General Comment on the questions stated in this e-consultation, from Dr R D Cooke CFS Advisory Group member, representing the CGIAR System Organisation.
This is a hugely important topic, which confronts many of the challenges to society and to human nature in delivering the SDGs. The conceptual framework (Question 1) is robust and far-reaching, but the risk is that this would lead to an HLPE report that would be too diffuse, inadequately focused on FSN, and re-invent some of the wheels developed by other organisations. This V0 seeks rightly to focus on FSN drawing on several earlier HLPE reports, but in several areas there are missing references to relevant earlier work by HLPE and other organisations ( comment below on questions 4 & 5). I have nothing to add to the definitions described in Questions 2 &3; those definitions are serviceable.
Question 4: gaps in the literature and data in the report regarding major inequalities in FSN (chapter 3 of V0).
4.1 The first inequality stated is ‘Inequalities in land, livestock and other food production resources’ (pages 45-52) much space is rightly focused on the inequalities confronting small-scale farmers (the 85% of all farms that have less than 2 ha and have just 12% of total farmed land). A key missing reference and source of relevant data is the report UN Decade of Family Farming 2019-2028. This highlights the important role family farmers play in eradicating hunger and shaping our future of food. Family farming offers a unique opportunity to ensure food security, improve livelihoods, better manage natural resources, protect the environment and achieve sustainable development.
The Global Action Plan of the UN Decade of Family Farming 2019-2028 aims at accelerating actions undertaken in a collective, coherent and comprehensive manner to support family farmers, and reduce the inequalities cited in V0. That Action Plan comprises 7 pillars:
Pillar 1. Develop an enabling policy environment to strengthen family farming
Pillar 2. Transversal. Support youth and ensure the generational sustainability of family farming
Pillar 3. Transversal. Promote gender equity in family farming and the leadership role of rural women
Pillar 4. Strengthen family farmers’ organizations and capacities to generate knowledge, represent farmers and provide inclusive services in the urban-rural continuum
Pillar 5. Improve socio-economic inclusion, resilience and well-being of family farmers, rural households and communities
Pillar 6. Promote sustainability of family farming for climate-resilient food systems
Pillar 7. Strengthen the multidimensionality of family farming to promote social innovations contributing to territorial development and food systems that safeguard biodiversity, the environment and culture.
Pillars 1, 4, 5 and 7 are directly relevant to this e consultation.
4.2 The second inequality stated is ‘Inequalities in finance and information ; (pages 52-53). These are the sources of major inequalities, but the treatment in V0 is superficial and out-dated. For example the reference to IFAD on finance is from 2015. After the opening paragraph in this V0, more recent text could be added. For example, I quote from the current IFAD web site on rural finance:
“The vast majority of rural people do not have reliable, secure ways to save money, protect and build assets, or transfer funds. This is particularly true for vulnerable groups, such as women, youth, and displaced people. Weak infrastructure, the limited capacity of financial service providers, and low levels of client education all contribute to this complex problem.
For over four decades, IFAD has made significant investments to promote inclusive rural finance (IRF) in more than 100 developing Member States, reaching an estimated 13.8 million voluntary savers and 11.95 million active savers and borrowers in 2019. IFAD has also led and supported the production of a large body of IRF knowledge and evidence; contributed to several global and regional policy processes; and participated in key partnerships such as the Consultative Group to Assist the Poor (CGAP) and the Improving Capacity-Building in Rural Finance (CABFIN) project. IFAD updated its 2009 Rural Finance Policy in December 2021, titled ‘ Inclusive Rural Finance Policy’.
Financial institutions often perceive small-scale agriculture as being too risky and are reluctant to lend money to farmers and agribusinesses. Farmers themselves are reluctant to borrow for agricultural production because of their difficulty in managing risks such as climate-related shocks and livestock disease. Over the past ten years, IFAD has become a leader in the field of agricultural risk management (ARM). The Fund promotes a holistic approach to protect and strengthen rural economies and food production systems, at the same time as leveraging rural financing and investment in smallholder farmers.”
