Forum global sur la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition (Forum FSN)

Dear HLPE-FSN Secretariat, 

Many thanks for the opportunity to comment on the scope of the report on "Building resilient food systems".

Kindly find attached the contribution from the Global-Hub on Indigenous Peoples' Food Systems.

Thank you and best regards,

Anne Brunel, 

Coordinator of the Global-Hub on Indigenous Peoples' Food Systems

 

Dear HLPE colleagues,

please kindly find attached the CSIPM contribution for the consultation on the scope of the report on Building Resilient food systems.

Warm regards,

The CSIPM Secretariat

Building resilient food systems - HLPE-FSN consultation on the scope of the report – 

CSIPM submission

General points

• CSIPM attaches great importance to this workstream, which is central to the goal of radical transformation of our food systems in a direction of equity, sustainability and respect for the right to food. We would have liked to see it situated at the end of the MYPoW, in order to draw on the outcomes of other workstreams and on four years of discussions regarding controversial, structural issues in the ‘Collaborative governance for coordinated policy response’ platform. Nonetheless the HLPE report on this topic can make an important contribution towards achieving the CFS vision.   
• To do so, it is important to avoid the trap of ‘shock’-oriented thinking about resilience. The need is, rather, to address the structural causes of the multiple, interlinking crises and shocks that afflict the world today. Where do they come from? The question is how to prevent them, rather than how to tinker with their effects. What do we need to do to build a ‘shock-free’ world? Indeed, the HLPE added ‘enduring’ to the title of its periodic note on FSN issues precisely because fundamental food provisioning-related problems continue to be disregarded. 
• In this regard it can be useful, as the HLPE has done in the past, to seek coherence between immediate responses to shocks and long-term transformation of food systems, and seek privilege short-term measures that build towards transformation.
• It is equally important to avoid seeking ‘balanced’ analysis that accommodates all perspectives. The HLPE should lay out the evidence as it is, highlighting conflictual viewpoints rather than toning them down, and spelling out the foreseeable consequences of different policy directions. Who benefits and who loses? Then, it is up to governments to take decisions based on the evidence and, if they ignore it, to be held to account. It would be particularly important to highlight the implications of different policy choices for most affected countries and constituencies, whose voices need to be heard strongly in the CFS. 
• We also suggest that the report be careful in adopting the slippery language of ‘trade-offs’. Some goals are not subject to trade-off reasoning – e.g. respect for human rights. Also, trade-off reasoning tends to be expressed in binary terms that excludes other possibilities. E.g. ensuring ‘fair prices for producers’ covering the costs of production does not necessarily translate into unaffordable prices for poor consumers.
• We urge the HLPE to put ‘agency’ at the center of the report and identify those groups whose reinforced agency is most likely to lead in a direction of resilience rooted in equity and right to food. While the draft scope of the report refers to families and communities there is a curious lack of mention of organized groups/movements of small-scale food producers and other most affected constituencies who are fundamental actors in food systems and whose advocacy can build the political will required to fuel deep transformation.  

Issue areas to be included in the report’s scope

• The right to food and all interlinked human rights should be the guiding principle of the report’s analysis and recommendations, being the guiding principle for the overall concept of resilient food systems and to its different components, at all levels. The work that is being carried out around the 20th anniversary of the voluntary guidelines on the right to food should provide rich material for reflection, as should a rights-based action plan on uptake of CFS outcomes and discussions in the Collaborative Governance for Coordinated Policy Responses. The concept of intersectionality (among vulnerabilities and among HRs), currently encountering difficulties in the Inequalities negotiations, should be clarified and consecrated. 

The report should explore how other UN institutions, especially but not limited to the three Rio Conventions, can best integrate the right to food approach and implementation of the right to food guidelines the into their work related food systems. Further suggestions should be developed how the uptake of CFS products can be ensured and improved by other UN institutions the same accounts for the inclusive way of participation in the CFS. To build resilient food systems it is paramount that the whole UN Systems is coherent on the right to food and friendly to participation of affected groups. The report should contribute to the debate how to establish this coherence and improve inclusivity.

• Food sovereignty is a concept and practice that the CSIPM has been seeking to include in the CFS lexicon for years. Perhaps this report provides an opportunity to do so, and to clarify the meaning that is attached to the term now that numerous national and regional authorities are adopting it with quite different perspectives than those of the food sovereignty movement that launched it some three decades ago.
• The issue of corporate concentration in globalized food supply chains, with a handful of transnational firms dominating the different areas of food provisioning - from input supply to staple crop production, food trade, processing and retail – was highlighted in the rationale for ‘building resilient and equitable supply chains’ in the 2022 CEEI note, but seems to have gotten lost in the draft scope. It is essential to include it in the finalized scope since resilience requires diversity, which cannot be obtained in the current conditions of power differentials.
• Trade is one of the key ‘enduring’ issues identified by the HLPE (2017 CEEI note) but not addressed by the CFS thus far. While voices that resist changes in global trade regimes argue speciously that trade can only be discussed in the WTO, it is evident that the impacts of different trade regimes on FSN, particularly in most affected countries and on most affected constituencies, can best be addressed in the CFS given its inclusive composition and its mandate to defend the right to food for all. This point was made in the policy recommendations on Connecting Smallholders to Markets. The need for better protection for countries that depend on food imports was underlined in the HLPE note on COVID, and stronger regulations on food commodity markets was advocated in the note on the war in Ukraine. Trade issues, including food stocks, are being hotly debated in the negotiations on Inequalities. These issues were well-framed in questions 4 and 5 of the section on resilient food systems in the 2022 CEEI note, which should be included in the finalized scope of the report. The HLPE is invited to familiarize itself with the evidence that supports the advisability of reintroducing various forms of market regulation, and the work underway – led by La Via Campesina – to reframe global trade rules from a food sovereignty perspective.
• Contribution of industrial food systems to climate change, biodiversity loss, desertification and other land degradation. The report could take stock of the findings on the environmental destruction caused by industrial food systems and offer avenues to phase out from industrial agriculture, pesticides and chemical fertilisers’ dependence. As the legitimate science-policy interface on food systems it is important that the HLPE shows a clear and holistic picture of the impacts (not only climate-related but also biodiversity, human rights…) so that this evidence can be considered in other UN foras, such as the 3 Rio Conventions.
• Financialization and governance of the financial systems is another key ‘enduring’ issue, cited already in the 2014 issues paper, that has not yet been adequately addressed in the CFS. The very first HLPE report (2011) discussed the role of speculation in connection with the 2007-2008 food crisis. The debt crisis affecting countries dependent on food imports, in particular, has been highlighted in the issues paper on COVID and in the report on Inequalities and is being intensely debated in the negotiations. The need for more stringent regulation of financial markets and for overall reform of financial governance is a key topic in the UNCTAD 2023 Trade and Development Report. 
• Who is the ‘Private Sector’ and how to handle it? There is a deplorable haziness in use of the term ‘private sector’, not only in the CFS but in general. FAO’s strategy for private sector engagement lists various components of the sector, from small-scale farmers organizations to multinational corporations, without noting the essential differences in their interests and the logics of their operations. The CFS rai principles, instead, distinguish clearly between ‘smallholders and their organizations’ and ‘business enterprises including farmers’ and reiterates the fact that the former are the main investors in their own agriculture. It would be important for the HLPE report to clarify the differentiated implications in terms of building resilient food systems of supporting engagement by actors whose primary ‘bottom lines’ include reproduction of the family, maintenance of peace in the community, and transmission of territory to the next generation, and supporting engagement by those who operate in function of generating profits for shareholders.  
• Following on from this point, we would like to underline the priority that needs to be attached to public sector financing and regulation. The idea of ‘incentivizing’ PS strategies and investments’, as suggested in the draft scope, needs to be re-examined in a right to food perspective in which democratically-determined public policy provides direction for investment, not the contrary, taking also into account the considerable evidence that critiques the effectiveness of corporate self-regulation. In the words of an African peasant leader (Mamadou Cissoko): We don’t want ‘responsible investors’. We want a legislative framework that protects us effectively and investors who are obliged to

respect the law”.

