Sie sind hier

futurepolicy

Newsfeed futurepolicy abonnieren
presenting sustainable policy solutions
Aktualisiert: vor 2 Tage 6 Stunden

Brazil’s National Policy for Agroecology and Organic Production (PNAPO)

28. November 2018 - 11:52

Developed as a result of strong civil society engagement and structured around seven comprehensive guidelines that encompass the most relevant aspects of sustainable food chains and systems, Brazil’s National Policy for Agroecology and Organic Production is a unique federal framework policy for the promotion of agroecology and organic production. It involves all relevant stakeholders and government bodies, creates important spaces for participatory planning, implementation and monitoring, and incorporates transdisciplinarity into Brazilian policymaking. In its first cycle of activities it led to impressive quantitative results in terms of advancing the agroecological agenda in the country (budget and initiative-wise), investing over EUR 364 million. With its multisectoral, transdisciplinary approach, its impressive achievements, and its respect for the Future Just Lawmaking Principles and Elements of Agroecology, Brazil’s PNAPO was recognized with the Future Policy Silver Award 2018, awarded by the World Future Council in partnership with FAO and IFOAM – Organics International.


© Photo Credit: AZA Brazil

At a Glance

  • The Brazilian agroecological movements seek to address the problems related to the environmental degradation caused by the Green Revolution and its impacts on food production.
  • PNAPO was constructed through major, bottom-up civil society efforts that created momentum and led to the Federal Decree No 7,794 adopted by President Dilma Rousseff in 20th August 2012.
  • PNAPO’s overall aim is to integrate and articulate policies, programmes and actions for the promotion of agroecological transition. It is governed by the Interministerial Chamber of Agroecology and Organic Production (CIAPO) and the National Commission of Agroecology and Organic Production (CNAPO), 50 per cent of which is civil society representatives.
  • One of the PNAPO’s main instruments is the National Plan for Agroecology and Organic Production (PLANAPO). In its first cycle of activities (2013-2015), PLANAPO set out 125 concrete initiatives and achieved significant progress towards agroecology. In 2016, the second cycle of the Plan (PLANAPO 2016-2019) was launched, with roughly 194 concrete initiatives; however budget cuts hamper its implementation.
  • PNAPO has led to visible large-scale improvements for smallholders and vulnerable groups in Brazil.

Policy Reference

Brazil’s National Policy for Agroecology and Organic Production (PNAPO, Política Nacional de Agroecologia e Produção Orgânica), 2012, full text available here.

Connected Policies

As PNAPO was designed to integrate and articulate policies and actions for agroecology and organic production, there are several other policies and laws within the Brazilian legal framework linked to it. Within this context, it is important to highlight those directly mentioned by the Federal Decree No 7,794, namely the Law No 10,831 of 23rd December 2003 (on organic agriculture), the Federal Decree No 5,153 of 23rd July 2004 (which regulates the National System of Seeds and Seedlings), the Law No 11,326 of 24th July 2006 (on the National Policy for Family Farming and Rural Family Units) and the Federal Decree No 6,323 of 27th December 2007 (which regulates the Law No 10,831 on organic agriculture). Adding to those, one can also point out the Law No 11,346 of 15th September 2006 (which established the National Food Nutrition and Security System), the Federal Decree No 6,040 of 7th February 2007 (on the National Policy for the Sustainable Development of Traditional Peoples and Communities), the Law No 11,947 of 16th June 2009 (on the School Feeding Programme), the Law No 12,188 of 11th January 2010 (on the National Policy for Technical Assistance and Rural Extension), the Federal Decree No 7,272 of 25th August 2010 (which created the National Policy for Food Nutrition and Safety and set out guidelines for the National Plan on Food Nutrition and Safety), the Federal Decree No 7,7352 of 4th November 2010 (on the National Program for Education in Agrarian Reform), and the Federal Decree No 8,553 of 3rd November 2015 (on the National Pact for Healthy Eating).

Selection as a Future-Just Policy

PNAPO’s first cycle of activities – PLANAPO 2013-2015 – resulted in a broad set of public actions, which led to remarkable, measureable results in terms of advancing the agroecological transition in Brazil (budget and initiative-wise). By 2015, PLANAPO had invested EUR 364 million (65 per cent) of its originally allocated budget (of over EUR 592.34 million) and achieved evident large-scale developments for smallholders and vulnerable groups in the country. For its remarkable accomplishments, Brazil’s policy won the Future Policy Silver Award 2018.

PNAPO succeeded as an exercise in public participation, articulating and strengthening the relationships of trust between and within Government Bodies, farmers and consumers, in addition to encouraging public-private partnerships around agroecology. It likewise contributed to the incorporation of agroecology into public policy planning at both the federal and subnational levels, as well to the development of transversal policies on food safety and nutrition and the environment.

The implementation of PNAPO is particularly effective as it is a multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholder interdisciplinary policy on a federal level, and it implements corresponding initiatives throughout the five Brazilian regions. Some programmes and initiatives already existed before its creation, but nonetheless, with the establishment of the Policy, those programmes have been strategically integrated into PNAPO’s general objectives and working plan.

Future-Just Policy Scorecard

Our “Best Policies” are those that meet the Future-Just Lawmaking Principles and recognise the interconnected challenges we face today. The goal of principled policy work is to ensure that important universal standards of sustainability and equity, human rights and freedoms, and respect for the environment are taken into account. It also helps to increase policy coherence between different sectors.

 

   Sustainable use of natural resources
  • Promotes socially inclusive and sustainable food production systems, free of pesticides and GMOs, sound water management, minimum use of external inputs.
  • Strong component for agrobiodiversity conservation and seed diversity.
  • Includes Cisterns Programme in the semi-arid and the Bioinsumos Programme which optimizes the use of natural resources and promoting nutrients recycling.
  • The first cycle of PLANAPO failed in including a thematic area for land and territories, which was later incorporated in PLANAPO 2016-2019.
   Equity and poverty eradication
  • PNAPO is the result of policymaking for poverty eradication.
  • Targets family farmers, women, youth, local and traditional communities, quilombolas (descendants of Afro-Brazilian slaves) and other vulnerable under-represented groups, empowering regional and local stakeholders and their networks.
  • CNAPO’s Subcommittee on Women provides inputs and demands in all areas.
  • Scaled up local agroecology projects, strengthened university spaces, supported agroecological & organic markets and events, local food chains.
   Precautionary approach
  • PNAPO and PLANAPO aim at reducing the use of agrochemicals and GMOs.
  • Created Health Monitoring Systems for Populations Exposed to Pesticides in all States plus the Federal District. Reports on pesticides in the water for consumption.
  • Co-creation of knowledge and support to local and traditional knowledge and innovation (e.g. public calls on traditional seeds, seed banks).
  • Due to political divergences, the National Plan for the Reduction of Agrochemicals and Use (which was extensively debated) was not implemented 2013-2015.
   Public participation, access to information and justice
  • Civil society was pushing for the policy & actively participated in the policy design.
  • 50% of CNAPO are civil society representatives and 50% from the government, guarantees multisectoral participation in PLANAPO implementation and monitoring.
  • CNAPO continuously monitors PLANAPO, including through specific assessments.
  • Budgets and information are published online (“Transparency Portal”, website).
  • CNAPO strengthened the relationship with the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office.
    Good governance and human security
  • Diverse ministries and government bodies implement PNAPO, surveilled by control bodies (Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office, Federal Policy, Federal Audit Court, amongst others).
  • CNAPO is a space for debates and solution thinking, and a type of ombudsman.
  • Recognize the role of smallholder producers (e.g. programmes for seed banks).
   Integration and interrelationship
  • Promotes inter-agency, interministerial and cross-sector consultation, planning and dialogue (CIAPO) and fosters dialogue and cooperation between government and civil society (CNAPO), advocating also for more exchange with the National Council on Food and Nutrition Security (CONSEA).
  • Offers a transdisciplinary approach and perspective to Brazilian policy-making, having social justice as one of the policy’s main guidelines and concerns.
  • In its first cycle, build trust between government, farmers and consumers.
  • CIAPO could allow for more civil society engagement in decision-making.
   Common but differentiated responsibilities
  • Takes into consideration diversity (biomes, climates & cultures). Several programmes are executed according to specific characteristics (e.g. semi-arid).
  • Regional distribution could be improved in implementation.
  • Promotes the use of alternative technologies (Segunda Água Programme).
  • Specific lines of financing and projects for under-represented groups (ATER, etc.)
  • Centers for Agroecology (NEA) provide free assistance.

Context

The National Policy for Agroecology and Organic Production (PNAPO) is a pioneer Brazilian national public policy on agroecology. It was enacted through a participatory process, in which civil society played a pivotal and leading role in pushing forward the agenda and in ensuring that some relevant demands were effectively included in the policy’s final text.

It is worthy of notice that the Brazilian agroecological movements encompass actors from multiple spheres of society, e.g. peasant youth and women, landless workers, traditional communities. They date back to the 1970’s social movement for an alternative agriculture, which was one of the first to formally address in country the problems related to the environmental degradation caused by the Green Revolution and its impacts on food production. This movement was then strengthened by the arrival in Brazil of specific scientific literature on agroecology and by the creation of certain organizations, such as the Advisory and Services for Projects in Alternative Agriculture (AS-PTA), the National Articulation of Agroecology (ANA) and the Brazilian Association of Agroecology (ABA).

In the mid-1990s, “the Brazilian agroecological movement made significant strides, gaining ground among social movements, NGOs, higher education and research institutions, as well as in technical support and rural extension programs”. Agroecological demands have thus acquired momentum in the country over the past fifteen years as a result of the convergence and coordination of social movements related to ecological production, the arduous and extensive work of NGOs dedicated to agroecology and the organization of several regional and national events that have brought together stakeholders from civil society, academia and the Government, such as the Regional Seminars  promoted by ANA in 2011, the Regional and National Meetings on Agroecology (ERAs and ENAs) and the National Conferences on Agroecology (CBA).

The PNAPO was hence adopted by President Dilma Rousseff in 20th August 2012, by means of the Federal Decree No 7,794. It is relevant to point out that within the Technical Board for Organics (CT-ORG) there was in the early 2010s a proposal to create a national policy on organic agriculture. However, with the decision of the President to establish a policy on agroecology, both issues were incorporated into the same agenda.

During the enactment process of the National Policy, the most relevant spaces for dialogue between the Government and civil society were the five Regional Seminars (from February to April 2012) and the National Seminar (May 2012) entitled “For a National Policy on Agroecology and Organic Production” jointly organized by ANA and ABA with the support of the Ministry of the Environment (MMA).

Based on these discussions, ANA formulated the document “Proposals of the National Articulation of Agroecology for the National Policy on Agroecology and Organic Production”, which proposed to the Interministerial Working Group in charge of PNAPO a series of guidelines, objectives and instruments for the PNAPO. Likewise, in May 2012, the National Council on Food and Nutrition Security (CONSEA) forwarded to the Presidency the Explanatory Memorandum No 005-2012, supporting the approval and effective implementation of PNAPO, and stressing priorities regarding food and nutrition security, such as the implementation of a National Plan for the Reduction of Agrochemicals Use in Brazil.

Given all that, in May 2012, the meeting “Dialogues between Government and Civil Society” was held by the Federal Government to engage civil society in the draft of the latest version of PNAPO’s text. It is relevant to stress that not all the civil society priorities and demands were in fact incorporated into the definitive text of Decree No 7,794. Nonetheless, PNAPO still represented a milestone in Brazilian policies for rural development and an accomplishment of the Brazilian agroecological social movements. All in all, PNAPO has established at the national level a set of provisions and guidelines regarding the promotion of agroecology, outlining a legal and political pathway for the promotion of more sustainable, socially inclusive, environmentally friendly food production systems in the country.

Objectives

The PNAPO’s main goal is to “integrate, articulate and adequate policies, programs and actions for the promotion of agroecological transition and of organic and agroecological production, contributing to sustainable development and the population’s wellbeing through the sustainable use of natural resources and the offer and consumption of healthy food” (Article 1 of Federal Decree 7,794).

