FAO science boss says organic farming increases productivity long term

The Food and Agriculture Organization’s chief scientist has refuted the idea that organic farming risks worsening the global hunger crisis, telling Devex in a wide-ranging interview that “an agroecological approach with technology could save us, but we don't have really enough appetite for it.” Earlier this year, Erik Fyrwald, CEO of the agrochemicals group Syngenta, sparked controversy by claiming that “people are starving in Africa because we are eating more and more organic products.” Fyrwald argued that, depending on the product, organic farming generates lower yields. Asked to respond, Ismahane Elouafi, a Canadian-Moroccan scientist who became FAO’s first chief scientist in 2020, told Devex last week that the science paints a different picture. “The science says that if you take a 100% agroecological approach, in the short term you reduce production, in the first few years — anywhere between three to five years, [it] depends on the system,” she said. “But in the long term you gain a lot, you increase productivity. So there is a bit of a dip before you go up.” Considering the major barriers to sustainability, Elouafi called the push for greater monoculture “one of the biggest mistakes we made” as it breaks the synergies between the crop or animal and the surrounding microorganisms that boost nutrition and productivity. And she said the economic model that rewards large-scale farming must change too. She cited a paper from the United Nations Food Systems Summit last year on “The True Cost and True Price of Food” that called for taxes and subsidies to be used by governments “to incentivize businesses to produce sustainable products and enable consumers to buy them.” “We have to push for change in the policies, and particularly in the subsidies,” Elouafi said. Is that part of the role of a chief scientist, Devex asked? “No, not at all,” Elouafi responded with a laugh. “The science says that if you take a 100% agroecological approach, in the short term you reduce production … But in the long term you gain a lot.” --— Ismahane Elouafi, chief scientist, Food and Agriculture Organization Elouafi said her role was to provide “soft leadership” with strong, quality evidence on science, technology and innovation in order to produce more food, more sustainably. Earlier this month the FAO Council approved the body’s first “Strategy on Science and Innovation.” The document vows to avoid “duplication” with other organizations, to use the knowledge of indigenous people and small-scale producers, and it also acknowledges its own limitations. “Science and evidence are essential for sound decision-making, but do not necessarily provide a singular course of action,” the strategy reads. Elouafi said that rather than dodging contentious issues, her team tries to draw attention to knowledge gaps and convene debates. For instance, a dozen scientists are preparing a paper on gene editing to be launched in the fall. When it comes to potential upcoming technologies, such as vaccinating animals through feeding, Elouafi said those with the best insights are often in the private sector. “I do have a lot of respect for the way they are doing things,” she said of private companies, while acknowledging the diversity between multinationals and microenterprises. “The fact that they start with an idea and make it into a product, it's a beautiful innovation continuum that unfortunately we don't have in the public sector.” U.N. bodies are no strangers to the dilemma of how to remain impartial while taking money from corporations. NGOs recently called for FAO to end its partnership agreement with CropLife International, arguing that working with the global trade association representing major pesticide producers is incompatible with FAO’s obligation to uphold human rights. Elouafi said that FAO’s mandate cannot be achieved without the private sector, though potential collaborations should be studied carefully. And she argued that the present private sector strategy is far more rigorous than in the past. “Believe me, the due diligence right now, if it was applied a few years ago, many of the private sector [actors] that we worked with would never have gone through,” she said. “Before it was very loose. Right now, it's much more stringent. It's looking really at the companies and their background and what's the problems and what’s their business model and the risks for us in terms of reputation and in terms of losing our impartiality in terms of working in the sector.” Companies’ wide reach in societies around the world comes with great responsibility, Elouafi said, which must be guaranteed through public policies designed to encourage affordable, nutritious food. “We can’t let them loose, we have to use them,” she said.