• People’s access to and control over land, water, seeds is a fundamental basis for resilient and equitable food systems and for maintaining biodiversity. Relevant CFS policy outcomes include the VGGTs and the Policy Recommendations on Water for FSN. The UN declarations UNDROP and UNDRIP should also be recalled.
• More resilient food production systems privileging agroecological approaches over industrial agriculture was a key recommendation in the HLPE issues paper on COVID and was advocated in the HLPE report on ‘Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition’. Unfortunately, the negotiations on this topic failed to maintain the clarity present in the HLPE report, and the concept of ‘agroecology’ is in danger of being reduced to a package of technical practices that can be co-opted by corporate technology and retailing. It is essential to revisit this issue in the current report since a broad understanding of agroecology – including its social, cultural, and political dimensions – is a fundamental basis for resilient and equitable food systems.
• Territorial markets/food systems need to be strengthened and expanded, as recognized in the CFS policy recommendations on ‘Connecting Smallholders to Markets’ and the HLPE issue paper on COVID, which recommended shorter supply chains supported by investment in appropriate infrastructure. The draft scope seems to imply that both global and domestic food supply chains suffer from vulnerabilities, without recognizing that the fragilities of global industrial chains are inherent in their nature, whereas those of domestic food provisioning systems are a result of inadequate policy and financing support and can be corrected. More generally, we adhere to the comments made by Marc Wegerife in response to this e-consultation regarding the need to go beyond ‘supply chain’ thinking.
• Gender equity and opportunities for youth. The report should showcase how gender transformative approaches offer great opportunities to build equitable and resilient food systems for all. Without a strong gender perspective in the report, resilience-building approaches may be gender-blind or worse, further marginalise women and gender diverse persons. The report must also integrate resilience building for future generations, including for young and future food producers, by considering land reform, and youth rights to land, water, seeds…
• Democratic decision-making at all levels vs governance fragmentation and multi-stakeholderism. Multi-stakeholder initiatives do not address power relations between actors and nurture the false impression that “there is space for everyone around the table” and that it is possible to reach consensus between actors that are benefitting from the flaws of the food system and those that are negatively affected by it. Instead, experience and research indicate that – not surprisingly – in such a line-up the interests of the more powerful actors tend to prevail and the foundations of democratic governance are threatened. The HLPE report on the topic concurs that there is a risk for multistakeholder platforms ‘to reproduce existing power asymmetries and to strengthen the position of more powerful actors’. The multistakeholder narrative reposes on the dangerous misconception that the corporate private sector constitutes an indispensable ally in attaining public goals and can be counted on to ‘responsibly’ regulate its appetite for profit-making in the name of social, environmental and human rights objectives. This supposition has been questioned in research that has been building up for over a decade which demonstrates that corporations join multistakeholder platforms that align with their business interests and, correspondingly, that multistakeholder initiatives tend to be shaped with an eye to attracting private sector participation. The situation is aggravated by the increasing concentration of corporate power in agri-food chains over the past years, which is translating into increased influence on food governance. 
• Monitoring and accountability. The report should highlight how clear regulations and accountability frameworks for holding private actors, including companies, accountable for actions that interfere with the public policy objectives that aim towards building resilient food systems.

Resources:

• The two Voices from the Gound reports
  • https://www.csm4cfs.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/layout-CSIPM-report-EN.pdf
  • https://www.csm4cfs.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/EN-COVID_FULL_REPORT-2020.pdf 
• The African autonomous assessment report:
  • https://www.csm4cfs.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/CSIPMAutonomousReport_EN-fin.pdf 
• The African declaration ‘Grassroots impacts of COVID-19, conflicts and crises on the right to food and food sovereignty in Africa’: https://www.csm4cfs.org/declaration-grassroots-impacts-of-covid-19-conflicts-and-crises-on-the-right-to-food-and-food-sovereignty-in-africa/ 
• Nyeleni ECA input to FAO Regional Conference agenda item on building agrifood resilience.
• CSIPM vision statement on food systems and nutrition:
  • https://www.csm4cfs.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/EN-vision-VGFSyN.pdf 
• CSIPM report « without feminisms, there is no agroecology»
  • https://www.csm4cfs.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/CSM-Agroecology-and-Feminism-September-2019_compressed.pdf 

Dear HLPE-FSN Secretariat,

DKA Austria together with RAISE program partners conducted an e-consultation on key themes around resilience amongst rural youth and young farmers from predominantly smallholder farming communities in Nepal, Assam, Telangana and Karnataka. 39 respondents answered a questionnaire consisting of five open-ended questions:

• What challenges do you face in your community when it comes to growing, providing and selling food?
• How do you and your family deal with problems like bad weather, pests, or market changes that affect your farming?
• Do you feel everyone in your community has an equal chance to succeed in farming? Why or why not?
• Can you share a story where your community successfully overcame a big problem in farming or food supply?
• What kind of support or changes do you think would help make your farming more reliable and sustainable?

Please find the results of the analysis in the attached file.

Kind Regards,

Philipp Bück

This contribution aims at acknowledging the relevance of territorial approaches in building more resilient food systems.

It is made on behalf of the TP4D alliance (Territorial Perspective for Development) and builds on their two publications (see below) : https://www.donorplatform.org/post/tp4d-territorial-approaches-for-sustainable-development/ and https://www.cirad.fr/view_pdf/701

Territorial approaches to development have been discussed on and off in the last 50 years, but the last ten years have seen the revival, convergence, and acceleration of a variety of systemic approaches, initiatives and partnerships related to the concept of territorial development. 

Among other processes, publications, and events it is worth mentioning the UN-Habitat Urban-Rural Linkages Guiding Principles (2019), FAO/BMZ/GIZ Territorial and Landscape Days (2020), OECD report (2020) on territorial approaches as pathways to localise the SDGs. Relevant are also the following: GIZ Stocktaking on Territorial Approaches (2021), the “ad hoc” working group on Territorial Governance and the International Coalition to Promote Territorial Food Systems Governance launched by the Community of Portuguese Speaking Countries in the context of the UN Food Systems Summit (2021). Moreover, the G20 meeting hosted by Italy in 2021 and the UN desertification, biodiversity, and climate COPs in 2022 stressed the importance of systemic and integrated approaches. 