Apart from IFAD 2021 for the IRF, other pertinent refs are available there, and also from the WB site.
The half page on information also does not do justice to this important source of inequalities. Many recent references are available, for example on ICTs/extension, on the web sites of FAO, WB, GFAR/GFRAS and on the sites of many bilateral development partners and the EC.
4.3 The third inequality stated is ‘Inequalities in value chains and markets’ (pages 54-59). The themes are covered well, but would benefit from some more recent references – not least from two HLPE/ CFS VG reports that are not mentioned here:
i) The CFS Voluntary Guidelines on Food Systems and Nutrition (2021) are structured around seven focus areas encapsulating cross-cutting factors that are relevant for improving diets and nutrition. The first three focus areas and the associated text are directly relevant to this consultation: 1. Transparent, democratic and accountable governance; 2. Sustainable Food Supply Chains to Achieve Healthy Diets in the Context of Economic, Social and Environmental Sustainability, and Climate Change; 3. Equal and equitable access to healthy diets through sustainable food systems.
ii) HLPE Report – Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships (MSPs – HLPE 13, 2018). A key MSP mechanism described and also discussed in CFS follow-up meetings in 2019, is the value chain (from farmer to consumer and all the stakeholders and links in between) to deliver on FSN. The challenge is to ensure that these interventions and MSP developments benefit the poor farmers and smallholders. This discussion was informed by documents cited from CGIAR and IFAD, including a then recent book and associated articles from the CGIAR Centres CIP and IFPRI “Innovation for inclusive value-chain development: successes and challenges”: Andre Devaux, Maximo Torero, Jason Donovan, Douglas Horton, (2018). IFAD had produced reports on the ‘Sustainable inclusion of smallholders in agricultural value chains’, and ‘ Public-Private-Producer Partnerships in Agricultural Value Chains’ (Mylene Kherallah, Marco Camagni, Philipp Baumgartner, 2015 & 2016). Much of that is revisited in IFAD’s current Rural Development Report, 2021 ‘Transforming food systems for rural prosperity’.
References to the SOFI reports 2021 and 2022 could also be included here.
Question 5&6: structural drivers of inequity, adequate coverage, and key trends.
5.1 Chapter 4 includes ‘climate in-justice’ (page 85-87). Reference to the COP 27 (November 2022) is recommended, either here or in chapter 6 (page 120 which just mentions COP 26), since this included the first ever official Food and Agriculture Pavilion at a Climate Change COP. This was co-hosted by FAO, CGIAR, Rockefeller Foundation, and convened 70 events involving the agrifood systems community. This was driven by the increasingly uncertain future for food, land and water systems, and for vulnerable smallholder farmers, and the need to ensure that they are centred in climate negotiations and action.
5.2 Chapter 4 includes one page on Innovation and Technology, which begins ‘Developments in science and technology have been hugely important for boosting both agricultural yields and the growth of incomes in many low and middle income countries…’ The following paragraphs include old hat on the Green Revolution, and some rather unbalanced comments about recent research topics that imply that smallholders are unlikely to benefit. The only CGIAR ref is from 2012; you may be aware that the CGIAR updated its research and innovation strategy in 2020 and has developed with partners a corresponding research portfolio in 2021. I recommend citing at least that research and innovation strategy. I quote from the web site:
‘This 2030 Research and Innovation Strategy situates CGIAR in the evolving global context that demands a systems transformation approach for food, land, and water systems in a climate crisis. CGIAR designs its work with partners to realize multiple benefits and that transformative change across five SDG-focused Impact Areas: (i) Nutrition, health, and food security; (ii) Poverty reduction, livelihoods, and jobs; (iii) Gender equality, youth, and social inclusion; (iv) Climate adaptation and mitigation; and (v) Environmental health and biodiversity. Recognizing the need to accelerate global progress towards the SDGs, CGIAR will invest in technological and institutional innovations, partnerships, capacity development, and policy engagement across all five Impact Areas.’
