Thank you for the opportunity to review the Theory of Change and Draft Results Framework.
Inputs for New Food System Integrated Program to support the transformation of food systems into nature-positive, resilient, and pollution free system
General Comments:
- Improve inclusion of women, men, youth, indigenous peoples in TOC and Results framework
The language of the Theory of Change and Results Framework can be more gender-sensitive and inclusive. I appreciate that the questions asked about women, men, youth, indigenous peoples and the TOC and Results Framework can include more of the key vulnerabilities or differential impacts of each of these groups.
- Include right to healthy and nutritious food (food systems transformation for both human and planetary health) and nutrition-sensitive lens for every level
Also I wonder if the right to healthy and nutritious food is a goal of the new food system integrated program as it is not clearly articulated in the outcomes of the TOC and Results Framework. Some references that may be useful to consider are the EAT Lancet report and this action paper on Nature-positive food systems from the Food Systems Summit to bring in the concept that foods systems transformation is for both human nutrition and planetary health.
It would also help to have a nutrition-sensitive lens for the TOC and results framework at every level.
- Include Biodiversity in Focus for Food Systems Transformation
I have a question on why there is a limitation of focus on crops and commercial commodities for this framework that don’t seem to align other food systems transformation agendas to increase diversity of crops. I’m referring to this statement in the website prior to the documents: The Food Systems Integrated Program will focus explicitly on sustainable, regenerative, nature positive production systems and support efficient value/supply chains covering selected food crops (maize, rice, and wheat), commercial commodities (soy, oil palm, coffee and cocoa), livestock, and aquaculture.
The TOC notes as a barrier (“Incentives for unsustainable FS”), which I interpret to mean the agricultural subsidies that reduce the price of staples and key crops for production, whereas more nutritious crops and a wider variety of crops are left without incentives (and thus deincentivised). For livestock and aquaculture, the dietary shift to reduce global consumption of animal source products in most cases and increased utilization of indigenous or local animal source foods in a sustainable way needs to be more clear in the TOC.
- Organise TOC and Results Framework to distinguish global and country level outcomes/pathways and barriers
There are two levels that the program aims to address (as mentioned in the website): 1) Global Level; 2) Country Level. It may help show these levels in the TOC and Results Framework (organize the pathways or indicate what is for global or country level). Right now, both pieces are not clear in this respect and sounds more high level (global level).
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?
- The barriers identified in the TOC Pathway 2 are centred on the current paradigm that profit/money is the key driver for what is invested in (or what is not). However, for clarity and inclusiveness, it may help to identify who has each barrier or note which groups have particularly high risk of such barriers, like women farmers, indigenous peoples, youth. Some barriers may be specific to such groups as well, and notably different barriers for urban/peri-urban versus rural women, men, youth and indigenous peoples. One key barrier is lack of access to and/or control of land ownership and use, which would be derived from policies that relate to land inheritance rights, land use policies and marital/divorce laws. These would likely highly discriminate against women, youth, indigenous peoples, people who are poor and/or with low literacy, people with disabilities.
The barriers for TOC Pathway 1 are centred on policies only for food systems, and it may be also relevant to look at supportive policies for those you wish to make food systems transformation happen in the community, e.g. land inheritance rights, land use policies, marital/divorce laws. The lack of inclusion of wisdom and knowledge of indigenous peoples, perspectives of women, men and youth in policies for food system transformation (e.g. food production and the whole value chain) as a barrier is a gap that I see.
The barriers for TOC Pathway 3 can be expanded to include the lack of post-harvest technologies available to manage post-harvest loss (including preservation and storage technologies, especially for fruits and vegetables), adequate distribution, transport of sustainably produced food (including animal source foods) so that it can be accessed where it is needed (in an affordable and equitable way).