In particular, FAO, the European Commission, Cirad, BMZ & GIZ, AFD, UNCDF, Nepad, and OECD launched the territorial perspective for development (TP4D) alliance in 2018 to enhance a common understanding of territorial approaches. This alliance includes today UN Habitat, ICLEI, EcoAgriculture Partners, and the Unesco Chair on Food, Biodiversity and Sustainability Studies. 

Two TP4D White Papers have been published in 2018, “Territorial Perspective for Development”, about principles for territorial approaches, and in 2023 “Territorial Approaches for Sustainable Development. White Paper for Policy Formulation and Project Implementation”, incorporating lessons learned. 

Since food systems need to meet the needs of society, economy and environment in a holistic manner, the TP4D group supports the adoption of a territorial perspective in food systems policy, program and project design and implementation, contributing to the integration and achievement of multiple SDGs. 

The TP4D White Paper of 2018 identified core principles for territorial approaches, which have since been refined and adapted. These include that they should be place-based, people-centred, rights-based, cross-sectoral, multi-actor, and multi-level. Shared principles can lead to a higher degree of policy coherence and integrated territorial governance. Both enable actions that are inclusive i.e., reach different levels, actors, and spaces to foster more sustainable development.   

Territorial approaches adapted to specific places provide a solid framework for analysis and operations. They involve multiple sectors and actors, including the often complex economic, ecological, and social transformation processes in each geographic space. Inclusive multi-sector assessments which often constitute a first phase in territorial approaches can identify entry points to catalyse collaborative action.

Understanding the stakeholders as well as their interests and priorities is crucial for comprehending the territory since it encompasses a multitude of interdependent human interactions. People, organisations, and institutions in a territory have different and – to some extent – conflicting needs and interests. Furthermore, territorial actors have different capacities to pursue their interests; territories are characterised by power relations that can be asymmetric between stakeholders. To establish a shared development strategy for a territory which contributes to sustainable development, territorial approaches must unfold power asymmetries and identify common ground. Complex challenges may have a single-sector entry point but can be more effectively addressed through territorial approaches that use coordinated, integrated solutions.

For example, regarding food systems, territorial approaches build the foundational sustainability pillars of social, economic and environmental considerations into local contexts, enabling inclusive participation and addressing place-based issues. Using a territorial lens for food systems also considers soil and water quality, and biodiversity, allowing for a closed-loop approach to available resources. This cycling of resources is relevant economically as sustainable food systems reduce input costs and create a multiplier effect, increasing the amount of money generated and spent within local economies. 

A territorial approach to sustainable food systems also allows governments with support from international multilateral organizations to: 

• Reinforce the multilevel governance architecture of food systems that is critical to the progressive realization of the human right to adequate food; 
• Increase policy and program coherence between various decision-making process and scales of action (global, supra-national, national, local); 
• Increase operational coordination and improve cross-sectorial effectiveness at all spatial levels learning from and responding to the lessons of COVID-19; 
• Acknowledge the role of cities and local governments in reorienting food systems in their territories. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear sir/madam thank you very much (FSN) Coordinator body,  I am engaging long time in agriculture's media sector. Along with pepino farming system in Nepal, I want to contribute my country from the Pepino Melon fruit propogation in the agriculture sectors. 

I have prepared a combine types of FAO call for submission. 

How can FAO better support countries in addressing governance of agrifood systems transformation to make them more sustainable, inclusive and resilient?

I recognize the about the agriculture value how is important for people. I wish in terms of play role in agriculture sector from my side. 

thanks for FSN Coordination team'  and All of world FSN Members.

With best regards,

Dhanbahadur Magar

www.krishijournal.com.np; www.indigenoustelevision.com

Abstract :

Agriculture is still a main occupation for over 60 per cent of the total population in Nepal although the industrial and service sectors' share in national economy has grown over the years. The agro sector contributes around 24 per cent to the gross domestic product. These statistics justify the necessity to prioritize agriculture for attaining self-reliance and revitalize the rural areas. A good deal of investment and research in agriculture is vital for ending extreme poverty, hunger, and malnutrition and food insecurity. The country is unlikely to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) until the agriculture sector is modernize and commercial. It is imperative to attract youths towards agriculture. For this, the sector must be lucrative and reliable occupation for them. The adoption of advanced agriculture technology is necessary to reduce the country's dependency on imported food stuffs.
In order to increase agro products and productivity, the focus must be on research and development (R&D) on it. The developed countries, which have made strides in the scientific discoveries and technology, invested in the R&D to boost agro products and husbandry to feed the ever increasing population and increase national wealth. It is the research and development that provides innovative edge to the countries in increasing overall economic sector. Despite the policy support for the agro sector, its growth has been less than 3.0 per cent owing to inadequate access to the cross-cutting technologies, innovation, inputs, capital, incentives and the market. This shortcoming can be overcome by promoting and investing in R&D that enables to improve quality of soil and develop drought-resistant seeds, improved varieties of crops, effective pesticides and yield-sensing technologies, among others.

A)What types of shock are more relevant to food systems and which ones are more likely to affect food security and nutrition (FSN)? What type of shocks have been under-researched, especially regarding their impact on FSN and food systems?

Today, different regions are seeing different kinds of conflicts and geopolitical issues with parts of Asia, the Middle East and parts of Africa facing ongoing conflicts that has led to direct impacts on the food security situation not only for these regions but direct implications on the global food security situation resulting from destroyed infrastructure, displaced populations, and creating barriers to food distribution. These disruptions have led to acute food shortages and malnutrition with supply chains being severed and markets becoming inaccessible. Political instability also hinders implementation of effective food policies and aid distribution, exacerbating the food insecurity situation. Therefore, these results in shocks that have long-lasting impacts, that may span over several years.

The main types of vulnerabilities faced by farmers include climate and environmental stressors – e.g. droughts, floods, extreme weather events, water scarcity, soil erosion, pests, and diseases, as well as socio-economic challenges – e.g. trade and market disruption, unrests and conflicts, pandemics, labor shortages, and price fluctuations. The potential consequences for farmers include reduced agricultural productivity, financial losses, increased food insecurity, and long-term environmental degradation.

For farmers, RA creates long-term value by future-proofing farming operations and making them more climate-resilient. It opens new opportunities for farmers to meet future expectations at a time of uncertainty and change. For example, it lets farmers tap into new sources of revenue, such as receiving payments for carbon sequestered, and grow their business in compliance with stringent new climate regulations, such as policies under the EU Green Deal. In addition, a digitally-enabled, system-wide approach to RA enables traceability in the food chain, which helps connect what is happening on the farm to consumers who are demanding and buying food with new expectations.

From a farmers’ perspective, resilience encompasses their capacity to adapt to and withstand climate and environmental stressors (e.g. droughts, floods, extreme weather events, water scarcity, soil erosion, pests, diseases, etc.) as well as socio-economic challenges (e.g. trade and market disruption, unrests and conflicts, pandemics, labor shortages, price fluctuations, etc.) while ensuring the productivity and economic viability of their farming operations both in the short and long term, by preserving and enhancing key natural assets such as soil, water, and pollinators that are critical to achieving that in a sustained way.

B)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)?

