Target 3 – All food systems are sustainable
The consultation on Dutch food security policy was closed on September 15, 2014. The consultation was originally opened by the Food & Business Knowledge Platform on July 01, 2014. The purpose of the consultation was to ensure that the newest topics and debates on food security are included in the food security policy paper, which the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Economic Affairs will send to the Dutch Parliament at the end of this year.
On September 30, 2014, the F&BKP has published its final report (PDF), which has been sent to both ministries. All contributions posted during the consultation remain available online and can be downloaded in a document (PDF) with an easy search tool.
Please find below all comments received concerning Target 3: How can the Netherlands most effectively contribute to achieving the target All food systems are sustainable? We thank all contributors for their participation and inspirational input.
Questions which have been addressed in the contributions are:
- What do you consider the biggest challenges in achieving the target of All food systems are sustainable?
- What are the most effective intervention strategies to address these global challenges? Which actors need to play a role to make this happen?
- How does that relate to the Netherlands’ strengths and to actors from government, the business community, knowledge institutes and civil society?
- What implications would this have for the policy choices of the Dutch Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Economic Affairs?
Target 3 – All food systems are sustainable
Ensuring that all farmers, agribusinesses, cooperatives, governments, unions and civil society establish standards for sustainability; verifying their observance and being accountable for them; encouraging and rewarding universal adoption of sustainable and climate-resilient agriculture practices; pursuing cross-sectoral policy coherence (encompassing energy, land use, water and climate); implementing responsible governance of land, fisheries and forests.
Source: Zero Hunger Challenge
After participating in the expert meeting of 12 September 2014, we would like to bring the following three key points to the attention of both Ministries:
1. Business as usual versus sense of urgency. Many recent international and national policy reports and studies (such as IAASTD 2009, UNEP Green Growth report 2011, advice Verduurzaming Voedselketen Biomassa June 2014, PBL Natuurlijk kapitaal als nieuw beleidsconcept September 2014) indicate that in view of the ecological footprint of current agricultural systems, business as usual is no longer an option. We need to speed up transitions away from business as usual to high productive sustainable agriculture, based on ecological principles. We call this high productive sustainable agriculture “optimal”, which is to a large extent characterized by nutrient use, ecological intensification, and short value chains. The foundation of the argument is as in Kringlooplandbouw in the Netherlands: working with innovative farmers towards increased nutrient use efficiency, for the situation at hand, with an eye on future productivity. The indicator of choice here is Nutrient Use Efficiency (NUE). This indicator applies both in situations of nutrient surplus and in depleted soils. The extent to which farming systems respond to ecological principles has been defined by Pablo Tittonell as ‘ecological intensification’. The new food security policy should advocate the use Nutrient Use Efficiency (NUE) and Ecological Intensification (EI) as indicators regardless of the setting.
Sources: UNEP (2013) Our Nutrient World; The challenge to produce more food and energy with less pollution; Pablo Tittonell and Ken Giller (2013) When yield gaps are poverty traps: The paradigm of ecological intensification in African smallholder agriculture. Field Crops Research, March 2013.
For Oxfam the link between climate change and food security is clear. We witness how many farmers in developing countries have to deal with the effects of climate change such as floods, droughts, temperatures that are too high to work on the land, changing seasons, and shifting climate belts.
Agriculture – in particular industrial high input agriculture – is also one of the main sources of greenhouse gas emissions.
In relation to climate change Oxfam sees different roles and responsibilities for smallholder producers in developing countries, where the focus should be food security and adaptation, and for large-scale, high input agriculture in developed and developing countries, where the focus should be on mitigation.
Regarding smallholder farmers, it is important that both governments and the private sector provide support to help them adapt to the impacts of climate change. In a number of developing countries adaptation plans are in place, but farmer’s resilience and food security have not always been integrated optimally. Developing country governments need to be supported to develop and implement national climate adaptation plans to strengthen farmer’s climate resilience. It is also important that the knowledge smallholders as practitioners have of climate change adaptation needs to be acknowledged and linked to knowledge centres such as universities and to policies. Smallholders and in particular women need to be able to participate in policy and funding decisions on adaptation.
Large-scale, high input agriculture is often part of the value chain of big companies. When engaging with companies the Dutch governments should stimulate that in companies policies and practices climate resilience is addressed. Companies should identify, commit and implement climate change adaptation measures, specifically aimed at strengthening the ability of vulnerable actors in their supply chains (to include, but not be limited to smallholders, (women) workers and suppliers) to deal with the negative consequences of climate change. To this effect they should disclose climate change risks and how they will affect small-scale producers along their entire supply chain and implement programs and strategies that build their resilience. They should also develop and foster partnerships with farmers which increases their resilience instead of their vulnerabilities. Examples are fair sharing of risks (production risks due to weather, pests and other factors affecting harvests) and provision of support in adapting to climate change.
The role of the Dutch government can be to:
• Assist governments in developing countries to develop and implement national adaptation plans for agriculture on a national level and in particular for vulnerable regions, taking into account the different needs, roles and responsibilities of different sizes and types of agriculture. This can be done through bilateral support or through multilateral channels.
• Stress the different needs and responsibilities of smallholder producers and large-scale farming in its positions for the Global alliance on Climate Smart agriculture, for the Green climate fund and other forums where agriculture and climate change come together.
• In its collaboration with the “topsectors” and in public private partnerships, the Dutch government should set criteria for co-operation between big companies and small farmers and assist in accumulating and spreading knowledge how that can lead to increased resilience.
It is estimated that agriculture is responsible for 13.5% of man-made greenhouse gas emissions, primarily due to the use of nitrogen-based fertilisers and to the methane produced by livestock. But if we also take into account the deforestation to create pastures and cultures, the energy that goes into mechanisation of food production, the production of artificial inputs, and the packaging, transport and the processing of foods, we may conclude that the current food systems probably represent 33-35% of the total of manmade greenhouse gas emissions.
Partly these impacts are due to the considerable increase of meat consumption, which requires lots of cereals, feed such as soybeans, and water. Meat consumption varies from 120 kilogrammes per year in rich countries to 5kgs in India. The average consumption is now 42 k per year, though scientists tell us that we an average meat consumption of 35 k per year would be sustainable for a population of 7 billion.
Challenges
1. The first challenge for the Dutch government, institutions and citizens is overconsumption in the north, including our own country. ( Weggelaten: We consume much meat and we can drive our cars on agrofuels simply because we are much richer than the poor in the South who depend on these very same resources for there more basic needs). Agrofuels should be abolished and taxation and other government measures (including border supports) must change the consumers’ behaviour and make agriculture change direction towards crops such as protein seeds, hemp etc. Proceeds from higher taxation on certain foods should be diverted to agro-ecological policies both here and for the South.
2. We should remedy the damage that is caused to the soils by monocultures and overuse by changing over to agro-ecology. Agro-ecology – working with the natural complementarities between plants, trees and animals – is still in its experimental stage, but looks promising. (For examples see e.g. http://www.voedselanders.nl, or http://aardeboerconsument.nl/beeld-en-geluid) It may require more labour initially but it improves the health of the soil, and because it saves on fossil energy and nitrogen-based fertilisers it is also cheaper. Therefore it is well-suited to the needs of small and middle-sized farms in these countries. The sophisticated agricultural technology that the Netherlands has specialised in is not the answer for these farms. For that matter: a change of course in the direction of agro-ecology would benefit the Dutch soils and its greatly decreased biodiversity as well.