The Policy was built around seven guidelines, namely (1) the promotion of food sovereignty, food safety and nutrition and the human right to food through the offer of organic and agroecological products, (2) the sustainable use of natural resources, respecting labor regulations and improving workers’ wellbeing; (3) the conservation of natural ecosystems and the recovery of modified ecosystems through systems based on natural resources and methods and techniques that reduce waste generation and minimize dependence on external outputs, (4) the promotion of just and sustainable food production, distribution and consumption systems, supporting family farmers, (5) the promotion of socio- and agrobiodiversity, encouraging local initiatives of use and conservation of genetic resources, (6) the participation of rural youth in organic and agroecological production, and (7) the reduction of gender inequalities (Article 3 of Federal Decree 7,794).

Beneficiaries of the policy are “Family farmers, settlers in general and settlers of the land reform, traditional peoples and communities, including rural youth and their economic organizations that may want to strength or to modify their productive practices into agroecological or organic productions”.

Methods of Implementation

Responsible for the implementation of PNAPO are the Interministerial Chamber of Agroecology and Organic Production (CIAPO) and the National Commission of Agroecology and Organic Production (CNAPO):

  • The CIAPO is the government body composed of nine Ministries and six invited Independent State Agencies. It is coordinated by the Special Secretariat for Family Farming and Agrarian Development (SEAD), which also provides technical and administrative support. CIAPO’s attributions are: building up and executing the National Plan for Agroecology and Organic Production (PLANAPO), coordinating the Government Bodies and Entities committed to PNAPO’s implementation, promoting liaison among and with State, District and Municipal Bodies and reporting to the CNAPO on the monitoring of the PLANAPO.
  • The CNAPO, on the other hand, represents the government-civil society liaison. It is composed of fourteen representatives from the public administration and fourteen representatives from civil society organizations, each one with a designated alternate representative. It is coordinated by the Secretariat of Government of the Presidency of the Republic (Segov), through the National Office of Social Articulation (SNAS), which also provides technical and administrative support. A wide range of civil society organizations is currently active in the Commission, among them are ANA, ABA, CONSEA, AS-PTA, ABRASCO, AbraBio, ASA, Ecovida Agroecology Network, MST, MMC, and CONTAG. CNAPO’s attributions are: facilitating civil society participation and surveillance of the PNAPO and PLANAPO, establishing thematic subcommittees on issues of interest, offering advice on the PLANAPO’s guidelines, objectives, priorities and instruments to the Federal Government and fostering dialogue across stakeholders for policy implementation.

The National Policy has been implemented in Brazil since 2012, aiming at fostering sustainable agricultural practices and healthy food consumption habits; empowering family farmers, traditional communities, women and youth; and promoting sustainable rural development through specific programs and financing for smallholder farming. It is a multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholder interdisciplinary policy on a federal level, whose initiatives have been implemented throughout the five Brazilian regions, with verifiable results.

Some programmes and initiatives currently included in the flagship of PNAPO already existed before its creation. Nonetheless, with the establishment of the policy and the creation of CNAPO, those programmes have been strategically articulated and integrated into PNAPO’s general objectives and working plan, guaranteeing more participative planning, implementation and monitoring processes.

One of the PNAPO’s main instruments is the National Plan for Agroecology and Organic Production (PLANAPO), which must always include at least the following elements: overview/diagnosis, strategies and goals, programmes, projects, actions, indicators, deadlines and a management structure (Article 5 of Federal Decree 7,794). Other instruments of the Policy are: rural credit, insurance, price regulation and compensation, government purchases, tax and fiscal measures, research and innovation, technical assistance and rural extension, vocational training and education, control mechanisms, monitoring and evaluation systems (Article 4 of Federal Decree 7,794).

It is worthy of notice that the PLANAPO adopts PNAPO’s guidelines, is currently in its second cycle and has been developed with a broad participation of civil society, altogether with the National Policy. The main goals and initiatives of PLANAPO are to strengthen agroecological and organic production networks, increase the supply of Technical Assistance and Rural Extension (ATER), focusing on agroecological practices; increase access to water and seeds, strengthen government procurement of products, increase consumers’ access to healthy food, without the use of agrochemicals or transgenics in agricultural production, thus strengthening the economic value of the farming families. In addition, it seeks to expand access to land and territories, as a means of promoting the ethnic-development of traditional peoples and communities, indigenous peoples and settlers of agrarian reform, as well as supporting the production, processing, storage, distribution and marketing of products socio-biodiversity and the expansion of its visibility and consumption.

The first cycle of the Plan (PLANAPO 2013-2015), which covered the period from 2013 to 2015, was structured around fourteen goals and six objectives within four broad thematic areas: (1) Production, (2) Use and Conservation of Natural Resources, (3) Knowledge and (4) Marketing and Consumption. It set out 125 concrete initiatives to be implemented by the Government in partnership with relevant stakeholders. Despite “civil society proposals have not been fully included in the final version of the document, there is a general consensus on the fact that the Plan marks an historic moment, an important step forward in the direction of a more sustainable peasant agriculture, especially in a country such as Brazil where the agribusiness model still keeps on maintaining a great influence on government policies, due to its economic importance”.

According to ANA, there are several good points to be highlighted in the first PLANAPO (2013-2015). Among the positive aspects are the actions that had a budget for implementation and which made an important contribution to the advancement of agroecology. Some of them already existed beforehand, but with the policy, they were planned, executed and monitored in a more participative way, being strategically articulated with the general objectives of the policy. These include: The Agroecology Studies Centers involving teachers, students and community in teaching, research and extension actions, programmes to coexist with the semi-arid region aimed at the construction of rainwater harvesting and storage structures for food production, the Food Acquisition Programme (PAA) through which the National Food Supply Company (CONAB) purchases food directly from family farmers for donation to entities that work with social assistance, as well as the Public Notices for Technical Assistance and Rural Extension which have enabled organizations in the agroecological field to expand their technical staff on an unprecedented scale and to involve a larger public of farmers in the agroecological innovation local networks. Although the policy instruments have remained primarily driven by the logic of technology diffusion, the dialogues between government and society have had some important results, such as greater participation of women farmers, with the consequent visibility of the work done by them, and the opening up for the incorporation of participatory methodologies in the projects. On the other hand, the time required to respond to the administrative tasks of executing the contracts and the maintenance of the individualized technical assistance logic has in many cases hampered the organizations’ ability to energize local networks and strengthen farmers’ organizations. Last but not least, the number of new phytosanitary products registered for use in organic agriculture was also important. Since the creation of the policy, a number of initiatives have emerged and were implemented. These include the Ecoforte Programme aimed at strengthening territorial networks of agroecology and the Semi-Arid Seeds Programme, which supported the structuring and/or construction of 640 traditional Community Seed Banks. Among the negative aspects of the first PLANAPO are the very small budget for policies such as the Ecoforte Programme and Technical Assistance and Rural Extension, the non-establishment of the National Programme for the Reduction of the Use of Agrochemicals (PRONARA, already prepared and approved within CNAPO), as well as the absence of the Land and Territory component and actions involving agrarian reform and the recognition of the territorial rights of traditional peoples.

In 2016, the second cycle of the Plan (PLANAPO 2016-2019) was launched, taking into consideration the challenges and progress of the previous cycle, and further advancing the established programmes. It set out roughly 194 concrete initiatives and established 30 goals and seven objectives within six broad thematic areas, adding “Land and Territory”, and “Socio-biodiversity” to those already covered by the first cycle. Likewise, it was aligned and synchronized to the Brazilian Plurennial Plan (PPA, Plano Plurianual) 2016-2019.

For the implementation of PLANAPO 2016-2019, a close dialogue and articulation with the States and Municipalities are sought, in order to integrate sectoral policies to encourage, strengthen and expand organic and agroecological production systems with the planning and implementation of local policies. Regarding monitoring mechanisms, the PLANAPO 2016-2019 adopted the following framework and structures:

  • Working Group within CNAPO, composed of representatives from the Government and Civil Society, which defines monitoring and assessment mechanisms, methodologies and instruments.
  • Implementation reports to facilitate the follow-up of PLANAPO’s projects, programmes and actions, which will be based on information on the indicators established by the PLANAPO provided by the Ministries represented at CIAPO.
  • Annual report on the physical and financial execution of the PLANAPO presented by CIAPO to CNAPO.
  • Continuous monitoring, following-up and assessment by CNAPO of the evolution of the programmes and actions set out by the PLANAPO.
  • Liaison with councils, commissions and other National, State and Municipal Bodies related to PLANAPO’s scope, facilitating the exchange of information.
  • Territorial monitoring.

Impact

The first cycle of the PLANAPO (2013-2015) resulted in a broad set of public actions, involving the allocation of more than EUR 592.34 million to its initiatives (of which 65 per cent or about EUR 364 million were financially implemented by 2015). 61.24 per cent of allocated resources were assigned to production. Of the 89 initiatives that had budgetary provision, the following 15 accounted for 95 per cent of resources: Segunda Água Programme (1.4 billion BRL), National School Feeding Programme (317 million BRL), ATER (489 million BRL), education on agroecology (109 million BRL), research (34 million BRL), Ecoforte (32 million BRL), farmer training (25 million BRL), seeds (34 million BRL), and health surveillance plans (22 million BRL).

PLANAPO led to impressive quantitative results in terms of advancing the agroecological agenda in Brazil. Among the numerous important outcomes of PLANAPO 2013-2015 and PNAPO we can highlight that it constructed 143,000 cisterns (initial goal was 60,000); assisted 5,300 municipalities to spend 30 per cent or more of their school meal programme budget on purchases of organic and agroecological products from family farmers (some municipalities even reach 100 per cent); assisted 393 rural family farming organizations; launched several public calls that enabled agroecological organizations to expand their staff on an unprecedented scale benefitting about 132,744 farming families; trained 7,722 technicians (initial goal was 2,000) and 52,779 farmers (one third of initial goal of 182,000); promoted 24 networks for agroecology; trained 960 professionals and political leaders on financing women in organic and agroecological agriculture, which benefitted 5,200 rural women in 20 different Brazilian States; supported 556 women’s networks, benefitting 5,566 rural women; adapted 600 native seeds banks to semiarid conditions and trained more than 12,000 farmers families hereon; and financed nine projects for seeds for agroecology.

Currently Brazil is facing a rather intricate political and economic situation. PNAPO’s second cycle, PLANAPO 2016-2019, is still ongoing, but due to political turmoil in the country and a severe economic crisis (2014-2016), it faces drastic budget cuts that hamper its implementation. Nonetheless, much was achieved and PNAPO’s bodies have continued working and secured some funding.

Potential as a Transferable Model

According to Costa et al, “Brazil was the first country in the world to implement a National Policy for Agroecology and Organic Production”. It is therefore worthy of notice that the Policy has been widely implemented in the country, succeeding as a good example of a multi-sectoral public policy, despite the challenges it still faces. Furthermore, PNAPO has served as inspiration for Brazilian States (such as Minas Gerais, Rio Grande do Sul, Goiás, São Paulo and Amazonas), the Federal District and Municipalities to elaborate their own state and municipal policies, following the guidelines of the National Policy and adapting them to their own realities and necessities. Hence PNAPO is likely suitable to be transferred to other situations. Indeed, there were many exchanges with other Latin American countries, thanks to (and within) REAF – Rede Especializada da Agricultura Familiar. Within this context, a number of the strategies, initiatives and programmes set out by and developed under the umbrella of the PNAPO, such as the Segunda Água Programme and the public calls for ATER, are highly transferable to other countries with common characteristics and issues, with emphasis to those from the global south with large agricultural areas. In particular, Brazil’s National School Feeding Programme has been recognized by various actors (UNDP, WFP, FAO) and has spiked interest from governments in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Additional Resources

Ministry of Agrarian Development (in Portuguese)

Presidency of the Republic, Brazil’s Federal Decree No. 7,794 on the National Policy for Agroecology and Organic Production (Política Nacional de Agroecologia e Produção Orgânica, short PNAPO), 2012 (Full text in Portuguese)

Ministry of Agrarian Development, National Plan for Agroecology and Organic Production (PLANAPO 2013-2015), 2013 (Booklet in Portuguese)

Ministry of Agrarian Development, National Plan for Agroecology and Organic Production (PLANAPO 2016-2019), 2016 (Booklet in Portuguese)

List of members of the Interministerial Chamber of Agroecology and Production Organic – CIAPO (In Portuguese)

List of members of the National Commission of Agroecology and Organic Production – CNAPO (In Portuguese)

Ministry of Agrarian Development, PLANAPO 2013-2015 Assessment Report (Relatório de balanço 2013-2015), 2016 (In Portuguese)

Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada (IPEA), Evaluation of the implementation of the National Plan on Agroecology and Organic Production (PLANAPO 2013-2015), (In Portuguese)

The post Brazil’s National Policy for Agroecology and Organic Production (PNAPO) appeared first on futurepolicy.org.