Besides data and digital technologies, precision breeding and precision crop protection – which involves designing new seeds and traits and small molecules levering artificial intelligence and big data – can play a key role because they help adapt individual cropping systems to changing climatic and environmental conditions and offer the right solution for each farmer.

Broadly speaking, key innovations that have potential to shape the regenerative future of agriculture include, but are not limited to:

• Next generation breeding and biotechnology (e.g. gene editing) to develop improved crops that can better withstand biotic and abiotic stressors (e.g. short corn, hybrid wheat, improved orphan crops).
• Smart cropping systems (e.g. direct seeded rice, cover crops).
• Sustainable crop protection based on Integrated Pest Management (IPM) including biologicals and new chemical profiles based on small molecules.
• Nitrogen fixation.
• Innovations in carbon farming, data and digital solutions.

It’s worth stressing that there is not one single solution, but always a combination of these solutions, that deliver a regenerative agriculture system and its benefits.

C)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?

Balancing preparation for short-term shocks should involve integrating adaptive and resilient strategies into agricultural practices and food policies. For instance, in the short term, investing in infrastructure such as irrigation systems and flood management can help mitigate the impacts of droughts and floods. Crop diversification and the use of drought-resistant and flood-tolerant crop varieties can increase resilience against climatic extremes, ensuring a more stable food supply. Developing early warning systems and emergency response plans can enhance preparedness and response to such shocks.

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

Enhancing resilience to unknown and unforeseen shocks to food security and nutrition (FSN) requires a comprehensive approach that builds adaptive capacity across the entire food system. The potential areas that could a key role are given below:

A)Diversification:

Crop and Livestock Diversification: Growing a variety of crops and raising different types of livestock can sometimes pose risk of disease spread. Therefore, diverse farming systems are encouraged that tends to withstand shocks because if one crop or livestock type fails, others may still thrive.

Economic Diversification: It is suggested that farmers and communities are being encouraged to diversify their income sources so that their dependency on agriculture is reduced while providing financial buffers during agricultural shocks.

B)Strengthening Supply Chains:

Local and Regional Food Systems: Develop local and regional food systems that would help reduce dependency on global supply chains which are more susceptible to disruptions. Local markets can provide more stable and accessible sources of food during global crises.

Redundant and Flexible Supply Chains: Encourage multiple suppliers for critical inputs so that existing supply chain is enhanced that can prevent disruptions. Flexibility in supply chains may allow quick adjustments to new sources or routes when required.

C)Building Adaptive Capacity:

Education and Training: Arrange capacity building initiatives for farmers and food system workers by training them to understand adaptive practices and technologies which can enable them to respond more effectively to unexpected changes.

Research and Development: Encourage investing in research to develop resilient crop varieties, innovative farming techniques and efficient resource management practices that can prepare existing food systems from a wide range of potential shocks.

D)Policy and Governance:

Robust Policy Frameworks: Establish policies that promote sustainability, resilience and equity in food systems that can help in coping with shocks. These should include land use policies, water management regulations and support for sustainable practices.

Social Safety Nets: One should also be encouraged to implement social safety nets such as food aid programs and insurance schemes to ensure protection to the most vulnerable groups from the impacts of unforeseen shocks.

E)Community Engagement and Collaboration:

Local Knowledge and Practices: Engage with local communities and incorporate traditional knowledge and practices to enhance resilience. Community-driven initiatives often provide innovative and context-specific solutions.

Collaboration and Partnerships: Foster collaboration among governments, NGOs, private sector entities and international organizations to create a coordinated and comprehensive approach to building resilience.

RA most be supported by a foundational set of metrics and harmonized methods so that farmers, governments, and all the other stakeholders involved in agriculture and along the food value chain can establish a baseline and track progress. Metrics should be based on the following principles and criteria:

–Metrics should be as simple as possible while maintain scientific rigor and robustness.

–Metrics should be easy to understand and feasible to measure.

–Metrics should be clearly linked to ultimate outcomes desired.

–Since certain outcomes are hard to measure (i.e., biodiversity impacts) metrics can be based on a combination of practice and outcomes measurements utilizing the best available science.

–Assessments should be risk-based, not hazard-based.

–Innovative technologies and practices leading to an environmental improvement should be taken into account by the metrics, meaning a metric should allow for progress to be demonstrated by levers that a farmer can use.

–Example: many crop protection-related metrics are not able to consider modern application technologies.

–Metrics sets should provide the ability to demonstrate both intensity-based improvements and absolute improvements. For instance:

–Need for food production will increase, so absolute reduction in GHG emissions will be a challenge in the near term, but should be the ultimate goal to align with the current state of science and the global carbon budget for agriculture

–Intensity based in the short term (kg CO2/kg; or m3/kg) with longer term strategy focused on absolute reductions and decouple of growth and emissions/impacts

–Thresholds or reference values that are rigid and do not allow for the local conditions to be respected should not be supported. Examples include: 

–Environmental Impact Reduction (EIR): Some food value chain companies define thresholds (e.g. McCain for EIQ). Thresholds should make agronomic sense and should not cause trade-offs such as yield loss or risk for resistance.

–Soil Health of arable land: a soil under arable land has different properties than a soil under natural vegetation. This does not mean that soils under arable land are unhealthy. Reference values for healthy soils should take site conditions into consideration as well as soil functionality;

–% natural/ semi-natural habitats: general thresholds like minimum of 20 % natural/ semi-natural habitat should not be used, because this is not realistic for many crop regions. Rather than demanding such a high threshold for RA, it is better to ensure that whatever % of natural or semi-natural habitat exits or is desired, it should be established with the support of local experts to make sure that desired species are attracted and that habitats are connected - without causing agronomic problems for farmers (e.g. increased weed/ disease pressure)

–Spatial scope (i.e., field, farm, corporate, project, etc.) of metric should be clearly articulated and metrics should ideally only be used for the scope intended.

Food and nutrition security has become a topic of concern for all of us as we see climate change, geopolitical tensions and economic volatility impacting food production, distribution and access. We have also seen significant food price inflation in some parts of the world further impacting affordability and availability of a healthy diet for millions of people. 

Agriculture is a core field to focus on. While farmers primarily run an operation, they all play an essential role for the greater good. Without farmers, there is no food security. 

Agricultural productivity continues to differ significantly between regions and countries, despite scientific breakthroughs, and we see the impact of changing and more extreme weather patterns on yield, commodity prices and more. Farmers today are under pressure to produce more nutritious food for more people with less environmental impact and less resources. It’s a Herculean task that is not fully or adequately recognized by society. 

F)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?

Social vulnerabilities, such as political instability, conflicts, and pandemics, further complicate the situation by causing operational disruptions, forced displacements, labor shortages, and exploitation risks for food system workers. Infrastructural vulnerabilities, including failures in transportation networks, storage facilities, and energy supplies, exacerbate these challenges by increasing logistical costs and causing delays in food delivery. 

The final chapter of FAO’s SOFA 2021 report on resilient agrifood systems outlines potential ways to mitigate these impacts by diversifying supply sources, investing in resilient infrastructure, implementing adaptation practices, and strengthening social protection measures. 

