

Chair: Elcio Guimarães, Director, Latin American and the Caribbean Research Area, CIAT, Colombia
Rapporteur: Nathan Russell, Head, Corporate Communications, CIAT
5 mins Introduction to learning event and speakers – Pedro Antonio Arraes Perreira, President, Embrapa, Brazil (tbc)
20 mins Role of forages and livestock production in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions – Aracely Castro, Soil Scientist and Agroecologist, CIAT, Colombia (5 mins for questions) [ view presentation ]
15 mins Case-study introductions – 5 mins eachCarbon sequestration in livestock production for climate change mitigation: Implications for policy development in Brazil – Davi José Bungenstab, Researcher, Embrapa Beef Cattle, Brazil [ view presentation ]Livestock production and climate change in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia: Technical innovation for environmental and livelihood benefits – Michael Blummel, Team Leader and Animal Nutritionist, ILRI, India [view presentation ]Climate-smart silvopastoral systems for a green livestock economy – Muhammad Ibrahim, Director, Livestock and Environmental Management Program, CATIE, Costa Rica [ view presentation ]
25 mins Parallel group discussions, one on each of the three cases, dealing with questions such as:

  1. What are the main research findings that support the technological or policy innovation, including evidence of livelihood and environmental benefits;
  2. what were key lessons learned from the research leading to this innovation;
  3. What are the requirements for scaling it up?
25 mins Moderated panel discussion in plenary with keynote speaker and case study presenters

View a summary of key messages from this event

Biographies

Chair: Elcio Guimarães is CIAT’s Director of Research for Latin America and the Caribbean, having worked previously with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United nations (FAO), Embrapa, and CIAT’s Rice Program. Elcio’s research on rice improvement has led to the release of more than 50 varieties and to the publication of more than 150 scientific articles, book chapters, and books. He obtained his doctorate in plant genetics from Iowa State University, USA.

Rapporteur: Nathan Russell is leading Corporate Communications at CIAT for a second time, having held this position from 1995 to 2005. He has also served as senior communications officer with the CGIAR Fund Office in Washington, D.C., and as a science writer and editor at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) and International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA).

Speakers/panelists:

Aracely Castro is a CIAT soil scientist and agroecologist, with considerable experience in sustainable intensification of agricultural systems in the tropics. She currently works on integrating improved forages into agroforestry and cereal-legume systems in hillside and savanna agroecosystems to generate agricultural as well as environmental benefits. Her research has resulted in numerous journal articles, conference proceedings papers, and book chapters.

Davi José Bungenstab is a researcher at Embrapa Beef Cattle in Brazil, specializing in systems efficiency and sustainability. He worked previously at the Dom Bosco Catholic University (UCDB) in Campo Grande and received his doctorate from the Humboldt Universität zu Berlin. His work has resulted in many publications, including four books, and he is involved in international projects addressing agricultural systems efficiency and the assessment of its environmental impacts.

Michael Blümmel leads the Global Project on Sustainable Intensification of Livestock Systems at ILRI. He earned his PhD in animal nutrition from the University of Hohenheim in Germany and has more than 20 years of research, teaching, and development experience in Europe, Africa, the USA, and South Asia. His current research focuses on feed resourcing and feeding at the interface between animal productivity and the environment. He has more than 200 peer-reviewed and conference publications to his credit.

Muhammad Ibrahim obtained his PhD from the University of Wageningen, the Netherlands. Since 1994, he has worked with CATIE as a professor/researcher. He currently leads the Center´s Livestock and Environmental Management Program. In addition to teaching and supervising PHD and MSc students, he leads projects dealing with agrosilvopastoral systems, payment for ecosystem services, and mitigation of GHG emissions. He has written numerous book chapters, books, and peer-reviewed journal articles.

  1. Key messages
    • New livestock feeding practices, like the use of improved dual-purpose crops and high-quality forages, offer significant potential for sustainable intensification of agricultural production to enhance livelihoods, while also reducing livestock’s ecological “hoofprint.”
    • Improved tropical forages offer the further advantage of sequestering large amounts of carbon – on a scale similar to that of forests – with the possibility of reducing emissions of nitrous oxide and methane per unit of livestock product.
    • If widely applied in mixed crop-livestock systems – the mainstay of global food security – improved feeding practices could deliver huge increases in food production at reduced environmental cost against a background of rising livestock production and consumption in the developing world.
  2. Existing evidence:
    • The organizations involved in this learning event have taken part in numerous global initiatives that involved extensive testing of diverse options for sustainable intensification of agricultural and livestock production in the developing world. This work offers many practical examples of how improved feeds can raise the production and incomes of smallholder farmers.
    • CIAT and ILRI with partners in Colombia and Japan have recently published an in-depth review (document) on the potential of tropical forages to mitigate GHG emissions on a global scale; the study charts different pathways for limiting the environmental impacts of livestock systems.
    • The publication cites evidence that the potential of sown forages to sequester carbon (assuming good pasture and livestock management) is second only to that of forests. It further suggests that sown forages could realize 60-80% of agriculture’s total potential for climate change mitigation. The highest mitigation potential was estimated for Southeast and East Asia and South America.
  3. Impact of case example
    • Superior forage grasses have been widely adopted in Latin America and cover an area estimated at 25.4 million hectares, generating large economic benefits. In Brazil, for example, these benefits are believed to be worth as much as US$4 billion.
    • In Southeast Asia, improved tropical forages have been adopted widely since the start of promotion in 1995.
    • According to the above-mentioned review, sustainable intensification of livestock production through continued adoption of improved feeds, including sown forages, could significantly reduce GHGs on a global scale, while enhancing the livelihoods of the 1 billion people dependent on livestock-cropping systems.
  4. What is needed for the case example to go to scale and contribute to a transformed food system?
    • Further research is needed to define more clearly the impacts of livestock on climate change – differentiated by specific livestock-cropping systems – as well as the mitigation potential of these systems assuming wider use of improved feed resources.
    • In order to make livestock and crop production in the tropics more climate friendly through improved management of better feeds, smallholders must be given stronger incentives to increase the market orientation of their production systems and sequester carbon through improved land management.
  5. When do these actions need to take place, and who needs to take them?
    • One possible option for giving smallholders stronger encouragement to adopt sown forages involves payment for environmental services (PES) schemes. A critical requirement for the success of such schemes is a more concerted effort now to assemble and share information on the environmental impacts of forage-based livestock systems.
    • If donor support were available for research designed to obtain conclusive data and provide policy makers with decision support, a functional system for implementing the LivestockPlus concept and associated strategies could be available within the next 5-6 years.

Learning Event 4

How can developing countries advance towards a more sustainable agriculture? A concrete experience on development of a science-based tropical agriculture in Brazil

Time and Room: 11.30 – 13.00 in room 5, 2nd floor

Organisers: Embrapa & R3ZIS

Summary >>

Responding to increasing concerns over agriculture´s footprint on the natural resource base, the agricultural research system in Brazil has taken important leaps, in a short period of time, towards development of innovations for increasingly safer and sustainable agricultural systems.

The country has become a leader in crop management based on minimum and no tillage systems, which significantly helps decrease erosion and improve general soil quality and groundwater recharge. Biological nitrogen fixation, through inoculation techniques using endophytic diazotrophic bacteria, has led to a significant decrease in the amount of chemical fertilizers applied to crops such as soybean. This, in turn, has significantly reduced environmental impacts such as water resources contamination with nitrates or other harmful elements.

Biological control, regularly used in a number of crops, such as soybean, sugarcane, cotton and fruit crops, has also reduced the need for chemical pest and disease control in several management systems, with a positive impact on the environment, rural workers’ quality of life and product safety and quality. Over the last decades, plant breeding programs have allowed adaptation of crops to a wide variety of environmental conditions in the country. This has been achieved by incorporating adaptation to different latitudes, tolerance to acid soils – especially to toxic aluminum, increased efficiency in nutrient use (like phosphorus and nitrogen), as well as resistance and tolerance to biotic factors that are especially severe in tropical regions.

These and many other innovations incorporated by the Brazilian agriculture allowed increased resource use efficiency, higher productivity and intensified use of land, reducing drastically the need to agricultural expansion at high environmental cost. This learning event will showcase new tools based on geomatics applications, a relatively new discipline combining information technology and earth sciences.

Objectives

The main objectives of this learning event are to:

  • demonstrate that developing countries can reach food security while promoting more sustainable ways to access and use their natural resource base;
  • demonstrate the Brazilian experience of combining public policies, institutional and human development with a science-based strategy to promote agricultural innovation in challenging tropical environments.

Programme

Chair: Yeda Oliveira, Forestry Researcher, Embrapa
Rapporteur: Gustavo Mozzer – Researcher of Foreign Affairs, Secretariat of Embrapa
3 mins Introduction to learning event “Sustainably intensify agricultural production while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other negative environmental impacts of agriculture” – Yeda Oliveira, Forestry Researcher Embrapa
30 mins How can developing countries advance toward a more sustainable agriculture? A concrete experience on development of a science-based Tropical Agriculture in Brazil. Mauricio Lopes, Executive Director, Research Development, Embrapa [ view presentation ]
22 mins A sustainable way to reach the green economy. Virgilio Horacio Samuel Gibbon, FGV [ view presentation ]
15 mins New tools for sustainable agriculture: a truly case for producers and farming. Paulo Manoel Lenz Cesar Protasio, President, R3ZIS [ view presentation ]
20 mins Chair: co-ordination of the discussion with participants and conclusions

View a summary of key messages from this event

Biographies

Mauricio Lopes, a plant geneticist by training, received his BSc degree in Agronomy (1983) from the Federal University of Viçosa, Brazil, his MS degre in Plant Genetics (1989) from Purdue University, Indiana, USA and his PhD in Molecular Biology (1993) from the University of Arizona, Tucson, USA. He was leader of the Maize Breeding Program at the Embrapa Maize and Sorghum Center, and Head of Research and Development of the Maize and Sorghum Center, the Genetic Resources and Biotechnology Center, and the Department of R&D of Embrapa. He was responsible for the coordination of the process that led to the development and implementation of Embrapa´s current R&D Management System. Mauricio was also visiting scientist at the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FAO, in Rome, member of the Scientific Council of Agropolis Foundation, in Montpellier, France, and coordinator of Labex Korea, an international cooperation program of Embrapa in South Korea. He is currently the Executive Director of Research of Development of Embrapa.

Virgilio Horacio Samuel Gibbon has a Ma and a PhD degrees in Economics from Fundação Getulio Vargas. His major fields are Moneyary Policy and Economic Development. His PhD Dissertation on Income Distribution and Social Mobility won the The Tendencia Award in 1978. He was professor of Economics at Pontificia Universidade Católica (PUC), at Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) at Instituto Militar de Engenharia (IME) and at the Instituto Rio Branco, in The Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He was the CEO of the Rio de Janeiro Stock Exchange and of the Brazilian Futures Exchange where he developed the Interest Rates, Exchange Rates and Stock Index Futures Contracts. He also developed the Brazilian Market of Emissions Reductions for BM&F.

Paulo Manoel Lenz Cesar Protasio is President of R3ZIS and has served on the Board of WTCA (World Trade Center Association), WTA (World Teleport Association), has participated on the foundation of ABECE (Brazilian Association of Trading Companies), AEB (Brazilian Association for Foreign Trade), IETA (International Emissions Trading Association), CEBDS (Brazilian Business Council for Sustainable Development) and is Member for Life of Rio de Janeiro Chamber of Commerce. Entrepreneur with Law Degree and extension on BA and International Marketing has served as Secretary for Trade Development at the Ministry of Industry and Commerce for five years and have be responsible for the organization of the RIO 92 in relation to the civil society events. Has been always involved on the integration of new technologies and networks, and has started and developed new performances in Brazil on the areas of Tourism, Trade, Logistics and Agribusiness.

