Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

Dear colleagues from HLPE-FSN,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the scope of the HLPE FSN report on building resilient food systems. Please find attached the German comments.

Kind regards

Carolin Weber
________________________
Unit 622
Right to Food

Federal Ministry for Food and Agriculture, Gernamy
website: http://www.bmel.de/

GERMANY – Input to HLPE FSN e-consultation building resilient food systems (scope)

• How can resilience be evaluated and/or measured at different scales (household, community, national, regional)? 

Genetic resources: 

Food system resilience could be measured through the diversity of genetic resources for food and agriculture (GRFA). This can be monitored on different scales for example through the access of community seedbanks, or on national level through measuring the diversification of agricultural production systems (see also next question).

The diversity of domesticated and related wild species of plants, animals, forest trees, fungi, invertebrates, and microorganisms, and the genetic diversity within them are:

a.            essential for breeding to improve the quality and quantity of agricultural production systems (e.g. biofortification), the resource efficiency (e.g. water need) or features like abiotic/ biotic stress tolerance (e.g. heat tolerance).

b.            essential to preserve biological diversity in a sustainable way and increase resilience of agroecosystems.
 

Free trade: 

While negotiating free trade agreements increased attention should be focused around stand-alone chapters concerning “sustainable food systems” and “trade and sustainable development (TSD)”.

• What indicators would measure that food systems are resilient across their different components (e.g. consumption, supply chains, retail and production)? 

Genetic resources:
 

SDG Indicator 2.5.1 (Number of plant and animal genetic resources for food and agriculture secured in either medium- or long-term conservation facilities) is appropriate to monitor a part of food system resilience. 

Monitoring of in-situ conservation of crop wild relatives could be a complementary indicator as well.

Regarding production, the level of diversification of agricultural production systems can be an indicator for resilience meaning the diversity of cultivated species, varieties, breeds, lines and strains.

Monitoring species with important ecosystem functions for production systems in agriculture for example wild bees and hoverflies as pollinators or soil microorganisms for fertile soils.

Monitoring the genetic diversity of domesticated varieties and breeds also gives an indication on food system resilience. For example SDG Indicator 2.5.2 (Proportion of local breeds classified as being at risk of extinction) which uses the effective population size as basis.

• Which and where are the weak points in global food systems in terms of ensuring the resilience of food security and nutrition? 

Concerning global food systems one challenge resides in finding a coherent approach in terms of the various efforts undertaken by policy makers around the globe in order to improve the resilience of food security and nutrition. 

Genetic resources:

Genetic resources are a key form of natural capital needed for stability and adaptability in agriculture and forestry. Therefore, the bottleneck is the preservation of genetic diversity especially for breeding, combined with sustainable management practices.

• What are the determinants, assets, and skills that lead to resilience at different scales (households, community, national, regional)?

To cope with often foreseeable food and nutrition crises in globalised food systems, it is essential to build the four following resilience capacities of people, communities, and societies in the long run.

1. Anticipatory capacities enable people to assess risks and reduce the probability of imminent crises occurring. Improved anticipatory capacities include early warning systems that provide timely relevant information about risks and anticipated crises; appropriate laws and policy frameworks and crisis response plans to work effectively when a crisis occurs; crisis-sensitive social protection mechanisms to alleviate chronic stresses and cushion against acute crises. Good governance at all levels.

2. Absorptive capacities enable people affected by acute crises to satisfy their basic needs and ensure that important sub-national structures remain operational. They enable the use of individual and collective reserves, social protection programmes, temporary cash and food transfers, collective loan and savings schemes and insurance so that households meet food and nutrition needs and cover expenses during a crisis. Absorption includes systems to protect natural resources, physical infrastructure, and health and education facilities.

3. Adaptive capacities enable people to adjust to long-term changes and modify their livelihoods accordingly and provide positive options for action through acquired knowledge and skills to make their livelihoods more crises resilient. As regards food security and nutrition, developing capacities for diversifying food crops, establishing small-scale and community gardens, increasing the efficiency of irrigated agriculture, and for storing, processing, and preserving food is relevant. Technological and social innovations (e.g., adapted seed varieties; climate-smart, resource-saving agricultural practices) and the development of partnerships is vital in successfully adapting to living conditions that have been changed by crises and risks. These strategies enable people to switch to livelihoods that are less prone to crisis and tap into new income sources.

4. Transformative capacities enable people to analyse the underlying causes of crises and the resulting negative impacts, and to accelerate structural change to create sustainable, more resilient livelihoods. This may involve a fundamental shift in the political, economic, and socio-cultural structures that cause and sustain food and nutrition insecurity and poverty. To support change, context-specific food security and nutrition approaches must be anchored in decentralised and national structures. Appropriate multi-sectoral coordination mechanisms, cross-sectoral budgeting of activities related to food and nutrition, the development and implementation of strategies to improve nutrition and the dissemination of related skills should be supported. The successful transformation of food and nutrition systems is closely linked to a change in social values incl. power structures at different levels. Participatory and inclusive approaches are vital as they support ownership, responsibility and commitment and present realistic options for action.