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

Some solutions that are proving to help farmers be more resilient:

(low-input winter oilseed cover crop) + Short stature corn + Soybean + Digital tools

–Supports reduced/minimum till settings.

–Provides a living root in the ground to support soil biology.

–Carbon sequestration due to extensive root system.

–Utilizes residual N when following corn crop.

–Keeps the soil covered and protected from erosion. 

–Improves soil health, specifically building soil structure and improving nutrient cycling.

–Low carbon intensity biofuel vs. fossil fuel/electric grid.

–Adds diversity to typical corn: soy rotation.

–Support pollinators with early spring flowering.

–Suppresses winter annual and early spring weed pressure.

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

Building resilience into a system may involve tradeoffs. Diversity in supply chains may mean that efficiency is not being maximized. If markets are very competitive it may be difficult to sustain that diversity since the least efficient suppliers may go out of business. 

I)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)?

• Table 5 Entry points to manage agri-food system risk and uncertainty (SOFA, 2021)

	SHOCKS DIFFICULT TO FORESEE		MORE PREDICTABLE SHOCKS
	ENSURING DIVERSITY	MANAGING CONNECTIVITY	MANAGING RISKS
CONTEXTUAL FACTORS	Promote gender equality and support youth Pursue policies and regulation to protect the environment (water, land, biodiversity, fisheries and forests) Safeguard macroeconomic stability Ensure broad access to financial services Support indigenous knowledge systems	Encourage and promote effective partnerships for sustainable development Promote an open, inclusive and equitable multilateral trading system	Prepare and implement national adaptation plans for mitigating and adapting to climate change Ensure well-coordinated and coherent policies for long-term macroeconomic stability
NATIONAL AGRI-FOOD SYSTEMS	Ensure diversity of food production, market channels and trade partners (both domestic and external)	Invest in robust and redundant food transport networks Invest in infrastructural connections to international markets (e.g. ports)	Promote disaster risk reduction and disaster risk assessment Prepare national plans for drought management Invest in food safety management systems Carry out multi-risk assessments within and across sectors and levels Adopt a One Health approach
FOOD SUPPLY CHAINS AND ACTORS	Allow for a mix of traditional, transitional, and modern food supply chains, including short, local food supply chains Promote inclusiveness for SMAEs	Diversify sources of supply and output markets Enable and invest in stronger rural–urban linkages, especially for short supply chains Expand and improve access to ICT	Ensure timely forecasts and tools for detecting early risk signals Establish and improve early warning systems

J)What is the role of states in building more resilient food systems, including with respect to providing infrastructure, regulatory measures, international policy coordination and policy coherence?

This is an item that is covered in some detail in the last chapter of FAO’s 2021 SOFA report.

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

Public policies could focus, in some countries, on improving access to credit and financial services, particularly for small and medium agri-food enterprises (SMAEs). Facilitating access to financial services allows these businesses to invest in resilience-building measures such as diversification of supply sources and production redundancies.

That being said, including diversity & redundance in supply chains to increase resilience will lead in some cases to a trade-off in terms of overall efficiency. Addressing this trade-off will require creating an enabling environment that allows both shorter and longer supply chains to thrive, with a diverse mix of products sourced both locally and through international trade.

Dear HLPE-FSN Secretariat,

The Global Network Against Food Crises is a multi-stakeholder initiative of humanitarian and development actors, united by a commitment to tackle the root causes of food crises and to promote sustainable solutions. Since last year, it facilitates the Coordination Platform for Food System Resilience (CPFR) together with TANGO International. This platform with over 30 experts from 17 institutions, including the Global Network members, was established for food systems resilience analysis and programming in fragile contexts with the aim of creating and disseminating a learning agenda.

The contribution to this e-consultation prepared by the Coordination Platform for Food System Resilience on behalf of the Global Network is attached, as well as supporting documents prepared for the Expert Consultation on Measurement and Analysis of Food System Resilience in Fragile Settings held last year. These documents contain relevant information to answer the questions of the CFS consultations. 

The Coordination Platform remains interested in further calls of contribution and collaboration to the Building Resilient Food Systems topic and CFS workstream.

Kind regards,

Katarina Polomska 

Dear HLPE-FSN Secretariat,

Please find the attached inputs from the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan (MAFF).I hope our inputs will be useful for contributing towards development of this report.

Best regards 

Tomoki Soma
 

Inputs from the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan (MAFF) to Questions to guide the e-consultation on the scope of the HLPE-FSN report on “Building resilient food systems”

In Japan, the Basic Law on Food, Agriculture and Rural Areas was amended this May for the first time in 25 years, intends to strengthen food security. In order to underpin this Law, the Act on Measures for Situations of Difficulty in Food Supply (provisional English name) was also promulgated this July. In addition, the MIDORI Strategy (2021),  that aims to  realize both boosting productivity potentials and sustainability in the agriculture, forestry, fisheries and food industries with innovation also reinforces the amended Basic Law. The following inputs are based on the abovementioned legal and policy frameworks in Japan, as well as global and regional cooperation  by Japan.

1. Different ways of defining resilience :

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

<Inputs>

With regard to "defining resilience", the following description from “Guidelines to increase the resilience of agricultural supply chains”(published by FAO 2023) would be helpful to capture a whole picture.

・Definitions of resilience tend to describe an ideal against which existing states can be compared and used as a standard to achieve through different policies and strategies. In practice the issue is not so much whether there is resilience or not as how much resilience there is. The United Nations defines resilience as: 

“By resilience is meant the ability of individuals, households, communities, cities, institutions, systems and societies to prevent, anticipate, absorb, adapt and transform positively, efficiently and effectively when faced with a wide range of risks, while maintaining an acceptable level of functioning, without compromising long-term prospects for sustainable development, peace and security, human rights and well-being for all” (United Nations, 2017. Adopting an analytical framework on risk and resilience: a proposal for more proactive, coordinated and effective United Nations action. New York, USA).

・More operational definitions of resilience depend on the context but typically introduce the idea of either or both of the following: (i) simple continuity of function or (ii) continuity in the achievement of desired goals by resistance to shocks or by adaptation to overcome them. Much of the discussion of the impacts of COVID-19 and other shocks has focused on the resilience of food systems in their ability to deliver food and nutrition security in the face of shocks. In this case, the functional goal of ensuring food security when exposed to shocks is easily specified (Tendall et al., 2015). While food consumption may not be explicitly considered, resilience in food products’ supply chains is crucial to at least the availability, access and stability dimensions of food security. For non-food products, including raw materials of interest to developing country exporters, the functional goal of resilience is less easily specified but might include maintenance of export revenues and trade balance, government revenues, employment, incomes, growth and poverty reduction, as well as food security and nutrition. Whatever the products concerned, the interests of producers as well as consumers should not be overlooked. For producers, the minimization of losses may be the key consideration in defining resilience, and this may not be entirely captured by simply requiring continuity of supply chain functions. 

