Many thanks for your invitation to take part in the online consultation. I have added some comments and suggestions under your questions below.
Janice Cox, MBA, Policy Adviser, World Federation for Animals
Theory of Change:
|
1 |
Do the barriers identified reflect your experience as Community Based Organizations (CBOs) / Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), private sector and local communities (women, men, youth, indigenous peoples)? Are there key barriers that are missing in TOC? |
|
2 |
Do the first level Outcomes appropriate and adequate for transformation of food systems’ impacts on the environment? |
Barriers
Some important barriers are missing, for example:
*As well as lack of policy coherence, there is entrenched silo-thinking (for example, seeking to increase food security through industrial methods which have detrimental impacts on the environment, animal welfare, human health and equity, and longer-term sustainability).
*As well as inadequate legal frameworks, ineffective enforcement.
*As well as incentives for unsustainable FS, there is lack of costs for external impacts (absence of internalising externalities). Also, lack of incentives for positive change.
*Lack of knowledge/expertise on how to bring about dietary change (social sciences).
*Lack of wider understanding of full impacts of food systems – including environmental, animal welfare, and human health, livelihoods and equity; plus longer-term sustainability. Plus inability to factor all these concerns into decision-making.
*As well as focus of rural advisory services on unsustainable approaches, there is same focus for many governments and international financial institutions and development banks.
First Order Outcomes
*As well as national and international governance frameworks, there needs to be agreed compliance mechanisms, reporting, and feedback (to gauge effective enforcement).
*This does not specifically point to necessary regulatory changes to favour FS transformation (i.e. making plant-based and cellular alternatives more attractive, facilitating product acceptance channels (e.g., FDA etc.), instead of over-regulation of acceptance, restrictive product names etc.).
*Pathways for public and private investment: need full impact assessments, not selective. Including animal welfare, as well as environment and socio-economic impacts.
*One Health framework needs to be applied – preventatively and proactively. Including aligning dietary guidance, food labelling etc. with broader sustainability and animal welfare objectives.
*Best practice to be captured, kept in accessible databases, and promulgated.
Also, other points noted on this Theory of Change model:
*Drivers: As well as policies and leadership, there are unfavourable regulatory environments for transformation and ineffective enforcement; economic systems i.e., economic growth as primary development model; free market policies, including lack of private sector regulation and control; treatment of animals as machines, instead of sentient beings.
*Impacts: Include animal welfare impacts; as well as health risks, human and animal health risks.
Draft Results Framework:
|
3 |
Are the Outcomes planned appropriate and adequate for food systems transformation? |
|
4 |
What could be examples of types of intervention and outputs that could ensure stronger engagement and ensure capacities of CBOs/ NGOs, the private sector, and communities (including women, men, and youth, indigenous peoples) to continue food systems transformation? |
|
5 |
What might be specific contributions of each stakeholder group to the achievement of the components? |
3. No. These need to be amended to take account of above comments.
These outcomes do not adequately reflect the existential nature of environmental crises, or the immense suffering of animals in industrial farming systems. There should, indeed, be targets to phase out industrial animal agriculture.
These outcomes seems to focus more on the means than the content and direction of FS transformation, which needs to be specifically included for real impact.
There is nothing about dietary change, which is probably the most important component of FS transformation – change from animal products to plant-based and cellular, and addressing over-consumption.
On land use change, suggest no further land use change for unsustainable FS.
No further deforestation for unsustainable FS.
4. Types of interventions and outputs
Public procurement is a vital area for change.
Education and awareness campaigns – Veganuary, plant-based days, meat-free Mondays etc. Social media campaigns. Advertising campaigns.
Labelling in support of sustainability and animal welfare criteria.
Good practice database development.
Reducing fertiliser and pesticide usage.
Many more – as indicated by all comments above.
5. Stakeholder contributions
Joint education and awareness campaigns, with NGOs
NGO awards for good practices
Contributions of best practice databases
In addition, the Program development team seeks inputs on your experiences and advice on:
|
Examples of scaling up approaches, including policies, for more sustainable/ regenerative food systems practices. Successful examples of multi-stakeholder processes at national level that brings local communities (including indigenous peoples, youth, women and men), the private sector, the civil society and academia and the government to develop policies related to food systems. Successful examples of public-private partnerships for food systems transformation. Research gaps or innovations on food systems transformation for global environmental and climate benefits. |
There are many research gaps on both the full impacts of existing food systems, and prospective alternatives – particularly multi-disciplinary research (as this is usually carried out in specialist silos). See, for example, this recent paper on aquaculture in Africa, which examines the range of impacts, and potential alternatives:
https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/aw_farm_aqua/1/
Janice Cox, MBA