A call has been made for all hands on deck to end Gender Based Violence (GBV), which has been described as is an endemic, multi-dimensional phenomenon with devastating effects on women, men, boys and girls in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region.

Ms Habiba Roswana Osman, the Chief Executive Officer of the Malawi Human Rights Commission (HRC) made the call when she delivered a keynote address at a consultative meeting convened by the SADC Parliamentary Forum (SADC PF). The virtual meeting sought to allow Human Rights Commissioners and Ombudspersons to consider a draft of a SADC Model Law on GBV being developed by the Forum in collaboration with other partners.

She said GBV continued to pose a threat to human security, peace and development as well as the attainment of national, regional and international development blueprints. She said GBV also results in drastic socio-economic consequences.

“It remains the most severe human rights violation in southern Africa with one in two women having experienced GBV at some point in their lives globally,” she said.

She noted that in the SADC region, some countries had higher instances of GBV than others and noted that COVID-19 had exacerbated the structural discrimination and inequalities faced by women and girls.

She said that there had been reports, also, of marital rape in some countries, while GBV had cost the government of South Africa at least 1.7 billion Rands.

“Globally, data continues to show that GBV remains a serious and pervasive problem across all sectors,” she said.

Stressing that no sector was immune to GBV, Ms Osman said the scourge was negatively affecting the Gross Domestic Product of some countries and damaging health, lives, financial independence, productivity and effectiveness.

She noted that SADC had adopted various frameworks to combat GBV in a coordinated manner. In this regard, she cited the Revised Regional Indicative Strategic Development Plan (2015-2020) and expressed optimism that the SADC Model Law on GBV would guide Member States in the domestication, ratification and implementation of relevant international and regional guidelines and obligations that inform GBV prevention and responses.

She encouraged all stakeholders to aggressively promote the Model Law on GBV to support human rights for all and to ensure that no one was left behind.

Speaking at the same occasion, popular Judge, the Honorable Professor Oagile Key Dingake, stressed that GBV denies people their fundamental rights.

“When we talk about rights, we are speaking about non-negotiable entitlements which are not dished to us at the mercy of the state. In actual fact, the state as the duty bearer is obliged to ensure that these rights are realised. GBV implicates so many of the different rights contained in our constitutions and laws in SADC countries,” he said.

Justice Dingake presented two related papers. One focused on GBV as a human rights issue, and the other provided an overview of gaps in the GBV legislation within the SADC region.

Said the judge: “The right to life and the right to dignity constitute – in my mind – the foundational basis of all other rights. All other rights must accrue from the foundational rights: the right to life, the right to human dignity, security of the person, autonomy and self-determination. GBV is one of the most prevalent human rights violations in the world. It knows no social or economic barrier. It doesn’t discriminate on the basis of class. It is very prevalent among women and girls.” He expressed concern over the fact that in some parts of the SADC region, culture was used as an excuse or justification to oppress women and girls.

He stressed that certain cultural practices flew in the face of human rights, while certain roles assigned to women and girls restricted their options and curtailed their autonomy. The judge said GBV had many negative ripple effects on survivors. These include physical and psychological injuries.

He explained that while physical injuries were manifest, psychological injuries, which included depression and anxiety, eating disorders, stress and compulsive behaviour, were difficult to identify.

The judge expressed concern, also, over low levels of reporting GBV, as well as successful prosecution of offenders. He nevertheless expressed optimism that continuous education might socialise boys and girls in such a way that they would embrace the values of equality and human rights for a better world

The scourge of Gender-Based Violence (GBV) mostly affects women and the girl child in southern Africa, with its multi-dimensional effects negatively also impacting on the lives of men and boys in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region.

Globally, one in two women have experienced GBV at some point in their lives, while in South Africa, reports indicated that someone was raped every 25 seconds.

It is on the back of such empirical evidence that the Regional Women’s Parliamentary Caucus (RWPC) of the SADC Parliamentary Forum tabled a motion during the 44th Plenary Assembly Session of the Forum in 2018 to develop a regional Model Law on Gender Based Violence (GBV).

The 44th Plenary Assembly unanimously adopted the motion in an attempt to remove threats to peace, security and the accomplishment of different developmental objectives.

Following the adoption of the motion, the SADC PF launched stakeholder consultations on 18 August 2021 targeting different players in the public and private sectors. They included human rights commissioners, traditional leaders, GBV survivors and different United Nations agencies, to name a few.

Speaking at the launch, the Chairperson of the RWPC, Honorable Anne-Marie Mbilambangu explained that the Model Law should be a tool used by SADC Member States to prevent and eradicate all forms of GBV.

She said that the RWPC would do everything “to improve social and economic conditions for women, because we think that they are the most affected by all forms of GBV.” 

She added: “Our objective is to do it in such a way that everyone – in particular women within the region – regardless of colour or belief, have the possibility to accomplish their full potential without any hiccups or interference by GBV.”

South African Community Advocate Caroline Peters narrated her harrowing ordeal as a GBV survivor during the consultative meeting and bemoaned the fact that ever since she experienced GBV, very little had changed in terms of statistics.

“I am a survivor of brutal gang rape and my friend was murdered at the age of 16. When this happened to me, I didn’t realise this would be the

Seasoned journalist, gender practitioner and human rights activist Ms Pamela Dube from Botswana has called on media practitioners in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) to raise awareness on the impact of Gender-Based Violence in the SADC Region.

Dube was speaking during a virtual consultative session to familiarise the media on the SADC Model Law on Gender-Based Violence, convened by the SADC Parliamentary Forum (SADC PF) on 6 August 2021.

She said the media had a strategic and important potential to contribute to the prevention and elimination of GBV in the SADC region. “I wish to call on you to raise awareness on the impact of GBV in the SADC Region. Raise awareness on the role of the Model Law on GBV in the prevention of GBV and raise awareness on the stakeholder consultation process,” she said.