We have ended up in many unfair situations because of the free market. Prices for regular food are too low, so prices for organic food (involving more labour costs) are also too low, and prices for ago-ecologically grown food will also be too low. From the climate point of view these changes are very urgent, but the politicians are looking away. We challenge them to adjust trade regulations to facilitate the transition to a more agro-ecological agriculture, in the south but also in the north. (See workshops on page 14-30-46 in the conference report, http://www.voedselanders.nl, and see http://aardeboerconsument.nl/artikelen/agro-ecologie).
In the meantime both in our country and in developing countries farmers who want to farm more agro-ecologically could organise themselves independently, e.g. form cooperatives, and look for coalitions in society, even though demand is as yet limited.
Gender sensitive strategies to food security have to address access to resources and agency of women. This is supported by a number of recent reports.
We all know the conclusion of the FAO’s research FAO AT WORK, 2010–2011, ‘Women – key to food security’ that women farmers are 20-30 percent less productive than men, but not because they manage their farms less well, or work less hard. The main reason for the gap between men’s and women’s performance is that the former have access to resources seldom available to female farmers – including land, financing and technology, among other things. In addition, women do not share fairly in benefits such as training, information and knowledge. If women had the same access to those resources as men, they would produce 20-30 percent more food and their families would enjoy better health, nutrition and education.
The recent World Bank report (2014) ‘levelling the field Improving Opportunities for Women Farmers in Africa’ adds to this that closing Africa’s gender gap is about more than just ensuring that women farmers have equal access to key productive resources. While differences in access to land, fertilizers and other inputs remain important, differences in how a female farmer benefits from these resources (i.e. her returns to those inputs) often have a larger effect. On the top of key issues to be addressed is ‘strengthen women’s land rights’, this is followed by three (!) recommendations to solve labour-related problems of women to reduce the burden of household and family chores and to increase agricultural productivity of her own labour and hired labour. The other keys issues for increasing the return on the inputs of female farmers are: access to fertilizers, improved seeds, extension and information services, high value cash crops, markets and education.
Another recent World Bank report ‘Voice and Agency Empowering women and girls for shared prosperity’ (2014) addresses the persistent constraints and deprivations that prevent many of the world’s women from achieving their potential. ‘Increasing women’s voice and agency are valuable ends in themselves. And both voice and agency have instrumental practical value too. Amplifying the voices of women and increasing their agency can yield broad development dividends from them, for their families, communities and societies. Conversely constraining in women’s agency by limiting what jobs women can perform or subjecting them to violence, for example can create huge losses to productivity and income with broader adverse repercussions for development.’
What is Agency?
‘Agency’ is the ability to make decisions about one’s own life and act on them to achieve a desired outcome, free of violence, retribution or fear. The ability to make those choices is often called empowerment. Agency is critical at individual level, but is also about group and collective action.
Also the Donor Committee on Economic Development (DCED) stresses the importance of agency of women in its Guidelines for Practitioners ‘Measuring Women’s Economic Empowerment in Private Sector Development’ (2014) Economic empowerment is defined as follows: A woman is economically empowered when she has both:
a) access to resources: the options to advance economically; and
b) agency: the power to make and act on economic decisions.
INTRODUCTION
Because you propose that a lively discussion between contributors will be established, I want first want to make some quotes of other contributors to this discussion (below).
I will first mention some quotes with which I fully agree, and will underline the most important sentences. Then I will react to some other contributions in my analysis, at target 1 I also mentioned part of this analysis. Here I will give also my alternative based on the Alternative Trade Mandate.
QUOTES:
KAY (TNI):
‘It is clear that in the face of increasing global resource scarcity, environmental degradation, and climate change, ‘business as usual’ is not an option. Instead of counting with a highly chemical and petro-dependent form of agriculture that depletes the resource base on which it depends, we must focus our efforts on supporting agricultural approaches, such as agro-ecology, that work to restore the ecological balance between humans and nature. (…)
This is confirmed by a growing body of evidence which shows that biologically diversified farming systems can meet global food needs sustainably and efficiently as they outperform chemically managed monocultures across a wide range of indicators. India’s recent experience with the system of sustainable rice intensification (SRI) which have led to bumper rice harvests is just one such example. (…)
This was one of the conclusions of the highly successful ‘Voedsel Anders/Food Otherwise’ conference held at Wageningen University in February 2014 which brought together over 800 people committed to working towards a just and sustainable food system in The Netherlands and Flanders. (…)
JANSSEN (SNV):
‘Climate Smart Agriculture is probably the key here. What is needed there is that the Netherlands, together with other development actors, push harder that agriculture becomes more prominent on the climate change agenda and that it gets acknowledged that agriculture is both a significant (if not the largest) contributor to climate change through emissions of livestock and cropping, but also directly impacted by the effects of climate change.’
VAN BEEK (Soil Fertility and Nutrient Management):
‘”More food from fertile grounds”
The biggest challenges Each year, an estimated 10 million hectares of land and 36 million kg of nutrients worth 40 billion US$ are lost due to careless land-management. Apart from all other issues related to (environmental) sustainability, land and water conservation, or even more so: soil restoration, is key to sustainable intensification. Soil degradation typically starts with excessive removal of organic matter from the soil through cultivation. This removal initiates a trickle down process eventually resulting in infertile and unproductive lands. The Netherlands has a key role in this process, because organic matter and nutrients from around the globe accumulate in countries strong in food processing, such as the Netherlands.’
The EU and the Netherlands have a special responsibility if this loss of soil and fertile land is caused by producing products which are exported to the EU.
HIRSCH (BothENDS):
‘In 2009 the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development presented the state of agricultural knowledge, science and technology and made recommendations for the way forward. Its key message was very clear: “Business as usual is no longer an option.” (…)
‘options for transition: (…)
• Internalise real costs of the agro-industrial approach to food and agricultural systems like the costs of:
o Climate change and green house gas emissions through e.g. fossil fuel dependent agriculture and long-distance trade
o Biodiversity loss through e.g. monocultures, pesticide use and deforestation
o Land degradation through e.g. unsustainable short-term land use practices, pollution by agri-chemicals, soil erosion etc.
• Abandon subsidies and levies that push unsustainable practices, e.g. fertilizer subsidies, lowered energy tax levies for large consumers of natural gas (greenhouses) etc. (…)
• Push taxes/ levies on goods that are scarce and/or undesirable, like the unsustainable use of natural resources, pollution of soils and water, emissions of greenhouse gases, degradation of land.
• Shift taxes from labour towards polluting and energy intensive activities (high labour levies push mechanisation, technology and push mainly quantity of production and not diversification of production and in addition high labour levies push the human factor out of production).’
LAAN (Unilever) – (COMMENTS ON THIS BELOW):
‘Going beyond the efforts on a local level, Dutch policy should also focus on the international level – working on sustainable international value chains. Unilever therefore aims for a global IDH programme. The Sustainable Trade Initiative (IDH) is a huge success due to its approach to look to the whole value chain from production to consumption. This initiative should be upgraded on the international level. (…)
Currently there is a focus on the top ten agricultural raw materials, which account for around two thirds of our volumes. They include palm oil, paper and board, soy, sugar, tea, fruit and vegetables, sunflower oil, rapeseed oil, dairy ingredients and cocoa. Continuing to transform the market and moving more of our suppliers to sustainable agricultural practices in 2014, will enable us to purchase more of these ingredients sustainably. Unilever’s palm oil now comes from or supports sustainable production.’
MY OWN CONTRIBUTION REACTION AND QUOTES AND ANALYSIS:
The biggest problem with this target is that there is not a definition of ‘sustainable’ which is broadly accepted.