Systemic approaches (i.e., multi-level, multi-sectoral, multi-stakeholder, people-centred) can strengthen the different resilience capacities of people, households and government institutions to food and nutrition crises. Strengthening resilience requires integrated, multi-sectoral short, medium, and long-term measures that are combined depending on the context (community-based approaches).

• What kind of resilience frameworks are there that should be explored?

The Humanitarian-Development-Peace-Nexus (HDP-Nexus) is a crucial resilience-building approach to reduce humanitarian needs and prevent several risks which people living in vulnerable conditions face. To take precedence over reaction, early warning systems prevent extreme events from leading to hunger and all forms of malnutrition. 

Understanding the food security-nutrition-climate-security nexus requires framing risks and resilience. Resilience and risk management are cross-cutting issues in the areas of food security and nutrition, rural development, and agriculture. Risk management and analyses (incl. analysing climate risks for groups in vulnerable situation and women) are a fundamental basis for drawing up national adaptation plans (NAPs) and updating adaptation components in national climate contributions (NDCs) to strengthen resilience.

Diversification as a factor for strengthening resilience. Improving the income of smallholder farmers. E.g.: Supporting small-scale fisheries who contribute to sociocultural diversity: there is a significant positive association between their diverse fisheries practices and the resilience and well-being of coastal and inland water communities (Source: Illuminating Hidden Harvests)

Integration of indigenous knowledge systems, e.g., long-practiced oral traditions, neglected and underutilized species, experiences and knowledge offer expert insights into the state of ecosystems, changes over time, and the proper adaptive responses for sustainable harvesting (ibid).

• How to balance preparing for short-term shocks (e.g., droughts and floods) versus the need to ensure food systems fit within planetary boundaries and long-term sustainability of systems? 

Planetary and dietary challenges must be addressed simultaneously by all relevant governmental departments since they are fundamentally interlinked. Consumer-driven measures such as shifting diets in high- and middle-income countries towards less-emitting food items as well as reducing food loss and waste are important cost-effective elements of a sustainable food system transformation.

Agroecology, as a holistic approach to the transformation of agriculture and food systems, seeks to optimize the interactions between plants, animals, humans, and the environment while also addressing the need for socially equitable food systems within which people can exercise choice over what they eat and how and where food is produced. It is a sustainable development path that incorporates climate protection and climate resilience. 

In addition, an increased application of and investments in nature-based solutions and integrated production systems (e.g., agroforestry) offer huge potentials.

Moreover, repurposing harmful agricultural subsidies offers multiple benefits to the food system, climate system, and ecosystem.

Risk mainstreaming in agricultural and food systems. Risk awareness and climate resilience as the basis for transformed agriculture and food systems. Strengthening resilience can generate costs in the short term (efficiency reduction). In the long term, however, these investments pay off and high (damage) costs are reduced.

Compensation mechanisms that combine income from agricultural and aquatic food production with a payment for positive external effects; such a smart income mix can provide smallholder farmers and fishers with a living income and contribute to both food and nutrition security and climate protection.

Regarding fisheries, there is a need to understand how flexibility can be introduced into the fisheries management cycle to foster adaptation, strengthen fisheries resilience, and enable managers to respond in a timely manner to changes in the dynamics of marine resources and ecosystems.

• What kind of inequities and power imbalances are present in food systems and how do they affect resilient FSN and especially for those groups facing multidimensional and intersectional aspects of inequality and vulnerability?

Gender equality, women’s empowerment and integrating indigenous people and youths strengthens adaptive capacity for resilience to climate change and other external shocks such as the global COVID-19 pandemic.

In addition, the transformation of food systems needs to be a ‘just’ rural and urban process so that it reduces inequality and inequities of all kinds, rather than increasing them. No one must be left behind.

• Are there current or recent partnerships / initiatives proven to contribute to building resilience? What are the lessons learned? 

Examples established with the support of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development:

1. Global Food and Nutrition Security (GAFS) dashboard has been providing crucial data on food crisis and has been supportive on making informed decisions in terms of how to respond fast. In addition, GAFS helped managing food security and nutrition crises through (food security) crisis preparedness plans for establishing more integrated and proactive systems.

• Shared understanding of food and nutrition crises information and country needs.

• Strengthened linkages across country- and global-level decision-making.

• Enhanced coordination of humanitarian and development policy and financial responses.

1. CRISP: The Climate Risk Planning & Managing Tool for Development Programmes in Agri-food Systems offers support to mainstream climate risk considerations into project design and implementation. It specifically addresses project managers and practitioners in agriculture, rural development and food security and nutrition projects.

2. Indo-German flagship initiative on agroecology and sustainable management of natural resources: Since 2022, Indo-German cooperation in the field of agroecology to promote climate resilience and sustainable use and management of natural resources for food security and nutrition within planetary boundaries.

3. The initiative CompensACTION for food security and a healthy planet aims to promote large-scale innovative payment mechanisms (compensation mechanisms) for ecosystem services. Experience shows that scalable payment mechanisms must bring clear benefits for smallholder farmers and require public and private funding.

4. The initiative FISH4ACP is contributing to food security and nutrition, economic prosperity and job creation by ensuring the economic, social and environmental sustainability of fisheries and aquaculture value chains in Africa, the Pacific.