She challenged the media practitioners to support the implementation process. She compared the stigma suffered by GBV survivors to what families of those affected by AIDS had experienced in the past.

“At the highest point of HIV and AIDS, there was a lot of denial around our communities until we started seeing people coming forward. Once we saw the face and people could identify with the problem, stigma could be dealt with. We are faced with the same scourge right now which is at the homes, the offices and on the streets. Until we step to the plate and be able to give face to this and be able to speak to the heart of the problem, very little can be achieved,” Dube warned.

In addition, she urged the media workers to seriously ponder the role they wished to play toward GBV eradication and pointed out that while laws could be made, it was important for media practitioners and citizens to understand them.

“Laws can be made, our leadership can rise to the occasion, but if we are not in the forefront of giving information and disseminating, then very little, if anything will be achieved,” she said.

According to Dube, the SADC region faces different challenges in relation to GBV. High on that list are inadequate national laws, inadequate national frameworks and inadequate gender-disaggregated statistics, as well as outdated laws.

“It is against this background and in response to calls from various stakeholders to meet the goal of eliminating GBV by 2030, that the SADC PF commissioned the development of a Model Law on GBV that will be used to address, prevent and combat all forms of GBV,” she explained.

She underscored that GBV impedes efforts to achieve national, regional, continental and global development goals. GBV not only has terrible effects on survivors, but it also impacts negatively on society at large with serious socio- economic consequences.

“It raises enormous public health problems which are often overlooked. Survivors and victims of GBV are at high risk of severe and long-lasting health problems such as death from injuries or suicide, poor mental health, chronic pain, deafness, unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases and or AIDS,” she said.

While 13 SADC countries had laws on domestic violence and 14 on sexual assault, there was still evidence of GBV being most commonly perpetrated by “husbands or intimate partners” at global and regional levels. Moreover, Dube pointed out that COVID-19 had exacerbated the situation.

Speaking during the same event, Zimbabwean journalist Joseph Munda concurred with Dube and said: “It (GBV) is a key issue that has been going on and increasing with COVID-19 and there are a lot of dynamics around it.”

He, however, lamented challenges that journalists face and called for more information around good practices and some of the laws implemented by other SADC Member States. Munda felt that if information around effective laws was shared, it would make brainstorming for possible solutions to end GBVeasier.

“These are some of the key challenges that we have. Most of us are now working virtually and getting information can prove difficult at times. As a region, the information sharing itself and the learning process is very important for us journalists to be able to gather and disseminate information,” he noted.

Munda also stressed the lack of support structures to be able to get stories done, specifically due to a limitation of resources, which in turn shifts attention toward political and other stories.

Basadi Tamplin raised issues of strengthening cyber-security due to multiple instances that have seen a correlation between GBV and cyber-crimes. “Everyone has access to the internet and we all use internet to 24/7. There are alarming rates of

Welcome to SADC Scrutinizer, a new and special newsletter of the SADC Parliamentary Forum focusing on the development and implementation of model laws by our Forum.

Following a very progressive motion tabled by our Regional Women’s Parliamentary Forum (RWPC) in Maputo, Mozambique in 2018 and unanimously adopted by the 44th Plenary Assembly Session of our Forum, our Secretariat, under the capable leadership of our Secretary General, Ms. Boemo Sekgoma, hit the ground running and began the process of developing a SADC Model Law on Gender Based Violence (GBV).

This is a timely intervention given the frightening levels of GBV and Sexual GBV affecting many of our member states and other countries all over the world.

The Model Law on GBV comes at a time when, all over the world, there are increasing calls to prioritise support for women and girls who bear the brunt of GBV; comprehensively respond to online abuse; increase funding to girls’ education; end violence against women and girls; prioritise women and girls when responding to crises like the ongoing global COVID-19 pandemic; place vulnerable and marginalised groups at the centre of programing as we move to strengthen democracy; and deepen and broaden sustainable development.

The many consultations held with various stakeholders to consider the draft of this Model Law on GBV provided a valuable opportunity for like-minded people and organisations to compare notes on strategies to end GBV.

Additionally, the consultations enabled Member States to showcase the amazing work that they are doing in their respective jurisdictions to respond to GBV as captured in this edition.

I am incredibly proud of all those who worked so hard to develop this regional soft law which many expect will go a long way in helping Member States develop or refine laws and policies related to GBV.

We are under no illusion that this Model Law on GBV will be a panacea to GBV. Nevertheless, we are convinced that it will go a long way in supporting Member States as they work towards removing barriers, bias, stereotypes, inequality and discrimination that continue to thwart a significant portion of our population, especially women and girls.

Beyond the development of this Model Law, we need to continue working together to ensure that all people have equal access to opportunities so that they can thrive.

As reported elsewhere in this edition, the COVID-19 global pandemic has exacerbated existing challenges. There is, therefore, need for affirmative efforts to bring everyone on board. Developing this Model Law and the many consultations that were held, have enabled us to pause and reflect on the extent, drivers and impact of GBV in our Member States.

The heart-rending reports of GBV in some of our Member States have emboldened us to double our efforts towards ending this embarrassing scourge. Indeed, we cannot develop our communities if we leave some of our compatriots behind. We need to join hands in ensuring that the rights of women and other members of our population do not get rolled back and to ensure that perpetrators of GBV, in all its forms, are held to account.

This requires all hands on board and we expect the media to be the arrowhead in breaking the conspiracy of silence on GBV. Indeed, our media in their various formations, have an obligation to amplify the voices of women and girls who bear the brunt of GBV as well as the voices of those working towards making a difference in the fight against GBV.

Allow me to end by once again commending and saluting all organisations and individuals that

joined and supported us in this gallant effort. This is your Model Law. Use it.

Caros colegas/parceiros, É com enorme prazer que endereço a presente Mensagem aos distintos Parlamentos e Parceiros do Fórum, por ocasião do Dia Internacional do Parlamentarismo, a ser celebrado neste dia 30 de Junho de 2022.