But if we hold on to the Brundtland definition our current production and consumption shouldn’t have negative effects for the basic needs of other people and future generations and biodiversity. Translated to food security, this would in my opinion mean the following goals:
– no depletion of renewable and non-renewable resources and no pollution,
– closing cycles of nutrients (like phosphate) and water;
– no dependence on fossil fuels in the food system;
– prevention of climate change (including increasing organic matter in the soil) instead of causing it;
– no direct or indirect (ILUC) destruction of nature for new agriculture;
– the right to adequate food and water should have priority above other means for agricultural and fishery products (feed, biofuels, biobased products).
The consequences of this is that we should aim for regionalised food system, where the distance between producer and consumer is a short a possible. Regions like the EU should be as self-sufficient as possible. Large scale production of soy beans, palm oil and bio fuels can never be sustainable, because they have negative effects on all mentioned goals. Trade in high value tropical products (like coffee and spices) however is still possible in a more or less sustainable way. See for an inspiring alternative: ‘Small farmers can cool the planet – A way out of the mayhem caused by the industrial food system’, GRAIN, October 2009,
FOLLOW UP OF MY ANALYSIS AT TARGET 1 + ALTERNATIVE TRADE MANDATE:
Contrary to the criteria for ‘real sustainability’ (metnioned above), the goal of the EU trade strategy ‘Trade, Growth and World Affairs’ (2010) is to get access to new markets and new raw materials outside of the EU, this fully to the advantage of European transnational companies.
But his has negative effects for farmers, food security, labourers, small and medium enterprises and biodiversity in the EU and developing countries.
As an alternative a European wide coalition of civil society, NGO’s, farmers organisations and trade unions developed ‘The Alternative Trade Mandate’, with also a chapter on food. I recommend – next to the quotes above (and in my contribution at Target 1) – to take this alternative into account in future Dutch and European Policy on food and agriculture in future. See for more information: http://www.alternativetrademandate.org and http://www.tni.org/briefing/trade-time-new-vision
Some measures we propose: in future agricultural, trade and environmental policy the EU needs to:
• respect the right to food and to food sovereignty;
• move away from multilateral, bilateral and regional free trade rules that distort prices for farmers and lead to unequal access to natural resources;
• become more self-sufficient in products that can be produced in Europe, especially protein and oil crops as alternatives for imports of (gmo-)soybeans, palm oil and biofuels;
• eliminate imports of biofuels to the EU, abandon its biofuels directive and replace it with other measures designed to reduce demand for fossil fuels in European transport;
• bring investment in food and farmland in non-EU under new, binding investment agreements with human rights obligations;
• support sustainable farming practices in Europe and the Global South that protect biodiversity, enhance the fertility of soils, reduce the use of fossil fuels and help prevent climate change;
• improve – not abolish – the current EU supply management system;
• strengthen environmental and animal welfare standards for European farmers and ensure that European agribusiness and retail cannot buy cheap products on the world market that have lower production standards;
• respect and reward family farmers, with cost covering prices guaranteed, and internalise all environmental, social and animal welfare costs in the consumer price. (See also proposals Hirsch, BothEnds).
Sustainable food systems need to be better understood in relation to challenges raised by urbanization. Urban populations have expanded strongly and are expected to further double over the next generation. Feeding this urbanised world in ways that are sustainable, resilient, healthy and fair, has become a pressing challenge. Urbanisation often goes together with growing urban poverty and food insecurity related to unemployment, rising food prices, growing dependence on food imports, increasing dominance of supermarkets and challenges posed by climate change.
Urbanization is not just about cities growing in size. It is, more fundamentally, about new patterns of interaction among rural and urban economies and livelihoods, new ways of using space and new and sometimes competing claims on natural resources
There is a need to reform our food systems and place food in relation to cities higher on both the urban and the food security agenda’s. The relationship between urban and rural spaces, people and environments is vital, and one of the critical development issues to be addressed in the post-2015 development agenda.
Urban agriculture is increasingly recognized by city authorities and civil society organisations for its capacity to strengthen the resilience of the urban food system, enhance access of the urban poor to nutritious food, generate (self-) employment and income, and help cities to adapt to climate change and reduce its ecological foot print. But growing urban centres need productive and sustainable rural areas, including smallholders and small-scale producers. While critical urban-rural linkages go beyond food systems to include labour, migration, ecosystem services, markets etc., integrated city region food systems are a key dimension of the rural-urban nexus that needs to be better explored and developed.
Since the 2008 food crisis, there has been new focus on food and nutrition security coupled to efforts to address the needs of family farmers, food quality and reducing food losses. Nonetheless, specific challenges remain to be better addressed in the Dutch development agenda in order to meet sustainable urbanisation and food security needs. In recent years the concept of “city region food systems” has come up as a promising approach to address the range of challenges outlined above. The concept is pro¬posed as a governance approach for policies related to food and agriculture at local, national and international levels, goes beyond the rural urban divide and rather puts rural urban linkages at the heart of a territorial approach to food systems.
This requires enhancing understanding of the importance of city-region food systems:
• Its contribution to food security and nutrition by diversifying the variety of channels through which consumers can access nutritious food and reducing the dependency on international food markets;
• Its potential for lowering urban ecological foot(d)-prints and protecting the agricultural land base around cities, while optimising the role of agriculture in providing ecosystem services.
• Enterprise and marketing opportunities (urban agriculture, farmers markets; local food hubs) for (poor) producers, households, women and youth.
• Its contribution to participatory local government and identity.
• Enhancing resource efficiency and the city-region’s resilience to climate change.
With a focus on productivity in our current food system, sustainability often comes next instead of first. We are already witnessing the results of this lack of attention for soil health, water provision and rapid loss in diversity, dearly needed in times of climate change. The most vulnerable groups are hit most by reduced harvests without a fall back option.
How to bring sustainability into practice? “Sustainable diets” are protective and respectful of biodiversity and ecosystems, culturally acceptable, accessible, economically fair and affordable; nutritionally adequate, safe and healthy; while optimizing natural and human resources.
In this regard, we urge the Ministries to take responsibility as a world player in the agri-food sector and to:
• Move away from a narrow focus on increasing production through a business driven value chain approach towards supporting agro-ecological practices that build on biodiversity and farmer agency for a resilient food system that can feed the world, conserve biodiversity, decrease poverty and adapt to climate change. ‘Climate smart agriculture’ needs to be redefined in that sense.
• Develop steps towards a ‘true price’ for products that include environmental costs of unsustainable practices and make perverse subsidies history in order to stimulate the consumption of sustainable products.
• Support farmers to develop their own, locally adapted and culturally appropriate strategies for sustainable production and consumption. For example, improving access to the formal seed sector should go hand in hand with strengthening farmers’ capacity to conserve, develop and use their own seed.
• Support social innovation by investing in people, skills and platforms and organisations that co-create and broker knowledge across regions, sectors and actors.
• Redirect public funding to research on agro-ecological practices and (locally available) nutritious crops that enhance sustainable production and consumption to counter balance private and public sector investment in research on industrial agriculture and high-value crops such as maize, rice and wheat.
• Safeguard and show coherence of Dutch and EU policies on trade, finance, development aid and agriculture and consider the potential negative impacts of large scale trade investments, agricultural subsidies and trade and intellectual property rights agreements, such as disturbance of local market dynamics, land grabs and undermining of informal seed systems.
• In terms of production, research and innovation to stimulate an enabling environment, both nationally as well as internationally, for sustainable production and consumption, innovation and knowledge exchange that acknowledges the role of farmers and biodiversity.
The Dutch food security policy in Kenya aims, via a consortium of Hivos, SNV & Solidaridad, to strengthen smallholder entrepreneurial farmers in Kenya, to improve their incomes and their food security situation, as well as to contribute to improved sustainability and efficiency of the horticultural sector in Kenya.