Kategorien: english

Quito’s Participatory Urban Agriculture Programme (AGRUPAR)

22. November 2018 - 16:17

Launched in the aftermath of a deep economic crisis and set up on the basis of a broad urban consultation, Quito’s Participatory Urban Agriculture Programme promotes the production, processing, marketing and distribution of healthy organic food from urban and peri-urban gardens in the Metropolitan District of Quito. In its 16 years of existence, AGRUPAR has continuously expanded and considerably advanced food security, job creation, income generation, environmental management, gender equity, social inclusion of vulnerable groups such as women, elderly and migrants, and micro-entrepreneurship. Due to its impressive socioeconomic and environmental impact, its participatory and holistic approach involving the most vulnerable groups, and its full respect for the Future Justice Principles and Elements of Agroecology, AGRUPAR was recognized with the Future Policy Silver Award 2018, awarded by the World Future Council in partnership with FAO and IFOAM – Organics International.

At a Glance

  • Quito’s AGRUPAR Programme was launched in 2002 in the aftermath of a deep economic crisis, due to which 48 per cent of the population of the city were living below the poverty line.
  • AGRUPAR’s aim is to improve the life of the most vulnerable groups – foremost women, elderly and persons with disabilities, but also unemployed, refugees, migrants and indigenous people – through agricultural activities to advance food security and food sovereignty, improved incomes, job creation, environmental management, gender equity, social inclusion and the generation of productive activities.
  • The Programme works along the entire food chain and focuses on producing, processing and distributing healthy food from urban and peri-urban gardens. It provides technical assistance and capacity-building; creation of production infrastructures and livestock improvement; management of micro-entrepreneurship; marketing and promotion; access to microcredit; and applied research to facilitate agroecology.
  • In the past 16 years, AGRUPAR has achieved significant improvements in access to and local availability of healthy food for vulnerable groups (both producer and consumer families), increases in income and conversion of abandoned and waste spaces to productive land.

Policy Reference

Quito’s Participatory Urban Agriculture Programme (Programa de Agricultura Urbana Participativa, short AGRUPAR), Ecuador, 2002

Connected Policies

Constitution of Ecuador of 2008

Organic Agriculture Law of 2007

Food Sovereignity Law of 2009

National Plan for Good Living of 2013

Plan of Development for the Metropolitan District of Quito of 2015

Quito’s Resilience Strategy

Quito’s Climate Action Plan

Municipal ordinance No. 084 on Social Responsibility

Municipal ordinance No. 048 on Urban Fauna

Selection as a Future-Just Policy

AGRUPAR shows how an integrated approach can lead to great success. It explicitly recognizes and formulates the role of urban agriculture for wider social, ecological and economic policy aims, and works along the entire food chain, from production to promoting value-adding entrepreneurial activities, from marketing and establishing dedicated commercialization channels, to food waste reduction.

In its 16 years of existence, the Programme has expanded and considerably advanced food security, job creation, income generation, environmental management, gender equity, social inclusion and micro-entrepreneurship. For its noteworthy accomplishments, Quito’s programme won the Future Policy Silver Award 2018.

Future-Just Policy Scorecard

Our “Best Policies” are those that meet the Future-Just Lawmaking Principles and recognise the interconnected challenges we face today. The goal of principled policy work is to ensure that important universal standards of sustainability and equity, human rights and freedoms, and respect for the environment are taken into account. It also helps to increase policy coherence between different sectors.

 

   Sustainable use of natural resources
  • Promotes organic agriculture, recycling, composting, rainwater harvesting amongst others.
  • Enhances biodiversity, integrates small livestock and uses no pesticides or GMOs.
  • Produces nutritious and culturally adapted food, and creates reen spaces in town.
   Equity and poverty eradication
  • Focuses on vulnerable groups, i.e. women (84%), elderly (27%), etc..
  • Educates, empowers and boosts livelihoods.
  • Enhances integration of marginalized groups and their recognition.
  • Links consumers and producers, uses local knowledge and materials, and innovates.
   Precautionary approach
  • Prevents the expansion of export-oriented cultures (which use agro-chemicals).
  • Produces according to Ecuadorian Organic Agriculture Law of 2007, e.g. there is certification and control.
  • Offers affordable healthy food.
  • Raises awareness and contributed to the rescue of traditional Andean crops.
   Public participation, access to information and justice
  • Developed in a participatory, urban consultation, involving many actors including entrepreneurs.
  • Participants are active partners and shareholders.
  • Works very transparently, offers access to information and undertakes excellent data collection.
    Good governance and human security
  • Good governance, e.g. politicians were not allowed to use the AGRUPAR in elections.
  • Cooperates with many NGOs and mobilizes other sectors within the municipality.
  • Recognizes urban farmers as guardians of natural heritage and biodiversity.
  • More has to be done on securing access to land.
   Integration and interrelationship
  • Addresses transversal aspects, incl. economic development, and is multifunctional.
  • Is included in the developement plan of Quito, its strategic vision 2040, and the Climate Change Plan; and at the national level it was part of INTI.
  • Very adapted to the way of life in West Africa.
   Common but differentiated responsibilities
  • Promotes urban production, thereby food sovereignty of marginalized people.
  • Focuses on the city’s needs, to produce food with local materials and resources.
  • Highly inclusive: no cost for vulnerable groups and very low cost for others.

Context

Between 1980 and 2000, the arrival waves of migrants from other parts of the country almost doubled Quito’s population, from 780 000 to 1.4 million. In inner-city barrios and settlements built on surrounding hillsides, many people resorted to small-scale agriculture, based on conventional practices, to feed their families. This meant that urban agriculture in Quito became widespread, but was unrecognized. With its geographic position and mountainous topography, Quito is highly vulnerable to climatic changes, already experiencing higher average temperatures, an overall decrease in rainfall, and more extreme rain events, which cause landslides. In the late 1990s, Ecuador suffered a severe economic crisis, which resulted in a sharp drop in public spending and an increase in internal migration and emigration. In 1999, 48 per cent of Quito’s population was living below the poverty line. The city urgently needed to address overcrowding and food insecurity.

In 2000, Ecuador’s capital hosted a meeting of local government representatives from Latin America and the Caribbean. The outcome of this event was the landmark Quito Declaration, the first to call on the region’s cities “to embrace urban agriculture”. In the same year, an urban consultation on agriculture was organized by Quito, resulting in a pilot programme, launched in September 2000 and co-funded by the municipality and international partners, which increased food production in home gardens, promoted the recycling of organic waste, and established a community plant nursery. It also developed a microcredit system and implemented projects for processing and marketing produce.

The lessons learned were used to develop a municipal programme aimed at improving the food security of vulnerable populations in Quito’s urban, peri-urban and rural areas. The Participatory Urban Agriculture Programme (AGRUPAR) was launched in 2002 and was initially managed by the city’s Directorate for Sustainable Human Development. Since 2005, AGRUPAR has been implemented by the Economic Development Agency (CONQUITO), whose mandate is to create an entrepreneurial, sustainable and innovative city. Today, AGRUPAR is one of CONQUITO’s most successful initiatives. Key moments in its development over the years were the launch of the bioferias (bio-fairs) in 2006, the organic certification for garden groups from 2007 (renewed every year), and the certification of labour competencies of urban farmers from 2009 and 2012, with the help of the Ministry of Social Development and funding from the National Technical Secretariat for Training and Education. In 2010, the project was recognized within the organizational structure of CONQUITO and since then has received exclusive municipal funds for its execution. In 2012, a Resolution conferred more formality to the execution of AGRUPAR within CONQUITO, meaning that urban agriculture in Quito is now institutionalized as a permanent service. In 2013, a Collective of Urban Farmers (3,000 members) was formed.

Objectives

AGRUPAR improves the quality of life of vulnerable groups in the Metropolitan District Municipality of Quito (DMQ) through agricultural activities which advance food security and food sovereignty, improved incomes, job creation, environmental management, gender equity, social inclusion and the generation of productive activities, by producing, processing and distributing healthy food from urban and peri-urban gardens.

Its objectives are: 1. Strengthen technical capacities of (peri-)urban farmers; 2. Increase agricultural production and agribusiness in a sustainable way with a focus on micro-management; 3. Connect this production with markets (short chains); 4. Strengthen community organizations; 5. Promote self-managed community banks; 6. Improve public policy.

Especially targeted are female-headed households, the elderly, children and youth, social and rehabilitation centres, migrants and education units, amongst others. Participants are from poverty quintiles 1 and 2, the level of education is low, and 30 per cent receive government human development vouchers.

Methods of Implementation

Responsible for policy is the Metropolitan District Municipality of Quito (DMQ). AGRUPAR is implemented through Quito’s Metropolitan Economic Development Agency (CONQUITO), reporting to the Secretary of Productivity and Competitiveness of the DMQ, with the engagement of NGOs, academia and students.

AGRUPAR’s implementation strategies are the following: technical assistance and capacity-building; creation of production infrastructures and livestock improvement; management of micro-entrepreneurship; marketing and promotion; access to microcredit; and applied research.

The Programme has four main axes:

  1. Support for urban, community and institutional gardening for home consumption and the sale of leftovers. People are trained in organic production, management skills, nutrition, food processing and marketing. AGRUPAR provides producers with seeds, seedlings, poultry, guinea pigs, bees, inputs and equipment. It supports community gardens, family gardens and gardens in schools and other institutions, as well as small livestock production units. It also promotes vertical farming. Community gardens are established on communal land, or on land that the municipality rents out for a minimal price to growers, and receive an organic certification by AGRUPAR, whilst family gardens are established on individually owned land. Not all orchards require an official organic certification, for example the orchards intended for family self-care do not require this process. For this reason, the project has implemented an internal control system (SIC, which is very similar to a system of participatory guarantees) for all orchards (certified or not) to ensure compliance with Ecuadorian organic production regulations. It should be noted that that AGRUPAR does not provide official land titles. In 2018, AGRUPAR plans to open an additional 200 gardens.
  2. Support for market-oriented local production in the DMQ region. Once producers achieve household food security, AGRUPAR encourages them to form microenterprises and trains them in business planning, marketing and accounting. The microenterprises are not only engaged in the production of vegetables, fruits, small animals, fish and ornamental plants, but also in the processing of jams, cookies, yogurt, cheese, drinks and traditional snacks. Producers who lack the necessary capital are supported through grass-roots investment societies, where each member contributes USD 10 to 20.
  3. Food supply and distribution. Food is sold in organic produce markets – the bioferias –located in low-income neighbourhoods and peri-urban zones, as well as in better-off parts of the city. As well, the District Trade Coordination Agency has begun to consider the large-scale commercialization of agro-ecological and organic foods through its markets and opened a first market of this kind, including for farmers supported by AGRUPAR. To help producers meet food quality and safety standards, AGRUPAR has introduced improved processing technologies and the use of containers, packaging and labels. To ensure quality of production, the bio-fairs are only open to producers who have followed the Programme. In addition to the bio-fairs, networks of farmers have been formed to deliver organic produce directly to local food processing companies and to hotels and restaurants. AGRUPAR is registered as a producer and marketer of organic produce at the national level allowing it to share the cost of product certification with participating producers.
  4. Promotion of food consumption, healthy diets and nutrition through bio-fairs and education. The DMQ’s annual contribution to AGRUPAR meets the cost of training, technical advice and logistics. It also covers part of the costs of seeds, inputs, equipment and the supply of animals to participating producers, with producers also contributing from their own means. While the local government remains the primary source of funding, around 25-33 per cent of the investment in productive infrastructure – such as greenhouses and small sheds for animal husbandry – is contributed by participating farmers. Participants also pay a symbolic price of USD 1 per training session and USD 2 for a technical assistance visit, with pensioners, children, people with disabilities and other vulnerable groups exempted from such payments.

