Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

1. Different ways of defining resilience:

1.1 How do different groups define resilience (e.g., Indigenous Peoples' Organizations, the scientific / peer-reviewed literature, other key rights holders)?

Although they represent just 5 percent of the world’s population, Indigenous Peoples safeguard 80 per cent of the planet’s biodiversity. For Indigenous Populations, resilience means preserving their deep-rooted connections to their traditional lands and environments which is essential to their cultural identity.  Their right to exercise control over these territories is, however, being constantly eroded by land-use change, in turn driven by the relentless expansion of agricultural lands, mostly for animal pasture and the production of animal feed.(Plant Based Treaty, 2023, Safe and Just: The Plant Based Treaty’s vegan donut economics approach to the food system.)

In the words of Ms. Xananine Calvillo, Youth Indigenous Activist, “the food system as it is now, does not only harm the Earth's physical limits but also our social boundaries. Shifting to a plant-based food system will help us create safer and fairer communities”. (Intervention during a Press Conference at the Bonn Climate Meetings, June 2024). Resilience must be understood not only as a physical or environmental concept, but essentially as a social construct, based on the relationship of people among themselves and with the land where they live. 

Ms. Calvillo went on to explain that factory farming agribusiness had taken over the ancestral land of her community, impacting a fragile ecosystem and ancestral plant-based traditions rooted in biodiversity and agroecological practices. Her firsthand testimony is buttressed by the Environmental Justice Atlas, which documents how all conflicts in lands that are home to Mexico indigenous communities are related to animal agriculture industries, specifically as regards the groundwater. For this reason, again quoting Ms. Calvillo “Food systems transformation is also an issue of indigenous rights. Our relation to land is under attack by the expansion of animal agriculture businesses”. 

Supporting the resilience of Indigenous Peoples therefore means supporting our planet’s resilience. This is why we call for transitioning to a plant-based food system and rewilding our planet through a push towards the 3Rs that are the three pillars of the Plant Based Treaty: R1, relinquish the expansion of animal agriculture; R2, redirect major economic resources and large-scale public education towards plant-based food systems; and R3 ,restore and rewild to reverse damage to critical ecosystems and their functions and services. (Plant Based Treaty).

1.2 What are the main types of vulnerabilities facing food supply chains and what are the potential consequences for food system actors (including input suppliers, food producers, traders, food system workers and consumers), considering different kinds of potential shocks?

The current food system centered on animal farming necessarily requires the use of complex value chains because of the multiple steps required in the production of meat and dairy, including among others growing feed crops, transporting them to feedlots, managing livestock, then slaughtering the animals, processing, packaging and distributing. Plant-based foods, on the other hand, could potentially be grown, harvested, and processed directly, in one single field or else with significantly streamlined inputs.(Carbon Briefing, Rich nations could see ‘double climate dividend’ by switching to plant-based foods, 2022). Plant based food system value chains are therefore intrinsically more resilient and - if given adequate tools - more adaptable to the stressors that are impacting the food system.

The vulnerabilities of the production of all kinds of animal protein were starkly exposed by a string of successive value chain crises, triggered by the pandemic, conflicts, geo-political instability and extreme weather events. These supply chain bottlenecks indeed slowed the movement of feed and other inputs, halted slaughterhouses operations, and increased inputs prices resulted in increased suffering for the main actors in this food system: non-human animals, which were crammed in overcrowded facilities, were stranded at sea for long periods of time, and sadly were subjected, in many instances, to mass culling. They also led to job losses or loss of revenue for small farmers and farm workers, and price increases for consumers downstream, and food insecurity for many vulnerable populations.

Extreme weather events and conflicts around scarce resources will in the next decades become more and more frequent as anthropogenic pressures break the equilibrium of the holocene, affecting entire ecosystems. There can be no doubt that failures in animal-centred supply chains will also become ever more frequent and have greater repercussions on non-human animals, on farm workers, and on consumers. 

It is important to understand that while animal agriculture value chains are impacted by the climate and ecological crisis, they are themselves a leading cause of it. For example, raising animals is resource-intensive, and requires large amounts of water, feed, and energy. So at a local level, we witness animal farms drawing increasing amounts of water from aquifers, and later being most affected when these aquifers run dry or become polluted by these very same farms’ runoffs, causing for example the unavailability and increased price of feed and water on the farms, as well as reduced animal “productivity”. 