This program shows good results: linkages of producers and the market and the linkage with private sector (Local & international-Dutch) is strengthened and income of producers increased. However, what is missing in the program is the connection with government policy on food and agriculture. To be really sustainable in all its senses there needs to be supportive government policy and implementation. Dutch food security policy should not only focus on practice on the ground, but also on how to enable supportive national/local government policy, preferable through local CSO’s.
Agribusiness, Food & Water is one of the focus sectors of FMO, the Dutch Development Bank. As a development finance institution, FMO has set for itself the goal of doubling its developmental impact and halving its footprint by 2020. In pursuit of this goal, FMO finances private companies, projects and financial institutions in developing countries that generate economic growth at scale. In addition to providing finance, FMO works with its investee companies to increase production and efficiency and manage and improve environmental and social impact. FMO is a front runner in reporting on the sustainability impact of its investments.
FMO is proof of the development potential of large private enterprises. To support sustainable development impact, Dutch policy should centre stage private sector companies that have a good track record in emerging markets. FMO operates with the belief that impact can best be achieved through the scaling up of a proven business model where financial sustainability is a prerequisite for achieving sustainable development at scale in the long run. Many international companies actively promote CSR standards and ODA should support companies with sustainable business models that can be scaled up.
Dutch policy should not only focus on Dutch companies. Food security and related issues such as the water and energy are global issues in which the Netherlands can play a role, and even benefit, via interventions through international and local companies. If the government wishes to align this agenda more closely with Dutch interests, it could focus on supply chains where Dutch companies play an active or dominant role, such as dairy, cocoa, palm oil, vegetables, animal protein, etc..
In its development support, the Dutch government should focus on the whole value chain, thereby raising sustainability standards all the way at the primary producers. Although FMO mainly focuses on larger enterprises, it pays close and regular attention to the way these companies affect the wider stakeholders, such as workers, suppliers and the larger community. For example, FMO supports private enterprises in Africa that touch and improve the life of thousands of smallholder farmers through training, certification and reliable off take of their products.
It is important that the Dutch government supports coalitions of complementary development institutions. FMO has, for instance, teamed up with IDH to support smallholder farmers through training programs and access to working capital with which to make productive investments in their land and businesses.
Finally the Dutch government should play a role in land tenure issues. This is an important topic in sustainable development, as land tenure does not only improve security and living standards for smallholder farmers but is also an important tool in combating deforestation. To make sustainable and lasting investments in land, farmers need to be sure that the land they farm actually belongs to them. Furthermore, without proper title to the land, it is often impossible to obtain financing. The government could support developing nations in setting up cadastres, supporting land ownership and, where possible, supporting consolidation of small and unproductive smallholder plots.
“Wake up before its too late: Make agriculture truly sustainable now for food security a changing climate” was the telling title of an important report by UNCTAD in 2013. This challenge is urgent and requires political will that allows for smallholders and the poor can to be in the driving seat. Largely supported by this and other landmark reports, we see the following challenges and opportunities to achieve this target.
The need to build inclusive climate-resilient local and national food systems, whilst reversing non-sustainable global trends
The achievement of sustainable food systems worldwide can’t go around acknowledgement of the complexities and political interests at stake. There are a lot of contradictions as enough food is being produced to feed the world, a third of it is spilled but an estimated about a billion people malnourished or not food secure. Many of these are smallholders and landless, in particular vulnerable women and children, in rural areas in the global south. Having faced neglect for years, the increasing interest in rural development and agriculture is an opportunity that has to be managed well. The increasing pressure on land and water is a huge challenge that risks marginalizing smallholder land users and landless even further and needs to be addressed in order to ensure space for building solutions.
There is a need for much more common ground and agreement about shortcomings of existing food systems and the need for reshaping them. There is need to understand or acknowledge how respective food systems overlap or relate and impacted on by a multitude of broader agricultural (non-food), sociocultural, economic factors, power relations and institutions (rules-of the game), and the political economy at large. And finally, there is a need to build up locally owned climate resilient local and national food systems while addressing global challenges being faced.
Characteristics of sustainable (local/national) food systems:
– Locally owned, locally and nationally established in terms of production, post-harvest practices, local/ national value addition and inclusive local, national and regional markets;
– People-centered and inclusive (gender, socially) that ensures food for deprived people first. This also requires empowering and investing first and foremost in women smallholder farmers and their access and control of land, water and their labor inputs and addressing broader gender discrimination at all levels (including at household level division of labour and decision-making).
– Establish climate resilient integrated and bio-diverse food (and income) systems (this includes agroecology and combinations of drought-resistant production, water harvesting, and small-scale irrigation food product cooperatives of (women) smallholders; raising small ruminants in particular chicken and goats)
– Satisfying household and community consumption first before serving other local and national inclusive markets. Access is key – see inputs target 1 (incl social protection).
– Risk coping mechanisms for sufficient risk mitigation; there may be some specializations within diversified systems as to achieve sufficient economy of scale
– Beyond diversified farming systems, income diversification may rely on non-farming income as well
– Minimize and mitigate risks of droughts, flooding, other natural disasters and last but not least the external pressures resulting in land and water (control) grabbing, decline in local food production, food price hikes, collapse of public support systems to smallholders, loss of (agri)biodiversity, corporate capture and dependency
– As the above are often best addressed by targeting women smallholders: innovative public support systems providing demand-driven support to empower smallholder farmers, in particular women, and (women) micro, small and medium enterprises and cooperatives.
Reducing our natural resource foot print and tackling unfair and unsustainable international pressures
There is an urgent need to reduce our global land and water foot print and the negative impacts resulting from that as related to direct investment, consumption and role in global trade. This starts with taking stock and identifying leverage points. This includes resource (land/water) efficiency, production and trading standards for global commodities, but also addressing consumption patterns and policies underlying these (whether for food, fodder, fuel, flowers). This could build on efforts of PBL, as well as civil society.
This also includes addressing the risks and negative impacts of pressure on land and large scale land and agribusiness investment. I.e. currently often not contributing to local food systems and food security, but resulting in land and water grab (widely documented, including in our recent Land Heist report, by UNCTAD, ILC, Cotula and many others), as well as issues of land, water and labour control. The latter occurs when smallholders engage in outgrower and contract farming schemes without sufficient bargaining power (often they are the most vulnerable and deprived chain actors ending up carrying most of the risks and least of the benefits) and when displacing and impacting local food production (and producers), markets, prices and food security (e.g. due to global commodity chain bias). There is also a risk of increasing gender disparities and further marginalization of women. As men tend to benefit more from cash crops and estate labor, decision-making and income are often biased towards men and women get more marginalized, whilst food requirements are under pressure. When women are involved or employed, there are still too often issues of decent work and wages, as well as overburdening. Finally, large scale investments bring particular risks of mono-cropping, land degradation, water depletion, deforestation and loss of (agro)biodiversity that increase rather than reduction of GHG emissions by global agriculture. As UNCTAD also states, there is an urgent need to moving away from conventional mono-culture, high external-input production towards more sustainable, regenerative, diverse and empowering production systems. Addressing power imbalances is essential to ensure more fair and sustainable commodity chains and investments.
Solutions include:
– Protecting the rights of women smallholder farmers and other legitimate land users through safeguards like the CFS Tenure Guidelines and FPIC; whilst empowering them to exercise these rights.
– Ensuring global policies and initiatives promote real sustainable agriculture and local food systems in line with recommendations above, UNCTAD, HLPE and others, rather than supporting initiatives that promote large-scale commercial farming without adequately addressing core reasons for food insecurity (in particular poverty and marginalisation), as well as risks and negative impacts above.