  1. Key messages
    • Innovations incorporated by the Brazilian agriculture allowed increased resource use efficiency, higher productivity and intensified use of land, reducing drastically the need to agricultural expansion at high environmental cost;
    • Technology alone will not do the trick. The Brazilian experience on tropical agriculture development shows the need to combine public policies, institutional and human development, infrastructure investments, farmer entrepreneurship, all combined with science-based innovation strategies to overcome the challenges of farming in tropical environments.
    • Reducing modern society´s carbon footprints without jeopardizing development will be a major challenge in the coming decades. Despite all advances achieved in Brazil in the past 40 years, technological standards will have to evolve to configure an agriculture that, besides aiming at food production, is also able to enhance even further the sustainability and productivity of the country´s natural resources base.
    • How to make possible green economy and its relation to sustainable agriculture. As the governments around the world are devising responses to the challenges posed by financial, economic, food, green energy and climate crises, the Green Economy initiative may offers convincing macroeconomic evidence and technical advice for focusing policy and investment packages on key economic sectors as a means of stimulating economic development, creating jobs, and addressing poverty, while at the same time reducing greenhouse gas emissions, extracting and using less natural resources and creating less waste.
    • Establishment of a network of partners comprising the private and public sectors to explore and use geomatics know-how. Learning how to obtain geomatics expertise’s with respect to land management and sustainable agricultural development.
  2. Hard evidence
    • We will present concrete facts and data showing that Brazil has been able to promote considerable diversification of its agricultural systems over the last 40 years, allowing it to reach food security in record time and also to become one of the world’s largest producers and providers of food, feed, fibers and renewable fuels.
  3. Impact of case example
    • The main impact is that Brazil has been able to promote considerable diversification of its agricultural systems over the last 40 years, reaching food security in record time;
    • Also, these development allowed Brazil to become one of the world’s largest producers and providers of food and agricultural products to over 200 markets around the world.
    • Despite the advances already achieved, the Brazilian agriculture will have to evolve to configure systems that, besides aiming at food production, are also able to meet requirements such as: a) attention to the environmental services needed to enhance the sustainability and productivity of the natural resources base that underpins agriculture; b) competitive products whose added value stems from differentiation and specialization; c) safe and healthy products, differentiated in order to meet consumers nutritional, health and convenience needs; and d) production of renewable energy, feedstock and bioactive molecules for different industries, so broadening the scope and usefulness of agricultural systems, in special as promoters of environmental sustainability.
    • Brazil has already set a target to reduce the agricultural sector’s carbon dioxide emissions by 4.9 to 6.1 percent by 2020. With its newly-released Agricultural and Livestock Plan 2010-2011, the country launched a Low Carbon Agriculture Program to stimulate agronomic practices that help environmental preservation and productivity enhancement.
  4. What is needed for the case example to go to scale and contribute to a transformed food system?
    • Governments cannot have a simplistic view of the challenges involved in achieving food security and nutritional security, especially in tropical environments, which are very challenging to agriculture. Countries have to devise ways to combine public policies and support that allow institutional and human development, infrastructure investments, farmer entrepreneurship, combined with good science-based innovation strategies to overcome the challenges of farming efficiently and sustainably in tropical environments.

Learning Event 5

How can affordable, accessible, inclusive and resilient food and farming systems be achieved through Ecological and social intensification?

Time and Room: 11.30 – 13.00 in room 6, 2nd floor

Organisers: IFOAMBiovision

Summary >>

The award winning Tigray Project will be used as a core case study to illustrate the ecological and social intensification practices and systems that regenerated both landscapes and livelihoods. As the participatory models of engagement that empowered farming communities and restored ecosystems and productivity in this highly degraded region of Ethiopia are explained other leaders will outline other examples of ecological and social intensification such as:

  • Push n Pull method of Maize production East Africa,
  • Pasture Cropping in Australia,
  • Planting with Space in Ethiopia,
  • SRI in Asia and,
  • Evergreen Agriculture in Africa,
  • Participatory seed saving model that empowers 500,000 female organic farmers across 16 states of India,
  • Participatory guarantee system in which farmers and consumers create sustainable local and sub-national production and marketing models while ensuring organic integrity through affordable participatory alternatives to costly third party certification
  • Public procurement model in Brazil focused on intensifying smallholder production and ensuring local markets for high quality nutritional produce that simultaneously addresses food insecurity and rural poverty

With such practices and systems successfully operating in over 120 countries the global organic movement offers a wealth of viable, affordable and existing systems to enable the transition to sustainable and inclusive agriculture – including climate smart agriculture.

Objectives

  • Increase the understanding of the science and practices of ecological and social intensification (ecosystem based and people centered development) as a means to achieving more productive and resilient livelihoods and ecosystems, through enhanced ecological functions, increased yields, greater social inclusion and improved nutrition.
  • Raise awareness of accessible and locally appropriate climate smart organic agriculture practices that increase resilience by affordably empowering farmers to realize the adaptation and mitigation potential of their farming systems while raising overall performance of the farm in terms of productivity and ecosystem services.
  • Outline highly successful and readily adoptable community and ecosystem based approaches to minimizing ecosystem degradation and rehabilitating degraded environments through empowering women and youth in food production.

Programme

Chair: Vandana Shiva (India)
Rapporteur: Laurence Smith (UK), Senior Sustainability Researcher at the Organic Research Centre
10 mins Vandana Shiva – Introduction to Ecological and Social Intensification – The Science & Heart of Organic Agriculture
20 mins Sue Edwards (Institute for Sustainable Development, Ethiopia) – Ecological Intensification – Key Success Factors of the Award Winning Tigray Project in the Ethiopian Highlands [ view presentation ]
with Hans Herren (Co-Chair , IAASTD) – The Eco-functional Intensification Principles of Organic Conservation Agriculture (based on push and pull) in Africa and
Andre Leu (President, IFOAM) – The intensification of ecological functions that increase the adaptation and mitigation potential of agriculture (based on Pasture Cropping in Australia and long term comparative research studies from around the globe)
40 mins Discussion led by Vandana Shiva on the potential for accelerating the uptake and development of Ecological and Social Intensification practices and systems and on the benefits of mainstreaming organic agriculture into initiatives such as GCARD, CGIAR, CSA etc Chair: co-ordination of the discussion with participants and conclusions

Biographies

Chair: Vandana Shiva (India) is a philosopher, environmental activist, eco feminist, a trained physicist and a specialist in quantum theory who has authored more than 20 books. She was awarded the Right Livelihood Award in 1993.

Rapporteur: Laurence Smith (UK) is the Senior Sustainability Researcher at the Organic Research Centre which aims to improve the productivity and sustainability of organic/agro-ecological approaches to food and farming and evaluate the wider impacts of such systems. Laurence’s work includes development and delivery of methodologies for assessing greenhouse gas reduction and public goods delivery from agriculture.

Main Speaker: Sue Edwards (Ethiopia) came to Ethiopia in 1968 and has stayed ever since. Her first love is plants and nature in all its forms. She has a BSc Hons in Botany and MSc in Plant Taxonomy and spent over 20 years in the editorial team for the Flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea. Now she heads the Institute for Sustainable Development in Ethiopia whose aim is to use ecological principles to transform the lives of Ethiopia’s smallholder farmers and the youth, with a special focus on girls and women.

Other speakers/panelists:

Andre Leu (Australia): Andre Leu, the President of IFOAM, has almost 40 years of experience as an organic farmers and trainer and holds a Bachelor of Arts Communications and a Graduate Diploma in Adult Education. He runs training workshops on tropical organic agriculture in conjunction with the Queensland Australia, Vietnam, Thailand, Bhutan and Laos. He co-authored the manual for training farmers on the adaptation to and mitigation of climate change for Government sponsored workshops delivered in every state and territory around Australia

Hans Herren (Switzerland): Dr. Herren (MSc Agronomy; and PhD Biological control from the ETH-Zürich: postdoc UC-Berkeley) main interests and experience are in agriculture and food; ecologically, socially and economically sustainable development. He has hands-on experience in research, capacity development and management of research organizations and now at the policy level, to assure that knowledge, science and technology do contribute effectively to sustainable and equitable development. He is Co-Chair of the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), member NAS and TWAS, laureate World Food Prize 1995, Tyler Prize (2003).

Laercio Meirelles (Brazil): Graduated in Agronomy with Post Graduate Studies in Agroecology and Rural Development, main interests and experience are in agro-ecological transition, development of local food systems based on integral management of agro-ecosystems and agro-biodiversity conservation. He is a prominent advocate and advisor for Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS) experiences in Brazil and throughout Latin America and the Caribbean region. He has been working with Centro Ecologico for 20 years, focusing on rural development and agro-ecological projects. The experience of Centro Ecologico is worldwide known and taken as reference of successful stories on agricultural development with the agro-ecological approach. Currently he is President of Ecovida Association of Participatory Certification, and Regional Coordinator of the PGS Latin American Forum.

  1. Key messages
    • Organic agriculture provides existing models of sustainable intensification that regenerate livelihoods and ecosystems in an inclusive and affordable manner
    • Organic agriculture intensifies ecological knowledge, practices and systems to empower communities and build the long-term performance and resilience of their rural economies and ecosystems
    • Organic agriculture is knowledge intensive rather than product intensive and requires investment and partnerships in capacity building if its multi-functional benefits are to be widely realized
    • Rio must mainstream organic agriculture as an essential tool in implementing global green economies and be supported by enabling policies and integration into key initiatives such as CAADP, CSA, CGIAR and GCARD etc.
    • The future we want is organic – mainstream organic agriculture at Rio+20
  2. Hard evidence
    • In a semi-arid tropical environment, applying compost at 3.5 to 7 t/ha on degraded land can rehabilitate the soil in 4 years
    • Restored soil only needs compost to be applied every 3rd to 4th year, not every year as is the case with chemical fertilizer
    • Monitoring crop yields in farmers’ fields shows that use of compost is 129% more effective in raising yields than chemical fertilizer, and increases yields by 200-300% over fields where no soil improving inputs are used
    • Grain yield index for crops grown on composted soil improves significantly, viz, for maize from 33% to 43% and for sorghum from 35% to 41%
    • Weeds that do well on degraded soils, such as wild oats and striga, are much reduced in crops grown on soil with compost incorporated
    • ‘Planting with space’ for finger millet using transplanted seedlings raises yields from 1.4 t/ha in soil with no inputs to and average of 4.5 t/ha
    • Farmers who use compost do not have any financial debt at the end of the growing season
  3. What is the impact of your case example?
    • Farming households using the Tigray approach are reaching 12 months of food security and the healthy adults in the community now offer 40 days of free service for community-based improvements such as natural resource management, particularly soil and water conservation works, road building and other improvements to community infrastructure
    • In Tigray Regional State where over half of the farmers now make and use compost, total production of food crops rose from 713 thousand tonnes in 2003 to over 1600 tonnes in 2010
    • As from 2010, the Ethiopian government has incorporated the making and use of compost as part of its extension package for smallholder farmers
    • In the Ethiopian Government’s Growth and Transformation Plan (2010-2015), the aim is to have compost applied to 40,000 million hectares as part of the Government’s aim to have a carbon-neutral green economy by 2020
    • The main costs are in terms of time and commitment – implementing these improvements is not capital intensive
    • Some farmers are apprehensive of making and using compost because of its strong aroma, particularly when a compost heap is moist and opened up during the heat of the day. Rural people minimize exposure to unfamiliar techniques because of the fear of getting sick
    • The biggest trade-off in applying the Tigray Project is the significant reduction in soil erosion and degradation of cultivated land without the use of external inputs except for mesh wiring, called gabion, to hold stone bunds in place when rehabilitating gullies
  4. What is needed for the case example to go to scale and contribute to a transformed food system?
    • Governments, national and local, to be convinced and support the integration of environmental protection with improved crop production for food security
    • Integration of farmers as fully participatory actors in scaling out improvements – farmers are the best trainers for their peers and neighbors
    • Building understanding and dialogue among the 3 pillars for agricultural improvement – farmers, extension and research
    • Agricultural education has to be radically revised to incorporate an in-depth understanding of agro-ecology, and students need to have time and facilities for effective practical work in the field and in dialogue with local farming communities
  5. When do these actions need to take place, and who needs to take them?
    • As we say in Ethiopia, these changes need to have taken place yesterday. Leaving this process to an undefined ‘tomorrow’ could well be too late
    • All parties involved in the agricultural sector from regional economically-oriented organizations, such as COMESA and ECOWAS, to governments at national, internal regions and local community levels

Learning Event 6

Achieving and measuring sustainable intensification: the role of technology, best practices and partnerships

Time and room: 11.30 – 13.00 in room 7, 2nd floor

Organiser: Isabelle Coche, Farming First

Summary >>

The event will be structured around two main interlinked issues:

  1. What role can technology and best practices in achieving sustainable intensification?
    1. Claudia Ringler, IFPRI of a study highlighting the potential for technologies and best practices to increase productivity and reduce prices.
    2. Henning Steinfeld, Secretariat of the Global Agenda for Action in Support of Sustainable Livestock presenting their multistakeholder partnership on livestock footprint reduction
  2. How to we measure progress towards sustainable intensification
    1. Ron Bonnett, WFO and President of Canadian Federation of Agriculture “Making Progress against Environmental Indicators”
    2. Gabriela Burian, Field to Market: “Measuring progress in agriculture’s footprint – USA and Brazilian experience”