Redesigning value chains so that they withstand the upcoming period of increased volatility is critical for food security on our planet. This is why we call for transitioning to a plant-based food system and relinquishing the expansion of animal agriculture, while redirecting major economic resources and large-scale public education towards plant-based food systems; and restoring and rewilding to reverse damage to critical ecosystems and their functions and services. (Plant Based Treaty). Specifically, we call for a push towards the 3Rs that are the three pillars of the Plant Based Treaty: R1, relinquish the expansion of animal agriculture; R2, redirect major economic resources and large-scale public education towards plant-based food systems; and R3 ,restore and rewild to reverse damage to critical ecosystems and their functions and services. (Plant Based Treaty).

1.3 What kind of inequalities 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?

Currently, 70 percent of all farmland is operated by just 1 percent of the world’s farms. Mostly these farm owners have little if any connection to the land they operate, which is in the hands of institutional investors. This has a deleterious effect on the vulnerability of food systems. In fact, while small producers diversify their crops and production methods, investors mostly use their lands to grow a very limited set of commodities - mostly soy and corn - and with highly homogeneous production methods. These crops, referred to as “flex crops”, can be used to produce food, animal feed, or biofuel depending on market profitability at any given time. The adoption of this pattern on a massive scale not only results in food production being based more on profit than in meeting human needs but is also a major risk driver (Monbiot, Regenesis: Feeding the World without Devouring the Planet, Great Britain, Allan Lane).

Monbiot further notes: “Four plants—wheat, rice, maize, and soybeans—account for almost 60 per cent of the calories grown by farmers. Four countries (the U.S., Argentina, Brazil, and France) harvest 76 per cent of the corn exported to other nations. Only three nations, Brazil, the U.S., and Argentina, grow 86 per cent of the world’s soybeans (which in turn supply three-quarters of its feed for farm animals)”. As climate change and the breach of other planetary boundaries make our weather patterns more and more unpredictable, and extreme weather events more and more likely, there is an increased probability that one of these crops will fail for one or more consecutive seasons, in one or more of the core producing countries, or that multiple crops will fail simultaneously. It is not hard to imagine the disastrous consequences of failures of this scale, becoming ever more likely. (Monbiot, Regenesis: Feeding the World without Devouring the Planet, Great Britain, Allan Lane pages 32-33) 

This is one of the reasons why we advocate for the diversification of food production and ownership as a critical basis for resilience and food security. Preserving the property rights of indigenous communities –  which are champions of environmental stewardship – and of small farmers – that maintain a healthy diversity in crops and production methods  - while putting a halt to the land grabs by large corporations is fundamental to the increased resilience of food systems. In conclusion, land should be more equally and equitably distributed and placed in community hands so it can be repurposed for reforestation, reclaimingIndigenous rights, green spaces, and edible gardens and allotments, as well as increasing biodiversity and food security. (Safe and Just, page 23).

1.4 What resilience capacities are there that should be explored?

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

The single most important determinant of resilience is access to accurate information which allows the individual or community to choose the best path for their circumstances. Yet, The Peoples’ Climate Vote, the largest survey of public opinion on climate chaos ever conducted with 1.2 million respondents, reveals the majority of the public is (1) unaware of the relationship between food and climate change, and (2) unaware of the significant contribution of food emissions.(As quoted in Safe and Just Report) 

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

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

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

The most important weak points of food systems or in other words the main vulnerability drivers are the overreliance on animal protein, the lack of diversity in the ownership of land, the marginalization of indigenous communities, the lack of climate finance for agri-food systems and the perverse nature of subsidies to agri-food. 

• The dominance of animal protein in Western diets is a major driver of vulnerability for food systems. In fact, for structural reasons, production of meat and dairy depends on long and fragile supply chains which span the globe. These supply chains are increasingly impacted by geo-political conflicts and extreme weather events. Additionally,farming practices such as monoculture and pasture based agricultural systems, which simplify and standardize ecosystems, reduce the resilience and ability of the biosphere to perform vital ecosystem functions further diminishing the resilience and adaptability of the global food system (Safe and Just Report). 
• The lack of diversity in the ownership of land, with 70 percent of all farmland is operated by just 1 percent of the world’s farms, reinforces the dependence on a very limited set of commodities and homogeneous production methods which are estimated <to have a high probability of failure with catastrophic consequences for food security at the planetary level. (Monbiot, Regenesis: Feeding the World without Devouring the Planet, Great Britain, Allan Lane).
• The marginal role to which indigenous people are consigned compounds vulnerabilities in global food systems because it forgoes their traditional knowledge which is, amongst others, vital to ensure an optimal balance between preserving the environment and drawing essential services from it, while respecting planetary boundaries (see Safe and Just Report, page 76). 
• The low level of finance directed to agri-food system and its composition . As note by the World Bank Report, “Recipe for a Livable Planet” (based on data from the Climate Policy Initiative) climate finance from private, public  and multilateral sources combined to the agrifood system were merely 4.3 percent of total climate finance to cover mitigation, adaptation, and dual-benefit investments. This is despite one-third of GHG emissions being generated by the agrifood system. While this is shockingly low, in the face of the formidable challenge of enhancing resilience to shocks and nourishing a global population while staying within planetary boundaries, what is even more worrying is the composition of this finance. First, global climate finance for small-scale agrifood systems, which are those that contribute the most to resilience, is equivalent to just 0.8% of total climate finance tracked across all sectors (see Climate Policy Initiative 2023). Second, most of the finance going to agrifood systems is at odds with the actions needed to mitigate and adapt to climate change. USD 411 billion of support is in forms that are potentially most distorting, comprising market price support and payments linked to output or the unconstrained use of inputs. These policies may encourage over-production and can contribute to GHG emissions if they lead to the overuse of polluting inputs, degradation of soils and increased land clearing (OECD, Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2023: Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change). Similarly, a joint report by FAO, UNDP and UNEP calls for governments to rethink the way agriculture is subsidized and supported, noting that 87% of $540 billion of support to agricultural producers is either price distorting or harmful to nature and health. In short, for the agri-food system to successfully transition towards resilience, equity and sustainability, there is a need to massively increase and overhaul the composition of the finance directed to the system. 