– Mapping, reducing and changing consumption, trade and related footprints. Beyond the need to change consumption and spilling habits, as well as policies underlying these (e.g. biofuels; food safety), there is a need for more regional and local sourcing of raw agricultural commodities and establish their local sustainable food systems (in particular also in OECD countries and BRICS).
– States and global fora to make food security and sustainable (local/national/regional) food systems a priority in WTO and other trade (related) negotiations and policies, particularly addressing priorities as identified by the Committee for Food Security (CFS ) and addressing the interests and stakes of women smallholders.
One of the biggest challenges in achieving target 3, to make all food systems sustainable, is to develop climate smart agriculture worldwide. And water is an important element to achieve this.
Food security and water are two of four priority themes for Dutch international development cooperation, building upon Dutch expertise and knowledge. So working on synergy between these two themes should fit also within the strengths of Dutch involvement. Although it is already Dutch policy to work on synergy, in practice it deserves more attention. At present the overlap between the food security and water programs of Dutch international development cooperation is not more than 10%. This synergy is more and more needed in near future due to climate change. Water worldwide is mainly used for food production. Water, food security and climate change are therefore strongly interconnected.
Climate change (or better climate roughness) is creating more and more stress on the hydrological cycle, with as consequence more frequent and unpredictable floodings and droughts. The seasonal pattern of dry and wet seasons is also changing and becoming unpredictable. For many African and other regions this means uncertainty about when to start seeding; the food production is endangered. As a consequence food prices are rising. In combination with the steadily decreasing resilience of the water-soil system due to human activities in most countries, the impact of climate change is a threat for development.
An effective intervention strategy is to work on synergy between FS and water by investments in the resilience of the soil-water system. The 5R-approach with Reduction, Reuse, Recharge, Reallocation and Rainwater Harvesting contributes to restoration of the Resilience. It starts with a water stress assessment to determine (potential) water stress in food production in intervention regions, based on historical data and food production and climate change models. Soil restoration to increase the food production can also contribute to increase the recharge capacity of the soil to replenish the groundwater resources and to decrease the vulnerability for extreme droughts. Streamlining the water programs and FS programs and the cooperation between the water and agriculture experts is needed. This has implications for the actors from government, the business community, knowledge institutes and civil society from both sectors, (water and FS), which up to now do hardly work together in Dutch international cooperation.
It does not have too much implications for the policy choices of the Dutch ministries. Because indeed it was already the policy to work on synergy. But operationalization of the policy could be promoted by setting a target. In the year 2020 about 25% of ODA budget has to be climate relevant. Working on synergy is climate relevant, so it counts for the climate budget. It is recommended to set a target in policy for example that in 20% of the FS programs synergy between water and FS is an important element of the programs.
The world currently produces enough food to feed the world, but about 1 billion people can’t afford to buy sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs for an active and healthy life. This makes food security mostly a poverty – or access – problem.
The issue of economic accessibility (affordability) is often complemented by lack of land and resources to grow food. Together with infrastructural and market barriers this makes food security also a physical accessibility problem. In the foreseeable future, however, food security will be an availability problem. In the face of rapid climate change and increasing resources scarcity, increasing demand due to population growth and changing consumption patterns, food security will prove even harder to achieve.
Agricultural production which fully respects ecological, social and economical sustainability will be a precondition for food security for all. If we fail to address these sustainability issues, entire food systems will be at risk. Therefore, there will be an increasing need to adapt existing food systems themselves.
Much of Solidaridad’s work has focused on sustainable production through the implementation of Voluntary Sustainability Standards (VSS) and promotion of Good Agricultural Practices in commodity supply chains. This has helped to bridge the gap between high-input agriculture of the past and more efficient agriculture that generates less externalities. But since VSS and good agricultural practices have a single-commodity focus, they don’t address more complex issues on farm and landscape level.
In the future, smart agronomic practices and ecological intensification concepts will be guiding new approaches to farming. Efficiencies will increasingly need to be rooted in the ecosystem and organized on landscape level, because in many corners of the world external inputs (particularly synthetic fertilizer) will be too expensive to produce and distribute. The same is true for resilience: long-term stability and productivity of production systems in times of rapid climatic change will require functional and healthy ecosystems. A landscape approach, taking into account multiple functions and stakeholders on a level where synergies can be optimally developed and secured, can help increase agricultural resilience.
There is also an urgent need to accelerate sustainable and inclusive investments in agriculture. Criticism of investment projects tends to overlook the importance of FDI for agricultural development. Therefore, we need to build capacity of governments and CSOs to accommodate investments in a sustainable and inclusive way.
Productivity issues can unarguably have an important impact on smallholder income. However, I’d like to second some of the other contributors to this consultation who stress the importance of well-functioning markets. This implies that measures needed to increase smallholder income are not limited to investments in technology, irrigation, etc. Interventions that also merit attention are related to the functioning of markets for smallholders, such as increasing smallholders’ access to credit, affordable inputs (e.g. fertiliser), reliable price information, rural infrastructure and reducing tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade.
What contributors so far have been silent about is the relevance of regional markets, i.e. trade across country borders, within a region. While one might think that only local markets matter for smallholders, many are engaged in regional value chains and there is great potential for regional market development to strengthen food security. This is recognised in the Dutch agenda for aid, trade and investment as laid down in ‘A World to Gain’, which emphasises that the Netherlands will opt more often for a regional approach as the best means to tackle problems such as food security. This will have to be reflected and further detailed in the Dutch food security policy.
Regional markets for food security in Africa is one of the topics that the European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM) works on, with financial support of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs and others. This involves policy-oriented research and facilitation of dialogue, amongst other things to:
– support Regional Economic Communities in Africa (e.g. COMESA, EAC, ECCAS, ECOWAS, SADC) to develop and implement their regional agricultural policy and related investment plan under the continental umbrella of the CAADP. Dutch support will need to be aligned to these African-owned policy frameworks;
– support regional farmers’ organisations representing smallholders (e.g. ROPPA in West Africa, PROPAC in Central Africa, EAFF in East Africa and SACAU in Southern Africa) to engage in regional policy processes;
– highlight political economy issues related to the functioning of regional agricultural input and output markets and corridors, to be taken into account by African stakeholders and development partners alike, for initiatives to be successful (as also stressed by David Sogge in his contribution).
Another element I miss in the discussion so far is the role of the European Union. The Minister has indicated in ‘A World to Gain’ that the Netherlands will work more often in a EU context in respect of International Public Goods such as food security. In development cooperation, this implies enhancing coordination of aid with other EU member states and EU delegations. It could also include an active contribution to inform the operationalization of the recent European Commission Communication on the role of the private sector in achieving inclusive and sustainable growth in developing countries, with a specific focus on agri-businesses. Beyond development cooperation, international food security is affected by EU policies in other areas such as trade, agriculture and research. The Dutch food security policy will be incomplete without a commitment and concrete proposals to take international food security considerations into account in the Netherlands’ positing in EU policy making.
The present food system is unsustainable. Interventions to change this have not generated the desired effect. Therefore a new approach is required; A change within the present system will not do the trick, to achieve a sustainable food system a system change is the only way to go. Currently the incentives reward the wrong kind of behavior. Agricultural products are at the bottom of the value chain. The market demands a low price of these interchangeable commodities that is achieved through externalizing the costs as much as possible. Child labor is used to lower labor costs, farmers deplete rich soils to save on fertilizers and cause environmental damage with hazardous pesticides.