Neste dia enobrecedor, o Fórum celebra o parlamentarismo em todas as suas manifestações, inclusive através dos parlamentos nacionais, regionais ou locais da África Austral. Há o reconhecimento de que o parlamentarismo é, a todos os níveis, a personificação de uma democracia funcional, fundamentada no Estado de direito e no respeito pelos direitos humanos. Um parlamento eleito por via de eleições regulares, livres e justas é o garante de poderes moderadores consentâneo com a noção sacrossanta de separação de poderes. O Fórum Parlamentar da SADC reconhece ainda que o parlamentarismo é uma forma eficaz de diálogo público e presta assim homenagem aos esforços graciosos empreendidos pelos seus parceiros em todo o mundo, tais como a União Interparlamentar, que se centraram no tema crucial de diálogo público para a celebração do parlamentarismo em 2022.

Embora o mundo esteja a recuperar a pouco e pouco da pandemia e continue a enfrentar outros desafios de índole sanitária e económica, os Parlamentos continuam a assumir o papel dominante na acção de reformas. Na qualidade de instituição edificadora da paz, os Parlamentos constituem o fórum adequado para a resolução de conflitos por meio de iniciativas representativas, de fiscalização e legislativas lideradas com o beneplácito do povo. O dinamismo e a pró-actividade parlamentares podem, portanto, dar um valiosíssimo contributo para garantir a neutralização de conflitos e soluções duradouras para a paz pela via da liderança e do diálogo. De igual modo, o diálogo público coerente continua a ser o ingrediente necessário para uma democracia participativa.

Nestes termos, o Fórum continua comprometido com a concretização do Objectivo de Desenvolvimento Sustentável 16 relativo a instituições responsáveis, eficazes e inclusivas para a paz, um desiderato que reitera o compromisso de reforço da capacidade dos Parlamentos, tal como consagra a Carta Africana sobre Democracia, Eleições e Governação. Enquanto a África conduz o seu processo rumo a uma paz duradoura, o Fórum continuará a apoiar os Parlamentos a alcançar este nobre objectivo.

Viva os Parlamentos! Cordiais saudações,

Boemo M. Sekgoma

Secretária-Geral do Fórum Parlamentar da SADC

30 de Junho de 2022

MENSAGEM ENDEREÇADA POR S. EX.ª A SECRETÁRIA-GERAL DO FÓRUM PARLAMENTAR DA SADC POR OCASIÃO DO DIA INTERNACIONAL DO PARLAMENTARISMO A SER CELEBRADO A 30 DE JUNHO DE 2022

REUNIÃO CONJUNTA DA COMISSÃO PERMANENTE DE ALIMENTAÇÃO, AGRICULTURA E RECURSOS NATURAIS (FANR) COM A COMISSÃO PERMANENTE DE COMÉRCIO, INDÚSTRIA, FINANÇAS E INVESTIMENTO (TIFI) PELA EXPANSÃO DO INVESTIMENTO NA AGROECOLOGIA NA ÁFRICA AUSTRAL PARA O DESENVOLVIMENTO SUSTENTÁVEL E A ADAPTAÇÃO AO CLIMA DOMINGO, 1 DE MAIO DE 2022 NO HOTEL ..., EM JOANESBURGO, ÁFRICA DO SUL, NO ÂMBITO DA 51.ª ASSEMBLEIA PLENÁRIA

AGENDA

DOCUMENTO DE SÍNTESE DA REUNIÃO CONJUNTA DA COMISSÃO PERMANENTE DE ALIMENTAÇÃO, AGRICULTURA E RECURSOS NATURAIS COM A COMISSÃO PERMANENTE DE COMÉRCIO, INDÚSTRIA, FINANÇAS E INVESTIMENTO

LEMA: «PELA EXPANSÃO DO INVESTIMENTO NA AGROECOLOGIA NA ÁFRICA AUSTRAL PARA O DESENVOLVIMENTO SUSTENTÁVEL E A ADAPTAÇÃO AO CLIMA»

 DOMINGO, 1 DE MAIO DE 2022

• ENQUADRAMENTO E DADOS DE REFERÊNCIA

Os efeitos das alterações climáticas – secas, cheias e pragas persistentes – agravados pelos desafios económicos, a pobreza, os conflitos, as disparidades de género e as deficiências de responsabilidade social têm todos contribuído para a crise da segurança alimentar na região da SADC. A pandemia de COVID-19 reduziu as receitas e perturbou as cadeias de fornecimento, agudizando ainda mais a pobreza na região. Segundo o Relatório-síntese da SADC sobre o Estado de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional e Vulnerabilidade na Região Austral, lançado em Julho de 2021, até 47,6 milhões de pessoas (aproximadamente 13 por cento da população total) na região da SADC estão em situação de insegurança alimentar. Embora muitos Estados membros tenham beneficiado de uma colheita abundante de milho em 2021, as quedas pluviométricas acima da média fizeram-se acompanhar de uma estação de ciclones destrutiva. Nos dez Estados membros da SADC que remeteram dados, uma estimativa de 47,6 milhões de pessoas estão em insegurança alimentar, um aumento de 5,5% a partir de 2020 e 34,3% acima da média quinquenal.^[1]

Os pequenos agricultores, que produzem a maior parte da alimentação da SADC, ficaram afectados pelos efeitos da Covid-19, incluindo receitas domésticas mais baixas, acesso limitado aos insumos (sementes, fertilizantes) e falta de serviços de extensão para combater a ameaça em curso de pragas e doenças. Em particular, a pandemia afectou muitos aspectos das vidas das mulheres pequenas agricultoras, que representam cerca de metade da força de trabalho agrícola na África Subsaariana, do enfraquecimento da sua segurança alimentar e dilapidação das suas poupanças, ao aumento do seu volume de trabalho não remunerado e intensificação do risco de sofrerem violência baseada no género.^[2]