Objectives

This session will aim to:

  1. Demonstrate that there are current, innovative and scalable projects and programmes that help meet the dual goals of increased productivity and reduced environmental footprint through a focus on uptake of best practices, technologies and knowledge sharing
  2. Draw ‘lessons learned’ about the challenges and successes from each of these projects, including in measuring progress, and with specific consideration to how they could be replicated in different contexts (how can knowledge acquired be shared? how are tools, technologies and best practices translated in different contexts? How to select locally-appropriate approaches?)
  3. Highlight the importance of multi-stakeholder participation

Programme

Chair: Anne Grethe Dalane, Regional Director of Latin America, Yara International
Rapporteur: Anne Grethe Dalane with Isabelle Coche (group 1 discussion) + Alisa Shackman (for group 2 discussions)
2 mins Introduction by the Chair, Anne Grethe Dalane, Yara International
10 mins “Technology’s potential for addressing sustainable productivity increases’, Claudia Ringler, IFPRI [ view presentation]
10 mins “Introducing the Sustainable Livestock Sector Agenda”, Henning Steinfeld, Secretariat of the Global Agenda for Action in Support of Sustainable Livestock [ view presentation ]
5 mins Clarifying questions
10 mins WFO – “Making Progress against Environmental Indicators – Canadian experience”, Ron Bonnett, WFO and President of Canadian Federation of Agriculture
10 mins Field to Market- “From field to market: First results about natural resources utilization in agriculture sector – Brazilian experience”, Gabriela Burian, Field to Market [ view presentation ]
25 mins Group discussions – two groups, each discussing one of the below

  1. role of technologies and best practices in increasing productivity sustainably (crop and livestock with IFPRI and FAO/Switzerland) – – what worked? What doesn’t? How can it be scaled up, replicated or used more broadly?
  2. how do we measure progress and use environmental indicators to ensure sustainability and productivity go hand in hand – what worked? What doesn’t? How can it be scaled up, replicated or used more broadly?

Discussion topics

10 mins Group lead reports and Chair wrap up

View a summary of key messages from this event

Biographies

Chair: Anne Grethe Dalane, Yara Regional Director of Latin America. Dalane was the global Chief Personnel Officer 2003-09. She served as VP Human Resources for Hydro Oil and Energy from 2001-03, VP Corporate Strategy 2000-01 and VP Finance of Oil and Gas, Norway, from 1996-99. Employed at Yara’s preceding company, Hydro, since 1984, Ms. Dalane held numerous financial positions. Ms. Dalane graduated from the Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration in Bergen, Norway, and is also a Certified Financial Analyst.

Claudia Ringler, IFPRI, is a Deputy Division Director and Senior Research Fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute where she co-leads the water research program of the Environment and Production Technology Division. Her research interests are water resources management–in particular, river basin management–and agricultural and natural resource policies for developing countries. Over the last five years she has also undertaken research on the impacts of global warming for developing country agriculture and on appropriate adaptation options at the local and national levels. She has more than 80 publications in the areas of water management, global food and water security, natural resource constraints to global food production, and adaptation to climate change.

Henning Steinfeld, Secretariat of the Global Agenda for Action in Support of Sustainable Livestock. Henning Steinfeld is currently Chief, Livestock Sector Information, Sector Analysis and Policy at the Food and Agricultural Organization in Rome. Trained as an agricultural economist, he started his career with field work but then moved to FAO to work on livestock policy issues. His focus is on questions of sustainability, inclusiveness and health, related to the livestock sector.

Ron Bonnett, President of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA) has a long and varied career in agriculture. He is currently CFA’s representative for Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency Advisory Committee and Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council. As an advocate of agriculture at the international level, Ron sits on the Board of Directors for the World Farmers’ Organisation as the North American representative.

Gabriela Burian, Field to Market, created and now lead the sustainability portfolio at Monsanto Brazil, where is particularly involved in the Sustainability Council, and in leading the Field to Market effort. She also launched Monsanto Brazil’s participation in the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). Gabriela participates in several multi-stakeholder initiatives, such as Companies for Climate, the Round Table for Responsible Soy, the Field to Market Brazil initiative and is a representative to the Brazilian Business Council for Sustainable Development where she´s Vice President of the Biodiversity Chamber. Gabriela also leads the company’s partnership with Conservation International.

  1. Key messages
    1. Addressing current and future challenges will require a mosaic of solutions that places farmers at the center of policy-making and which are founded on a science-based and knowledge-centered approach to agriculture. Farmers are key to the adoption of best practices and must have access to a variety of tools that meet their locally-defined needs
    2. There are already existing technologies and best practices which can help increase productivity sustainably – these need to be diffused, scaled up and adapted to local conditions
    3. Knowledge sharing and an improved science/policy interface will be essential to enable the diffusion and uptake of best practices and technology
    4. Measuring progress is an essential component of learning and progress and innovative methods and partnerships need to be created to make this possible.
  2. Existing EvidenceMessage 1: Addressing current and future challenges will require a mosaic of solutions that places farmers at the center of policy-making and which are founded on a science-based and knowledge-centered approach to agriculture – we need to invest in science and innovation:
    • Aggressive agricultural productivity investments of US$7.1–7.3 billion are needed to raise calorie consumption enough to offset the negative impacts of climate change on the health and well-being of children.
    • An increase in global average feed-to-food conversion efficiency from 5.1% in the reference case to 6.2% in an improved productivity scenario, would correspond to a reduction in land use of 510 million hectares (or 13%) by 2030 compared to the reference case, and a 20% reduction in global feed use

    Message 2: There are already existing technologies and best practices which can help increase productivity sustainably – these need to be diffused, scaled up and adapted to local conditions

    • In the livestock sector, total factor productivity (TFP), which measures the efficiency with which all conventional inputs are transformed into outputs, increased at an annual rate of 1.1% for ruminants and 2.7% for non-ruminants globally.
    • However there are significant efficiency gaps in some regions, especially in areas with poor market development and deficient infrastructure. For example, TFP growth in Sub Saharan Africa has only increased at an annual rate of 0.5% and 0.4% for ruminants and non ruminants, respectively, over the same period.
    • Technology and good management practices can help increase productivity. For example, the introduction of advanced genetics, feeding systems, animal health control and other technologies have enabled industrialized countries to reduce their overall land requirements for livestock by 20% while at the same time doubling total meat production, over the past four decades
    • In 2010, lower fuel use and additional soil carbon storage from reduced tillage with biotech crops was equivalent to removing 9 million cars from the road for one year.
    • Since 1961, higher yielding varieties have prevented 590 billion tonnes of carbon emissions
    • From 1996-2011, no-till agriculture has saved 21.2 billion liters of water in Brazil. The equivalent of 483,900 people’s water needs during the time period. Looking ahead, for the period 2011-2021, no-till agriculture practices are expected to save 148.8 billion liters of water in Brazil. The equivalent of 3.4 million people’s water needs during the time period.
    • Using herbicides to control weeds in the U.S. reduces soil erosion by an estimated 356 billion pounds each year
    • No-till can reduce soil erosion by 90-95 percent or more, and continuous no-till can make soil more resistant to erosion over time
    • Among Canadian farmers planting herbicide-tolerant canola using zero and minimal tillage practices, 86 percent have reduced soil erosion and 83 percent indicated greater soil moisture.

    Message 3: Knowledge sharing and an improved science/policy interface will be essential to enable the diffusion and uptake of best practices and technology
    (NB: There is no reliable global data on extension services or their impacts)

    • Extension services are crucial to ensure knowledge is shared. However often there is a significant gender gap in access: a study in 97 countries showed women only received 5% of extension training. And only 15% of the word’s extension agents are women.
    • IPM training can help raise yield and improve input use efficiency. In South Asia, following training farmers growing eggplants saw 185% yield increases with IPM growing methods while farmers growing onions saw 198% yield increase with IPM growing methods. East African farmers can improve yields of sorghum by 83% by using IPM practices to fight striga
    • A survey of 286 projects in 56 countries showed an average yield increase of 79% when farmers adopt IPM practices

    Message 4: Measuring progress is an essential component of learning and progress and innovative methods and partnerships need to be created to make this possible.
    Thanks to the efforts from the Field to Market study in the US, the footprint of agriculture can now better be measured. Findings indicated progress in a number of areas and the experience is now being replicated in Canada and Brazil. The study showed that intensification of production has often come and in hand with imprvements in footprint.

    • In the US, the energy needed to produce a bushel of soybeans has been reduced by 65% since 1987.
    • In the US, a bushel of soybeans can be produced today using 26% less land than was used 20 years ago.
    • In the US, over a twenty year study period from 1987 to 2007, corn demonstrated a 41% increase in productivity in the U.S. (bushels per acre).
    • In the US, 50,000 fewer gallons of water are needed to grow an irrigated acre of corn today, compared to 20 years ago.
    • In Canada, for canola, between 1986 and 2006, soil loss efficiency improved by 66%, energy use efficiency by 30%, climate impact efficiency by 29%, and land use efficiency by 26%.
    • In Canada, for spring wheat, between 1986 and 2006, soil loss efficiency improved by 62%, energy use efficiency by 35%, climate impact efficiency by 33%, and land use efficiency by 31%.

    Livestock

    • Global demand for meat is projected to increase by 85% from 2005/2007 to 2050
    • Around 987 million or 70% of the world’s 1.4 billion “extreme poor” depend on livestock. Of these around 301 million are in grazing only systems, many of which comprise pastoralists in poor countries
    • The livestock sector presently occupies 3.73 billion hectares globally: 3.38 billion of hectares are used as pastures and grazing land, while an additional 0.35 billion hectares are devoted to feed production. This represents about 30% of the earth’s ice free land and around three quarters of total agricultural land.
    • Grasslands are estimated to contain 343 billion tonnes of carbon, nearly 50% more than is stored in forests worldwide (FAO, 2010), and their global potential to sequester carbon is of the same order as that of croplands and forests.

    Between 50 to 90 percent of the nutrients contained in feed are not transformed into livestock products but turn up in manure. No more than 40 percent of N ingested by a dairy cow is retained in milk. In a similar way, about 20 to 30 percent of the dietary energy contained in feed is not digested by animals

    Impact of training and knowledge sharing

    (there is no reliable global data on extension services or their impacts)

    • IPM training can help raise yield and improve input use efficiency. In South Asia, following training farmers growing eggplants saw 185% yield increases with IPM growing methods while farmers growing onions saw 198% yield increase with IPM growing methods. East African farmers can improve yields of sorghum by 83% by using IPM practices to fight striga
    • A survey of 286 projects in 56 countries showed an average yield increase of 79% when farmers adopt IPM practices
    • Extension services are crucial to ensure knowledge is shared. However often there is a significant gender gap in access: a study in 97 countries showed women only received 5% of extension training. And only 15% of the word’s extension agents are women.
  3. Impact of case exampleThe case studies being presented are ongoing efforts, as such impacts are not yet fully known. However, they generally aim to have an impact on knowledge, capacity and policy coordination:
    • Increase available knowledge in order to enable the measurement of progress and to make it possible for farmers to benefit from incentive and market mechanisms – for example, the Global Agenda aims to develop grassland carbon accounting methodologies – as well as to support policy development at national level.
    • Based on the experience of the projects, provide ‘template methodologies’ or ‘project templates’ to enable duplication in other contexts – for example the Field to Market experience in the US being now carried out in Canada and Brazil using knowledge acquired from the Us experience
    • Develop capacity to quantitatively evaluate and benchmark the environmental performance of different production systems and supply chains, and assess the potential natural resource use efficiency gains that can deliver both environmental and production benefits.
    • Identify gaps in knowledge and practice to guide global and regional collaborations
    • Influence policy and incentive mechanisms to encourage adoption of best practices that aim to closing the resource use efficiency and yield gaps in production.
    • Pilot innovative methods to encourage best practice adoption, such as through the Global Agenda work on carbon finance and other forms of payment for environmental services in marginal grazing lands
  4. What is needed for the case example to go to scale and contribute to a transformed food system?These case studies highlight the importance of renewed investment in research, extension services and other supporting mechanisms for agriculture. Public investment has declined dramatically in the past 20 to 30 years and the trend needs to be reversed to enable farmers and other actors in the supply chain to have the tools available to meet the challenge of sustainable intensificationIn addition, the case studies highlight the complexity of the agricultural landscape and the need to adopt locally appropriate, science-based solutions, and that there is no one size-fits-all approach that will work. This means that a large share of actions will need to take place at the local/national/regional level. Better communication between regions/countries and global/national levels will be needed to ensure the lessons learned and successful best practices can be replicated.Examples also demonstrate the importance of engaging all the relevant actors and as such the need to improve stakeholder engagement in research, deployment and measurement.
  5. When do these actions need to take place, and who needs to take them?Action is needed immediately and will need to come through collaboration of all relevant actors at all levels. Improving the policy/science interface, improving public/private sector communication and knowledge sharing and placing farmers at the center of policy making should be the priorities.Governments must prioritise spending on agriculture, in particular knowledge sharing systems and on scaling up existing successful experiences.Farmers need to be better integrated in those systems and able to shape them to suit their needs.Research agendas needs to build on farmer feedback and priorities and have built in components for the roll out of research findings.