NewForesight is currently conducting a study commissioned by the IFC, to investigate how a sustainable market transformation within agriculture is possible. Phase I of the study has already been concluded and the findings can be read in the report ‘’ Building a roadmap to sustainability in agro-commodity production’’, which can be found here. The study shows that what is now seen as the most important tool for achieving sustainability in the agriculture, standards and certification, is not delivering as anticipated. Instead of continuing on the same path without generating results, sector dynamics should be altered.
The system should benefit the entrepreneurial farmer. A farmer that is well informed, skilled and has the resources to invest in his/her business and generate high yields. The forces that determine the functioning of an agro-commodity sector are production characteristics, alternative livelihoods, market characteristics and an enabling environment. Altering these forces can change the way the system functions. To change these forces collaboration between key stakeholders is vital. It is due to isolation, fragmentation and a lack of transparency that actors can seek and attain short-term gains and get away with it. There is a clear reason to collaborate. NGOs, governments and multinationals have the same overarching interest. Whether the goal is to guarantee export, company sales or lifting the poor out of poverty, protecting the environment, they all require a sector that will work in the long run. Future scenarios for food products include minimum market criteria on sustainability, traceability and food safety, enforced by industry and governments.
We already see this transformation happening in various agro-commodity sectors. NewForesight has been involved in change processes in cocoa, palm oil, cotton, floriculture and sugar cane. We inspire with strategic insights and thought leadership and align the different stakeholders towards a shared vision of a sustainable sector. We bring people together, help build trust, channel information, create momentum and mobilize parties for sustainable change. More of our work on http://www.newforesight.com.
Challenges and responses
The biggest challenge to global food security is that the ecological foundation of agriculture and fisheries is being undermined. This foundation includes of soil fertility, clean water supplies and other ecosystem services. Some of the causes or threats are longstanding, like over-fishing and soil erosion. Others are recent, like climate change, competition for water, competition for land between food and biofuels, negative impacts by other sectors and poor production practices.
Biodiversity plays a vital role in food security, not only in the ecosystem services on which our food systems depend, but also in the resilience and adaptive capacity of (agro and other)ecosystems to respond to shocks and change. This biodiversity includes ecosystem and species diversity at the landscape level as well as species and genetic diversity at the farm level, in crops, livestock and soil organisms. Biodiverse food systems support greater yield stability and reduce the risks from pests, diseases, unstable weather and climate change, price volatility and other market dynamics.
Building sustainable food systems is a means to secure the ecological foundation of food security. In agriculture this includes strategies like improved techniques at the farm level, the upscaling of sustainable and climate-smart agriculture. In fisheries, this includes the sustainable management of fish stocks and fishing grounds, reduction of land-based pollution and environmentally-friendly aquaculture. An enabling policy environment should accompany all these strategies.
Food security policies tend to focus on agricultural productivity, trade and macro-economic policies, while neglecting its ecological foundation. Ecosystem degradation and poor ecosystem governance weaken the effectiveness of food security policies. At the same time, inappropriate policies can damage ecosystems and their ability to support food security. Ecosystem concerns therefore need to be integrated into other sectors’ policies that impact on the ecosystem services underpinning food security (cross-sectoral linkages). Policy gaps need to be filled and recommendations for enabling and effective policies disseminated and advocated (see reports by e.g. UNEP in 2012 and IUCN and WRI in 2013).
Effective food security policies also address the social aspects of the ecosystem connections by strengthening land tenure, local organizations, people’s rights to food and water, access to natural resources, credit and other agricultural inputs, and recognition of traditional knowledge on crop diversity and wild crop relatives. Gender equality cuts across all these aspects, since women play a crucial role in ecosystem management and food security in particular.
A landscape approach can be useful to address area-based food security issues and test the viability of policies. It allows for multi-actor approaches that facilitate coherence, the integration of ecosystems and participatory decision making in land use, the management of resource-related conflicts, commitment to climate change action like ecosystem-based adaptation, recognition of the importance of wild food sources as safety nets to the poor and adopting the concept of natural infrastructure (i.e. the ability of ecosystems to deliver some of the same services as those provided by engineered infrastructure).
What Dutch actors can contribute to the target
All major Dutch actors have a role to play in contributing to this UN Target. In brief: government and the private sector need to adopt policies and practices that support the (socio-) ecological foundation of food security. Civil society organizations are needed as watchdogs, agenda setters, advisors, conveners and knowledge brokers, and research institutes as producers of policy-relevant knowledge.
It is clear that in the face of increasing global resource scarcity, environmental degradation, and climate change, ‘business as usual’ is not an option. Instead of counting with a highly chemical and petro-dependent form of agriculture that depletes the resource base on which it depends, we must focus our efforts on supporting agricultural approaches, such as agro-ecology, that work to restore the ecological balance between humans and nature
Agro-ecology is not, as is sometimes assumed, a niche approach that is practiced by only a few farmers in remote corners of the world. On the contrary, it is a highly diverse set of practices that have been adopted by millions of farmers around the world. By respecting nature’s vital cycles and optimising the interactions between agriculture and ecological systems, agro-ecology can make an enormous contribution to global food security.
This is confirmed by a growing body of evidence which shows that biologically diversified farming systems can meet global food needs sustainably and efficiently as they outperform chemically managed monocultures across a wide range of indicators. India’s recent experience with the system of sustainable rice intensification (SRI) which have led to bumper rice harvests is just one such example.
Despite the enormous potential of agro-ecology, it is routinely side-lined in mainstream agricultural research and development. Globally, as much as 90 to 95 percent of investment in research and the development of technology and know-how goes to conventional agriculture. The Dutch government and knowledge institutes, could mobilise The Netherlands’ renowned expertise in the field of agricultural research and development, to help close this funding gap. This was one of the conclusions of the highly successful ‘Voedsel Anders/Food Otherwise’ conference held at Wageningen University in February 2014 which brought together over 800 people committed to working towards a just and sustainable food system in The Netherlands and Vlanders.
One can differentiate between strategies for vertically ‘scaling up’ agro-ecology and horizontal ‘scaling out’ agro-ecology. Scaling up strategies involve supportive public policies and investments which help institutionalise agro-ecology and embed it in national frameworks. Scaling out strategies involve social processes such as farmer-to-farmer networks which help spread agro-ecological practices and strengthen local research and problem-solving capacities.
Cuba’s agro-ecological revolution provides one of the best examples of how to make such a transition work. According to Altieri and Toledo (2011), “No other country in the world has achieved this level of success with a form of agriculture that reduces food miles, energy and input use, and effectively closes local production and consumption cycles”. Key success factors include the spread of farmer-to-farmer models of knowledge diffusion and exchange; the creation of farming cooperatives and the transfer of 80% of formerly state-owned farmland to cooperative and individual farmers; and a supportive state committed to the renewal of peasant farming.
Many farms are economically unviable due to poor farm management and unsustainable practices, which can result in low productivity. This is problematic, especially in the light of global population growth and increasing pressure on resources (incl. land). Many farmers are unable to make informed business decisions, meet market demand, manage risks and adapt to changes. Living- and working conditions for farmers, workers and their families can be unsafe and unhealthy and labor rights are often not adequately enforced.
Additionally, farming often leads to the depletion and contamination of natural resources and affects climate change, making farming even more challenging. To make supply chains more sustainable, innovative programs have to be set-up to bring better farming to scale.
We believe training farmers and rewarding better practice through certification is a way in which business partners and consumers can be helped to play their roles: taking co-responsibility for a more sustainable supply of products. Our Theory of Change (ToC) is based on the assumption that when farmers comply with Voluntary Sustainability Standards (VSS) such as UTZ Certified, negative social, environmental and economic impacts are mitigated and benefits are created. By providing assurance that farming practices are sustainable, a credible claim is made. This claim has a value in the market because of a demand for sustainable products from consumers and businesses.