- The first level outcomes could take more consideration of vulnerable groups into the outcomes and differential pathways for urban and rural settings for food systems transformation. For the second level outcomes, the aspirational outcomes in this action track paper from the Food Systems Summit may spur some additional ideas or pathways that address both human and planetary needs for sustainable, nature-positive food systems.
Looking at the existing framework, we can understand the hierarchy as follows:
- Policies and governance, globally and locally (enabling environment)
- Financing (enabling environment)
- Macro planning (assessing the overall geography and making landscape decisions; i.e. what should be conserved, what restored, what improved agricultural practices etc)
- Implementation (sustained approaches applied on the ground)
- Knowledge management/dissemination and M&E
Some feedback on the results framework:
- Again, this results framework shows the "how", but it is not specific in terms of what foods are promoted in this food systems transformation.
- In the policy section, to ensure that the policies promote indigenous crops (i.e. doesn't always have to be maize, rice and cassava, should be including millet, other traditional indigenous crops), and nutritious crops. So, the "what" should include crop diversity: indigenous, and nutritious, and that should be embedded in policy
- In the Implementation section, the approaches should include indigenous knowledge/practices and input; i.e. it's not all new innovations, some of the solution rests with building in traditional, indigenous practice and so the approaches need to be bi-directional; i.e. not only providing scientific solutions, but including those indigenous practices that are sustainable
- In that section, the indicator about landscapes under improved practices; not only the practices, but the what of it; what is being grown should include crop diversity and nutrition considerations
- Likewise, the indicator about livelihoods should be expanded - not only improved livelihoods, but improved health and nutrition (and food security)
- In the value chain section, inputs should include for traditional/indigenous crops
- In the knowledge section, it's not only increased capacity of local actors, but the mainstreaming of knowledge of indigenous practices.
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?
- Similar to above comments, if there can be more inclusive outcomes that represent different groups and rural/urban contexts, that would improve the framework. Also the lack of mention of nutrition in the food systems framework is a gap.
- Citizen assemblies to engage men and women farmers, youth, indigenous peoples
Examples:
Mali – GMO Cotton Citizen Assembly; Method for discussion of Food system transformation – 4th Industrial Revolution versus Food Sovereignty and Acroecology
Capacity Building on Climate-smart interventions in food production of healthy diets
Trainings on Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration, Climate-smart agriculture, nutrition-sensitive agriculture, green manure/cover crops, use of indigenous foods (insects, seeds, nuts) and plants promotion in healthy diets
Support for citizens so that they have basic rights, enabling them to participate in food systems transformation pathways for their country
In crisis-setting and transitioning out of crisis areas, food and/or cash assistance for support of most vulnerable families, including farmers, pastoralists, fishers, etc.
- Right now, the draft results framework is a bit high level (i.e. not clear on how relevant key stakeholders in the communities part of food system transformation work is included), and it’s not clear how the food producers input into all the processes. I would recommend organizing by global level and country level (as noted in the introduction on the website).
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.
Examples of scaling up approaches, including policies, for more sustainable/ regenerative food systems practices.
In terms of practices, World Vision champions Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration. We also have experience in working in communities with most vulnerable children and their families to support their livelihoods and reducing food insecurity through climate-smart agriculture, nutrition-sensitive agriculture and a range of livelihood, savings and social protection interventions.
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.
The citizen assemblies are relevant for engagement of local communities and multi-stakeholder processes (examples: Mali GMO decision process, Citizens forums for Food Systems Transformation).
Citizen Voice Action is also promoted within World Vision to support community members to advocate for local issues with their duty bearers, including government. This could be supporting local advocacy from community members on issues of food systems that affect them. This is a recent publication for how it was used in MEER (for other issues).
Research gaps or innovations on food systems transformation for global environmental and climate benefits.
This is not on research gaps or innovations itself, but a way to democratize the knowledge for all:
Carmen Tse, World Vision International, Senior Nutrition Advisor, and Michele Gaudrault, World Vision International, Technical Director, Health and Nutrition
Sra. Carmen Tse