Learning Event 7

How can the most food insecure and vulnerable people contribute to and benefit from sustainable development?

Time and Room: 11.30 – 13.00 in room 8, 2nd floor

Organisers: WFP

Summary >>

Rio+20 offers a unique opportunity to re-energize the fight against hunger and malnutrition as part of a new vision for sustainable development. As we approach Rio+20, 1.4 billion women, men and children continue to live in extreme poverty. Almost one billion suffer from hunger, and over twice as many from hidden hunger of malnourishment and food insecurity.

This learning event will bring together key stakeholders to highlight implementation barriers in supporting people that are left in hunger, poverty and food insecurity. It will focus on mechanisms and approaches that help bring poor and food insecure people that reside in the margins of development with little protection from increasing risks and shocks, into sustainable development pathways and to enable the full human development potential.

In many regions these barriers are inextricably linked with environmental degradation, resource scarcity and a complex web of risk drivers, shaped by climate change, volatile markets, governance issues and other factors. No single instrument, country or agency can provide all the answers to these challenges.

This learning event will also aim at supporting the Rio+20 Conference to reaffirm the centrality of food and nutrition security for sustainable development and will focus on promoting new partnerships for ending hunger and malnutrition among vulnerable people in degraded and risk-prone rural areas and, increasingly, in poor urban settings.

Objectives

Key objectives of the event are to:

  • Identify key challenges in supporting the most food insecure and vulnerable people contribute to and benefit from sustainable development
  • Highlight practical tools and approaches that are critical to enable a shift towards sustainable food security among poor and highly food insecure communities
  • Recognize the importance of and build partnerships necessary to effectively scale up and implement these tools and approaches
  • Discuss the post Rio+20-phase in terms of needed deliverables that target and benefit the most food insecure, the poorest, and the most vulnerable people.

Programme

Chair: Carlo Scaramella, Global Coordinator, Climate Change, Environment and Disaster Risk Reduction, World Food Programme (WFP) [ view presentation ]
Rapporteur: Oscar Ekdahl, WFP
10 mins Chair – Introduction to the learning event and panelists. A short video and presentation to set the scene
10 mins David Obong, Permanent Secretary, Government of Uganda (tbc)
10 mins Emile Frison, Director General, Bioversity International
10 mins David McNair, Head of Growth, Equity and Livelihoods, Save the Children UK
50 mins Discussion and Q&A with audience

View a summary of key messages from this event

Speakers

Chair: Dr. Carlo Scaramella, Global Coordinator, Climate Change, Environment and Disaster Risk Reduction, World Food Programme (WFP)

Rapporteur: Oscar Ekdahl, WFP

David Obong, Permanent Secretary Ministry of Water and Environment, Government of Uganda (tbc)

Emile Frison, Director General, Bioversity International

David McNair, Head of Growth, Equity and Livelihoods, Save the Children UK

  1. Key messages
    • There can be no sustainable development when billions of people live in hunger and poverty.
    • Social protection and safety nets for change are central to protect and empower the most vulnerable and food insecure.
    • Women are at the heart of global food and nutrition security.
    • Stronger partnerships and enhanced interactions between sectors are essential to address hunger and food insecurity and to ensure inclusive development.
  2. Hard evidence
    • The first Millennium Development Goal set by the international community for the 21st century is to half the proportion of hungry people in the world. Progress was made in reducing chronic hunger in the 1980s and the first half of the 1990s, but hunger has been steadily rising for the past decade.
    • Today, chronic hunger affects over 900 million people worldwide– almost 16 percent of the population in developing countries.
    • The proportion of hungry people is highest in sub-Saharan Africa, at around 30 percent of the population. The region with the overall greatest sheer numbers of hungry people is Asia and the Pacific.
    • Malnutrition is the single largest contributor to disease in the world. In developing countries, almost five million children under the age of five die of malnutrition-related causes every year.
    • More often than not, the face of malnutrition is female. In households which are vulnerable to food insecurity, women are at greater risk of malnutrition than men.
    • The poor spend as much as 70 percent of their income on food. Urban residents and the rural poor, who can neither produce their own food nor buy it, are particularly vulnerable.
    • Within the next 20 years, 60 percent of the world’s population will live in cities, with most urban expansion taking place in the developing world. Ensuring access to nutritious, affordable food for the poorer of these city-dwellers is emerging as a significant challenge.
    • Almost 100 countries have been significantly affected by high food prices in recent years.
    • With the world population expected to reach 8.2 billion by 2030, the planet will have to feed an additional 1.5 billion people, 90 percent of whom will be living in developing countries.
    • The world will need to raise its food production by 60-70 percent to feed more than nine billion people by 2050.

    Adopted from FAO “100 days to Rio+20, 100 Facts”

  3. Impact of the case study exampleThe learning event will provide a global overview of the challenge and opportunities (by Chair), followed by a regional to global outlook focusing on the Sahel region (Save UK), and two country-level examples from Uganda (GoU) and India (Bioversity Int.).While building on concrete examples, the event will aim at illustrating how a range of tools, approaches and implementation measures have been able to include and transition food insecure and poor people into more sustainable and resilient livelihoods that have raised incomes and provided development opportunities.
  4. What is needed to expand from a few cases towards a more generalized multifunctional landscape approach for better environmental protection and improved food security?Through the event we are looking at consolidating a few key messages on this topic. To be further defined.
  5. When do these actions need to take place, and who needs to take them?In all of the presented approaches and cases we will show how national and local ownership and action is a key criterion for success. Many of these actions are already taking place, the key aspect is to further support the scaling up and improve the innovation and learning cycle of these approaches.

Learning Event 8

How we can reshape food access and consumption patterns to ensure nutritional needs while fostering healthy and sustainable eating habits worldwide?

Time and Room: 11.30 – 13.00 in room 10, 2nd floor

Organisers: WFPIFOAMPHIBiovision

Summary >>

In many regions, hunger, food insecurity and poverty are linked with environmental degradation, resource scarcity and a complex web of risk drivers, shaped by climate change, volatile markets, governance issues and other factors. While under-nutrition persists in many developing countries, there is an increase burden from obesity and chronic illnesses such as heart disease and diabetes. This is the double-burden of malnutrition which affects mainly low and medium income countries. Poverty, inequities and access issues are at the heart of this dichotomous challenge.

Strategies that aim to bring co-benefits to health and the environment through sustainable food production and consumption, and food waste reduction can generate greater overall benefits for food and nutrition security, health, climate and environment protection. Sustainable diets are promoted as strategies to direct consumers choices towards more sustainable and healthy food patterns. This represents a swift towards a health promoting agriculture and food policies. In this context, we need an inclusive agriculture that is accessible to people, resilient and provides nutritious, safe and healthy food while protecting and conserving natural resources, ecosystems and their functions.

Decreasing under-nutrition while promoting healthy and sustainable food production systems and consumption patterns will require strong inter-sectoral partnerships worldwide.

Objectives

The main objective of this learning event is to share knowledge on exemplary interventions that illustrate how we can reshape food access and consumption patterns to ensure nutritional needs while fostering healthy and sustainable eating habits worldwide by:

  1. Addressing under-nutrition by harmonizing development policy and coordinating safety nets and other programs to improve livelihoods and access to services among food-insecure rural and urban communities.
  2. Encouraging positive changes in consumption patterns through the support of sustainable healthy diets and health promoting agriculture and food policies that align public health, socio-economic and environmental and equity goals.

Programme

Rapporteur: Catherine Zanev, WFP
5 mins Opening remarks by co-organizers
10 mins Chris Moore, Deputy Director, Policy, Planning and Strategy, World Food Program
10 mins Cristina Tirado, DVM, PhD, Director of the Center for Public Health and Climate Change Ensuring nutrition while fostering healthy and sustainable eating patterns [ view presentation ]
10 mins Martien Lankester, MD, Director of Avalon Foundation Is the organic farmer the doctor of the future?” [ view presentation ]
10 mins Niggli Urs, PhD, Director Research Institute for Organic Agriculture – Process and product related aspects of organic food quality – from biodiversity to human nutrition. [ view presentation ]
45 mins Open discussion