The infographic of UTZ Certified’s ToC and interventions details how implementation of the UTZ standard leads to positive economic, social and environmental outcomes on farm level. This is tested through impact assessments such as can be found in the UTZ Impact Report. It shows that, on average farmers with UTZ certification adopt better farming methods, resulting in improved yields and better quality crops. UTZ farmers tend to have higher incomes resulting from better market access. The working conditions, in terms of a safe and healthy work environment, are also generally better.
Today around 22% of global coffee and 21% of cocoa supplies are certified against the UTZ standard or other VSS. Within this group UTZ has the largest global market share in coffee and cocoa. To quote the IFC/World Bank (2013) “The biggest contribution of VSS may well be their success in building consensus on the concept of sustainability in various sectors and among various types of stakeholders. In addition, they have managed to build a supply chain system linking producers to consumers with concrete changes on the ground as a result.”
We recognize that market-based instruments alone do not push markets towards sustainability. Public policy and regulation, both in producing and consuming countries, are crucial in creating an enabling environment for the uptake of VSS. Like the Netherlands, other governments may promote the use of VSS by including them in their public procurement policy or set targets for certified production. I therefore call on the Dutch Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Economic Affairs to continue and increase their support of the use of VSS in food systems at home as well as abroad.
What a food system actually is, and whether and how it is delimited is an issue. It is recommended to consider the world as being one single food system which is composed of multiple geographical, socioeconomic and sociocultural sub-systems. Each system will require different approaches to adhere to the principles of agro ecology and to become sustainable.
The text rightly specifies that multiple stakeholders should be involved in standard-setting, and that policy coherence is required. Yet, note that “sustainability” shall not just be defined by a simple majority, and that “sustainable (sub-)systems“ may well comprise wide inequalities between constituents.
The UN text rightly calls for responsible governance of land, fisheries and forests to achieve sustainable food systems – add water, (sub-)soils, air and livestock to this text. Specific mention should be made of UN Voluntary Principles and Guidelines.
Climate Smart Agriculture is probably the key here. What is needed there is that the Netherlands, together with other development actors, push harder that agriculture becomes more prominent on the climate change agenda and that it gets acknowledged that agriculture is both a significant (if not the largest) contributor to climate change through emissions of livestock and cropping, but also directly impacted by the effects of climate change.
The Dutch knowledge economy should play a leading role in developing climate smart solutions that work and the Dutch network of development actors jointly with the private sector should introduce these and bring them to scale.
Sustainability of food systems is a very complex issue, as it covers aspects of people, planet and profit. Consequently, this contribution addresses also aspects of target 1 and target 4. In addition, addressing sustainability of food systems requires a multi-scale and a temporal approach.
Feeding the 9 billion people in 2050 is an enormous challenge. Conventional improved agricultural production system resulted in the permanent availability of cheap food in many parts of the world. However, many people still suffer from malnutrition and many urgent environmental issues are related with this dominant agricultural practice, e.g. degradation of the natural resource base, loss of biodiversity and eco-system functions, and climate change. From a sustainability point of view, there is an urgent need of increasing the food production while enhancing the natural resource base and ecosystem functions by applying a clear agro-ecological approach (which is not the same as a low-input system).
Focussing on production aspects only, however, has been not very successful in the past in enhancing sustainability and combatting hunger and poverty. Assuming that the production systems can be made sustainable, this does not mean that the livelihoods of small to medium producers will automatically increase. Many farms in Africa are small, too small to escape the poverty trap, even when the agricultural production is optimised. Farmers with sufficient production potential need access to markets, if possible after transformation of their raw materials to get a better price. Aspects of transformation are important for added value, but also to create jobs in rural areas for people who cannot live from their own sustainable agricultural production (and to reduce the rural-urban migration).
Markets are very divers. There are the international niche markets and markets from multi-nationals. With the actual economic growth in a number of African countries, the migration towards urban areas and the development of the urban middle-class, the national and regional markets in Africa provide an important opportunity for agricultural and food products, in case the value chains are developed in such a way that the food product can enter these markets.
Sustainability food systems are complex societal issues which requires interventions at different levels of scale by different actors to be successful. In research new approaches have been developed the last decades to tackle such complex issues, e.g. interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research approaches, participatory and multi-stakeholder approaches, and partnerships between research, societal and private partners.
Challenges for Dutch policy makers concerning sustainability of the food systems in Africa include:
In 2009 the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development presented the state of agricultural knowledge, science and technology and made recommendations for the way forward. Its key message was very clear: “Business as usual is no longer an option.”
We suggest three types of options for this transition from business as usual to sustainable food and agricultural systems, namely on sustainable practices, on knowledge development and on cooperation:
Sustainable practices
One of the big challenges to achieve sustainable agriculture and food systems is overcoming the narrow policy focus on short-term productivity increase only through a dominant focus on the agro-industrial way of producing food, as is happening in the ministry of Economic Affair’s TopSectors policy. We see 10 options for transition:
Knowledge development
The commitment of the Dutch government to support the exchange and transfer of Dutch agricultural knowledge, technology and skills with others in order to come to sustainable food and agricultural systems is an important step. The big challenge is how to link this with realities of small-scale farmers. We see 4 options for transition:
Building up and use of social innovation network
A report from the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University (RSM) and Panteia / EIM (January 2014) states that the Economic Affairs policy TopSectors relies too much on technological innovation, while 77% of successful innovation comes from social innovation: investing in people’s skills, expertise and capacities, pushing flexible forms of cooperation, promoting entrepreneurial leadership, and bringing together companies, research institutions and civil society organizations in order to foster co-creation.
One of the big challenges is how to push social innovation. Luckily, the Netherlands has a long history in combining the soft side, as new forms of cooperation, dialogue and networking with hardware, like technological solutions for natural resources: in the 11th century, water boards were being established to find solutions for washing water and which comprised of all water users.
We see 2 options for transition:
Rapid developments in information technology have created considerable opportunities for farmers to adapt their operational processes to changing market requirements. Information is becoming more accessible and less costly, and markets are becoming more competitive improving the competitiveness of agricultural firms. Small-scale farmers are also increasingly being exposed to new information technologies that can provide relevant information for their farming needs.
Agricultural producers in Africa are increasingly being exposed to the potential of modern information technologies as a management tool. However, despite the real and potential benefits of using information technologies (including improved flows of relevant and up-to-date information for decision making), their capabilities have not been fully exploited. Reasons include the relatively poor infrastructure in some rural areas, the time taken to obtain information from the Internet, the perceived high cost of some modern information technologies in relation to their benefits, and the lack of education in the effective use of information technologies. Modern information systems are expected to play an increasingly important role in future in assisting agricultural producers to become more competitive on local and international markets. Producers may expect high returns to information that is pertinent to their businesses. The challenge for producers, therefore, is how to source relevant information efficiently. “Focused” publications or newsletters, specific user-groups on the Internet, specific planning software and outside advisors dealing with specific business problems are some examples of relevant information sources. Clearly, producers would have to pay for pertinent information and compare this and other (time) costs with the anticipated benefits. For small-scale farmers in Africa, further educational (extension) efforts aimed at providing relevant information are crucial.
Partnering with others to achieve greater impact
Going beyond the efforts on a local level, Dutch policy should also focus on the international level – working on sustainable international value chains. Unilever therefore aims for a global IDH programme.
The Sustainable Trade Initiative (IDH) is a huge success due to its approach to look to the whole value chain from production to consumption. This initiative should be upgraded on the international level.
The importance of the IDH approach is to bring together all the relevant stakeholders to set concrete steps for making international value chains more sustainably and inclusive.