Budget: Since 2010, AGRUPAR has had its own budget within the annual operational plan of CONQUITO. In 2018, its budget is USD 283,336, mainly financed by the DMQ (about USD 255,842) and a self-management fund (sale of services, about USD 27,495). Ninety per cent of the budget is allocated to financing the technical team, the remainder is used for organic certification, developing the Food Policy of Quito, the Interpretation Center for Urban Agriculture of Quito, communication, and technical assistance.

 

Impact

Over its 16 years of existence, AGRUPAR has achieved impressive results. As of 2018, it reaches 4,500 beneficiaries from highly vulnerable populations annually and covers 83 per cent of the district. Since its establishment, the Programme has: directly benefitted 73,936 people and indirectly helped a further 113,774; implemented a total of 3,679 urban gardens, covering 32 hectares, of which 60 per cent are family gardens and 26 per cent are managed by 380 organized groups (with 1,520 participants); incorporated 21,746 persons in trainings, of which 84 per cent were women; organized 16,172 technical trainings and 81,886 cases of technical assistance; and built 2,051 productive infrastructures (1,072 micro-greenhouses and 979 drip irrigation systems).

Today AGRUPAR’s participants annually produce more than 960,000 kg of food products. Almost half of the production (47 per cent) is used for home consumption, strengthening food security and diversifying the diets of the 12,000 participating urban farmers and their families, while the other half is marketed. The Programme created 17 bio-fairs where 105 types of food are offered. Through these, 25% of the produce is commercialized, for about USD 350,000 per year. Since 2007, a total of 6,663 bio-fairs have been organized and all produce is organic. Both formal organic certification for orchards with marketing possibilities (since 2007) and the internal control system (SIC, since 2013) are used. As of 2010, the Programme had created five associations of producers and therefore generated better opportunities for the commercialization of products. Moreover, 48 community banks were created to provide credit services to participants.

Besides strengthening food security, AGRUPAR improves the incomes of vulnerable groups. Half of the participants generate revenue as well as employment. Around 177 started entrepreneurships, of which 104 are formalized. On average their income is USD 3,100 per year and, since 2016, they have created 337 jobs. On average producers benefit from USD 175 of additional income per month. Total savings are more than three times the value of the government human development voucher (USD 50 a month). However, most of 480 participants surveyed in 2010 said that for them the increased quality of life, improved nutrition and health, and personal empowerment were even more important. It is noteworthy that AGRUPAR enjoys a high acceptance among its beneficiaries (over 91 per cent).

AGRUPAR also promotes healthy diets and sustainability. Nearly 170,000 consumers have attended the bio-fairs and were sensibilized on healthy diets and nutrition. Surveys have identified increased dietary diversity among producers and their families. Among the environmental benefits are land rehabilitation (about 32 hectares) and soil protection thanks to organic production, climate resilience and water savings through adapted production techniques, including small greenhouses, drip irrigation, rainwater harvesting, and reforestation, less pollution as urban food production has fewer transport, refrigeration and packaging needs, increased organic waste recycling (0.65 tonnes of waste per family per year) and enhanced biodiversity (e.g. 72 edible plant species are maintained in gardens).

In sum, the improvements in access to and local availability of healthy food for vulnerable groups (both producer and consumer families) can be considered the main impact of the programme. Increases in income, personal empowerment and improved relations within the family as well as the community are other important impacts, as is the conversion of abandoned and waste spaces to productive land.

Potential as a Transferable Model

AGRUPAR could well serve as a model for other cities and form the basis for a national policy on local production. CONQUITO has favoured observation tours and exchanges of experiences as well as transfer of methodologies, including among ministries and NGOs, for example the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Aquaculture and Fisheries and the Peace Corps.

Since 2015, AGRUPAR contributed to both the City Region Food Systems Project of FAO and the RUAF Foundation, which evaluated Quito’s food system. As a result, AGRUPAR staff decided to work towards a food policy for the city in a more systemic sense, within which urban agriculture is a strategic activity.

Additional Resources

CONQUITO, Programa de Agricultura Urbana Participativa (AGRUPAR) Website,  (in Spanish)

FAO, Growing greener cities, 2014 (in English)

FAO, Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture in Latin America and the Caribbean – Quito, 2014 (in English)

GIZ-RUAF-FAO, City Region Food Systems and Food Waste Management, Linking Urban and Rural Areas for Sustainable and Resilient Development, 2016 (in English)

Ministerio de Fomento, 6. Catálogo Iberoamericano y del Caribe de Buenas Prácticas, 2015 (in Spanish)

Fondazione Giangiacomo Feltrinelli, Milan Urban Food Policy Pact, Selected Good Practices from Cities, 2015 (in English)

Isabelle Anguelovski, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Building the Resilience of Vulnerable Communities in Quito: Adapting local food systems to climate change, in: Urban Agriculture magazine, No. 22, 2009 (in English)

Quito Secretaria General del Concejo, Acta Resumida de la Sesión ordinaria de la Comisión de Desarrollo Económico, Productividad, Competitividad y Económie Popular y Solidaria, 6.8.2014 (in Spanish)

The post Quito’s Participatory Urban Agriculture Programme (AGRUPAR) appeared first on futurepolicy.org.

Kategorien: english

Ndiob’s Agriculture Development Programme

22. November 2018 - 15:10

Thanks to a very engaged Mayor, Municipal Council and local community, Ndiob became the first city in Senegal to embark on an agroecological transition. After formulating a vision to become a green municipality through a process of economic and social development and welfare, inclusive and respectful for human rights, in particular towards vulnerable communities, in 2014 Ndiob established CAPCOMMUN – a Group of Friends and Partners. In 2017, a large community consultation took place, during which citizens from 18 villages across Ndiob formulated their Agriculture Development Programme. As a result, Ndiob invests nowadays a notable 23 per cent of its budget into developing agroecology, undertaking a series of appropriate and adequate measures to sustainably manage its natural resources and to achieve food security. With its community-based multi-stakeholder territorial approach and respect of the Future-Just Lawmaking Principles and Elements of Agroecology, Ndiob’s political strategies were recognized with an Honourable Mention of the Future Policy Award 2018, awarded by the World Future Council in partnership with FAO and IFOAM – Organics International.

At a Glance

  • Ndiob’s Vision to become a green municipality triggered the establishment of CAPCOMMUN in 2014 and the formulation of the Agriculture Development Programme in 2017.
  • The main aim is to initiate a process of biodiversity restoration and the implementation of agricultural production systems that ensure resilience, local self-subsistence and respect for the environment.
  • Today Ndiob is promoting organic and agroecological agriculture and food production, processing and distribution in an impressive way, investing 23 per cent of its total budget in 2017-18, aiming to achieve food self-sufficiency.
  • Ndiob also encourages and works with other mayors through the Network of Green Municipalities and Cities of Senegal (Réseau des Communes et Villes vertes du Sénégal, REVES).

Policy Reference

Ndiob’s vision to become a green and resilient municipality, through a process of economic and social development and welfare, that is inclusive and respectful of human rights, in particular towards vulnerable communities, CAPCOMMUN, as well as Agriculture Development Programme, Senegal, 2014-2017

Connected Policies

General Law of Local Entities (Code général des Collectivités Locales), 2013

PRACAS Programme (Relance et Accélération de la Cadence de l’Agriculture), part of the Emerging Senegal Plan (Plan Sénégal Emergent).

Selection as a Future-Just Policy

Investing EUR 42,000 or a notable 23 per cent of its 2017-2018 total budget into developing agroecology, Ndiob has undertaken a series of appropriate and adequate measures to sustainably manage its natural resources and to achieve food security, including by strengthening the skills of farmers for good control of good agricultural practices and the provision of quality seeds. For instance, it planted 7 ha of millet, with which it will achieve self-sufficiency in certified seeds (about 10 tonnes) in 2018, and it planted 300 ha of millet in ecological agriculture (about 450 tonnes), ensuring food self-sufficiency to 300 families. The target is that the Ndiop community will be self-sufficient in millet production by 2020. For these and other remarkable accomplishments, Ndiob’s political measures for agroecology were recognized with an Honourable Mention of the Future Policy Award 2018.

Ndiob’s Agricultural Development Programme of 2017 was designed in a particularly inclusive way, with the people involved in all phases, from the diagnosis/analysis to implementation. The Programme includes one priority for each of the five regions: food security, management of natural resources, soil fertility, livestock breeding and farming and agriculture.

Future-Just Policy Scorecard

Our “Best Policies” are those that meet the Future-Just Lawmaking Principles and recognise the interconnected challenges we face today. The goal of principled policy work is to ensure that important universal standards of sustainability and equity, human rights and freedoms, and respect for the environment are taken into account. It also helps to increase policy coherence between different sectors.

 

   Sustainable use of natural resources
  • Vision is to transfer community to agroecology.
  • Use of compost, while fighting soil degradation and salination.
  • Food production based on agriculture, animal/poultry breeding and use of local ponds.
   Equity and poverty eradication
  • The programme has been developed based on community inputs.
  • It is a good way to remove inequalities as it promotes jobs and an economic outlook.
  • Women are participating, but still should be given more recognition.
   Precautionary approach
  • Agroecology is seen as an approach to protect human health, natural resources and ecosystems.
  • Based on traditional, local knowledge, but there is also interest to integrate expertise from research insitutes, especially in the area of erosion protection.
   Public participation, access to information and justice
  • The programme has been developed directly with the involved communities.
    Good governance and human security
  • As it is a local programme, it is in principle very transparent.
  • A lot of power and responsibility rests with the Mayor to realize the implementation.
   Integration and interrelationship
  • The programme is community-based; it is unclear whether it can be transferred from a local to a national level.
  • Very adapted to the way of life in West Africa.
   Common but differentiated responsibilities
  • Has been developed by the community for the community.
  • A challenge is that it asks a lot of involvement by the communities in terms of participation, time and support, as the communities are poor and can only contribute in kind but not in cash.

Context

Sustainable development and protecting natural resources is explicitly mentioned in the National Development Plan and the Constitution of the Republic of Senegal. Since 2014, the Government undertook a series of reforms (policies concerning pastureland, forests, land, decentralisation, etc.). Thanks to the General Code of Local Entities, mayors received significant authority regarding land and environment management. This makes the mayors also responsible to take a leading role in protecting natural resources, biodiversity and sustainable development. Agroecology in this context is one of the main options to counter soil degradation, improve climate resilience and increase harvests.

Ndiob is a rural community, with an official estimated population of approx. 20,000 in 2018, with a surface of 127 km2, in the district of Diakhao, approx. 160 km east of Dakar, Senegal.  Ndiob’s population is mainly composed of the ethnic group of the Serers, which is the third largest ethnic group in Senegal making up 15 % of the Senegalese population, who mainly have been farmers and landowners, and are known for their mixed-farming. For the Serers, the soil (where their ancestors lay in rest) is very important and they have a legal framework governing every aspect of life, including a land law with strict guidelines.  About 50 years ago, the town of Ndiob was self-sufficient for food supply. Harvests were abundant and the fauna and flora of remarkable richness. Fruits and milk were not marketed at that time. Due to considerable deterioration of the socio-economic situation, nowadays things have turned negatively. However, thanks to Senegal’s ongoing decentralization processes, the municipality has now more autonomy for land and natural resources management, which, if managed wisely, can provide food security and economic prosperity.