View a summary of key messages from this event

  1. Key messages
    1. Inclusive, resilient and sustainable development empowers the poorest and most vulnerable members of society to develop their potential and be part of the transition to a sustainable future.
    2. Strategies that aim to bring co-benefits to health and the environment through sustainable food production and sustainable food consumption (e.g, sustainable healthy diets) can generate greater overall benefits for food and nutrition security, public health, environment protection and equity.
    3. If supported appropriately and adequately smallholder farmers can lift themselves out of poverty through the provision of high quality nutrition for themselves and their communities as well as through the regeneration of degraded ecosystems upon which their livelihoods depend.Knowledge sharing and an improved science/policy interface will be essential to enable the diffusion and uptake of best practices and technology
    4. There is a need to support health-promoting-inclusive agriculture and food systems, such as organic agriculture, that are accessible to people, resilient and provide nutritious, safe and healthy foods while protecting and conserving natural resources, ecosystems and their functions.
    5. Successful existing strategies including those of organic food and agriculture should be adapted, diversified, replicated and scaled up worldwide and be supported by the necessary research, education, extension and capacity building programs.
  2. Hard evidenceOn empowering vulnerable people in sustainable growth pathways.Over 80 percent of the world’s population lacks access to safety nets and social protection. Social protection frameworks and policies are an indispensable feature of sustainable societies and canpromote an inclusive transition to a green economy. The 500 million smallholder farming families in the world are the backbone of many rural economies, and custodians of a large proportion of the world’s natural resources, including biodiversity. They farm up to 80 per cent of agricultural land in Africa and Asia. Social safety nets protect lives, livelihoods and human capital during crises and help the most vulnerable recover from shocks. They are essential to preventing the deterioration of food and nutrition security among the most vulnerable, and can help mitigate the risk of more people falling into the poverty trap. If well designed, social protection policies can help integrate marginal communities into mainstream development. Labour-based safety nets can empower the poorest, increase their productive potential and enhance community assets, for instance by contributing to sustainable natural resource management and ecosystem restoration at the community and landscape level. Linking food-based safety nets to local agricultural markets is one element of a comprehensive approach to sustainable agriculture and food systems. In a world that is becoming more risky for poor people, social protection and safety nets take on even greater importance; and they need to be considered critical for achieving food security for all and as a key element of sustainable development.On the co-benefits of sustainable healthy diets.Many high and middle income countries are facing an epidemic of obesity: Nearly 43 million children under the age of five were overweight in 2010, as well as more than a billion adults, and 500 million adults are clinically obese. While the undernourished population grows low-income countries, so do the number of obese and those suffering from lifestyle-related chronic illnesses such as heart disease and diabetes. Chronic diseases were the cause of 35 million deaths globally in 2005, 80% of which were in low and middle-income countries. Low fruit and vegetable intake is among the top 10 selected risk factors for global mortality. For example low fruit and vegetable intake is estimated to cause about 31% of ischemic heart disease and 11% of strokes worldwide.Sustainable diets are healthy (i.e. rich in fruits, vegetables and legumes and low in saturated fats from animal origin), environmentally sustainable and socially equitable. Sustainable diets also address under-nutrition, ecosystems degradation, and biodiversity loss caused, at least in part, by changes in dietary patterns Health promoting agriculture and food policies that promote the production of fruits, vegetables and legumes will have a positive impact on health while reducing GHG emissions. WHO estimates that up to 2.7 million lives could be saved annually with sufficient fruit and vegetable consumption. Fruit and vegetable production, easily undertaken by unskilled people, can play an important part in poverty alleviation programmes and food security initiatives, providing employment opportunities and a source of income.Producing and consuming fewer animal-based foods helps to lower the intake of saturated fats associated with heart disease, high blood pressure and obesity while reducing environmental impact. For example it is estimated that reducing 30% consumption of livestock products would decrease the burden of ischemic heart disease by about 15% in the UK and by about 16% in Sao Paulo while contributing to a 30% reduction of emissions from the agriculture sector. (Friel et al. 2009)On the health promoting sustainable agricultureAgro-ecology, organic agriculture and sustainable alternatives to the use of toxic synthetic pesticides and food additives can reduce environmental health impacts and contribute to a health promoting agriculture and food systems. For example the project PLAGSALUD in Central America (which banned 107 pesticides and restricted the use of 17) resulted in reduced the health impacts of use of pesticides (human intoxication rates went from 20% to 15%) and promoted sustainable agriculture practices. Organic agriculture is a production system that sustains the health of soils, ecosystems and people. It relies on ecological processes, biodiversity and cycles adapted to local conditions, rather than the use of inputs with adverse effects. Organic agriculture combines tradition, innovation and science to benefit the shared environment and promote fair relationships and a good quality of life for all involved. Organic sectors exist in over 120 countries each one a result of local opportunities and challenges and each based on the 4 principles of organic agriculture – health – ecology – fairness – care. Almost 2 million third-party certified producers contribute to the $60 billion annual third-party certified global organic green economy demonstrating that healthy sustainable diets are possible and in demand despite little support and perverse subsidies that fail to internalize the environmental and health costs of high chemical and fossil fuel input agriculture. Many more non third-party-certified organic farmers are driving socially inclusive grass root local and regional organic green economies that increase local food security, empower both urban and rural communities, create green jobs and businesses and in doing so protect and regenerate natural and agricultural biodiversity and ecosystems while nourishing both producers and consumers. Many techniques inherent to organic farming (and which could also be practiced in non-organic sustainable farming systems) greatly improve the nutritional value of foods. Plant protection concepts relying on highly diverse resilient systems and natural pest control agents can lead to increase contents of secondary metabolites in fruits which act as antioxidants in the human body. Long term organic fertilizers improve soil carbon stocks and secondary metabolites in vegetables.
  3. What is the impact of your case exampleThis learning event cover many different case examples related to addressing chronic under-nutrition and hunger, promoting the co-benefits of sustainable healthy diets and on health promoting sustainable agriculture practices.Chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity are not more typical of wealthy countries: 80% of this burden falls on low-and middle-income countries. Increased cardiovascular diseases and obesity are related to exceeding the recommended intakes of saturated fats and protein, largely due to overconsumption of animal products. Red meat production also requires significantly more GHG emissions per unit of protein produced, than protein sources such as soy/wheat, as well as types of fish and fowl. Up to 2.7 million lives could be saved annually with sufficient fruit and vegetable consumption. According to WHO and FAO the intake of a minimum of 400g of fruit and vegetables per day for the prevention of chronic diseases such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity as well as for the prevention and alleviation of several micronutrient deficiencies, especially in less developed countries. At the same time consuming fewer animal-based foods helps to lower the intake of saturated fats associated with heart disease, high blood pressure and obesity while reducing environmental impact from animal production. For example the benefits of reducing dietary saturated fats are illustrated by the large fall in coronary heart disease mortality in Poland, (38% in men and 42% in women), between 1990 and 2002, attributed to the abolition of national food subsidies for saturated fats and the emergence of new, competitive markets, greatly increasing consumption of polyunsaturated vegetable oils (Lock and McKee, 2005).The number of organic farmers has grown by 5 to 10 % annually over the last 20 years and has hit 1.6 million in 2010. The annual growth of all certified organic markets has been 23 % over the last 10 years and has hit 60 billion US dollars mark. In European countries, one driver of organic farming has been ‘green box’ payments to farmers with a considerable positive impact on agro-biodiversity and the environment. In most other parts of the world, organic has grown without state support, mainly driven by domestic or export markets. The willingness of consumers to pay more for the added-value of organic food has an important positive impact on the number of sustainable farmers.
  4. What is needed for the case example to go to scale and contribute to a transformed food system?Decreasing under-nutrition while promoting healthy and sustainable food production systems and consumption patterns, and waste reduction will require strong multisectoral and multi-stakeholders partnerships worldwide.Agriculture policies should create incentives to reward products and production methods conducive to healthy diets. This requires setting up objectives and indicators that will be jointly established and measured by the Agriculture and the Health sectors.A potential Sustainable Development Goal on food needs to focus on healthy, nutritious and culturally and contextually appropriate food not just calories produced as targets or indicators of success.Many food-related diseases and conditions – including undernutrition, micronutrient deficiency and obesity are closely linked and can be addressed through more integrated approaches including more sustainable agricultural production to support better health. Core indicators of sustainable agriculture, food and nutrition security have been proposed by WHO in the context of Rio+20 addressing i) health outcomes; ii) Food access and dietary quality in association with sustainable foods production: and iii) Food market/trade policies supporting health and sustainability.
  5. When do these actions need to take place, and who needs to take them?All stakeholders should be involved. A particular focus on government implementations and accountability needs to be given in view of Rio+20 and the post 2015 MDG framework.The Committee on Food Security within its Global Strategic Framework should also include these points and provide guidance to countries and other stakeholders in how to realize the shift to sustainable agriculture and food policies and sustainable and healthy diets.

Learning Event 9

From field to fork to field: nutritious food and nutrient cycling to enhance health, wealth and resilience

Time: 11.30 – 13.00 in room A, Mezzanine Floor

Organisers: Matthew Fielding, SIANI, SLU, IFAD, AVRDC and Sida

Summary >>

A sustainable approach to local nutrient management needs to consider the full nutrient loop from production to consumption and back to production (field-fork-field). It needs to address soil conservation, food chain losses and organic waste recycling, including treatment and safe recycling of human excreta.

Proper nutrition depends on the choice of crops grown and consumed (quantity and quality) but is also linked to nutrient recycling which enhances productivity (via macronutrients) and keeps micronutrients that essential for high quality produce within the productive loop. To gain the full advantage of the nutritious food consumed, sanitation and hygiene are key factors, since exposure to fecal pathogens has been shown to inhibit nutrient uptake in the intestines (tropical enteropathy).

We will showcase the value of nutrient cycling in crop production in both Sub-Saharan Africa and South East Asia. Using case studies from Niger and Philippines we will demonstrate the ‘case to scale’ effect different parts of the loop.

Our case study from Niger shows the opportunities for ‘closing the nutrient loop’ through the safe reuse of human excreta to increase production and recycle valuable nutrients in the vulnerable Sahel region. The case from Philippines will show the opportunity for closing the loop through safe reuse of human excreta in allotment urban gardening in Mindalao in the Philippines. Both cases will also demonstrate possible strategies for going to scale.

The nutrient loop draws attention to the role of recycling nutrients through the soil from humans with the aim of “curbing” the leakage of valuable nutrients from the system. The ultimate aim of preserving the nutrient loop is to improve both human nutrition and food production levels. The intimate links between food production, nutritional uptake and safe reuse of human excreta underline the need for closer collaboration between the sectors.

Objectives

  1. Communicate the need to include human excreta management when striving to close the loop on valuable nutrients (Recommendation 6)
  2. Illustrate methodologies and necessary tools to enable scaling up from pilot project to regional and national implementation. (Recommendation 7)

Programme

Chair: Thomas Rosswall, CCAFS Independent Science Panel Chair
Rapporteur: Matthew Fielding, SIANI Programme Manager
5 mins Introduction to learning event and speakers, Chair
15 mins Closing loops and opening minds, nutrients recycling in Aguié, Niger – Mahamane Adamou, Agronomist at PPILDA [view presentation ]
15 mins Vegetable gardens a nexus for agriculture, nutrition and health, Dr Robert Holmer, AVRDC The World Vegetable Centre [ view presentation ]
10 mins Synthesis of cases Chair
25 mins Smaller group discussion (1 speaker per group – 4 groups)
15 mins Summing up from group discussions
5 mins Post-Rio thoughts

View a summary of key messages from this event

Biographies

Chair: Thomas Rosswall - SIANI (tbc) Professor Thomas Rosswall is Chair of CCAFS. Professor Rosswall is a microbial ecologist and ecosystem scientist with extensive research experience in agriculture and climate change. He has had substantial experience in launching and leading many complex, collaborative international research endeavours.

Rapporteur: Matthew Fielding Matthew Fielding is the SIANI programme manager with extensive agricultural and development experience from Amazonian Peru. He has a background in soil sciences and rural development, specifically on the links between soil health and husbandry in rural areas. He is also a project manager at the Stockholm Environment Institute working with ICT and agricultural development.

Speakers/panelists:

Mahamane Adamou, Agronomist in the component “Local Innovations” at PPILDA, Niger (tbc) PPILDA is a rural development project in Aguié, Niger supported mainly by IFAD and Belgian Survival Fund (2005-2013). One of the main activities is identifying and supporting local innovations in farming communities, often via farmer field schools. In this context productive sanitation was introduced via a pilot project in 2009/2010 in cooperation with IFAD, SEI and CREPA Niger.

Robert Holmer – AVRDC The World Vegetable Centre His areas of expertise are in sustainable vegetable production, postharvest and marketing as well as environmental management in Southeast Asia. He manages and coordinates regional development projects for AVRDC in East and Southeast Asia, with major responsibilities for developing partnerships, training programs and new projects. He holds a PhD in Agriculture from the TU München, Germany.

  1. Key messages
    1. The relative importance of local nutrient management role in supporting livelihoods, contributing to food security, improvement of crop quantity, minimize resource use and reduce pollution for smallholder farmers and peri-urban dwellers.
    2. Human urine contains the majority of fertilizer leaving the human body and is easy to collect and could be coupled with composting for rapid up-scaling using farmer field schools concept for rapid diffusion in rural Africa and through training institutes in South East Asia.
    3. Proper sanitary conditions are a prerequisite to gain full advantage of nutritious food, as nutrient uptake is commonly inhibited in the intestines of a person who is continuously exposed to fecal pathogens (tropical enteropathy).
  2. Existing Evidence
    • IFAD Technical Advisory Note: Productive Sanitation in Niger http://bit.ly/Jz8ztu
    • Practical Guidance for use of urine in crop production: http://bit.ly/I3nKd9
    • Nature 2011, 478, 29-31. A broken geochemical cycle. http://bit.ly/I4INj9
    • Closing loops and opening minds: http://bit.ly/I3nStn
    • Robert J. Holmer, Gina S. Itchon, 2008. Reuse of Ecological Sanitation Products in Urban Agriculture: Experiences from the Philippines. Urban Agriculture Magazine, 20, 44-46, RUAF, Leusden, Netherlands
    • PUVeP, 2008. Philippine allotment garden manual with an introduction to ecological sanitation. Periurban Vegetable Project (PUVeP), Xavier University College of Agriculture, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines. 104 p.
    • WHO/FAO/UNEP guidelines on the reuse of human excreta in agriculture http://whqlibdoc.who.int
    • UDD toilets with reuse in allotment gardens Cagayan de Oro, Philippines http://www.susana.org
  3. Impact of case example
    • In the famine prone Aguié province in Niger, the Ministry of Agriculture is implementing PPILDA (Project for the Promotion of Local Initiative for Development in Aguié), an IFAD-financed rural development project. Productive sanitation has been an important component of PPILDA since an add-on pilot project was implemented in 2009, with 1100 households involved in urine-collection using simple urinals and 200 households built composting latrines. The positive results of using urine as a liquid nitrogen rich fertilizer has created a lot of interest among farmers and in 2012 all 20 farmer field schools in the province will include this component. PPILDA is also entering a new phase and will the coming six years be active in the whole Maradi region, with 18 municipalities. The pilot farmers have formed a Productive Sanitation Association and will be contracted by PPILDA to support the up scaling process. In a couple of villages there are examples of urine becoming a commodity. In Saja Manja village, one farmer has bought hundreds of jerry cans with urine from his neighbors which he uses to enrich his large composting pile. A multi-stakeholder working group on national level is being set up to create an “enabling environment” for the adoption of productive sanitation through capacity building, information sharing, policy review and recommendations.
    • Allotment gardens Cagayan d Óro in the Philippines. This project was implemented to address some socio-economic and environmental challenges caused by the rapid growth of Cagayan de Oro which is representative for the Philippines being classified among the world’s fastest urbanizing countries. Among the major challenges that urban areas in the country are facing are: Availability, accessibility and affordability to safe and nutritious food for its residents. The poorest sector of the Philippines, which comprises almost 40% of all households, spends about 60% of its income on food.20% of Filipinos are regularly suffering from hunger and about one third of all children are underweight with iron deficiency anemia and low vitamin.In 2003, the first allotment garden was established as part of a European Union funded project following a period of agronomic and socioeconomic researches in cooperation with universities, local government units and non-governmental organizations. As of 2008, this number has grown to ten self-sustaining gardens located in different urban and peri-urban areas of the city, three of them within the premises of public elementary schools enabling more than 100 urban poor families the legal access to land for food production. Each allotment garden has a compost heap where biodegradable wastes from the garden as well as from the neighboring households are converted into organic fertilizer, Urine diverting toilet systems were introduced to facilitate urin harvesting and improve the hygiene in the plots. Studies on the urine revealed application of urine increased the yield of sweet corn by an average of 14%. Similar experiments were also carried out for non-food crops in cooperation with commercial growers in different areas of Cagayan de Oro. The urine application resulted in earlier and increased flowering of different ornamental plants with subsequent better marketability.
  4. What is needed for the case example to go to scale and contribute to a transformed food system?Access to information for farmers: Farmer’s access to information on productive sanitation should not need to wait until the whole legal/institutional framework is established. The civil society should develop adapted and accessible information in the meantime.Capacity development: Capacity development is the foundation on which any other activity will depend. This has to be done on all levels – from national to village level in the government, non government and private sector. At national level organization of training courses on intersectoral negotiation and decision-making in the development and management of safe reuse in agricultural production. At local level, implementation projects usually incorporate capacity building, but it is always isolated to the project area. In the long term, capacity building will need to be institutionalized on safe use of human excreta should be incorporated in the curricula in farmer field schools and extension service programs.Enabling policy/legal framework environment: Initiate a process of policy review, formulation and adjustment and harmonization towards national frameworks for safe use of human excreta in agriculture. To make this happen, agriculture/fertilizer policies need to cater for reuse of sanitized human excreta and sanitation policies need to go beyond toilet technology and also include treatment and reuse aspects.Knowledge generation/research: More research is needed to answer questions concerning the sanitization efficiency of different treatment processes, nutritional quality of the food produce, consumer’s acceptance, marketability of products technology development.Knowledge management and sharingIt will also be important to establish forum for exchange of farmer’s experiences, and networks for information and knowledge sharing among stakeholders. This will allow a faster learning process to avoid reinventing the wheel.
  5. When do these actions need to take place, and who needs to take them?Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Health
    Assessing the situation and trends with respect to the safe use of human excreta of agriculture and aquaculture, and analyse available datasets for the production and health impacts of existing reuse schemes.Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Health
    Organization of a national stakeholders meeting about the initiation of a process of policy review, formulation and harmonization towards a national policy framework for the safe use of excreta in agricultureMinistry of Agriculture and Ministry of Health and Knowledge institutions
    Organization of training courses on intersectoral negotiation and decision-making in the development and management of safe use of human excreta in agricultural production.Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Health and Knowledge institutions.
    Provision of technical inputs on safe use of human excreta and support module/ curricula development into grass-roots agricultural capacity building activities such as Farmer Field Schools and extension servicesMinistry of Agriculture and Ministry of Health and Knowledge institutions.
    Development of simple guidelines for farmersLocal organization , farmer field school