Em 2003, os Estados membros da União Africana assinaram a Declaração de Maputo, que se comprometia a aumentar as alocações orçamentais agrícolas para 10%, tentar atingir um crescimento agrícola de 6% e criar o Programa Abrangente de Desenvolvimento Agrícola em África (CAADP).^[3] Logo depois, os Estados membros da SADC assinaram a Declaração de Dar-es-Salam em 2004, que estabeleceu áreas prioritárias visando o alcance da segurança alimentar, incluindo abordagens a curto prazo tais como o asseguramento do acesso a sementes, fertilizantes e agroquímicos de qualidade.^[4] Seguiram-se outros instrumentos regionais, orientando medidas tanto regionais como nacionais: a Política Agrícola Regional (RAP) em 2013; o Plano Regional de Investimento na Agricultura (RAIP) em 2017–2022; a Estratégia de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional (FNSS) da SADC em 2015-2025; e a Estratégia e Plano de Acção da SADC para as Alterações Climáticas (CCSAP) 2015 – 2030.

Segundo o Centro Africano para a Biodiversidade, no entanto, as práticas que emanam do CAADP, que foram implementadas pelos governos africanos, tais como subsídios aos insumos através dos programas de subsídio aos insumos agrícolas (FISPs) nem sempre tiveram o efeito desejado.^[5]: embora os compromissos internacionais, continentais e regionais (SADC) promovam o apoio aos pequenos agricultores como estratégia-chave visando o alcance da segurança alimentar para as famílias, a formulação de políticas agrícolas na região não tem sabido responder de forma adequada às necessidades dos pequenos agricultores.

Em vez disto, proporções substanciais dos orçamentos nacionais são canalizadas em direcção aos FISP mediante o fornecimento de subsídios que reduzem o preço do fertilizante e da semente (geralmente de milho híbrido). Além de assegurar uma rede de protecção económica parcial, viu-se que os subsídios não beneficiavam directamente os pobres e mais vulneráveis, que são principalmente as mulheres. O que os FISP fazem mesmo é encorajar os pequenos agricultores a canalizarem os escassos recursos para a produção do milho híbrido, reduzindo efectivamente a diversidade dos alimentos disponíveis.^[6] Num relatório global de 2021, a FAO reconhece que o actual apoio agrícola «está inclinada para medidas que são nocivas e insustentáveis para a natureza, o clima, a nutrição e a saúde, ao mesmo tempo que colocam em desvantagem as mulheres e outros pequenos agricultores no sector». A FAO defende que, ao «reajustar o apoio aos produtores agrícolas, os governos podem optimizar os parcos recursos públicos no sentido de apoiar os sistemas de alimentação por forma a torná-los não só eficientes, como também mais apoiantes de vidas saudáveis, uma natureza e um clima igualmente saudáveis. Esta pode também ser uma oportunidade de se atingir uma forte recuperação económica num mundo pós-pandemia de COVID-19.»^[7]

Devido aos efeitos das alterações climáticas que causam secas e cheias em toda a região da SADC, tornou-se ainda mais urgente a necessidade de medidas a longo prazo visando reduzir o impacto de choques climáticos e criar a capacidade das comunidades e dos países de aguentar os referidos choques. A Covid-19 veio salientar ainda mais a necessidade de se apoiar uma alimentação local produzida de maneira sustentável com cadeias de valor mais curtas, para garantir que os países sejam resilientes, mesmo diante de calamidades.

• O potencial papel da agroecologia

O Painel de Alto Nível de Especialistas em Segurança Alimentar e Nutrição (HLPE) na Comissão das Nações Unidas (ONU) para a Segurança Alimentar Mundial (CFS) recentemente definiu a agroecologia nos seguintes termos:

«As abordagens agroecológicas favorecem o uso de processos naturais, limitam o uso de insumos comprados, promovem ciclos fechados com mínimas externalidades negativas e enfatizam a importância do conhecimento local e processos participatórios que desenvolvem o conhecimento e a prática através da experiência, bem como métodos mais convencionais, e corrigem as desigualdades sociais. As abordagens agroecológicas reconhecem que os sistemas agroalimentares se associam a sistemas socioecológicos que se estendem da produção da alimentação até ao consumo e envolvem a ciência, a prática e o movimento social, bem como a sua integração holística, para resolver a situação da [segurança alimentar e nutricional].»^[8]

Entre os benefícios-chave da agroecologia contam-se os seguintes:

• O acesso a uma alimentação saudável, fresca, diversificada e culturalmente apropriada para as populações locais ao longo de todo o ano;
• Redução da pobreza e um contributo-chave para a efectivação do direito a uma alimentação e nutrição adequadas;
• Aumento da resiliência perante as condições climáticas e redução da emissão dos gases com efeito estufa (GEE);
• O empoderamento da mulher e a redução da sobrecarga do volume de trabalho;
• Diversificação dos meios de sustento e valorização do conhecimento e da cultura local, tribal e indígena;
• Melhoria da saúde através da redução da exposição da agroquímicos nocivos;
• Ecossistemas mais resilientes, solos mais saudáveis e melhoria da gestão da água;
• Custos mais reduzidos, menos dívida e maior autonomia;
• Reforço da administração de sementes, culturas, biodiversidade, florestas e recursos naturais.^[9]

A Organização das Nações Unidas para a Alimentação e a Agricultura (FAO) e o Fundo Internacional para o Desenvolvimento Agrícola (IFAD) têm realçado o papel decisivo da agroecologia no alcance dos Objectivos de Desenvolvimento Sustentável (ODS).^[10] A FAO reconheceu-a como sendo uma «opção promissora para a implementação do Acordo de Paris», uma vez que lida simultaneamente com a adaptação às mudanças climáticas e a mitigação das mesmas.^[11] Relatórios recentes apresentados pela Plataforma Inter-governamental Ciência-Políticas sobre a Biodiversidade e os Serviços Ambientais (IPBES),^[12] o Painel Inter-governamental sobre o Clima (IPCC) e o HLPE,^[13] todos exortam o apoio aos sistemas agroecológicos para os pequenos agricultores, em vez de sistemas industriais de altos insumos externos, e defendem que aqueles podem ser altamente produtivos, muito sustentáveis, empoderam as mulheres, criam empregos, contratam a juventude, garantem maior autonomia, resiliência climática e múltiplos benefícios sociais, culturais e ambientais para mulheres e homens nas comunidades rurais e urbanas.