Ndiob is the first municipality that launched the territorial approach to rural development in Senegal. In June 2014, a new municipal council had been installed, which formally defined and adopted its vision “to make Ndiob a green municipality, resilient through a process of economic and social development and welfare, inclusive and respectful for human rights, in particular towards vulnerable communities.” This orientation had been already defined by the municipal members during the election campaign and had then been also endorsed by the Green Party of Senegal. To implement its vision, the municipality – led by a very engaged Mayor – was supported by the NGO ENDA Pronat that is promoting agroecology in West Africa. ENDA Pronat conducted a participatory analysis of community needs involving more than 1,000 local people and actors (50 percent were women). It carried out an evaluation of production systems and developed an Agricultural Development Programme, which was understood and accepted by the local community. In response to the major problem of environmental degradation as a result of outdated cultivation methods and climate change (i.e. disappearance of pools, forests, pastures, decline of soil fertility, etc.), local people demanded better natural resources management and capacity-building to support the agroecological transition. In July 2017, the results of this analysis and the Agricultural Development Programme were presented to the whole community in presence of about 400 persons from all 18 villages of Ndiob as well as further partners such as the FAO, World Vision, National Agency for Agricultural and Rural Council (ANCAR) and University Cheikh Anta Diop of Dakar (UCAD), who pledged to support certain aspects of this initiative. Moreover, during a meeting in 2016 organized by the NGO ENDA Pronat, the Network of Green Municipalities and Cities of Senegal (REVES)  was founded, which is currently presided by the Mayor of Ndiob, Mr Oumar Bâ.

Objectives

The main aim of Ndiob is to initiate a process of biodiversity restoration and the implementation of agricultural production systems that ensure resilience, local self-subsistence and respect for the environment. Ndiob’s wishes to thereby contribute to the development of territorial policies based on the principles of agroecology and good governance of natural resources.

Methods of Implementation

Responsible for the policies are the Mayor and Municipal Council of Ndiob with input from the local communities. They are implemented through the municipality, with support of strategic partners such as ENDA PRONAT, and in cooperation with the Collective of Friends and Partners of the Community of Ndiob (CAPCOMMUN). CAPCOMMUN shares the vision of the municipality and serves as a forum for consultation, exchange and multi-stakeholder action. Among the partners are Institut de Recherche Agricole (ISRA), Agence National de Conseil Agricole (ANCAR), Service Régional de l’agriculture, ENDA PRONAT, CLUSA, WORLD VISION, Coopérative des Agriculteurs (set up by Ndiob), University of Cheikh Anta Diop.

To implement its vision of “making Ndiob a green, resilient municipality, through an endogenous, inclusive and respectful process of development of the rights of vulnerable people”, the Ndiob Municipal Council has set itself a certain number of objectives both in terms of self-sufficiency in certified seed and production for sale of cereals and peanuts seeds which are the main cash crop of the municipality. Ndiob’s minimum goal is to produce the village’s annual consumption of 3,650 tonnes of millet and to plant peanuts on 2,500 ha to be sold as certified seeds on markets and thereby create cash revenues. It selected 84 seed breeders, each one planting one hectare for breeding stock. Each of these producers has received from Ndiob municipality and from CAPCOMMUN partners seeds and reinforcements in technical capacities.

Ndiob’s local Agricultural Development Programme of 2017 was designed in a particularly inclusive way and the people were involved in all phases of the programme, from the diagnosis/analysis to implementation. The community of Ndiob consists of 18 villages that were formed into 5 village groups of a certain area, which focused on one of the five collectively defined themes. The Agriculture Development Programme includes hence five themes, each broken down into three sub-topics or projects:

 

  1. Agriculture:
    • Infrastructure and agricultural equipment (includes provision of seeds and working equipment, agricultural trainings, revolving fund for equipment purchase loans);
    • Seeds stocks (includes inventory of available seeds, training on seed storage (draws on traditional know-how), and seeds breeding);
    • Intensification and diversification of agro-ecology (includes improved use of the valley and ponds, trainings on vegetables and fruit growing, establishment of demonstration plots);
  2. Livestock breeding and farming:
    • Cattle breeding (improvement of local breeds, vaccination and construction of a communal corral);
    • Poultry (includes selection of breeding roosters, food breeding, trainings on poultry breeding);
    • Food production for livestock (includes food production for livestock, revolving fund for purchase of animal food, construction of fenced off areas for livestocks);
  3. Soil fertility:
    • Anti-Erosion measures (includes awareness raising on soil erosion, trainings on best practices to reduce erosion, demonstration plots for anti-erosion measures);
    • Desalination of soils (trainings on best practices to desalinate soils, restoring vegetation including soil enriching plants);
    • Composting (includes trainings on composting, establishing collection systems for organic wastes and establishment of composting sites);
  4. Management of natural resources:
    • Improving the state of the valley and ponds (includes construction of water management systems, restoration of the ponds, and projects to use the ponds);
    • Restoration of soil coverage (includes reestablishment and protection of soil coverage);
    • Strengthening of local governance (includes establishment of a local charter and of a surveillance committee as well as drawing maps of the area and plot delineations).
  5. Food security:
    • Construction of processing and storage facilities for agricultural produce;
    • Improving nutrition projects (includes access to clean water, trainings on cooking and nutrition, trainings on locally adapted agricultural plants);
    • Local bank for savings and micro-credits to support local agriculture, livestock and poultry breeding as well as the use of the ponds.

 

Impact

In 2017-2018, Ndiob’s budget for agroecology and sustainable development is EUR 42,000. This corresponds to 23 per cent of Ndiob’s total budget, a massive investment compared to the 2 per cent recommended by the REVES Charter agreed in 2017. Among the most costly measures are: EUR 1,830 to support seed production; EUR 1,200 invested in the training of 600 producers in agroecological practices; EUR 3,050 to build the capacity of farmers on agroecological practices; EUR 9,150 to distribute 200 ewes to poor households to promote the breeding of small ruminants; EUR 7,620 into the establishment of a credit fund financing agricultural and processing projects for young people and women; EUR 1,600 for the distribution of 23 millet mills; EUR 10,600 for connecting 300 households to water supply; and EUR 3,800 to help establish a water desalination unit.

In terms of its objectives to achieve self-sufficiency in certified seeds and production of millet and peanuts, Ndiob worked extensively with its CAPCOMMUN partners. Regarding millet, Ndiob will achieve this year self-sufficiency in certified seeds (about 10 tonnes). It is already planting 300 ha of millet using ecological agriculture this year, with an estimated production of 450 tonnes, ensuring food self-sufficiency for 300 families. In terms of peanuts, the collected 84 tonnes of seeds will be used on 560 ha. By 2020, Ndiob plans to achieve self-sufficiency in certified peanut seeds (375 tonnes per year). Each of the farmers has earned more than EUR 530 of income each in just one season. Moreover, Ndiob’s multifunctional farmers’ cooperative has been approved as a seed producer by the Ministry of Agriculture.

In 2018, two villages – Thiallé and Soumnane – of Ndiob decided to adopt agro-ecology as a way of life in different areas. They will be pilot villages and accompanied by the municipality and its partners such as FAO, INP and Elephant Vert. The aim is to build on the results and gained experiences of these two villages to further multiply activities to other villages of the municipality.

Moreover, Ndiob’s Mayor is chairing the Network of Green Municipalities and Cities of Senegal (REVES): Some 30 mayors attended its first constitutive meeting held in Ndiob in January 2017, where they adopted a Charter of Green Municipalities and Cities of Senegal with which they committed “to design and implement local environmental development plans and to devote at least 2 % of our budgets to environmental education and environmental projects”. Subsequently, REVES has developed an action plan (Declaration of Mékhé) that resulted in: 1. Capacity-building activities for mayors on agroecology and biosecurity (GMOs), e.g. two workshops were organised in 2017 with the technical support of ENDA PRONAT in the communities of Mékhé and Dramé Escale, and 2. Implementation of the agro-ecological vision of rural development in a few pilot municipalities, including that of the Mayor of Ndiob (Thiallé and Soumnane). Ndiob inspired other communities to join REVES which has become a platform for exchange of experience and methods. Today, the network has around 40 members who are inspired by the strategy of Ndiob. REVES is also a privileged partner of ENDA PRONAT. In 2018, the REVES co-organized with ENDA PRONAT, the National Federation of Organic Agriculture (FENAB) and the UCAD the 2nd edition of the Agroecology Days in February 2018 at the Place du Souvenir Africain in Dakar. These days were closed by the “Night of Agro-ecology” at the Daniel Sorano Theater, with a live broadcast of the debates at 2STV, sponsored by the Minister of Livestock and Animal Production Aminata Mbengue Ndiaye and attended by more than 1,500 people (parliamentarians, members of the Economic and Social Economic Council, researchers, civil society organizations, farmers’ organisations). In an interview the Minister of Agriculture confirmed the Government’s interest in promoting agro-ecology, an essential lever for sustainable development of the sector from a safety perspective.

Potential as a Transferable Model

Ndiob’s achievements inspire others to follow its example and through REVES, which Ndiob currently presides, the municipality is networking and exchanging experiences and methods with 40 other green and ecological communities and cities in Senegal. Its approach is culturally adapted to the way of life in West Africa and many elements could be replicated in other countries of that region.

Additional Resources

World Future Council, Future Policy Award Video on Ndiob, 2018 (in French)

ENDA Pronat, Deuxième édition la nuit de l’agroécologie, 2018 (in French)

ENDA Pronat, Qui sommes nous (in French)

Mediaterre, Le réseau des collectivités vertes et écologiques du Sénégal (REVES), 28 September 2018

The post Ndiob’s Agriculture Development Programme appeared first on futurepolicy.org.

Kategorien: english

UN Environment’s TEEBAgriFood – The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Agriculture and Food Initiative

22. November 2018 - 14:03

TEEBAgriFood presents a path-breaking, globally applicable food systems evaluation framework, which for the first time presents all wider benefits and costs associated with all relevant dimensions (environmental, health, social, cultural) of the eco-agri-food value chain in one single report. By evaluating the significant external costs and benefits inherent in different food systems, and making these costs transparent, decision-makers on farms, and in governments, institutions and businesses can make better-informed decisions that take into account the impacts of the available choices. This holistic approach of ‘true cost accounting’ allows the recognition, valuing and managing of the positive and negative externalities of all human behaviour and will lead to more agroecological and equitable food systems. For its comprehensive approach providing opportunities to contribute to the majority of the SDGs and offering an effective system of ‘true cost accounting’, and its respect for the Future Just Lawmaking Principles and Elements of Agroecology, TEEBAgriFood was recognized with the Future Policy Vision Award 2018, awarded by the World Future Council in partnership with FAO and IFOAM – Organics International.

At a Glance

  • In order to improve and secure our eco-agri-food systems and, in particular, to mitigate their negative impacts, all stakeholders including governments, businesses, farmers and citizens, need to be made more aware of the wider benefits and costs associated with different eco-agri-food systems.
  • By offering a framework to enable users to comprehensively and transparently assess the costs and benefits inherent in different food systems, TEEBAgriFood is addressing this issue. TEEBAgriFood is also about a systems approach, methodologies and tools, theory of change, and engagement strategies.
  • Work has been ongoing since 2014. After presenting the TEEBAgriFood Interim Report in December 2015 at Climate COP 21 and Exploratory Studies in 2016 and 2017, the TEEBAgriFood Scientific and Economic Foundations Report was released on 4 June 2018, on the occassion of World Environment Day.
  • The TEEBAgriFood Evaluation Framework will soon be applied in various contexts at the country level in Brazil, China, Colombia, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Senegal, Tanzania and Thailand.

Policy Reference

UN Environment’s TEEBAgriFood – The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Agriculture and Food Initiative, 2018

Connected Policies

2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), 2015, as sustainable food systems are both a means and an end towards achieving the SDGs. TEEB suggests using a “three tiered” structure for the 17 SDGs, emphasizing that our planet’s natural resources underpin delivery of the entire 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. By visualizing the interlinkages, synergies and potential trade-offs within and between the SDGs, TEEB demonstrates that the SDGs are indivisible and should be implemented in an integrated manner. The successful implementation of target 15.9 – integrating the value of ecosystem and biodiversity values into decision making – is an enabling factor that connects the dots between different goals and targets.

