Systemic Issues Demand Systemic Responses

 Systemic Issues Demand Systemic Responses. Policymakers, researchers, farmers, directors of civil society organisations, and others came together at a recent regional dialogue in Europe to talk about The Politics of Knowledge, a new book from the Global Alliance for the Future of Food, and the contribution of agroecology to resolving interconnected global crises.

Systemic Issues Demand Systemic Responses

Emile Frison, Member of the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems and Interim Coordinator of the Agroecology Coalition, asserts that we really need a different paradigm, it's not just about modifying the current system to make it a little more effective, (IPES-Food).

Agroecological systems that are diverse are required, in Frison's view, for a new paradigm of global food production that will stop working in silos and concurrently meet economic, environmental, health, social, and cultural goals.

The current food system is the main cause of the loss of biodiversity worldwide and accounts for one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions created by humans. According to a 2019 study that was published in The Lancet, poor eating causes more deaths than any other risk factor worldwide. In the meantime, there is a crisis in generational renewal: the average age of American farmers has been rising for 40 years, and one-third of farmers in the European Union are 65 or older.

The panellists concurred that agroecology can bring about the fundamental change required to address these numerous, interrelated global issues.

According to Frison, We are now in a position to truly start altering at scale.

According to a 2019 study from the University of Gloucestershire that was published in the Journal of Rural Studies, farmers who used agroecological practises instead of conventional ones experienced significant economic gains. Dutch dairy farmers saw an increase in income per kilogramme of milk of 110 percent, French farmers saw an increase in income per family worker of 73 percent, and Irish farmers saw an increase in gross margins per hectare of 75 to 80 percent.

According to Frison, agroecological techniques not only increase revenue but also foster farm resilience and stability, and this is already occurring widely around the world.

The Sahel region of Africa is becoming green again thanks to millions of hectares of farmer-managed natural regeneration. A coalition of 72 groups called itself the Alliance for Agroecology in West Africa. Additionally, additional countries, such as Mexico, Senegal, Nicaragua, India, France, and Denmark, are supporting agroecology through national policy.

However, if agroecology is effective on both large and small farms, why isn't it used more frequently? If the evidence is there, why isn't more being done? says Nina Moeller, Associate Professor at Coventry University's Center for Agroecology, Water, and Resilience in the UK.

Despite concrete data demonstrating the usefulness and promise of agroecology, it is nevertheless ignored within the agricultural sector. This is due to the fact that industrial food production is locked into the present system, claims Moeller.

According to Moeller, the extensive infrastructure already in place makes it so much easier and so much more convenient for all actors to just continue with business as usual.

The global commerce in seeds, fertiliser, pesticides, and grains, according to Frison, is heavily influenced by huge multinational firms, who have an interest in perpetuating the current system since it fits their requirements.

Furthermore, agrarian education, in the opinion of Lili Balogh, a farmer and the president of Agroecology Europe, reinforces this model by teaching mostly on the advantages of industrial agriculture.

According to Balogh, the major corporations are mostly funding these schools and research centres. When in fact agroecology is just the opposite, as genuine evidence and scientific statistics reveal, they present it as an utopian and unreal tale that is not productive enough.

According to Moeller, it is essential to broaden the industry's view of what constitutes proof in order to overcome these structural impediments. This entails giving weight to both qualitative data and empirical information, including those provided by farmers, Indigenous peoples, social movements, as well as agroecology experts and policymakers.

This evidence is plentiful, but Moeller claims that it is ignored during decision-making processes. A large portion of what is understood and presented as evidence is determined by power dynamics.

Building partnerships with various stakeholders, including the private sector, civil society organisations, and research actors, according to Christophe Larose, Head of Sustainable Agriculture / International Partnerships at the European Commission, is essential to promoting a wider shift to agroecological practises.

We need to make agroecology more concrete by focusing on specific issues rather than oversimplifying what it can entail. For instance, if we wish to go with a shift that is not simple but unquestionably necessary, we must embrace and work with partners, says Larose.

According to Alfred Grand, farmer and owner of Grand Farm in Austria, these collaborations must also involve discussions with farmers. It's crucial to demonstrate to farmers that there are alternatives.

The panellists concurred that it is crucial to use an inclusive, participative, and transdisciplinary approach to generating evidence for agroecology throughout the discussion.

According to Moeller, Systemic problems necessitate systemic solutions, thus we need a variety of viewpoints and input from many different disciplines, as well as from non-disciplinary points of view. This encompasses the agroecological practises used by farmers, peasants, Indigenous peoples, and other practitioners around the world, as well as their lived experiences and cultural histories.

As more nations come to understand the importance of agroecological systems, Frison is optimistic. He emphasises the takeaways from the global supply chain breakdowns brought on by the COVID-19 epidemic and the Ukraine crisis.

In more diverse systems, Frison claims that more local, shorter value chains have really been able to overcome a lot of the inadequacies in the crises in many countries. There is proof in place.