Há cada vez mais provas de que os sistemas agroecológicos baseados no campesinato têm vantagens claras sobre a agricultura industrial de altos insumos externos. Embora, historicamente, haja um fosso entre os rendimentos da agricultura convencional (de altos insumos externos) e a agricultura orgânica, este fosso tem muitas vezes sido sobrestimado, sobretudo quando se considera: a) o forte desempenho dos sistemas de agricultura agroecológica altamente desenvolvidos; b) que a agroecologia produz altos rendimentos (sobretudo ao longo do tempo) duma variedade de culturas, ao mesmo tempo que gera também benefícios sociais e ambientais adicionais. Um número crescente de pesquisas mostra que, quando convenientemente apoiada e nas condições económicas acertadas, a agroecologia pode superar o empenho dos sistemas de produção agrícola, sobretudo em áreas de sequeiro, mas também em muitos outros contextos, por exemplo^[14] uma recente meta-análise verificou que a agricultura alternativa aumentou os rendimentos em 61% dos estudos em comparação com a agricultura convencional, 20 por cento não tendo apresentado nenhuma diferença.^[15] Além disso, as práticas de diversificação usadas em práticas agroecológicas podem reduzir ou eliminar qualquer deficiência de rendimento entre a agricultura orgânica e a convencional.^[16]

Apesar da urgência e das evidentes vantagens da adopção de abordagens agroecológicas para a transformação dos sistemas de alimentação, a qualidade e a quantidade do financiamento da pesquisa e desenvolvimento agrícola e segurança alimentar são manifestamente insuficientes. A nível global, existe uma deficiência de financiamento para sistemas alimentares sustentáveis, e muito pouco do mesmo é alocado aos pequenos agricultores. Além disso, quase todo aquele financiamento é canalizado ao encorajamento dos agricultores a adoptarem formas prejudiciais de agricultura industrial de alta energia e altos insumos. As abordagens agroecológicas são claramente marginalizadas junto das fontes de financiamento existentes, e quando são apoiadas, isto muitas vezes acontece de maneira pouco conveniente e até prejudicial.^[17]

Na sua breve instrução de políticas intitulada Agroecologia: Scaling Up, Scaling Out,^[18] a ActionAid identifica barreiras-chave que precisam de ser desafiadas e sete etapas principais requeridas para se alcançar a agroecologia em grande escala: barreiras ideológicas, a orientação internacional do comércio e das exportações, a marginalização das mulhees, as leis monopolísticas sobre sementes, a falta de pesquisa e desenvolvimento agrícola em matéria de agroecologia e a concentração do poder nas mãos das grandes empresas transnacionais do agronegócio (TNC).

3.0 O que o FP-SADC e os parlamentos nacionais podem fazer

Os parlamentos nacionais desempenham um papel importante de fiscalização no sentido de informar e submeter a debate o uso de dotações orçamentais nacionais e contribuições estrangeiras para o desenvolvimento agrícola e a adaptação às alterações climáticas.

Já entre 2018 e 2021, os membros da Comissão Permanente de Agricultura do FP-SADC (FANR) analisaram e interviram em questões ligadas ao impacto das alterações climáticas sobre a agricultura e a segurança alimentar. Entre as intervenções contam-se as seguintes:

• A proposta de um projecto de resolução na Assembleia Plenária do FP-SADC em Dezembro de 2018 que exortava os Estados membros da SADC a acelerarem a implementação da Declaração de Malabo, com uma atenção especial na melhoria da responsabilidade social nos serviços agrícolas para os pequenos agricultores.
• A aprovação de resoluções em 2020 e 2021 apelando ao governos e doadores para reforçarem a resiliência por forma a amortecerem os choques climáticos cada vez mais acentuados, e desafiar o modelo industrial intensivo da agricultura sendo actualmente apoiado em toda a região.

Fora da SADC, o Parlamento da América Latina e do Caribe (PARLATINO) está em vias de elaborar uma Lei Modelo sobre a Agroecologia, apoiando-se nas recentemente elaboradas linhas de orientação da FAO sobre o desenvolvimento de quadros normativos visando a promoção da agroecologia na região da América Latina e do Caribe.^[19]

• Objectivos da reunião conjunta da comissões permanentes de FANR e TIFI

A reunião das comissões permanentes de FANR e TIFI vai especificamente procurar atingir os seguintes objectivos:

• Fazer o balanço dos indícios sobre o potencial das abordagens agroecológicas com vista a assegurar um desenvolvimento agrícola sustentável e produtivo na região da África Austral.
• Avaliar o nível de investimento nacional e regional na SADC sobre as abordagens agroecológicas e as potenciais oportunidades de aumentar este investimento.
• Reflectir sobre as intervenções dos parlamentos nacionais e do FP-SADC que poderiam contribuir para a expansão o investimento na agroecologia na região da SADC.

• Paticipantes e palestrantes

A sessão vai beneficiar dos conhecimentos especializados de prelectores da ActionAid, do Fórum dos Pequenos Agricultores da África Oriental e Austral, da Organização das Nações Unidas para a Alimentação e a Agricultura (FAO) e do Centro para a Coordenação da Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento Agrícola na África Austral (CCARDESA). Serão apresentadas comunicações por um painel de prelectores experientes, seguidas de uma sessão interactiva com a tónica nas possíveis intervenções de políticas que podem ser feitas pelo FP-SADC e pelos parlamentos nacionais.