・Continuity is the bridge between resilience and sustainability. Resilience implies a capacity to continue to function and to achieve goals in spite of exposure to shocks while sustainability implies a capacity to continue to function in the future. In the face of disturbances and shocks, therefore, resilience is a necessary condition for sustainability. As the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction pointed out, disasters undermine efforts to achieve sustainable development and compromise progress towards greater sustainability (UNISDR, 2015). Continuity of function in supply chains may not always be a desirable feature of resilience without also referring to costs and efficiency, as trade-offs may be involved. Diversity and redundancy, for example, may improve resilience but may also reduce supply chain efficiency and raise costs. Not all resilience is necessarily desirable, and unqualified continuity may therefore also not be welcome where there is a need to overcome “undesirable resilience” obstructing necessary adaptations and transformations (Oliver et al., 2018). Based on the considerations above, a working definition of agricultural supply chain resilience with general applicability might be: 

“The ability of the supply chain to continue to fulfil its functions efficiently when exposed to disturbances and shocks based on its capacities to anticipate and absorb those that cannot otherwise be prevented, and to recover from them by adapting the nature of their behavior and practices or transforming them so as to build back better”.

• 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?

<Inputs>

• Labor shortage in agricultural production and food supply chains can be a type of vulnerabilities In Japan’s case, number of farmers are declining in accordance with the aging society. Also, labor shortage in logistics, such as track drivers delivering agricultural product from farm to retailers is another example of our challenge.
• High/volatile energy prices is another challenge.. Japan has also been affected by a recent price hike  of food and agricultural inputs led by global high/volatile energy prices. 
• Extreme weather events from climate change, such as heat waves, drought, heavy rain, typhoon, flood and earthquake will severely affects globally and locally.
• Plant pests, animal diseases, zoonotic infections, food safety and hygiene issue is another challenge we need to take into account.. 

 

• 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?

(No input/information)

• What resilience frameworks are there that should be explored? 

<Inputs>

• The following three pillars need to be considered in  conceptual frameworks for building resilient food systems. Improving agricultural productivity in sustainable manner.
• Using existing domestic agricultural resources at maximum. 
• Securing stable and diverse procurement sources of food and agricultural inputs. 

 

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

<Inputs>

In addition to the above three pillars, the followings would also become the determinants, assets and skills that lead to resilience at different scales.

・All forms of innovation should be available for all people at different scales.

・Appropriate legal frameworks contributing to building resilient food systems.

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

<Inputs>

The amended Basic Act on Food, Agriculture, and Rural Areas of Japan stipulates evaluation and/or measurement for securing food security such as establishment and publication of numerical targets for food self-sufficiency and other contributions to food security. The concrete indicator to be developed.

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

<Inputs>

The indicator of SDGs 2.4.1 “Proportion of agricultural area under productive and sustainable agriculture” would be useful, in the context of environmental sustainability.

For your information, Japan launched the MIDORI Strategy in 2021, as a national pathway, for realizing both boosting productivity potentials and sustainability in the agriculture  and food industries with innovation. Based on the strategy, Japan aims to achieve 14 targets of KPI, including net zero CO2 Emission from fossil fuels combustion in the agriculture, 50% reduction in risk-weighted use of chemical pesticides, 30% reduction in chemical fertilizers use, increase in organic farming to 1 million hectares and so on by 2050.

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

<Inputs>

・Increasing marine transportation costs and insurance costs.

・Increasing labor costs of food systems.

・Export restriction measures in the agricultural, food and fertilizer sectors.

・High/Volatile energy prices. 

・Geopolitics in main food exporting countries and choke points et al. 

 

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

(No input/information)

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

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

<Inputs>

The shocks more likely to affect FSN would vary, including: 

・High/volatile energy prices 

・High/volatile fertilizer prices

・Export restriction measures in the agricultural, food and fertilizer sector impact

・Climate change

・Biodiversity loss 

 

• 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)? 

<Inputs>

・Climate change will impact on global agricultural commodity production, trade and prices in the mid-long term. According to FAO, if temperature continue to rise at their current rate, 10% of farmland could be lost by 2050, which would put more pressure on food access.

・Increase in fertilizer price impact on global agricultural production, trade and prices.

 

• 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?

(No input/information) 

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

<Inputs>

・In order to prepare unknown and unforeseen shocks, increase predictability and transparency are the key. In the context of market situation, following schemes will help each country to prepare those.

-Reinforcing food and agricultural market information by the Agricultural Market Information System (AMIS) and other platforms.

-Strengthen scenario analysis utilizing OECD-FAO Agricultural outlook and other global agricultural market projections in the mid-long term. 

 ・The safety net such as crop insurance is also the way of enhancing resilience to unknown and unforeseen shocks.

 

3. Understanding and mitigating trade-offs:

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

(No input/information)

• 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)?

(No input/information)

 

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

• How are countries preparing for food systems resilience today?  What are the main policies and documents that can provide information on these national level plans?

<Inputs>

・In Japan, the Basic Law on Food and Agriculture and Rural Areas, which governs agricultural policies in Japan, was amended this May for the first time in 25 years in order to intend to strengthen food security. Based on the amended Law, in addition to the food self-sufficiency ration, the government is set new targets for other matters related to ensuring food security, identify and define issues that farmers and other stake holders should address to improve these issues, and promote measures to address these challenges. In particular, the government has set new Articles to implement or promote measures for, such as, ensuring smooth access to food and imports of agricultural products; preparation for unexpected situations; improvement of productivity by utilizing advanced technologies; improvement of added value of agricultural products; promotion of reduction of environmental impact; prevention of outbreaks of infectious diseases; promotion of conversion of agricultural inputs and their raw materials in dependent on imports to high-quality alternatives to be produced domestically; promotion of business activities to utilize local resources.

・ In addition, as a related law to the revised Basic Law on Food, Agriculture and Rural Areas, the Act on Measures for Situations of Difficulty in Food Supply (provisional English name) was enacted on June 14, 2024. This law was enacted in consideration of the unstable situation of global food supply and demand and trade due to the increase in world population, climate change, and the outbreak and spread of plant pests and livestock diseases, etc. According to this law, at the stage when signs of food supply shortage are detected, a government headquarters headed by the Prime Minister will be established, and the relevant ministries and agencies will cooperate to take the necessary measures to prevent the occurrence and escalation of the situations.

・In April 2023, Japan hosted the G7 Miyazaki Agriculture Ministers' Meeting under its chairmanship to discuss and summarize to make agriculture and food systems strong and sustainable as the following three points, which was also mentioned in the “Hiroshima Action Statement for Resilient Global Food Security”, a leaders’ level document with invited countries at the G7 Hiroshima Summit 2023:

• Improving agricultural productivity in sustainable manner.
• Using existing domestic agricultural resources at maximum.
• Making all forms of innovation available for all people.

 

• Are there current or recent partnerships / initiatives proven to contribute to building resilience? What are the lessons learned? 
  • Paddy water management technologies, such as alternate wetting and drying (in Bangladesh, Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam) that increase or maintain productivity while mitigating methane emission. 

<Inputs>

・Japan launched a project “Accelerating application of agricultural technologies which enhance production potentials and ensure sustainable food systems in the Asia-Monsoon region”. This research project under the name of “Green Asia” is implemented by the Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences (JIRCAS).

URL:https://www.jircas.go.jp/en/greenasia 

・In this project, JIRCAS with counterpart organizations have conducted joint research on three scalable agricultural technologies, which increase production potential and ensure sustainability. The effectiveness of these technologies has been evaluated in the project sites in the countries in the Asia-Monsoon region.