    • Initiate demonstration plots applying safe use of excreta on different crops
    • Incorporate excreta in different composting techniques
    • Develop simple guideline
    • Invite farmers groups to visit the demonstration plots

Learning Event 10

Which are the loss and waste “hotspots” in food systems which can be targeted and what options are available at the levels of infrastructure, farming practices, processing, distribution and household habits?

Time and Room: 11.30 – 13.00 in room B, Mezzanine Floor

FAO

Summary >>

Agriculture, forestry and fisheries need to meet the food and nutritional requirements of an expanding, richer, increasingly urbanized population, while preserving ecosystems and reducing resource usage.

However currently about one third of food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted every year, amounting to about 1.3 billion tonnes annually. Reducing such wastage would greatly reduce the resources used (such as land, water, energy, etc.) in production, transformation and transport. In addition reducing such losses would raise incomes and improve food security in the world’s poorest countries.

The learning event will review why these losses are occurring along the food chain – from the production, harvest, post-harvest, processing and consumer phases – and how this differs depending on the regions and the products. Possible solutions at the level of practices, infrastructure and policy options will then be provided and discussed.

Objectives

In line with the Commission’s Recommendation 6: Reduce loss and waste in food systems, particularly from infrastructure, farming practices, processing, distribution and household habits, this learning event’s objectives are to:

  • Analyze why losses and waste are occurring;
  • Identify key barriers and constraints causing the losses in different regions. Review suitable options at the level of practices, infrastructure, education, taxation and policy.

Review suitable options at the level of practices, infrastructure, education, taxation and policy.

Programme

Chair: Loretta Dormal-Marino, EC Deputy Director General for Agriculture and Rural Development
Rapporteur: Kim Van Seeters, Natural Resources Management and Environment Department, FAO
5 mins Introduction to learning event and speakers (Chair)
20 mins Food losses and Waste : causes and solutions : Alexandre Meybeck (Senior Policy Officer on Agriculture, Environment and Climate Change, FAO) [ view presentation ]
10 mins The contribution of modern meat processing techniques to improve resource use efficiency and sustainability: Hsin Huang (Secretary General of the International Meat Secretariat)
10 mins African initiatives for reducing food losses: Rose Akaki, Ugandan Farmers Federation, member of World Farmers Organisation [ view presentation ]
45 mins Moderated interactive discussion and working groups

View a summary of key messages from this event

Biographies

Chair: Loretta Dormal-Marino is the EC Deputy Director General for Agriculture and Rural Development and in particular is involved in international affairs and multilateral negotiations.

Rapporteur: Kim Van Seeters, Officer of the Natural Resources Management and Environment Department of FAO, she has been supporting the development of internatinal work on climate smart agriculture and FAO response to Rio+20.

Speakers/panelists:

Alexandre Meybeck – is Senior Policy Officer on Agriculture, Environment and Climate Change in the office of the Assistant Director General of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Protection Department of FAO. He is also coordinating the FAO/UNEP sustainable food systems programme.

Hsin Huang is Secretary General of the International Meat Secretariat and his experience includes assessing the role of agriculture in climate change and especially the challenges and opportunities facing the livestock sector as well as developing a green growth strategy for food and agriculture.

Rose Akaki, Ugandan Farmers Federation, and a member of World Farmers Organisation

  1. Key messages
    • Reducing losses and waste and increasing overall efficiency of food chains can go a long way towards increasing food availability and reducing environmental impacts.
    • Sustainable production and consumption requires supporting programmes and policies along the whole food chain from production to distribution, supply and consumption.
    • Leverage points need to be identified to direct the choices and behavior of consumers towards more sustainable diets.
    • Consumers need to be educated and empowered, by giving them choices and means to exert them, including accurate and comparable information on nutritional value and environmental impacts of food.
    • Policy and education are required to increase infrastructure and capacity to reduce losses and move demand to more sustainable choices.
  2. Existing evidence:Roughly one third of the food produced in the world for human consumption every year — approximately 1.3 billion tonnes — gets lost or wasted.Losses and waste happen all along food chains, with important differences according to regions and products.Food losses — occurring at the production, harvest, post-harvest and processing phases — are most important in developing countries chiefly because of inadequate harvest techniques, poor post-harvest management and logistics, lack of suitable infrastructure, processing and packaging, and lack of marketing information which would allow production to better match demand.Food waste is more specific of industrialized countries, most often caused by consumer behaviour but also from lack of coordination between different actors in the supply chain.There are also important differences between types of products as shown in figure 1 below and regional differences as shown in figure 2.

    Figure 1 Global Food Losses. From Gustavsson et al. 2011

    Figure 2. Part of the initial production lost or wasted, at different food supply chain stages, for cereals in different regions

  3. Impact of case exampleIdentifying and implementing methodologies and practices to reduce losses and wastes has enormous benefits to food security and livelihoods especially of smallholders. The learning event will demonstrate the constraints and viable options available for different stakeholders along the value chain. In particular
  4. What is needed to expand from a few cases towards a more generalized multifunctional landscape approach for better environmental protection and improved food security?Reduction of food losses and waste requires the involvement of all stakeholders along the complete food chain from production to consumption and targeted policy and financial interventions at local, national and international scales. The learning event will show a number of case studies and effective means which have significantly reduced loss and waste.
  5. When do these actions need to take place, and who needs to take them?Action to reduce food losses and waste have to be taken at every stage of food chains from primary production to consumption, including transport, transformation, conservation and final consumption.Action has to taken by all stakeholders, governments, private sector and civil society.For example led large-scale investment is required in agricultural infrastructure, technologies and capacity to produce, store, transport and distribute agricultural products. Local policies and access to markets are essential. Education and awareness are essential to change consumer behaviour but also better labeling and incentives are needs to transform consumer demand. Legislation is also required to change business behaviour to more sustainable food production systems.

Learning Event 11

How can the potential of rural advisory services be mobilized?

Time and Room: 11.30 – 13.00 in room C, Mezzanine Floor

GFRAS and World Farmers’ Organisation

Summary >>

There is renewed attention to the important role of rural advisory services and extension in rural development processes. Rural advisory services are key to putting farmers’ demands at the centre of rural development, ensuring sustainable food security and poverty reduction.

There are three pillars of sustainable development: social, economic, and environmental. Knowledge sharing is central to supporting these pillars, and rural extension services are a vital knowledge sharing institution. Extension plays a key linking role among actors including scientific research, field-level innovations and innovators, markets, education, and other service providers.

One half of the world’s poor are smallholder farmers, and extension services that provide information, training, linkages for marketing, price discovery and economic skills provide a mechanism to break the poverty cycle. To further environmental sustainability, including limiting deforestation, fostering biodiversity, and protecting water, extension also plays a key role in sharing information on improved practices and technology.

Clause 66 of the Rio +20 zero draft focused on the importance of agricultural knowledge. Revitalizing this system demands new pluralistic approaches that truly reflect a respect for knowledge sharing. Experts from the farming, extension and research communities will unveil the pillars of new knowledge systems for agriculture.

Objectives

In line with the Commission’s recommendation 7: Create comprehensive, shared, integrated information systems that encompass human and ecological dimension, this learning event’s objectives are to:

  • Share lessons learned and good practices
  • Identify barriers to implementing effective extension services
  • Suggest ways to overcome these barriers and how to develop efficient extension service systems.

Programme

Chair: Kristin Davis, Executive Secretary of the Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services (GFRAS)
Rapporteur: Hilda Runsten, Federation of Swedish Farmers
5 mins Introduction to learning event and speakers
30 mins Panel – Bob Turnock, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Canada, Alberto Sandoval, FAO (tbc), Bridgit Syombua Muasa, Department of Veterinary Services, Kenya; and Greg Crosby, Department of Agriculture, USA
45 mins Discussion and discussants:
Generosa Silva, Brazil
Rajeev Chauhan, Himalayan Apple Growers Society India
Dyborn Chibonga, NASFAM, Malawi
5 mins Closing remarks, Chair

View a summary of key messages from this event

Biographies

Chair: Kristin Davis is the Executive Secretary of the Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services (GFRAS). She has been involved with research, capacity strengthening, and advocacy for extension and advisory services since obtaining her PhD in extension in 2004 from the University of Florida.

Rapporteur: Hilda Runsten,Federation of Swedish Farmers, works as a climate expert, and also as the project manager of a national project to help Swedish farmers mitigate their GHG emissions. Together with her family Hilda also runs a farm with milk – beef and forestry production in the north part of Sweden.

Speakers/panelists:

Bob Turnock lives on a small farm in Saskatchewan and works for the Agri-Environment Services Branch of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada where he engage international partners on agri-environmental, and broader sustainability issues. Bob has represented Canada at a number of international fora, including UNCCD, the UN Convention on Biodiversity, and the Commission on Sustainable Development. Since graduating from the University of Manitoba he has worked extensively in the areas of agroforestry and sustainable land management. During his career he has worked to advance sustainable agriculture in Canada through involvement in research, policy development, program delivery, and technology transfer.

Alberto Sandoval

Bridgit Syombua Muasa is the 2010 African Women in Agricultural Research and Development( AWARD) fellow and completed her M.Sc in Clinical studies from the university of Nairobi. Ms Muasa is a registered Veterinarian and has expertise in veterinary clinical practice and pathology for both small and large animals bovine embryo production and transfer. Ms Muasa is currently a Veterinary Officer at the Department of Veterinary Services in Kenya and a part time lecturer at the Department of Animal Sciences, Egerton University. Her main area of interest is providing extension services to farmers on animal herd health management and diseases control with a key specialization to poultry farmers.

Greg Crosby is a National Program Leader for Sustainable Development with the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, US Department of Agriculture. He is one of the founders of the electronic extension system called “eXtension” as part of the US Cooperative Extension System in partnership with universities, local governments, and USDA. He is assisting governments, NGOs and the private sector to rebuild advisory services for small holder farmers using appropriate information technologies to create and share science-based knowledge. Dr. Crosby serves on the steering committee of the Global Partnership on Nutrient Management, contributes to the USDA AGRA and CABI/Plantwise programs, and My Community, Our Earth (MyCOE), geospatial learning for youth partnership.