 PT - Concept Note for FANR and TIFI Meeting

^[1] Relatório-síntese da SADC sobre o estado da segurança alimentar e nutricional e vulnerabilidade na África Austral https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Synthesis-Report-2021_English.pdf

^[2] FAO SOFA Team & Cheryl Doss, (2011). The Role of Women in Agriculture’ ESA Working Paper No. 11-02, FAO. http://www.fao.org/sustainable-food-value-chains/library/details/en/c/265584/; FAO, (2011), 2010-2011 The State of Food and Agriculture. Mulheres na Agricultura: Colmatar o fosso de género para o desenvolvimento.  http://www.fao.org/publications/sofa/2010-11/en/; ActionAid, (2020), Covid-19 Food Crisis: Pesquisa de monitoramento.  https://actionaid.org/publications/2020/covid-19-food-crisis-monitoring-research

^[3] Para a Declaração de Maputo, consultar: https://bit.ly/2PQ4EhX

^[4] Para a Declaração de Dar-es-Salam, consultar: https://bit.ly/2EzVRPc

^[5] Centro Africano para a Biodiversidade (2016). Programas de Subsídio aos Insumos Agrícolas (FISPs): Benefício para, ou Traição dos Pequenos Agricultores da SADC? https://www.acbio.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Input-Subsidies-Report-ACBio.pdf

^[6] Centro Africano para a Biodiversidade (2016). Ibid; Aliança PSA (2019) Breve instrução de política do PSA sobre a Responsabilidade Social

dos FISP no Malawi, em Moçambique, na Tanzânia e na Zâmbia. http://www.copsam.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/SAfAIDS_PSA_PolicyBrief_FISPs_FINAL.pdf

^[7] FAO, PNUD e UNEP (2021), =;/ https://doi.org/10.4060/cb6562en

^[8] HLPE (2019), Abordagens agroecológicas e outras abordagens inovadoras para a agricultura sustentável e sistemas de alimentação que aumentam a segurança alimentar e a nutrição. Um relatório do Painel de Alto Nível de Especialistas em Segurança Alimentar e Nutrição da Comissão para a Segurança Alimentar Mundial, Roma. http://www.fao.org/3/ca5602en/ca5602en.pdf

^[9]ActionAid International (2018), Agroecologia: Scaling Up, Scaling Out. https://actionaid.org/publications/2018/agroecology-scaling-scaling-out.

^[10] IFAD (Dezembro de 2019), Como a agroecologia pode responder a um clima em mutação e beneficiar os agricultores. https://www.ifad.org/en/web/latest/story/asset/41485825 ; FAO (2018), O trabalho da FAO em matéria de agroecologia: uma via de transição para os ODS. http://www.fao.org/3/I9021EN/i9021en.pdf

^[11] FAO (2018). ibid.

^[12] IPBES (2019), Resumo para os formuladores de políticas do relatório de avaliação global sobre a biodiversidade e os serviços ambientais da Plataforma Inter-governamental Ciência-Políticas sobre Biodiversidade e Serviços Ambientais. https://www.ipbes.net/system/tdf/ipbes_7_10_add.1_en_1.pdf?file=1&type=node&id=35329.

^[13] HLPE (2019).

^[14] ActionAid (2021 – a ser publicado), Movimentar o Financiamento à Agroecologia para as Pessoas, o Clima e a Natureza. Escrito por Colin Anderson e Janneke Bruil; Pretty, J. N., Morison, J.I.L., Hine, R. E.  (2003), Reduzir a pobreza alimentar através do aumento da sustentabilidade agrícola nos países em desenvolvimento. Agricultura, Ecossistemas & Ambiente 95, 217-234. 10.1016/s0167-8809(02)00087-7; Ponisio, L.C., M’Gonigle, L.K., Mace, K.C., Palomino, J., de Valpine, P., Kremen, C. (2015). As práticas de diversificação reduzem o fosso de rendimento entre o orgânico e o convencional. Proc Biol Sci 282, 20141396. 10.1098/rspb.2014.1396.

^[15] Alonso-Fradejas, A., Forero, L.F., Ortega-Espès, D., Drago, M.n., Chandrasekaran, K. (2020), Junk Agroecology. TNI, Friends of the Earth International, Crovevia. https://www.tni.org/files/publication-downloads/38_foei_junk_agroecology_full_report_eng_lr_0.pdf

^[16] Ponisio (2015).

^[17] CIDSE (2021) Breve instrução de políticas – Movimentar dinheiro para a agroecologia: Transformar a ajuda ao desenvolvimento no sentido de apoiar a agroecologia. https://www.cidse.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/EN-Making-money-move-for-agroecology.pdf

^[18] ActionAid (2018).

^[19] FAO (2021), Legislação visando promover a agroecologia na região da América Latina e do Caribe. https://www.fao.org/agroecology/database/detail/en/c/1438599/

AGENDA

Download

Programme- Joint Meeting FANR and TIFI

• Background

The effects of climate change - persistent drought, flooding and pests – compounded by economic challenges, poverty, conflict, gender disparities, and gaps in social accountability, have all contributed to the SADC region’s food security crisis. The Covid-19 pandemic has reduced incomes and disrupted supply chains, further exacerbating poverty in the region. According to the SADC Synthesis Report on the State of Food and Nutrition Security and Vulnerability in the Southern Region, released in July 2021, up to 47.6 million people (approx. 13% of total population) in the SADC region are food insecure. While many Member States experienced a bumper maize harvest in 2021, the above-average rainfall was coupled with a destructive cyclone season. In the ten SADC Member States that submitted data, an estimated 47.6 million people are food insecure, a 5.5% increase from 2020 and 34.3% above the 5-year average.^[1]

Smallholder farmers, who produce most of SADC’s food, have been impacted by the effects of Covid-19, including lower household incomes, limited access to inputs (seeds, fertilisers) and lack of extension services to combat the ongoing threat of pests and diseases. In particular, the pandemic has affected multiple aspects of the lives of women smallholder farmers, who supply about 50% of total agricultural labour in Sub-Saharan Africa, from undermining their food security and eroding their savings, to increasing their unpaid care workload and heightening their risk of gender-based violence.^[2]