Within the programmes of IDH stakeholders can find the platform to set targets and a strategy to build sustainable international value chains. The impact when this is scaled further than Dutch level, the impact can increase significantly with the internationalisation of the IDH programme. A first step has been set by involving Switzerland in the programme.
Sustainable sourcing
Unilever buys around 12% of the world’s black tea, 3% of the world’s tomatoes for processing, and 3% of the palm oil produced. Half our raw materials come from farms and forests. The decisions that we make on who we source from, and how we work with them, can have profound implications on global resources and climate change. They also have a wider social impact, affecting the livelihoods of our farmers and their families, women and young people.
Sourcing sustainably will protect scarce resources. Ensuring deforestation, land use and social and community issues are managed responsibly. As well as ensuring security of supply for our business and reduce costs. There is clearly a business case for doing this.
Currently there is a focus on the top ten agricultural raw materials, which account for around two thirds of our volumes. They include palm oil, paper and board, soy, sugar, tea, fruit and vegetables, sunflower oil, rapeseed oil, dairy ingredients and cocoa. Continuing to transform the market and moving more of our suppliers to sustainable agricultural practices in 2014, will enable us to purchase more of these ingredients sustainably.
Unilever’s palm oil now comes from or supports sustainable production. The next step is to source all our palm oil from certified, traceable sources. By sharing information about where products come from, we are also meeting emerging consumer needs.
In addition to our own sustainable sourcing programmes already underway, in 2013 we made progress in driving wider transformational change across working towards eliminating deforestation and in wider agricultural systems such as tea. Working closely with others will be essential in achieving broader change.
Case: Vanilla Madagascar
Impacting thousands of families. Closely collaborating with supplier Symrise and German development agency GIZ. View a video about Vanilla sourcing in Madagascar.
Read more about Unilever’s input for the policy paper in the contribution on Target 1.
Needed are financing of local programmes on institutional feeding, value chains and feeding banks, and also the gathering of actors and reinforcement of their capacities and foreign investors. Technical and financial support of the Dutch government or other donors is welcome to support local governments that should be in charge.
The most effective intervention strategies
Most hungry people work on the land. Thus, it is the hungry people of our world whose lives and livelihoods are most immediately dependent upon our natural environment and the most committed to its sustainability. They already suffer the impact of climate change, and have a right to the information that they need to adapt to it. Women farmers in particular are often the traditional caretakers of the environment, and possess the traditional wisdom for sustainable natural resource management. Those currently living in rural poverty, therefore – particularly women – must have a primary voice in environmental decision-making. All people have the right to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.
Key interventions:
All food systems are sustainable is a hugely ambitious objective. Firstly not some or most but all. And sustainable: we may not know some systems are sustainable until many years along the road that we thought was sustainable. And sometimes what was unsustainable becomes potentially sustainable through technological change.
All systems have some vested interests that made them develop the way they have. “Food miles” the distance food is moved before reaching the consumer is essentially the supplies and retailers cost minimisation programme and the consumers willingness to pay for goods out of season. To reduce that, increase the cost of transport and the lowest cost model will be different. But there will be resistance to increasing the cost of transport because of other unintended consequences.
The biggest challenge is to define what is means for the system to be sustainable: easy to say, perhaps easy to define at a global level, but what does it mean at producer, processor, transporter, retailer level? What are the impacts on other value chains?
A more profound vision of what is required and a road map to get there is required.
The Hunger Project stands for ambitious, bold goals. When we set out to end hunger in 1977, we were laughed at. Nobody’s laughing now. We are happy to have contibuted to setting these Zero Hunger goals. But would be much more happy to actually reach them.
Much as I appreciate the need to set roadmaps, I would hesitate to call definitions ‘the biggest challenge’ in this domain, as you do. Unless perhaps you refer to the fact it is very difficult to achieve political consensus – though the recent OWG outcome of integrating sustainability targets and ending hunger and poverty into one set of recommended SDGs might prove you wrong…
ETC suggests to incorporate the rights angle taken by the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food – see http://www.srfood.org/en/official-reports. In his recent final report the rapporteur includes a sector-by-sector list of recommendations and in so doing addresses various points that are relevant for food security.
His conclusion says:
Texts such as the above in our opinion rightly stress the urgency of the matter and also convincingly argue that “business as usual” will not do.
The right to food sovereignty for every country should be anchored in the assumptions of Dutch agricultural policy. That means that a country’s right to produce food for their own population should be secured: without the disturbance of foreign food import (or dumping) to local markets.
The Dutch government should prevent that food surpluses are dumped on African markets and herewith not disturb local markets. Amongst other factors this could prevent unemployment in these local economies. Actors such as the Dutch LTO and the government should take example from the ABC-platform that consists of multiple famers organisations with a critical point of view from over the world.
The biggest challenges
Each year, an estimated 10 million hectares of land and 36 million kg of nutrients worth 40 billion US$ are lost due to careless land-management. Apart from all other issues related to (environmental) sustainability, land and water conservation, or even more so: soil restoration, is key to sustainable intensification. Soil degradation typically starts with excessive removal of organic matter from the soil through cultivation. This removal initiates a trickle down process eventually resulting in infertile and unproductive lands. The Netherlands has a key role in this process, because organic matter and nutrients from around the globe accumulate in countries strong in food processing, such as the Netherlands. To revert this trend, nutrients should be treated as valuable resources, which they are currently not, and nutrient depletion should be compensated for, like is done with other soil minerals like ores. Together with sound water conservation practices the food system will become more sustainable (with increased resource use efficiencies) in respect to expected climate changes.
The most effective intervention strategies
The value of nutrients can easily be linked to global fertilizer prices and the compensations can, and should, be used to set up local programs on i) capacity building on improved nutrient and organic matter management, and ii) local-regional re-use and re-allocation of nutrients. An elaborated approach of an improved re-use and re allocation system for nutrients is presented by the Fertile Grounds Initiative. This initiative aims to set up local-regional stakeholder networks for mobilizing organic and mineral sources of nutrients and bringing these together in site-specific formulas for best soil-crop response to nutrients. This intervention strategy can be coupled with land use planning at farm and watershed level to increase sustainability in the long run. This is only possible through collaboration with actors ranging from farmers to policymakers.
Relation to the strengths actors
The Netherlands is respected for its competence on water, integrated approaches and effective collaboration between the ministries, business community, knowledge institutes and civil society. These strengths provide the knowledge and skills to make a change through concerted action plans in both the Netherlands and abroad.
Policy implications
The Dutch Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Economic Affairs can strengthen this process by requiring sustainable soil management strategies in their food security and water management programs. Also, impacts of programs by the ministries on soil quality can be monitored and compensation mechanisms based on the values of nutrients can be implemented. Such an approach will repay itself through increased yields and thereby also contributes to Target 4 (100% increase in smallholder productivity and income).
I very much agree with Christy van Beek’s input above. But I would like to add the importance of soil structure and soil-water management, besides the emphasis on nutrients and organic matter. Even in the Netherlands we observe yield reductions up to 30% on fertile soils because of drought/excess water and/or soil structural detioration. Looking into the future, we see a changing climate and a growing demand for food, making effective and efficient use of scarcily available sweet water at the local level a prerequisite for sustainable food production systems!
In most cases systems, laws, politics, issues, are often designed and sometimes launched for their application. Habits, application measures, are respected and followed microscopically. But when sustainable accompanying measures and applications for the established system are not considered in all food systems it will be a vain effort.
Conception, planning and realisation for the achievement of results to that are applied after the execution period until the end are rare. The same goes for the necessary arousing and cultivating of effective and efficient monitoring for all involved: the beneficiaries, donors, government services.