Selection as a Future-Just Policy

The TEEBAgriFood Initiative offers an avant-garde, worldwide applicable assessment framework for the evaluation of agri-food systems, policy and business scenarios, diets and national accounting. In a pioneering way, it presents the full range of categories of impacts (benefits and costs) associated with all relevant dimensions of the eco-agri-food value chain. By establishing all of “what should be evaluated”, it pushes policymakers, researchers, and businesses to capture these in decision-making.

Whilst there are several initiatives working towards developing frameworks for a “true cost accounting” (TCA) of food, the TEEBAgriFood Initiative is unique in that it is the only proposal that aims to assess a comprehensive set of externalities (environmental, health, social, cultural) – both positive and negative – across value chains, and at the global systems level. For its holistic approach, TEEBAgriFood won the Future Policy Vision Award 2018.

The Initiative assesses multiple types and scales of food production systems, including multiple types of industrial-scale agriculture and livestock production, and also artisanal scale agroecology, pastoralism and fisheries management. In order to be applicable in multiple scales and contexts around the world, TEEBAgriFood takes into consideration all forms of capital that underpin economic and human wellbeing – produced, natural, human and social capital – and is based on the three guiding principles of universality, comprehensiveness and inclusiveness.

Future-Just Policy Scorecard

Our “Best Policies” are those that meet the Future Just Lawmaking Principles and recognise the interconnected challenges we face today. The goal of principled policy work is to ensure that important universal standards of sustainability and equity, human rights and freedoms, and respect for the environment are taken into account. It also helps to increase policy coherence between different sectors.

   Sustainable use of natural resources
  • Natural capital is embedded in the capitals approach advocated by the TEEBAgriFood evaluation framework for eco-agri-food systems.
  • Pathways to sustainability, going forward, must recognize and strengthen those forms of agricultural production that explicitly enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services and build the natural capital that underpins food systems, creating regenerative forms of agriculture and food systems that generate positive externalities.
   Equity and poverty eradication
  • TEEBAgriFood framework can provide a tool to collect and organize information and data on social equity, justice and ethics related to food systems in order to assess progress towards the SDGs.
  • In particular, it offers a tool to assess and compare the costs and benefits of social equity of different food systems.
   Precautionary approach
  • In order to build enabling food systems, TEEBAgriFood looks at dietary pattern change, social justice, food waste and appropriate technological development.
  • Several Sustainable Development Goals are directly linked to human health and food/nutrition security, with all of them indirectly linked, and the TEEBAgriFood Framework can be used as a toolkit for making these linkages transparent.
   Public participation, access to information and justice
  • TEEBAgriFood connects the natural capital community with the emerging True Cost Accounting community.
  • It has an interdisciplinary and participatory approach.
  • Data is openly shared.
  • Being under the lead of UN Environment means to have a great resource in terms of outreach and funding.
  • Supports decision-makers in understanding what should be evaluated and brings transparency.
  • The assessment framework aims at the most comprehensiveness possible.
  • Provides a common language, rooted in economics, for all decision-making contexts.
    Good governance and human security
  • Addresses the lack of awareness regarding the fact that the economic environment in which farmers operate is distorted by significant externalities.
  • Evaluates the impact of the eco-agri-food system at global level, recognizing that smallholder agriculture represents the bigger, most impactful, part of the system.
   Integration and interrelationship
  • As silo approaches are limiting our ability to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the interconnected nature of the eco-agri-food system challenges, we need TEEBAgriFood and its holistic framework that allows the integration of well-understood individual pieces into a new, complete picture.
   Common but differentiated responsibilities
  • The framework tries to solve the problem of using one-dimensional metrics such as “per hectare productivity”, which ignores the negative consequences and the trade-offs across multiple domains of human and planetary wellbeing and fails to account for the various dimensions of sustainability.
  • It is ethically appropriate, because it doesn’t attempt to reduce complexity to a single indicator and tries to capture the value of nature through a holistic approach.

Context

Agriculture is by far the largest employer in the world, employing around 1.5 billion people.  The impact of today’s agriculture and food systems on natural resources is enormous: globally, agriculture is responsible for using 70 per cent of all freshwater withdrawn from the natural cycle, for causing 60 per cent of all biodiversity loss, and for creating large-scale land degradation.  As well, more than one-fourth of greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture and when the effects of land-use change, deforestation, food waste, and all the stages food goes through on its way to people’s plates are included, that proportion climbs to between 43 and 57 percent. Specifically, today we are producing 90 per cent of all calories from a handful of plant species, which in combination with the extensive use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers in agricultural farming methods degrades biodiversity so extensively. Without transforming the way we produce energy, and the way we produce and consume food, international agendas such as the Paris Agreement or the 2030 Agenda will not be achieved. We need to substantially change the way we are producing, processing, distributing and consuming food, in order to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, most of the time many positive and negative externalities are not accounted for, making this fundamental transformation impossible. For instance, agricultural productivity is typically measured by yield per hectare, a simplistic metric that provides an incomplete picture of the true costs and benefits associated with agriculture and food value chains. This calls for a holistic, effective system of ‘true cost accounting’ as offered by the TEEBAgriFood Framework.

According to Sukhdev, May, and Muller in “Fixing Food Metrics”, sustainable food systems have three key attributes: 1) They should deliver adequate nutrition and health across all levels of income and societal development, 2) they should avoid significant negative ecological and environmental impacts; and 3) they should ensure equitable access to land, water, inputs (such as seeds and fertilizer) and technical and financial assistance for the roughly 1 billion people, who still depend on small farms for their livelihoods.

However, the economic environment in which farmers, businesses, consumers, and agricultural policymakers operate today is distorted by significant externalities, both negative and positive. Indeed, most of the largest impacts on the health of humans, ecosystems, agricultural lands, waters, and seas arising from different agricultural and food systems are economically invisible and are not adequately considered by decision- and policy-makers. Most significantly, conventional assessment systems do not effectively capture the changing capacity of ecosystems and supporting social systems to continue to deliver these critical goods and services over the long run. This reality has a significant impact on how food and agriculture policy and practice affects pressing issues like climate change, biodiversity, soil erosion, nutrition, food security, and public health.

In order to improve and secure our eco-agri-food systems and, in particular, to mitigate their negative impacts, all stakeholders including governments, businesses, farmers and citizens, need to be made more aware of the wider benefits and costs associated with different eco-agri-food systems. By evaluating the significant external costs and benefits inherent in different food systems, and making these costs transparent, decision-makers on-farm, in governments, institutions, and businesses can make better-informed decisions that take into account the impacts of the available choices. This will lead to more agroecological and equitable food systems. The TEEBAgriFood Evaluation Framework offers this opportunity. Inspired by the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change (Stern 2007), which revealed the economic inconsistency of inaction with regard to climate change, it offers a holistic approach of ‘true cost accounting’ that allows the recognition, valuing and managing of the positive and negative externalities of all human behaviour.

As a global initiative focused on making nature’s values visible, TEEB’s objective is to mainstream the values of biodiversity and ecosystem services into decision-making at all levels. It aims to achieve this goal by following a structured approach to valuation that helps decision-makers recognize the wide range of benefits provided by ecosystems and biodiversity, demonstrate their values in economic terms and, where appropriate, capture those values in decision-making. TEEB first achieved global recognition in 2008 when officials from 13 of the world’s largest economies (the G8+5), with support from the European Commission and the German Environmental Ministry, commissioned the first-ever global analysis of the economic benefits of biological diversity and the costs of its loss (Phase I). This analysis was followed by a series of targeted reports released in 2010 at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) meetings in Nagoya, Japan, aimed at key audiences – including international policy-makers, local policy-makers and the private sector – with tools for applying true cost accounting to decision-making (Phase II). The current phase of TEEB is the implementation phase (Phase III), in which the TEEB approach is being applied in multiple sectors, biomes and at different levels of policymaking. The two most ambitious applications of TEEB are the Natural Capital Coalition (NCC) -formerly TEEB for Business- and TEEBAgriFood.

TEEBAgriFood goes beyond the original TEEB in that it seeks to be inclusive of externalities that are not typically included in environmental economics. This includes the social externalities, cultural externalities and health-related externalities of food systems, both negative and positive  (the stocks of eco-agri-food systems comprise four different “capitals” – produced capital, natural capital, human capital and social capital – which underpin a variety of flows encompassing production and consumption activity, ecosystem services, purchased inputs and residual flows) .

In February 2014, the TEEBAgriFood Concept Note laying out the ideas behind TEEBAgriFood, whilst in May 2015 the report Toward TEEBAgriFood provided preliminary findings from TEEBAgriFood exploratory studies. The Interim Report presenting the TEEBAgriFood Evaluation Framework was launched in December 2015 at UNFCCC COP21, with the Exploratory Studies that inform it being released individually between Fall 2016 and Spring 2017. The Global Alliance for the Future of Food, a key supporter, has presented the underpinnings of the framework at key international events, including the IUCN World Conservation Congress, the UNFCCC’s COP22 Global Landscapes Forum, the EAT Forum, the WHO Forum on meeting the SDGs, COP13 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Barilla Forum, the AFSA (African Food Sovereignty Alliance) conference, and the Global Commons conference organized by GEF and the World Economic Forum.

On 4th June 2018 the TEEBAgriFood Scientific and Economic Foundations Report was released on the occasion of World Environment Day in New Delhi, India, hosted by UN Environment and the Government of India. Internationally, a series of launch events are planned throughout 2018-19 to showcase and promote the key messages, findings and recommendations of the TEEBAgriFood reports. The team is seeking strategic promotional and partnership opportunities to disseminate the reports and, more importantly, to build the TEEB AgriFood network into a community of practice and change. Furthermore, depending on the availability of funding, two further reports could be presented in 2018-19: firstly, the Opportunities Report drawing conclusions as to the opportunities for policy and production changes that could be made based on the application of the TEEBAgriFood Framework and, secondly, the Synthesis Report providing clearly articulated key messages with a broad readership in mind, supported by an extensive communications strategy.

Objectives

TEEBAgriFood is a systems approach for bringing together the various disciplines and perspectives related to agriculture and food, a framework for evaluation that supports the comprehensive, universal and inclusive assessment of eco-agri-food systems, a set of methodologies and tools for the measurement of positive and negative externalities, and a theory of change to help integrate TEEBAgriFood into the wide landscape of platforms and initiatives, like the SDGs, that are tackling these complex issues. It therefore plays a crucial role in the transformation of food and agriculture systems.

TEEB follows a tiered approach in analysing and structuring valuation guided by three core principles:

  • Recognizing that the externalities of human behaviour on ecosystems, landscapes, species and other aspects of biodiversity is a feature of all human societies and communities, and is sometimes sufficient to ensure conservation and sustainable use. For example, the existence of sacred groves in some cultures has helped to protect natural areas and the biodiversity they contain.
  • Valuing these externalities in economic terms is often useful for policy-makers and business stakeholders in reaching decisions that consider the full costs and benefits of an ecosystem, rather than just those costs or values that enter the markets in the form of private goods.
  • Managing the externalities involves the introduction of mechanisms that incorporate the values of ecosystems into decision-making through incentives and price signals. This can include payments for ecosystem services, reforming environmentally harmful subsidies or introducing tax breaks for conservation.

Dedicated to uncovering the hidden costs and benefits, i.e. the negative as well as the positive externalities of agriculture and food, the beneficiaries of TEEBAgriFood are diverse, ranging from consumers to smallholder farmers. Stakeholders are policymakers, researchers, farmers, consumers, businesses, investors, the funding and donor communities.

Methods of Implementation

TEEBAgriFood is hosted by The Economics of the Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) Office at the United Nations Environment Programme (UN Environment). The Global Alliance for the Future of Food, the European Commission, and the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation support the initiative.

TEEB, known for its pioneering research on the economic values of nature in 2010, brought together more than 150 experts from 33 countries to deliver a strong and urgent message to the global community on the need for a transformation of our agriculture and food systems that is sustainable, equitable, and healthy. The TEEBAgriFood initiative brings together scientists, economists, policymakers, business leaders, and farmers’ organizations to agree on how to frame, undertake and use holistic evaluations of agricultural systems, practices, products, and policy scenarios against a comprehensive range of impacts and dependencies across food value chains.