All CGIAR Initiatives that constitute the new portfolio contribute to the Poverty Reduction, Livelihoods, and Jobs impact area. The CGIAR web site also describes a selection of those Initiatives that primarily contribute to this Impact Area.
Chapter 5. “Actions to reduce inequalities in food and other systems to improve FSN”
5.3 Page 95 discusses equity/equality sensitive policy and cites 3 tools to that end, including SUN’s multi-stakeholder partnership toolkit. The pre-amble would benefit from ref to HLPE Report – Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships (MSPs – HLPE 13, 2018).
5.4 Page 97 discusses actions to reduce inequalities in general terms and includes one page (page 101) entitled ‘Boost public agricultural research and other rural public investments, with particular attention to the needs of disadvantaged groups’. While stating that ‘Agricultural growth is effective at reducing poverty (Christiaensen, Demery and Kuhl, 2011) and is also an important factor in reducing income inequality…. the cited references (eg two IFPRI refs in this text from 21 and 12 years ago) are in need of updating. That relates also to my earlier comment in 5.2, above, on the CGIAR strategy.
5.5 Page 102 covers ‘Adapt inclusive value chain approaches to the local context to improve participation and outcomes of disadvantaged groups in value chains’, and cites a Devaux journal article; the book cited in 4.3, above, by the same authors gives a more complete source for those issues. That section includes an IFAD ref from 11 years ago. IFAD’s current Rural Development Report, 2021 ‘Transforming food systems for rural prosperity’, should be cited here.
That IFAD 2021 report notes that the overall goals of a food system’s transformation are to ensure that people are able to consume diets that are healthy, to produce food within planetary boundaries and to earn a decent living from their work in the food system. Livelihoods, nutrition and environmental goals are interlinked. Central to these desired outcomes is the need to ensure that food systems are resilient to shocks from weather extremes, pest and disease outbreaks, climate change and market anomalies.
The key recommendations of this Report include
A failure of food systems is a failure of governance. National governments play a central role as drivers and implementers of change, yet global markets and geopolitical considerations also play a crucial role. Policymakers, governments and stakeholders can support this transition by taking 7 actions described in the report.
This 2021 RDR also identified three key ways to ensure rural people benefit from a food systems transformation:
- Create new employment opportunities and invest in local midstream
food businesses Local SMEs provide new ways to access both markets and non-farm employment opportunities, while supplying healthier foods to meet consumer demand.
- Invest in agricultural systems by helping small farms become more productive and profitable
- Focus on social protection measures that encourage better diets and livelihood opportunities.
Chapter 6. ‘Transformations necessary for positive structural change to reduce inequalities in FSN’.
6.1 Page 122 cites ‘Transformative action: data and knowledge revolution’, but should draw on, and cite clearly the HLPE Report 17 on ‘Data collection and analysis tools for FSN’, approved at CFS 50 (2022).
6.2 The chapter concludes with a section ‘Structural reformation approaches with implications for equity’ which just includes a page entitled ‘Agroecology’ as defined by Altieri, 1995. The commentary is surprisingly out-dated, and very surprisingly overlooks to cite the wisdom of the HLPE Report 14 (2019) on ‘ Agroecology and other innovative approaches’, and the derived CFS policy document approved at CFS 48 in June 2021. This section would also benefit from consideration of the FAO report just released: The future of food and agriculture – Drivers and triggers for transformation. The Future of Food and Agriculture, no. 3. Rome (2022). https://doi.org/10.4060/cc0959en. Section 1.9 in that document covers driver 10, Innovation and Science (pages 160-184).
Question 7 is answered above implicitly in the comments for questions 5 & 6. Question 8 : redundant facts to eliminate; no rather a question of updating various sections, as discussed above. Question 9 on success stories from countries is for CFS Member Countries to consider.
Dr R D Cooke
CFS Advisory Group member, representing the CGIAR System Organisation
Dr. Rodney Cooke