In 2003, African Union (AU) member states signed the Maputo Declaration, which committed to increasing agricultural budget allocations to 10%, pursuing agricultural growth of 6%, and to setting up the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP).^[3] Soon after, SADC member states signed the Dar-es-Salaam Declaration in 2004, which established priority areas for achieving food security, including short-term approaches such as ensuring access to quality seeds, fertilisers, and agrochemicals.^[4] Additional regional instruments followed, guiding both regional and national actions: Regional Agricultural Policy (RAP) 2013; Regional Agricultural Investment Plan (RAIP) 2017-2022; SADC Food and Nutrition Security Strategy (FNSS) 2015-2025; and SADC Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (CCSAP) and Strategy, 2015 – 2030.

According to the African Centre for Biodiversity, however, practices that emanate from CAADP which have been implemented by African governments, such as input subsidies through farm input subsidy programmes (FISPs), have not always had the desired effect.^[5] While international, continental and regional (SADC) commitments promote support for smallholder farmers as a key strategy for achieving household food security, agricultural policy making in the region has failed to adequately respond to the needs of smallholder farmers.

Instead, large portions of national budgets are directed towards FISPs by providing subsidies that reduce the price of fertiliser and seed (usually hybrid maize). Aside from providing a partial economic safety net, the subsidies have been found to not directly benefit the poor and most vulnerable, who are mostly women. Instead, the FISPs have led smallholder farmers to direct scarce resources towards hybrid maize production, effectively reducing the diversity of food available.^[6] In a 2021 global report, the FAO acknowledges that current agricultural support “is biased towards measures that are harmful and unsustainable for nature, climate, nutrition and health, while disadvantaging women and other smallholder farmers in the sector.” FAO advocates that by “repurposing agricultural producer support, governments can optimize scarce public resources to support food systems in ways that make them not only more efficient, but also more supportive of healthy lives, nature and climate. This can also be an opportunity to achieve a strong economic recovery in a post-COVID-19 pandemic world.”^[7]

With the effects of climate change causing droughts and flooding throughout the SADC region, the need for long-term measures to reduce the impact of climate shocks and build the capacity of communities and countries to withstand them have become even more urgent. Covid-19 has further highlighted the need to support local, sustainably produced food with shorter value chains to ensure countries are resilient, even in the face of disasters.

• The Potential Role of Agroecology

The High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) in the United Nations (UN) Committee on World Food Security (CFS) recently defined agroecology as follows:

“Agroecological approaches favour the use of natural processes, limit the use of purchased inputs, promote closed cycles with minimal negative externalities and stress the importance of local knowledge and participatory processes that develop knowledge and practice through experience, as well as more conventional scientific methods, and address social inequalities. Agroecological approaches recognize that agri-food systems are coupled social–ecological systems from food production to consumption and involve science, practice and a social movement, as well as their holistic integration, to address [food and nutritional security].”^[8]

Among the key benefits of agroecology, include:

• Year-round access to healthy, fresh, diverse and culturally-appropriate food for local populations;
• Reduced poverty and a key contribution to the realization of the right to adequate food and nutrition;
• Increased climate resilience and reduced greenhouse gasses (GHG) emission;
• Empowerment of women and reduced workload burden;
• Diversified livelihoods and valued local, tribal and indigenous knowledge and culture;
• Improved health through reduced exposure to harmful agrochemicals;
• More resilient ecosystems, healthier soils and improved water management;
• Lower costs, less debt and greater autonomy;
• Enhanced stewardship of seeds, crops, biodiversity, forests and natural resources.^[9]

The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and International Fund for Agriculture Development (IFAD) have highlighted the key role for agroecology in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).^[10] The FAO has recognised it as a “promising option to implement the Paris Agreement,” as it addresses climate change adaptation and mitigation simultaneously.^[11] Recent reports by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES),^[12] the Inter Governmental Panel on Climate (IPCC),^[13] and the HLPE,^[14] all urge support for agroecological systems for smallholder farmers, as opposed to high external input industrial systems, and indicate these can be highly productive, highly sustainable, empower women, create jobs, engage youth, provide greater autonomy, climate resilience, and multiple social, cultural and environmental benefits for women and men in rural and urban communities.

Increasingly, evidence is showing that peasant-based agroecological systems have clear advantages over high external input industrial agriculture. While, historically, there has been a gap between the yields of conventional (high-external-input) agriculture and organic farming, this gap has often been overstated, especially when considering: a) the strong performance of highly developed agroecological farming systems; b) that agroecology produces high yields (especially over time) of a variety of crops, while also generating additional social and environmental benefits. A growing body of research indicates that when appropriately supported and in the right economic conditions, agroecology can outperform conventional systems of agricultural production, especially in dryland areas but also in many other contexts, for example^[15] A recent meta-analysis found that alternative agriculture increased yields in 61% of the studies when compared to conventional agriculture, with 20 percent showing no difference.^[16] Additionally, the diversification practices used in agroecological practices can reduce or eliminate any yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture.^[17]

Despite the urgency and clear benefits of adopting agroecological approaches towards the transformation of food systems, the quality and quantity of finance for agricultural research and development, and food security is woefully inadequate. Globally, there is a shortfall in funding for sustainable food systems, and very little of that is allocated to smallholder farmers. Additionally, almost all of that funding is allocated to encouraging farmers to adopt detrimental forms of high-energy, high-input industrial agriculture. Agroecological approaches are clearly marginalised in existing funding streams, and when they are supported it is often done in unhelpful and even damaging ways.^[18]

In its policy brief Agroecology: Scaling Up, Scaling Out,^[19] ActionAid identifies key barriers that need to be challenged and seven key steps required to achieve agroecology at scale: ideological barriers, international trade and export orientation, marginalisation of women, monopoly seed laws, lack of agricultural research and development on agroecology and concentration of power amongst agribusiness trans-national coroporations (TNCs).