・These technologies are

• BNI (Biological Nitrification Inhibition)-enabled wheat (in Nepal) that maintains yield level as the ordinal varieties under significantly reduced nitrogen fertilizer application.
• Differential systems to control rice blast diseases (in Bangladesh and Vietnam) that can reduce the use of agricultural chemicals.

・Although the project is in progress and not yet finished (as of June 2024), so far, we have already obtained good evidence which indicates these technologies can be used in the tested sites. We learned that it is imperative to work closely with not only research counterparts, but also government officials of the Asia-Monsoon countries who are involved in the dissemination efforts of the project results.

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

<Inputs>

・Japan launched a project “Accelerating application of agricultural technologies which enhance production potentials and ensure sustainable food systems in the Asia-Monsoon region”. This research project under the name of “Green Asia” is implemented by the Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences (JIRCAS).

URL:https://www.jircas.go.jp/en/greenasia

・In this project, JIRCAS has developed "Technology catalog Contributing to Production Potential and Sustainability in the Asia-Monsoon Region. This is a compilation of applicable technologies which were developed in Japan or through international collaboration over the past 10 years and are expected to contribute to the establishment of sustainable food systems in the region. Technology Catalog is uploaded to the Green Asia website within JIRCAS website and from the end of March 2023 to the end of March 2024, more than 3,500 accesses and more than 1,800 downloads have been observed. Technology Catalog is now introduced on the websites of the UN Food Systems Coordination Hub and the ASEAN Secretariat.

・JIRCAS made a significant effort for disseminating Technology Catalog, taking various opportunities. It is expected that the catalog will serve as a reference to various stake holders in the Asia-Monsoon region. 

https://www.jircas.go.jp/en/greenasia/techcatalog

https://www.unfoodsystemshub.org/latest-updates/news/detail/new-technol…

https://asean.org/asean-deliberates-regional-initiatives-on-sustainable…

・The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on food and agriculture have been felt all over the world. As the pandemic unfolded, considerable attention began to be paid to the resilience of agricultural supply chains to COVID-19-related shocks, as well as to natural and human-induced shocks more generally. FAO developed the "Guidelines to increase the resilience of agricultural supply chains" funded by Japan, which are intended for policymakers and other stakeholders who need a broad grasp of the concepts, issues and possible approaches involved. 

https://openknowledge.fao.org/items/73b0d0f6-611c-4f76-a2cb-d21b119e06f9

(Efforts to strengthen resilience to risks need to be based on a thorough analysis of the exposure and vulnerability of supply chains to them, and on a cost–benefit assessment of damages versus interventions. In addition, not all decisions can be based on commercial and economic considerations, as political priorities will also play a role. Governments may take the lead in setting policy priorities based on assessments of risk and resilience capacities, but it is actors throughout the supply chain who are directly affected and who need to consider business strategies and interventions to be able to adapt and transform for the future. Governments play an essential role by supporting the efforts of supply chain businesses and by building general resilience through establishing an appropriate policy and institutional environment, and through the investments they make in physical infrastructure, in putting social protection in place, and in facilitating and promoting collaboration and cooperation. Enhancing general resilience against future risks is important as new risks emerge, and the frequency and intensity of known risks grow with climate change and increasing pressure on natural resources.)

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

(No input/information)

• What gaps are there in the current portfolio of country adaptation / resilience policies? 
• What types of policy changes are needed to enhance the resilience of local, regional and global food systems, including with respect to global trading rules and considering inclusive and equitable employment opportunities, environmental sustainability, access to healthy diets and human rights?

<Inputs>

・In 2022, 30 exporting countries imposed export restriction measures in the agriculture and food sectors. Most of these policies restricting agricultural commodities and food exports are implemented to ensure domestic food security. However, policies restricting exports cause food security risks of availability and stability through higher international prices and volatility, especially in least developed countries that depend on food imports and have higher POUs. Therefore, securing domestic food security in one country may conflict with domestic food security in other countries.

・A decline in domestic agricultural commodity prices in the country imposing such restriction may cause risks of decreasing and destabilizing agricultural production by affecting agricultural investments and farm incomes in the mid to long term. Although these measures may focus on specific products in a particular country, they can cause a domino effect that induces similar policies to affect a wider range of countries and products. Therefore, it is important to regulate countries imposing such policies at an early stage. However, we argue that not all export restriction measures should be regulated, and it is important to identify countries that should be restricted or allowed to conduct these measures based on POUs. The current FAO food security indicators do not fully cover the risks to global food security posed by policies restricting exports of agricultural and food products. Therefore, we advocate that new indicators should cover the impact of export restriction measures on caloric intake by the importing country as an important risk in the availability and stability of food security. It is also crucial to introduce similar indicators caused by export restriction measures of fertilizers as food security risks (Koizumi et al., 2024).

Tatsuji Koizumi, Gen Furuhashi and Takumi Sakuyama (2024) “Impact of Export Restriction Measures in the Agricultural and Food Sector on Global Food Security” Japan Agricultural Research Quarterly, Publishing. 

Quoting from Recommendations from “G7 experts to address gaps in available information and analysis on the impacts of export restrictions”. (Released in March 2024)

・Empirical data and analysis on the use, and the impact on global markets, of various forms of export restrictions, including quotas, bans, and taxes, are inadequate. Research on the impacts of export restrictions on the country which imposes them, including those of a long-term and indirect nature, also warrants more attention. Addressing these gaps would enable countries considering introducing export restrictions to identify the least disruptive forms.

・Additional research is also needed to identify alternative policy options to export restrictions, including various social safety net programs, which would minimize the negative impacts of price shocks and supply disruptions on vulnerable populations, on global markets, and on sustainable resource use.

・There is a continuing need to improve the accuracy and timeliness of information on the international food and agriculture market situation and related policy measures. In this respect, further analysis is warranted of options to strengthen both the role of AMIS and the effectiveness of WTO provisions on country notification of export restrictive measures. This is essential to maintain trust in a rules-based multilateral trading system.

G7 Joint Discussion Project Final Report under Japanese Presidency 2023. 

https://www.maff.go.jp/e/policies/inter_relate/attach/pdf/240319-3.pdf

• What is the role of states in building more resilient food systems, including with respect to providing infrastructure, regulatory measures, international policy coordination and policy coherence?

(Inputs)

Promoting measures contributing to building resilient food systems comprehensively and systematically, by stipulating basic principles for building resilient food systems and the basic matters for realizing them, and by clarifying the responsibilities of the national government, local governments and other stakeholders, thereby promoting the stability and improvement of the lives of the people and the sound development of the national economy.

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

・It would be useful to discuss with the FAO Informal Private Sector Advisory Group (PSAG) to learn advices for the possible measures.

・ELPS (“Enhanced Linkages between Private sector and Small-scale producers” implemented by IFAD), which was an initiative of the G7 Miyazaki Agriculture Ministers' Meeting in 2023 and taken up as a stream of work on food security and food systems in the UN Secretary-General's Report “Making food systems work for people and planet UN Food Systems Summit +2”, could be one of the solutions. 