TEEBAgriFood’s Evaluation Framework answers the question: What should we evaluate about food systems? And TEEBAgriFood’s methodologies answer the question: How should we do these evaluations? TEEBAgriFood illustrates five families of applications to compare: (a) different policy scenarios; (b) different farming typologies; (c) different food and beverage products; (d) different diets/ food plates; and (e) adjusted versus conventional national or sectoral accounts. TEEBAgriFood gives ten examples showing how to apply this framework and methodologies for various types of evaluations. One of them is, for example, a study in New Zealand of 15 conventional and 14 organic fields that valued 12 ecosystem  services  and found both crops as well as other ecosystem services to be higher in the organic fields; or another study in  Thailand  on  pesticide  subsidies  found  that  farmer  and  consumer  health  was  affected,  and evaluated the impacts of a pesticide tax response combined with education about alternatives.

The TEEBAgriFood evaluation framework provides a structure and an overview of what should be included in the analysis. However, methods of valuation depend on the values to be assessed, availability of data, and the purpose of the analysis. Ideally one should be able to say with some confidence what are the externalities associated with each euro or dollar spent on a given kind of food, produced, distributed and disposed of in a given way. The application of the framework requires an interdisciplinary approach, where all relevant stakeholders, including policy-makers, businesses, and citizens, understand and identify questions that are to be answered by a valuation exercise. Therefore, stakeholder engagement across sectors is critical to the effective application of TEEBAgriFood in specific contexts and policy arenas.

As far as the tools are concerned a distinction is made between the valuation, in monetary terms, of impacts of the agri-food system and of policies that target that sector; and a wider evaluation of the system that takes account of other factors of importance, such as equity, human health and sustainability. The monetary valuation of impacts is organized around the idea of externalities, which are made up of impacts of the eco-agri-food system that are not accounted for in market transactions. There are several tools at our disposal for undertaking these estimations; each has its strengths and weaknesses and each is best suited to the valuation of particular externalities. The data collected from the estimation of externalities can be used to appraise a policy option in conjunction with tools such as cost benefit analysis, cost effectiveness analysis, partial equilibrium modelling and general equilibrium modelling. For the wider evaluation of the functioning of the eco-agri-food system and of different policies a number of other tools are presented. These include life cycle analysis, propensity scoring methods, value chain analysis, multi-criteria analysis, merit good assessments and system dynamics.

Impact

Even though the concrete impact of TEEBAgriFood is to date limited, it is path-breaking as it is the first time that all wider benefits and costs associated with all relevant dimensions of the eco-agri-food value chain have been presented in one single report. As it is clear that only after we have recognized and demonstrated the value of what is being lost, our responses – be they policy responses, business responses, or citizens responses – will adapt, TEEBAgriFood’s influence on future research and decision-making cannot be underestimated.

TEEB first achieved global recognition in 2008, when officials from 13 of the world’s largest economies (the G8+5), commissioned the first-ever global analysis of the economic benefits of biological diversity and the costs of its loss. TEEBAgriFood is one of two most ambitious applications of TEEB. The Interim Report presenting the TEEBAgriFood Evaluation Framework was launched in December 2015 at COP 21, with the Exploratory Studies released individually between autumn 2016 and spring 2017. The Global Alliance for the Future of Food, presented the underpinnings of the framework at key international events.

On 4 June 2018, the Scientific and Economic Foundations Report was released, welcomed by a number of eminent people, including Achim Steiner, Pavan Sukhdev, Alexander Müller, as well as by stakeholders from international organizations, research institutes and a wide range of non-governmental organizations working for farmers rights, food systems reform, health issues, protection of the environment, as well as eradication of poverty, among them the United Nations Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the UNCCD or CGIAR’s Research Program on Water Lands and Ecosystems.

For instance, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), which works across the full spectrum of the food system, from production to consumption, loss and waste, welcomed TEEBAgriFood “as it assesses a multitude of impacts on both people and planet, instead of trying to distill the complexities into one over-simplified metric. We look forward to seeing the evaluation framework be applied to real-world projects and hopefully contributing to transformational change”, and FoodTank, a NGO working to reform the food system, applauded TEEBAgriFood as it “offers a ground-breaking platform to evaluate the real costs and benefits—including environmental, health, and social impacts—of our agriculture and food systems. This Scientific and Economic Foundations Report provides the basis for a major paradigm shift in how we view and manage our agriculture and food systems, demonstrating how to evaluate not just the visible but also the hidden costs and benefits.”

Potential as a Transferable Model

Funds have been secured to apply the TEEBAgriFood Evaluation Framework in various contexts at the country level in Brazil, China, Colombia, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Senegal, Tanzania and Thailand. Across Senegal, Tanzania, Ethiopia and Ghana, the application will feature a regional narrative with national case study examples on agricultural systems, practices, products, and policy scenarios, with the overall aim of contributing to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and a wide range of SDGs. In Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, and Thailand, the application of the TEEBAgriFood Initiative aims to protect biodiversity and contribute to a more sustainable agriculture and food sector with a view to moving towards a level playing field by avoiding unfair competition through low environmental standards. The foundations of the work plan will be based on an internationally agreed methodological framework, introduced in the G8+5 context by the EU, addressing the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity. It will bring together governments, business and other key stakeholders from civil society to implement activities aimed at influencing decisions and behaviours in participating countries. It will be the first time that the methodological framework developed by TEEB will be applied to an industrial sector (the agri-business sector) across the entire value chain of that sector, assessing scenarios with a view to promote change.

Additional Resources

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB)

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), UN Environment, TEEB for Agriculture & Food: Scientific and Economic Foundations Report, 2018

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), UN Environment, Measuring what matters in agriculture and food systems: a synthesis of the results and recommendations of TEEB for Agriculture and Food’s Scientific and Economic Foundations Report, 2018 (In EnglishArabicChineseFrenchSpanishRussian).

TEEBAgriFood, Twitter Account

Global Alliance for the Future of Food, TEEBAgriFood

Food Tank, Articles and Interviews on TEEBAgriFood, 2018

FAO, websites on TEEBAgriFood and Full-cost accounting, 2017-18

The post UN Environment’s TEEBAgriFood – The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Agriculture and Food Initiative appeared first on futurepolicy.org.

Kategorien: english

Los Angeles’ Good Food Purchasing Policy (GFFP)

22. November 2018 - 12:09

Adopted first by the City of Los Angeles in 2012, the Good Food Purchasing Program ® creates a transparent supply chain and helps institutions to measure and then make shifts in their food purchases. It is the first procurement model to support five food system values – local economies, environmental sustainability, valued workforce, animal welfare and nutrition – in equal measure and thereby encourages myriad organizations to come together to engage for shared goals. Within just six years, the Good Food Purchasing Program has achieved an impressive impact and set off a nationwide movement to establish similar policies in localities small and large across the United States. Due to its impressive achievements and fast roll-out thoughout the country, its respect for the Future-Just Lawmaking Principles and Elements of Agroecology, the Good Food Purchasing Program was recognized with an Honourable Mention of the 2018 Future Policy Award, awarded by the World Future Council in partnership with FAO and IFOAM – Organics International.

At a Glance

  • The Good Food Purchasing Program, which was first adopted Los Angeles city in 2012, is a procurement standard that offers institutions a system in which current investments towards food are redirected towards more sustainable and fair suppliers.
  • Using a metric-based, flexible framework that produces a star rating, the Good Food Purchasing Program promotes the purchase of more sustainably produced food, from local economies, especially smaller and mid-sized farms and other food processing operations, which results in production returns at a more regional and local level, and ensures that suppliers’ workers are offered safe and healthy working conditions and fair compensation, that livestock receives healthy and humane care, and that consumers – foremost school children, patients, the elderly – enjoy better health and well-being thanks to higher quality nutritious meals.
  • Within just six years, the Good Food Purchasing Program has achieved remarkable impact.
  • The Good Food Purchasing Program has set off a nationwide movement to establish similar policies in localities small and large, and inspired the creation of the Center for Good Food Purchasing.

Policy Reference

Center for Good Food Purchasing, Good Food Purchasing Programme, Purchasing Standards for Food Service Institutions, September 2017.

Los Angeles’ Executive Order No. 24 Good Food Purchasing Policy, USA, 2012

Connected Policies

Among them are the U.S. Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010, Core standards of the International Labour Organization, and the City of L.A.’s Sweatfree Purchasing Ordinance.

Selection as a Future-Just Policy

Once adopted, the Program achieves notable impact within very short time. Since 2012, it has been mandatory for city departments of Los Angeles and for the L.A. Unified School District
(LAUSD), which together serve about 750,000 meals a day and have an annual budget of USD 185 million for food. As a result of Program adoption, LAUSD has reduced its purchases of all industrially produced meat by 32 percent, reducing its carbon and water footprint by 20 per cent and 20.5 percent per meal respectively (in 2017 compared to 2012 baseline), and redirected USD 15 million toward local food production. Its impacts reach even beyond Los Angeles city as LAUSD began sourcing locally grown wheat for its USD 45-55 million annual servings of rolls. Now Gold Star Foods distributes those rolls made of wheat grown from 44 Food Alliance-certified farms and milled in California to LAUSD and to over 550 other schools across the Western United States. For its noteworthy accomplishments, the Good Food Purchasing Program was recognized with an Honourable Mention of the Future Policy Award 2018.

The implementation of the Good Food Purchasing Program is particularly effective as it is the first procurement policy to support in equal measure five food system values (local economies, environmental sustainability, valued workforce, animal welfare and nutrition). Using a metric-based, flexible framework that produces a star rating, the Program offers institutions a straight-forward, systematic and effective approach to redirect food budgets towards suppliers that operate more sustainably and fairly.

GFFP has set off a nationwide movement to adopt its program in localities small and large, and by now 27 public institutions in 14 U.S. cities are enrolled, which collectively spend nearly USD 895 million on food each year.

Future-Just Policy Scorecard

Our “Best Policies” are those which meet the Future-Just Lawmaking Principles and recognise the interconnected challenges we face today. The goal of principled policy work is to ensure that important universal standards of sustainability and equity, human rights and freedoms, and respect for the environment are taken into account. It also helps to increase policy coherence between different sectors.

 

   Sustainable use of natural resources
  • Verifies commitment towards five categories of sustainability, including environmental.
  • Supports certifications such as United States Departement of Agriculture (USDA) Organic.
  • Reduces use of antibiotics and pesticides.
  • Promotes a smaller ecological food footprint, e.g. local, seasonal, less meat, etc.
   Equity and poverty eradication
  • Promotes respect for farmers, ranchers, fisher folks, etc.
  • Before the Good Food Purchasing Policy every institution was purchasing from 10-12 suppliers with serious labour violations – the policy changed this.
  • Enhances livelihoods of food chain workers: women, migrants, indigenous, youth.
  • Promotes locally owned, small- to mid-sized farms, within 250 miles.
   Precautionary approach
  • Demands healthier food (a plant-based diet with some meat) and prevents diseases.
  • Creates a demand for healthier food throughout life by school children.
  • Enhances relationships with local ecosystems; educates and raises awareness.
   Public participation, access to information and justice
  • Is a major outcome of a group led by the Los Angeles Food Policy Council, engaging 100+ stakeholders.
  • Transparent food supply chain and public accountability is its overall goal.
  • The Center for Good Food Purchasing is providing information accessible to everyone and prepares public reports.
    Good governance and human security
  • Stringent budget management, elaborate evaluation and transparent governance.
  • The Center supports implementation (technical support) and monitoring (evaluation) of the Programme.
  • Creates opportunities for mid-sized local ownership to access the supply chain.
   Integration and interrelationship
  • Promotes integration of social justice and environmental protection into all sectors of public policy, e.g. urban farmers now receive tax benefits.
  • Shows how to enact real change at local level by redirectin existing budgets.
   Common but differentiated responsibilities
  • Levels the playing field: Taxpayers’ money is now used to support fair working conditions.
  • Is adapted and uses the language of economy which is predominant in the United States.