3.0    What SADC PF and National Parliaments can do

National parliaments play an important oversight role in informing and interrogating the use of national budgetary allocations and foreign contributions towards agricultural development and climate change adaptation.

Already between 2018 and 2021, SADC PF FANR Standing Committee members have considered and acted on issues related to the impact of climate change on agriculture and food security. Among the actions were:

• Successfully proposing a motion at the SADC PF Plenary Assembly in December 2018 urging SADC Member States to accelerate the implementation of the Malabo Declaration, with a focus on improving social accountability in agricultural services for smallholder farmers.
• Passing resolutions in 2020 and 2021 calling on governments and donors to strengthen resilience to buffer ever-increasing climatic shocks, and to challenge the current intensive industrial model of agriculture being supported across the region.

Outside SADC, the Caribbean to the Latin American and Caribbean Parliament (PARLATINO) is in the process of developing a Model Law on Agroecology, informed by newly developed FAO guidelines on the development of legal frameworks to promote agroecology in the Latin American and Caribbean region.^[20]

• Objectives of the FANR/TIFI Standing Committee Joint Meeting

The FANR/TIFI Standing Committee meeting will specifically seek to achieve the following objectives:

• Review evidence on the potential of agroecological approaches to ensure sustainable and productive agricultural development in the southern African region.
• Assess the level of national and regional investment in SADC on agroecological approaches, and potential opportunities to increase this investment.
• Reflect on national parliament and SADC PF interventions that could contribute towards expanding investment in agroecology in the SADC region.

• Participants and resource persons

The session will draw upon the expertise of resource people from ActionAid, Eastern and Southern Africa Small-Scale Farmers’ Forum, the UN Food and FAO, and the Centre for Coordination of Agricultural Research and Development for Southern Africa (CCARDESA). A panel of experienced resource persons will make presentations, followed by an interactive session focusing on possible policy interventions that could be made by SADC PF and national parliaments.

Download

Concept Note for FANR and TIFI Meeting

^[1] SADC Synthesis report on the state of food and nutrition security and vulnerability in Southern Africa: https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Synthesis-Report-2021_English.pdf

^[2] FAO SOFA Team & Cheryl Doss, (2011). The Role of Women in Agriculture’ ESA Working Paper No. 11-02, FAO. http://www.fao.org/sustainable-food-value-chains/library/details/en/c/265584/; FAO, (2011), 2010-2011 The State of Food and Agriculture. Women in Agriculture: Closing the gender gap for development. http://www.fao.org/publications/sofa/2010-11/en/; ActionAid, (2020), Covid-19 Food Crisis: Monitoring research. https://actionaid.org/publications/2020/covid-19-food-crisis-monitoring-research

^[3] For the Maputo Declaration, see: https://bit.ly/2PQ4EhX

^[4] For Dar-es-Salaam Declaration, see: https://bit.ly/2EzVRPc

^[5] African Centre for Biodiversity (2016). Farm Input Subsidy Programmes (FISPs): A Benefit for, or the Betrayal of, SADC’s Small-Scale Farmers? https://www.acbio.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Input-Subsidies-Report-ACBio.pdf

^[6] African Centre for Biodiversity (2016). Ibid; PSA Alliance (2019) PSA Policy Brief on Social Accountability

of FISPs in Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania and Zambia. http://www.copsam.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/SAfAIDS_PSA_PolicyBrief_FISPs_FINAL.pdf

^[7] FAO, UNDP and UNEP (2021), =;l https://doi.org/10.4060/cb6562en

^[8] HLPE (2019), Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition. A report by the High-Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/ca5602en/ca5602en.pdf

^[9] ActionAid International (2018), Agroecology: Scaling up, scaling out. https://actionaid.org/publications/2018/agroecology-scaling-scaling-out.

^[10] IFAD (December 2019), How agroecology can respond to a changing climate and benefit farmers. https://www.ifad.org/en/web/latest/story/asset/41485825 ; FAO (2018), FAO’s work on agroecology: a pathway to the SDGs. http://www.fao.org/3/I9021EN/i9021en.pdf.

^[11] FAO (2018). Ibid.

^[12] IPBES (2019), Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. https://www.ipbes.net/system/tdf/ipbes_7_10_add.1_en_1.pdf?file=1&type=node&id=35329.

^[13] IPCC (2019), IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse gas fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/08/Fullreport-1.pdf.

^[14] HLPE (2019).

^[15] ActionAid (2021 – to be published), Shifting Funding to Agroecology for People, Climate and Nature. Written by Colin Anderson and Janneke Bruil;  Pretty, J.N., Morison, J.I.L., Hine, R.E. (2003), Reducing food poverty by increasing agricultural sustainability in developing countries. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 95, 217-234. 10.1016/s0167-8809(02)00087-7; Ponisio, L.C., M'Gonigle, L.K., Mace, K.C., Palomino, J., de Valpine, P., Kremen, C. (2015). Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap. Proc Biol Sci 282, 20141396. 10.1098/rspb.2014.1396.

^[16] Alonso-Fradejas, A., Forero, L.F., Ortega-Espès, D., Drago, M.n., Chandrasekaran, K. (2020), Junk Agroecology. TNI, Friends of the Earth International, Crovevia. https://www.tni.org/files/publication-downloads/38_foei_junk_agroecology_full_report_eng_lr_0.pdf

^[17] Ponisio (2015).

^[18] CIDSE (2021) Policy Briefing – Making Money Move for Agroecology: Transforming Development Aid to Support Agroecology. https://www.cidse.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/EN-Making-money-move-for-agroecology.pdf

^[19] ActionAid (2018).

^[20] FAO (2021), Legislation to promote agroecology in the Latin American and Caribbean region. https://www.fao.org/agroecology/database/detail/en/c/1438599/