Related thematic areas and guiding questions:

• 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?
• 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?

Indigenous Peoples’ food systems can be particularly affected by pollution and other types of environmental degradation, e.g. when pesticide accumulation contributes to a decline in native pollinators and pest predators upon which Indigenous (and other) food systems depend (Fernández-Llamazares et al., 2020). Moreover, the loss of subsistence/traditional livelihoods (Torres-Vitolas et al., 2019; Blackmore et al., 2021) and limited access to and other actors’ appropriation of land and associated resources can decrease adaptation to current and newly emerging shocks (Parraguez-Vergara et al., 2016; IPBES, 2019). This restricts traditional food system management including the application of Indigenous knowledge and generation of novel insights/practices that address newly emerging opportunities and challenges. In addition, various actors’ risk perceptions and future visioning can create trade-offs and conflicts so that the design of multi-scale governance approaches is important (Hess & Brown, 2018).

Archetype analysis can help reveal recurrent patterns in the trade-offs and synergies between land use, food, biodiversity and climate adaptation, among others, and in the configurations of associated policy processes (Sietz et al., 2019; Oberlack et al. 2023). Focussing on food system interactions, insights into archetypes can support the tailoring of integrative response options. The up-scaling of actions to sustainably transform food systems can be informed by closing of regional knowledge gaps about archetypical interactions and systematic investigation of scenario archetypes (Sietz & Neudert 2022).

References

• Blackmore, I., Iannotti, L., Rivera, C., Waters, W. F., & Lesorogol, C. (2021). Land 1693 degradation and the link to increased livelihood vulnerabilities among indigenous 1694 populations in the Andes of Ecuador. Land Use Policy, 107, 105522. 1695 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105522
• Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Garteizgogeascoa, M., Basu, N., Brondizio, E. S., Cabeza, M., 1937 Martínez-Alier, J., McElwee, P., & Reyes-García, V. (2020). A State-of-the-Art 1938 Review of Indigenous Peoples and Environmental Pollution. Integrated 1939 Environmental Assessment and Management, 16(3), 324–341. 1940 https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4239
• Hess, D. J., & Brown, K. P. (2018). Water and the politics of sustainability transitions: From 2045 regime actor conflicts to system governance organizations. Journal of Environmental 2046 Policy & Planning, 20(2), 128–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2017.1341304 
• IPBES. (2019). Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES 2125 Secretariat. https://ipbes.net/node/35274  
• Parraguez-Vergara, E., Barton, J. R., & Raposo-Quintana, G. (2016). Impacts of Climate 2531 Change in the Andean Foothills of Chile: Economic and Cultural Vulnerability of 2532 Indigenous Mapuche Livelihoods. Journal of Developing Societies, 32(4), 454–483. 2533 https://doi.org/10.1177/0169796X16667874 
• Oberlack C, Pedde S, Piemontese L, Václavík T and Sietz D (2023). Archetypes in support of tailoring land-use policies. Environ. Res. Lett. 18 060202. DOI 10.1088/1748-9326/acd802. 
• Sietz, D & Neudert, R (2022). Taking stock of and advancing knowledge on interaction archetypes at the nexus between land, biodiversity, food and climate. Environ. Res. Lett. 17 113004. DOI 10.1088/1748-9326/ac9a5c. 
• Sietz, D, Frey U, Roggero M, Gong Y, Magliocca N, Tan R, Janssen P and Václavík T (2019). Archetype analysis in sustainability research: methodological portfolio and analytical frontiers Ecol. Soc. 24, 34. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11103-240334
• Torres-Vitolas, C. A., Harvey, C. A., Cruz-Garcia, G. S., Vanegas-Cubillos, M., & 2825 Schreckenberg, K. (2019). The Socio-Ecological Dynamics of Food Insecurity among 2826 Subsistence-Oriented Indigenous Communities in Amazonia: A Qualitative 2827 Examination of Coping Strategies among Riverine Communities along the Caquetá 2828 River, Colombia. Human Ecology, 47(3), 355–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-2829 019-0074-7 

Further references: 

• Caviedes et al. (2024). Indigenous and local knowledge on social-ecological changes is positively associated with livelihood resilience in a Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System. Agric Syst. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2024.103885.&nbsp;
• Maudrie TL, Colón-Ramos U, Harper KM, Jock BW, Gittelsohn J. A Scoping Review of the Use of Indigenous Food Sovereignty Principles for Intervention and Future Directions. Curr Dev Nutr. 2021 Jul 1;5(7):nzab093. doi: 10.1093/cdn/nzab093. PMID: 34345758; PMCID: PMC8321882.
• Nadal and Nazar-Beutelspacher (2023) COVID-19: Solidarity initiatives for food security in the Mayan indigenous region of south-southeast Mexico. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2023.100697

Système agro-alimentaire résilients 

 

• La définition que l'on peu avoir de la résilience est qu'elle repose sur la capabilité des invidus, des communautés et des institutions de faire face aux chocs économiques, sociaux, environnemental et institutionnels. 

Cette Approche est celle de l'économiste Amartya Sen avec son approche de capabilité. 

La résilience des systèmes agro-alimentaires orientée vers sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition, est donc la capabilité de ces systèmes à exister face aux chocs 

 

L'exemple du Cameroun, dont les systèmes agro-alimentaires démontrent leur résilience face à divers chocs que sont :

#. Le choc environnemental : les systèmes agro-alimentaires Camerounais font face aux changements climatiques nottament dans sa partie septentrionale 

# Le choc sociale : le Cameroun fait face à une crise migratoire sans précédent et malgré une certaines négligence de cette crise migratoire en provenance du Nigeria et de la Centrafrique,le Cameroun tient bon avec l'appui de OCHA, le HCR la FAO et le PAM. 

 

# Le choc économique : le pays de Samuel Eto'o, est durement touché par les impacts économiques de la Guerre en Ukraine, la rareté et le difficile accès aux à la finance. 

 

# Le choc institutionnel :  le Cameroun fait face à un défis sécuritaire à ses frontières ouest, à l'est et dans le septentrion. Ces crises ont beaucoup impacté le Cameroun nottament la Cameroon Developpement Corporation CDC et beaucoup perdu dans la crise sécuritaire, en voyant ses infrastructures détruitent entre 2017 & 2019, depuis 2019 elle a pu reprendre ses activités grâce à nos valeureuses force de défenses et de sécurité. 

 

D'après le conseil Norvégien des réfugiés ( NRC), la crise humanitaire est la seconde la plus négligé au monde 

 

Peut on ce dire que, la capabilité de résilience d'un système agro-alimentaire, ne pousse t'il pas les bailleurs de fonds à négliger des crises humanitaires dont l'impact est forte sur la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition ? 

 

Matchouo Fossi Émile Christian 

 

Élève Ingénieur en Économie et sociologie rurale à la faculté d’agronomie et des sciences agricoles de l’université de Dschang (FASA) 

• [email protected] 

Fondateur du Service d'information sur agricole pour le développement ( SIAD) 

Sobre las barreras que los movimientos colaborativos que buscan la soberanía alimentaria encuentran en las instancias públicas que redactan o implementan sus planes. El caso de Foodtopia y su marmita Termopol.