Context

California is the world’s fifth largest supplier of food, cotton fibre, and other agricultural commodities, and the largest producer of food (by dollar volume) in the United States. The Greater Los Angeles Area is the nation’s second-most populous urban region, with 18.7 million residents.

In September 2009, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced the creation of the Los Angeles Food Policy Task Force. The Task Force convened in November 2009 and was charged with developing a Good Food policy agenda for Los Angeles – food that is healthy, affordable, fair and sustainable. Task Force members met with over 200 people and conducted roundtable
discussions and listening sessions. In July 2010, the Task Force released a report called the Good Food for All Agenda. The Los Angeles Food Policy Council (LAFPC) was created in
response to one of the recommendations of the report.

In 2011, the LAFPC Working Group ‘Build a Market for Good Food’ developed the Good Food Purchasing Guidelines for Food Service Institutions, in collaboration with local and national experts in relevant fields. In 2012, Mayor Villaraigosa, thanks to Paula Daniels, his then senior advisor on food policy and founder and chair of the LAFPC, issued an executive directive impacting all city departments that purchased over $10,000 of food. A motion in support of the directive was also adopted by the Los Angeles City Council on the same day. Consequently, on Food Day, October 24, 2012, the City of Los Angeles became the first institution in the country to adopt the Good Food Purchasing Program. Just weeks later, the Los Angeles Unified School District – which serves 650,000 meals each day and is the largest food service provider in Los Angeles – became the second institution to sign on, committing to implementing the Good Food Purchasing Program.

By that time, the policy had been vetted by more than one hundred local, state, and national public, private, and non-profit organizations. The LAFPC built out the Program in detail, including the aspects of data collection and implementation. It provided programmatic support in areas such as record-keeping, menu design, bidding processes, and assessing suppliers’ adherence to the five values. The Program generated so much interest, that in 2015, the Center for Good Food Purchasing was established, to oversee the expansion of the Good Food Purchasing Program to public institutions throughout California and beyond. The Center now works with national partners, local food policy councils, regional grassroots coalitions, administrators, and elected officials across the country to transfer, scale, and network the Good Food Purchasing Program. To date, several other cities and school districts have adopted the Good Food Purchasing Policy and campaigns are underway in many more.

Objectives

To harness the purchasing power of major institutions to encourage greater production of sustainably produced food, healthy eating, respect for workers’ rights, humane treatment of animals and support for the local small business economy. To shift as many dollars as possible towards Good Food in order to achieve an economy of scale. Beneficiaries are vulnerable groups such as school children, patients, the elderly, inmates, etc., as well as local small and mid-sized farms and food processing operations and their workers.

Methods of Implementation

In each region, a local organization works in partnership with the Center for Good Food Purchasing, to advance Program adoption, implementation, and accountability. In Los Angeles, the LA Food Policy Council fulfils that role, while there are different organizations doing so in different regions. The Program is implemented by food service directors of public institutions, such as school districts, city departments, etc. In Los Angeles, it is in all city departments that purchase over USD 10,000 of food and the Los Angeles Unified School District.

The Good Food Purchasing Program’s metric-based, flexible framework encourages large public institutions to measure and then make shifts in their food purchases. It is a procurement model that supports five core food system values – local economies, environmental sustainability, valued workforce, animal welfare and nutrition – in equal measure. By adopting the framework, food service institutions commit to improving their regional food system by implementing meaningful purchasing standards in all five value categories:

  • Local Economics: the Good Food Purchasing Program supports local small and mid-sized agricultural and food processing operations. The definition is based on a combination of farm size (by dollar volume) and farm distance from purchasing institution (based on driving distance). Farm sizes refer to USDA definitions.
  • Environmental Sustainability: the Good Food Purchasing Progam requires institutions to source at least 15% of the food from producers that employ sustainable production systems that reduce or eliminate synthetic pesticides and fertilizers; avoid the use of hormones, routine antibiotics and genetic engineering; conserve soil and water; protect and enhance wildlife habitats and biodiversity; and reduce on-farm energy and water consumption, food waste and greenhouse gas emissions; as well as to increase menu options that have lower carbon and water footprints. Examples of certifications include: Demeter, USDA Organic, etc.
  • Valued Workforce: the Good Food Purchasing Policy promotes safe and healthy working conditions and fair compensation for all food chain workers and producers. The baseline is compliance with basic labour laws by the institution, vendor(s) and all suppliers. Examples of certifications: Fair Trade Certified, Fair for Life, etc.
  • Animal Welfare: the Good Food Purchasing Policy promotes healthy and humane care for farm animals. Examples of certifications in the Good Food Purchasing Standards include: USDA Organic, Certified Humane, etc.
  • Nutrition: Finally, the Good Food Purchasing Policy promotes health and well-being by outlining best practices that offer generous portions of vegetables, fruit, whole grains and minimally processed foods, while reducing salt, added sugars, saturated fats, and red meat consumption, and eliminating artificial additives. A 25-item checklist was developed with
    the L.A. County Department of Public Health, and is aligned with national standards.

The Good Food Purchasing Program is nationally regarded as the most comprehensive and metric-based food procurement policy in the country. Verification, scoring and recognition
are central components. When an institution enrolls in the Good Food Purchasing Program, staff of the Center for Good Food Purchasing work with them to collect in depth information about purchasing and food service practices. To become a Good Food Provider, the food service institution has to at least meet the baseline (equal to one point) in each of the five values. Meeting even higher standards results in more points being awarded. The accumulation of points across all values is used to calculate and award a star rating. The baseline and higher standard purchasing criteria are set out in the Good Food Purchasing Standards, which are updated every five years, most recently in September 2017. There are five status levels of a Good Food Purchaser (1-5 Stars) that correspond to a respective range of points. In order to achieve a 5 Star level, the institution must achieve 25 or more points. As of June 2018, five out of 27 institutions have achieved a star rating, amongst them Boulder Valley School District that achieved 5 Stars in 2017 and Oakland Unified School District that achieved 4 Stars in 2016. After one year, purchasers are expected to increase the amount of Good Food that they purchase.

In Los Angeles, the LAFPC is the local lead partner, serving as a technical assistance provider to enrolled city departments and the LAUSD. The LAFPC convenes local cross-sector stakeholders, builds broad support for the Good Food Purchasing Program, identifies new institutions to recruit into the initiative, leads local efforts with partners, ensures a rigorous implementation of the GFPP by participating institutions, and maintains local relationships with public officials. The annual food purchasing budgets for L.A. institutions enrolled is USD 185 million.

Impact

Since 2012, the Good Food Purchasing Program has made a difference in all Los Angeles City Departments and LAUSD that serve together approximately 750,000 meals a day. The extent of its influence on food supply chains can be best examined by focusing on the most prominent example, the LAUSD serving over 600,000 students. The Good Food Purchasing Program increased considerably LAUSD’s purchase of sustainable local products. In the first year of enrolment the LAUSD went from less than 10% local sourcing of produce, to an average of 60% local produce, redirecting USD 12 million to support more sustainable production and avoiding long transport routes. As a result, 150 new well-paid food chain jobs were created in L.A. County, including food processing, manufacturing and distribution. In another example, LAUSD’s bread distributor had been sourcing out-of-state wheat for its USD 45-55 million annual servings of rolls, but today, most of the L.A. school district’s rolls are made from wheat grown on 44 Food Alliance-certified farms in California, milled in downtown L.A., and prices have stayed the same over the last three years. These impacts extend beyond LAUSD as Gold Star Foods now distributes these same products to over 550 schools across the western United States. Additionally, because of its engagement in Good Food principles due to GFPP, the LAUSD School Board adopted a resolution calling on a major Californian grower to honour its union contract with the United Farm Workers, which represents 5,000 farm workers. There has been a 15 per cent decrease in spending on meat by LAUSD due to implementing Meatless Mondays (a recommendation in the Good Food Purchasing Program), which each week saves about 19.6 million gallons of water. Additionally, a USD 20 million five-year contract was awarded for chicken produced free from routinely administered antibiotics, whereas previously the contract always went to the lowest bidder of conventionally produced poultry. From 2011 to 2017, LAUSD reduced purchases of all industrially-produced meat (beef, poultry and pork) by 32 per cent, which according to the Center for Good Food Purchasing’s estimate led to reductions in their carbon and water footprint by 20 per cent and 20.5 percent per meal, respectively, since the baseline year of 2012. The reduced carbon footprint translates to about 9 million kg of CO 2 emissions avoided per year – the equivalent to taking 1,930 cars off the road, and the water saved results in a total annual water savings of more than 1 billion gallons, enough water to fill 1,760 Olympic-sized swimming pools every year.

Besides achieving considerable improvements in all five value categories, additional impressive impacts are achieved in terms of environmental sustainability. Within about four years, the percentage change in environmentally sustainable purchases of four institutions that have participated in multiple Good Food Purchasing Program assessments is 3.3 per cent, i.e. they now allocate an additional USD 4.3 million annually to environmentally sustainable producers. By 2020, the Center aims for all public institutions currently enrolled to source at least 5 per cent of total dollars spent annually on food from Level 3 Environmentally Sustainable Producers (mainly USDA Organic certified), which would be a total of USD 44,727,806. Moreover, the percentage change in purchases from smallholder producers for the same four institutions is now 3.2 per cent, i.e. they now purchase an additional USD 4.4 million annually from smallholders (in just four years, starting from a baseline of 0.1 per cent).

L.A. City Departments and LAUSD set an example that has since influenced many other areas in the United States. The Program has set off a nationwide movement to adopt the Program standards in localities small and large, and inspired the creation of the Center for Good Food Purchasing, a NGO which now owns and manages the programme, as well as its expansion across the United States. By now 27 public institutions in 14 U.S. cities are enrolled, which collectively spend nearly USD 895 million on food each year. The Good Food Purchasing Program has encouraged elected and governmental officials to re-examine how they can use public budgets to better serve their community. That fundamental shift in thinking will produce important positive results for years to come.

Potential as a Transferable Model

The notable success of the Good Food Purchasing Program in 2012 led to a substantial number of requests for technical assistance from other cities and food policy councils looking to implement similar strategies. This led to the development of the Center for Good Food Purchasing in 2015, which now operates the national expansion. As of 2018, several other cities (San Francisco, CA; Oakland, CA; Chicago, IL; Cook County, IL) have adopted the Good Food Purchasing Program and campaigns are underway in many additional cities (Austin, TX; Chicago, IL; Cincinnati, OH; Madison, WI; Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN; New York; Washington, D.C.; and Baltimore) to push for its adoption. The Program is adaptable to specific contexts and such adaptations have been used to further advance agroecology, e.g. in Cook County. According to the Center’s staff, the Good Food Purchasing Program could be applied anywhere, including in low-income countries.

Additional Resources

Center for Good Food Purchasing

Australian Government, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (2016), Consolidated report on Indigenous Protected Areas following Social Return on Investment analyses

Los Angeles Food Policy Council, Good Food Purchasing Policy Working Group

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Executive Directive No. 24 Good Food Purchasing Policy, 24th October 2012

Center for Good Food Purchasing, Good Food Purchasing Programme, Purchasing Standards for Food Service Insitutions, September 2017

Anna Lappé, School lunch menu is about more than taste, price, in: San Francisco Chronicle, 15.5.2016

Policy Link, The Los Angeles Good Food Purchasing Program: Changing Local Food Systems, One School, Supplier, and Farmer at a Time, 2015

Sarah Reinhardt & Kranti Mulik, Union of Concerned Scientists, Purchasing Power. How Institutional “Good Food” Procurement Policies Can Shape a Food System That’s Better for People and Our Planet, 2017

Delwiche, A. & Lo, Joann, Los Angeles’ Good Food Purchasing Policy, in: Progressive Planning No. 197, Fall 2013

Los Angeles Food Policy Council, Good Food Purchasing Porgram: Redefining Food Procurement, 2015

The post Los Angeles’ Good Food Purchasing Policy (GFFP) appeared first on futurepolicy.org.

Kategorien: english