Generosa Silva

Rajeev Chauhan manages one of the largest family owned apple production estates in India. Rajeev Chauhan is a member of the National Institute of Agriculture (NIA), and the founder and Chairman of Himalayan Apple Growers Society, which has more than 650 members.

Dyborn Chibonga manages the National Smallholder Farmers’ Association of Malawi (NASFAM) as Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Chibonga is a member of the Trade Policy National Working Group (TPNWG) and part of the Malawi Government agriculture cluster for World Trade Organization (WTO) and EU-ACP EPAs negotiations. He also sits on the Boards of Press Agriculture Ltd (PAL) and the Natural Resources College (NRC). He is also appointed Board Director of the African Institute of Corporate Citizenship (AICC), member of the European Economic and Social Follow-Up Committee (EESC) and member of the India-Africa (IABC) Business Council.

  1. Key messages
    • Knowledge sharing is critical to achieve sustainable development.
    • Increasing and improving agricultural extension and advisory services are a legacy outcome of Rio +20 that allows the knowledge-based infrastructure to continually adapt in agriculture.
    • Improving agricultural practices based on knowledge allows farmers to better meet nutritional needs, improve water use efficiency, reduce land use, or any of the other competing demands on farmer services.
  2. Existing evidence:
    • Policy makers and planners are often looking for quick-fix approaches that can be easily implemented and scaled up but it is not possible to use this one-size-fits-all approach in implementation of sustainable rural advisory service programs or models. Instead, best-fit approaches are needed.
    • A recent assessment of global extension systems has shown that many different types of advisory service providers and approaches exists, which is appropriate to match the diversity of rural life. Therefore, pluralism in advisory services are important.
    • There are increasing calls for demand-driven and farmer-led rural advisory services using participatory approaches
    • Human resources are a fundamental bottleneck to effective rural advisory services and needs to be addressed.
    • In general, sustainability of rural advisory service projects has generally been poor, often because of lack of project resources. Long-term institutional support is needed.
    • A CGIAR meta-analysis of 292 research studies has found median rates of return of 58 percent for involvements in advisory services.
    • World Bank lending to agriculture almost doubled from 2006 to 2009, but extension investments has remained flat at about 120 million per year.
  3. Impact of case example
    • Peru – Café Peru: In Peru, where cacao production is a major source of income for farmers, three cacao cooperatives in Huánuco Region partnered with Café Peru to acquire technical assistance and training to increase the productivity of cacao, obtain certification for organic cacao production, and increase the marketing of their organic cacao. The co-operatives received market analysis and specific training in co-operative management and product promotion. Starting from zero in the project’s first year, more than 1,200 producers had obtained organic certification by the end of year three. Over the same period, cacao productivity rose from 340 to 600 kg per ha, and the co-operative now markets some 1,500 tons of organic cacao.
    • Mali “Cheetah Network” Agribusiness Incubator: In Mali, small-scale farmer organisations formed a partnership with the national agricultural research organisation, the national agricultural university, and some American universities to develop the Mali Agribusiness Incubator Network – the ‘Cheetah Network’. The Network facilitated university students and staff to train farmers in business skills, and encouraged university staff to revise the university curricula to include greater skills development in marketing agricultural products.
    • Kerala Horticultural Development Program: Created in 1992, the Kerala Horticultural Development Programme aimed to improve the lives of Kerala’s fruit and vegetable farmers by increasing and stabilising their incomes, reducing production costs, and improving their marketing systems. The Programme worked with fruit and vegetable farmers to promote self-help groups. It trained three farmers from each group to become master farmers who were competent in crop production, credit, and marketing. It promoted the concept of credit to farmers who leased land, promoted group marketing, and established modern seed processing and fruit processing plants. To generate and access locally relevant technical knowledge, the Programme began research with a local agricultural university which strengthened the skills of farmers in participatory technology development.
  4. What is needed for the case example to go to scale and contribute to a transformed food system?Rural advisory services can be mobilized by focusing on 5 central areas:
    • Best-fit approaches: based on local conditions including governance structures, capacity, organization and management, and methods used to provide rural advisory services. Such approaches should also fit the overall agricultural innovation system and make sure that services are relevant and demand-driven.
    • Embracing pluralism: as many different types of advisory service providers and approaches exist which are more or less effective in reaching different types of clientele, it is important to focus on institutional pluralism and include both public/government and non-state actors, such as farmer organizations, NGO’s, private companies and individuals.
    • Using participatory approaches: as there are increased calls for demand-driven and farmer-led rural advisory services using participatory approaches, which can lead to downward accountability.
    • Developing capacity: Capacity development is needed at the individual, organizational and system level among public, private and civil society stakeholders.
    • Ensuring long-term institutional support: Sustainable rural advisory services need government commitment and effective forms of financing, and to ensure that new concepts, approaches and methods are integrated within the work of existing institutions and organizations.
  5. When do these actions need to take place, and who needs to take them?
    • Rural advisory services forms an essential knowledge sharing institution within rural development.
    • Allocations must be more engaged in extension services and reform to more participatory approaches that are demand-driven and pluralistic.
    • Policy makers needs to ramp up support, both in terms of long-term commitment and effective forms of financing, for rural advisory services taking into consideration the 5 central areas (best-fit approaches, pluralism, participatory approaches, capacity development, and long-term institutional support) above.
    • The potential of rural advisory services can be mobilized by focusing on these 5 central areal GFRAS, with WFO and other partners, will lead a session on capacity at the GCARD event in Uruguay where we will bring the Rio discussion results to the consultation.

Learning Event 12

How can we measure the multiple benefits for smallholder farmers that underlie resilience?

Time and Room: 11.30 – 13.00 in room D, Mezzanine Floor

Organisers: IFAD, ICRAF, EcoAgriculture Partners

Summary >>

Delivering lasting poverty reduction in the face of climate change, increasing degradation and scarcity of natural resources, and market shocks requires major changes in how agriculture and rural development is understood, planned, practiced and measured. To achieve it, project and policy preparation needs to be based on a deeper risk assessment and a better understanding of interconnections among people, land uses and ecosystems, across wider landscapes. A major scaling up of support for sustainable smallholder agriculture can deliver multiple benefits including poverty reduction, increased yields, increased incomes, resilience to climate change, better environmental outcomes, and often with benefits to smallholders, reduced GHG emissions and carbon sequestration. Climate adaptation finance has the potential to bolster this work, but for agriculture and smallholders to become significant beneficiaries, it is crucial that we learn how to measure and demonstrate results in building resilience at the household level.

IFAD’s Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Programme (ASAP) will pilot a results framework to measure how poor rural households’ climate resilience will be increased through targeted grant financing. The Land Health Surveillance Framework (LHSF), a tool under development by ICRAF, will also be presented in addition to the Landscapes for People, Food and Nature (LPFN) Initiative. Join us for a presentation of the ASAP framework, how the LHSF can be applied, and lessons from the LPFN Initiative that will guide an interactive discussion on the challenges and potential payoffs of measuring resilience.

Objectives

  1. Raise awareness on the need to improve how we measure – and aim for – success;
  2. Share and discuss the ASAP Results Framework and the Land Health Surveillance Framework, and receive feedback on them;
  3. Contribute to discussion on post-MDG framework, with a focus on perspectives of poor rural households in developing countries.

Programme

Chair: Sara Scherr, President, EcoAgriculture Partners
Rapporteur: Elwyn Grainger-Jones, Director, Environment and Climate Division, IFAD [ view presentation ]
5 mins Introduction to learning event and speakers, Chair
10 mins Elwyn Grainger-Jones, Director Environment and Climate Division, IFAD will present the Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Programme (ASAP) Results Framework and Indicators
5 mins Henry Neufeldt, Head of Climate Change Unit, ICRAF will present the Land Health Surveillance Framework [ view presentation ]
5 mins Estrella Penunia, Secretary General, Asian Farmers’ Association, will present the perspective of poor rural farmers, and in particular why they benefit when social and environmental outcomes are measured in addition to economic outcomes
60 mins Moderated interactive discussion – participants are encouraged to share examples – both successes and failures – of measuring for sustainable outcomes

View a summary of key messages from this event

Biographies

Chair: Sara Scherr, President and CEO, EcoAgriculture Partners. EcoAgriculture Partners is an international NGO that works with agricultural communities and their conservation, market and government partners to manage ‘ecoagriculture landscapes’ to both improve production and livelihoods and enhance ecosystem services and biodiversity. An agricultural and natural resource economist, Dr. Scherr is an international expert on tropical agriculture and agroforestry, land degradation, and payments for ecosystem services, and has provided leadership in international development of ecoagriculture. She has worked extensively in Africa, Latin America and Asia, and serves as a member of the UNEP Advisory Panel on Food Security and the Katoomba Group Board of Directors.

Speakers/panelists:

Main Speaker/Rapporteur: Elwyn Grainger-Jones, Director, Environment and Climate Division, IFAD. Elwyn joined the International Fund for Agricultural Development in September of 2009 to set up and lead IFAD’s Environment and Climate Division. He started his career as an Overseas Development Institute fellow in Guyana in 1993, having studied economics at the London School of Economics and the University of Warwick. He then joined DFID, holding various positions, including working on South East Asia and leading the trade policy team. Elwyn then spent three years with the World Bank as their trade representative in Geneva and subsequently worked in EBRD to develop its poverty impact assessments before returning to DFID to establish and lead its Climate and Environment Department.

Discussant: Henry Neufeldt, Head of Climate Change Unit, World Agroforestry Centre. Henry joined the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) in June 2009. Until then he was Senior Research Coordinator in the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and Director of the ADAM Project (Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies for Climate Change). Before 2006 he worked in Brazil, Paraguay and Germany on sustainable land management and greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. In his current position he leads the climate change research group at ICRAF that focuses at climate impacts, adaptation, mitigation, food security and sustainable development in the context of agroforestry systems. He is also the focal point of the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security.

  1. Key messages
    • It is clear there is a huge unmet opportunity for smallholders to provide more and better food while acting as ecosystem managers.
    • Measuring poor rural household-level resilience to environmental, social and market risks and threats will help us better target policies and investments for lasting (sustainable) poverty reduction.
    • Landscape-scale assessment can help identify geographic patterns of risk and vulnerability , aggregate impacts of household- and community-scale interventions, and the effectiveness of ecosystem investments and management strategies intended to enhance resilience
    • Social, environmental and economic outcomes must be conceived and measured in integrated ways to build resilience to increasing risks and threats.
    • To successfully plan for and measure resilience, policymakers, land managers and experts across sectors must step out of our silos and interact with each other, with women and men farmers and with poor households to better share knowledge, technology and information. This has the potential to improve extension services where governments, farmers, civil society and the private sector all have a role to play.
    • Climate change and increasing natural resource scarcity increase the imperative, and climate finance provides additional opportunities, to boost these approaches.
  2. Existing Evidence
    • Small farms form the backbone of rural economies, where the bulk of extreme poverty persists, and are stewards of vast areas of natural resources, including 80% of the farmland in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia.
    • They feed close to one-third of humanity and contribute to local and global supply chains, despite working some of the most fragile land on the planet, and with limited access to institutional support, credit and markets.
    • Ecosystem-based approaches have improved lives for millions of poor farmers, with over five million hectares transformed in Niger, one million in Ethiopia and 500 thousand in Mali.
    • Measurement of lasting impacts of climate-smart agricultural practices on poverty reduction requires a novel approach to assessment of environmental, social and institutional indicators at local to national scales and strongly depends on better data to deliver the evidence. ASAP and LHSF both provide more rigorous approaches to measuring these impacts.
    • Measuring indicators of change from the different dimensions is tricky and new. ASAP is built around the understanding that these are challenges that need to be overcome in order to be successful. Setting up the appropriate platforms to allow this integration to happen is essential.
    • There is growing evidence that climate finance can support the development of scalable initiatives to improve smallholder production and livelihoods by covering the high costs for running the projects.
    • To feed a world population that is projected to grow more than 30% by 2050—while reducing food insecurity and accommodating dietary changes—experts estimate the need for a 70% increase in food production worldwide by 2050, and nearly 100% greater production in developing countries. Efforts to reduce food waste and promote plant-based diets could reduce the rise in demand, but increased biofuel production could further increase the demand for agricultural products. In all scenarios, substantial increases of agricultural production will be required putting unsustainable pressures on natural resources under business as usual scenarios.
    • Most analysts predict that these increases will come from a combination of agricultural land expansion and intensification, with the latter requiring substantial increases in fertilizers, technology and water. Yet, the percent annual increase in crop yields has slowed in recent years, while climate change is predicted to lead to increased climatic variability, more frequent extreme events, and reduced water availability in many areas, and excess in others. In much of the tropics, these changes could decrease maize and wheat yields by 10-25%. Worldwide, up to five million hectares of productive agricultural land are lost each year due to soil erosion and degradation, while up to 290 million additional hectares are at high risk of desertification. In sum, a 2009 UNEP report warns that environmental degradation could reduce agricultural productivity by up to one-quarter.
    • Hundreds of integrated agricultural landscape initiatives have been documented in Africa, Latin America and Asia, yet few are explicitly targeting resilience as an objective (Milder et al 2012).
  3. Impact of case example
    • ASAP will aim to increase the resilience to climate change of 8 million smallholder household members by 2020.
    • LHSF is improving the knowledge base for improved management of sub-Saharan Africa. We are building capacity of National Agricultural Research Institutes and Stations (NARS) to apply the framework.
    • The Landscape Measures approach is being adapted for use in a dozen landscape initiatives.
  4. What is needed for the case example to go to scale and contribute to a transformed food system?
    • Enabling policies and increased investment in sustainable smallholder agriculture
    • Research on scaling to improve our ability to scale up in other regions while recognizing the spatial, social and political context.
    • Up-front investment in knowledge generation and sharing, support for practitioners and leaders at multiple levels, engagement of private business and other key stakeholders, and strategic advocacy for supportive policy and investment frameworks
    • Strengthening of multi-stakeholder platforms to plan, implement and track effectiveness of agricultural landscape strategies that integrate production, resilience, ecosystem management and social development
  5. When do these actions need to take place, and who needs to take them?Farmers and rural communities adapt historically to changing conditions and will continue to do so. The local and national ARD community, including farmers’ associations, women’s and youth groups, indigenous peoples, local and national governments, the private sector, research and development organizations all have a role to play in stepping out of their silos. In partnership, stakeholders should facilitate financing for complementary and coordinated investments that promote resilient farms, communities and landscapes, and align and harmonize sectoral planning to achieve synergies for resilience at local and landscape scales. In addition, researchers and carbon market policymakers must continue to refine procedures and approaches to enable poor rural communities to access carbon finance.