9 What evidence bases are there to measure resilience and the effectiveness of interventions?

2. Understanding what we must be prepared for – the nature of shocks:

2.1 What types of shock are more relevant for food systems and which ones are more likely to affect FSN? What types of shocks have been under-researched, especially regarding their impact on FSN and food systems?

2.2 How might different kinds of shocks (e.g. climatic, social, financial or political) affect different regions and different aspects of the food system (e.g. production, processing or distribution)?

2.3 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?

2.4 Are there ways of enhancing resilience to unknown and unforeseen shocks?

3. Understanding and mitigating trade-offs:

3.1 Are there trade-offs between increasing adaptation to one type of shock and creating other types of fragility?

3.2 What is the impact on resilience programming of different understandings of food security and nutrition (e.g. focus on nutrition, the four pillars, the six dimensions of food security, etc.)?

4. Existing programmes and policies to promote resilience – a gap analysis of current strategies and recommendations:

4.1 How are countries preparing for food systems resilience today? What are the main policies and documents that are promoting resilience on these national level plans?

4.2 What are the current or recent partnerships / initiatives proven to be contributive to building resilience? What are the lessons learned?

4.3 Could you provide success stories and best practices examples that can be applied to other locations?

4.4 Is the currently portfolio of resilience programming well aligned to different types of shocks and different household, scales, or parts of the food system?

4.5 What gaps are there in the current portfolio of country adaption / resilience policies?

4.6 What is the impact of the policies and programmes designed to increase resilience at local and global food systems, including with respect to global trading rules and coordinated, inclusive and equitable strategies for addressing environmental sustainability, climate change, biodiversity and human rights?

4.7 How can governance mechanisms be more resilient and participatory with respect to providing data-driven, context-specific advice on strengthening food systems resilience?

4.8 What measures are necessary to incentivize private sector strategies and investments that promote supply chain resilience?

5. Share recent literature, case studies and data that could help answer the questions listed above.

1. Harvard Law School, Animal Law Policy Program (2024), Options for a Paris-Compliant Livestock Sector, Available at https://animal.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/Paris-compliant-livestock-report.pdf (Accessed May 2024)
2. Crippa, M., et al. (2021). Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nature Food. 2, 198–209. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9
3. Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science. 360, 987-992. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw9908
4. Global Witness, Land and environmental defenders, Available at: https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/environmental-activists/ (Accessed May 2024)
5. Lee C., Soybean Products and Its Environmental Impact, 2021, Available at: https://earth.org/soybean-products-and-its-environmental-impact/ (Accessed May 2024)
6. Kortleve A.J., et al. (2024) Over 80% of the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy supports emissions-intensive animal products
7. Madre Brava (2023) Media Analysis of industrial meat and climate change
8. Clark, M. A., et al. (2020), Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2°C climate change targets. Science. 370, 705-708. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba7357
9. Climate change tracker, Sources of Human-Induced Methane Emissions. Available at: https://climatechangetracker.org/methane/breakdown-human-induced-yearly-methane-ch4-emissions#datasource (Accessed May 2024)
10. Galoustian, G. (2021). Future Pandemic? Consider Altering Animal Agriculture Practices, Jun 2, Accessed Nov 2023, Retrieved from: https://www.fau.edu/newsdesk/articles/pandemic-animal-agriculture.php (Accessed May 2024)

Answers from Plant Based Treaty Team