Learning Event 13

How can agricultural innovation better empower women and their key roles in food and nutrition security?

Time and Room: 11.30 – 13.00 in room E, Mezzanine Floor

Organisers: GFAR

Summary >>

Collective failure to provide women equal access to productive agricultural resources results in a significant gap in potential agricultural production. Recent reports, including WDR 2012 on gender equality and development, provide evidence of the substantial role of women in agriculture and food and nutrition security. The FAO-SOFA showed that even just giving women equal access to land, inputs, training, credit etc, would increase their farm productivity by 20-30%, countries’ total agricultural production would increase by 2.5‐4.0%, and 100‐150 million fewer people would be hungry. Many policy makers and agricultural scientists and development professionals have yet to take account of this evidence and its implications.

A radical engendering transformation of agricultural and food policies, institutions, and research and development (R&D) programmes is essential, with Governments and other actors providing the enabling policies laws and institutions that legitimize women’s rights, and women taking ownership of this transformative process.

Action is required at all levels from household and community up to national, regional and international scales. The Global Conference on Women in Agriculture (GCWA), New Delhi, 13-15 March 2012, identified five priority action areas:

  • Making women/gender aspects in agriculture more visible and recognized
  • Strengthening evidence and knowledge to address gender/women’s issues in agriculture
  • Promoting collective action and leadership of women in order to take advantage of opportunities and address discrimination.
  • Establishing women’s rights at a larger scale
  • Promoting women’s ownership and control

The Gender in Agriculture Partnership (GAP) promoted by GFAR will bring action together across many institutions to directly address women’s research and innovation needs, as well as capacity development and knowledge sharing parts of this agenda, to put women producers and rural householders at the centre of institutional thinking and action.

Objectives

The Commission’s recommendations do not prioritize gender issues, but assume these to be mainstreamed. However, it is widely recognized that 15 years of institutional mainstreaming since Beijing have failed to create the institutional changes required around the world.

The session will raise awareness of the need for a fundamental re-think of agricultural systems & agricultural innovation to put the needs of rural women at the centre of these processes, realize their potential and address issues central to women’s concerns.

The session will explore how a central focus on gender issues in agriculture, within and between institutions, can reorient systems and perspectives and fundamentally change the focus of agricultural institutions to bring greater emphasis on nutrition, post-harvest issues, on mechanisms to better share and take up new information and knowledge among women producers and to address the underlying socio-cultural barriers to change such as land ownership, access to information sources and control of income from produce.

Programme

The programme feeds directly into GCARD 2012 where gender is a major theme and will be addressed as a plenary session.
Chair: Mark Holderness, Executive Secretary, Global Forum on Agricultural Research
Rapporteur: Shantanu Mathur, Head Quality Assurance & Grants Unit, IFAD
2 mins Introduction to learning event, Chair
10 mins Gender needs expressed in the State of Food and Agriculture Report 2011: Dr Ann Tutwiler FAO Deputy Director General [ view presentation ]
10 mins Perspectives of marginalized women farmers and their needs: Ms Zeinab Al-Momany, President, Specific Union for Women Farmers, Jordan [ view presentation ]
10 mins Research addressing the needs of women producers: Dr Carolina Navarette-Frias, Coordinator, Decision and Policy Analysis Program (DAPA) at CIAT [ view presentation ]
10 mins Addressing the needs of women through agricultural research for development around the world: Dr Rajendra Paroda, Executive Secretary, Asia-Pacific Association of Agricultural Research Institutions (APAARI) [ view presentation ]
60 mins Panel discussion and audience Q&A

View a summary of key messages from this event

Biographies

Chair: Mark Holderness,Executive Secretary, Global Forum on Agricultural Research. As GFAR Executive Secretary, Dr Holderness works to mobilize and stimulate the transformation and strengthening of all sectors involved in agricultural innovation, so that these systems better meet development needs. He previously served as Director of Agriculture and Director of Membership and Partnerships for CAB International, addressing sustainable crop and pest management and information for development. He began his career working for the cocoa growers of Papua New Guinea.

Rapporteur: Shantanu Mathur, IFAD, Head Quality Assurance & Grants Unit, International Fund for Agricultural Development. Shantanu Mathur has worked in pro-poor rural development and has actively championed the cause of investment in agricultural research for development for over 25 years – 3 years at FAO HQ and 22 years at IFAD HQ, in Rome. He holds MA Degrees in Economics, University of Cambridge, UK, and in Business Economics, University of New Delhi. Mr Mathur has served on a number of CGIAR governing bodies and was Vice-Chair of the CGIAR Finance Committee (2001-2004).

Speakers/panelists:

Speaker: M. Ann Tutwiler, Deputy Director-General (Knowledge), FAO. Tutwiler is the Deputy Director General (Knowledge) at the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. She was previously Coordinator for the Global Food Security Initiative in the Office of the Secretary at USDA and Senior Advisor for International Affairs to the Undersecretary for Research, Education and Economics. Prior to this, she worked at USAID in the Africa Bureau on trade policy. From 2006-2009, she was Managing Director, Agricultural Markets, for the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. From 2002-2006, she was President and CEO of the International Food & Agriculture Trade Policy Council.

Speaker: Zeinab Al-Momany, President, Specific Union for Women Farmers, Jordan and President, Sakhrah Women’s Society Cooperative on Social Entrepreneurship, also representing the World Farmers Organisation. Al-Momany has organized the Arab region’s first farmers’ union giving a voice for poor marginalized women. Through the union and agricultural cooperatives, she addresses the constraints faced by poor rural women producers in Jordan, enabling access to economic and social opportunities. Through these collective actions, rural women are trained, exposed to different experiences, and empowered to participate in decision-making processes.

Speaker: Carolina Navarette-FriasCoordinator. Decision and Policy Analysis Research Area (DAPA) at the Center for International and Tropical Agriculture (CIAT). Carolina graduated with honors from the International Relations Program from the Universidad del Rosario in Bogotá. She also holds an MA in Latin American Studies from the University of Texas at Austin. Her graduate research focused on social networks and their role in rural development and women’s empowerment in Latin America. She worked as a Junior Researcher in the Research and Monitoring Center on Drugs and Crime at Universidad del Rosario in Bogotá leaded by Francisco Thoumi. She researched the impact of drug policies on human rights of rural settlers and also evaluated the effectiveness of crop eradication programs. Carolina also worked as Official Development Aid Officer at the International Cooperation Direction in the Colombian Presidency.

Speaker: Rajendra Paroda, Executive Secretary, Asia-Pacific Association of Agricultural Research Institutions (APAARI). Paroda has contributed significantly towards strengthening the Indian agricultural research systems being the Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research from 1994 to 2001, fostered establishment of the Asia Pacific Seed Association and Asia-Pacific Association of Agricultural Research Institutions (APAARI) and Chaired the Global Forum on Agricultural Research from 1998 to 2001. He was President of the National Academy of Agricultural Sciences (India) from 1996 to 2001 and also the President of prestigious Indian Science Congress in 2000-2001. In recognition of his achievements, the President of India conferred on him PADMA BHUSHAN in 1998 and he has received a number of international awards and prizes.

  1. Key messages
    • Agricultural policies and R&D programmes in many countries continue to be gender-blind, but empirical evidence is now challenging the view that women for societal/cultural reasons are less involved in agricultural production. This is particularly true as in many countries women now provide the majority of agricultural labour and given women’s important roles in processing, storage, marketing, household & child nutrition and rural activities such as providing domestic wood and water.
    • Women are central providers of food and nutrition security. Their ability to secure the health of their children and households relies on access to and control over land & resources, purchasing power, services, products and markets. Technical innovations have focused on boosting field productivity growth and on cereal crops important for national-level food security, rather than “women’s crops” or livestock which play a key role in household nutrition security, or post-harvest management where 40% of production can often be lost, or greater income returns gained.
    • Often operating in silos, research, education and extension fail to respond to women’s issues and have food and nutritional security built into the core of their agendas. Gender sensitive interventions in AR4D are essential to address women’s needs.
  2. Existing EvidenceClosing the gender gap would bring gains of 20-30% on women’s farms, 2.5-4% at national level, a 12-17% reduction in the number of hungry people and lift 100 to 150 million people out of poverty. There would be better health, nutrition and education outcomes for children. Improved technologies and access to inputs and services would enable escape from drudgery and create opportunity for growth in on-farm activities, value addition and better income returns. FAO State of Food & Agriculture Report 2011. Reports presented at Global Conference on Women in Agriculture, 2012, review study commissioned from IFPRI, specific field analyses undertaken in Niger & Middle East. World Bank World Development Report 2012
  3. Impact of case exampleDespite their recognized significance and even though women comprise the majority of the agricultural workforce in many contexts, gender issues remain at the periphery of agricultural considerations and are marginalized within institutions. Raising the agenda above institutional constraints, the Gender in Agriculture Partnership (GAP) is establishing unprecedented practical collaboration between a range of UN agencies, international research organizations, Regional Fora and civil society organizations. Processes in 2011 have examined the specific innovation needs of women producers in Niger, influencing change in the 2,000 villages reached by the Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge programme. Over 700 people attended the Global Conference on Women in Agriculture with extensive media coverage of the issues involved. The CGIAR reform is now bringing collective focus on how large scale research-for development impacts can directly reach and benefit rural women.
  4. What is needed for the case example to go to scale and contribute to a transformed food system?The GAP is an open and inclusive partnership, with strong commitment building from its partners. It promotes transformative change in agriculture & nutrition systems, building from the bottom-up and learning between regions and contexts. Token inclusion of gender issues cannot deliver the changes required. Gender issues are deeply rooted in societies and institutions; collective action to promote and enable engendered approaches brings the value of fresh thinking and external perspectives to foster personal commitments, overcome institutionalized barriers and inform and influence policies and appropriate investments to transform agriculture and specifically address the roles played by women.
  5. When do these actions need to take place, and who needs to take them?Gender is a global agenda. Gender is a social construct and so needs to be addressed from within communities at all levels. Actions need to build from the bottom up and be rooted in societal change. Actions are expected and demanded by the many individual institutions involved in the GAP and by communities reached and involved at local, national, regional and international levels. As laid out on the GCWA synthesis report, reframing agriculture to include consideration of rural women as producers, not just unpaid labour, changes the dynamics of access to credit and inputs, support services and research.

to be continued…