Foro Global sobre Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición (Foro FSN)

Great thanks to the team for the excellent job well done!!! Below are minor suggestions

(Section-Introduction)The team might want to reduce the introduction section to one and half pages and probably provide a separate one page summary. The introduction in its current state provides both the summary and introduction.

(Section 1) The report provides an excellent conceptual thinking of the dimensions of food security and unpacks agency which was originally assumed in availability pillar while sustainability was originally embedded in stability. Therefore, broadening the conceptual thinking of food security to the six dimensions will inform and guide better programming for food security interventions.

(Section 2.1)The complex interrelationship of the dimensions of food security is well articulated in the report. Figures 1 and 2 on page 11 could still be re-organized as follows-agency, availability, accessibility, utilisation, stability and sustainability which will ensure the logical flow and aids theoretical and conceptual application.

(Section 4)  potential policy pathways forward to get the global community back on the track with respect to meeting the SDG 2 targets; here, the team might want to recommend Government(s) as the mandate holders for policy implementation and monitoring, in the documentation of policies and programmes for FNS that worked better, the context in which they worked, the mechanisms that triggered success or failure for learning and scaling up successful innovations.

(Section 5-recommendations) The team might want to include a short paragraph on unlocking the implementation challenges for FNS policies and programmes addressing some of the issues raised in (section 3 on drivers). The FAO-FIRST Programme might be having such information. The FAO-FIRST Knowledge Management Hub might also be having information regarding successful FNS policies and programmes interventions for scaling up.

Once again, great thanks to the team!!

In my view, the report is an important building block for enhanced policy to achieve SDG 2 to end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture. The report draws impressively on diverse literatures to advance a nuanced argument about the ways in which various components of the food security concept, and governance and institutions influence food security and nutrition outcomes. The report presents an important channel for conveying facts and information from the scientific community to policymakers and the general public. By enlightening society about the scientific consensus in relation to food security and nutrition challenges, general awareness among policymakers increases. One of the report’s significance lies in the way it interprets the implications of its central findings, and in its attempt to fill the “know and do” gap. The following are some comments that might be useful to take into consideration for the next versions of the report: 

1) Regarding the need to adopt a holistic and integrated approach to food security 

In my opinion, the single most important message from this report is the need for a more holistic “food systems” approach to food security and nutrition. The report ‘broadly’ points out the that it is essential to adopt a holistic and integrated approach that considers all the elements and activities which relate to the production, processing, distribution, preparation and consumption of food, and the output of these activities, including socio-economic and environmental outcomes. However, more emphasis should be placed on conceptualizing the approach by describing how various components of the food system interact in various spatial, agronomic, and socioeconomic contexts. We all know that ignoring the interconnections in the global food system is a major factor behind many unintended consequences that will have dire consequences for future food security and nutrition. Reconnecting the food system by acknowledging these interconnections from a holistic perspective will allow new levels of optimization at the scale of the whole system (rather than its parts). It will allow us to identify fewer and more synergistic interventions that reduce a far larger number of risks. As noted by Abu Hatab et al. (2019), a food system consists of both the core components of the food supply chain and key features of the broader biophysical and socioeconomic institutional context within which food production, processing, distribution, marketing and consumption activities occur. Moreover, given the complexity of the food system, it is essential for frameworks aiming to assess a food system to define the system's internal components and boundaries, as well as its linkages to the “external” world. The external world here refers to stressors (e.g. climate change, changing lifestyles and aspirations, new food habits and market structure), which influence the linkages and interdependencies between the components of the food system. In a holistic approach of this kind, the determinants and outcomes of the activities are considered as components in a complex system undergoing numerous dynamic exchanges, constantly evolving and responding to both internal interactions and the influence of external stressors. Furthermore, a system approach of this kind also recognizes that a food system consists of various elements that, when combined, include criteria that may not be present individually. Changes in one element of the system are systematic and thus may induce changes in another element. They are also dynamic as a result of feedback loops, while causes can become effects and vice versa. 

Reference: Assem Abu Hatab, Maria Cavinato, August Lindemer and Carl Johan Lagerkvist (2019). Urban Sprawl, Food Security & Agricultural Systems in Developing Countries: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Cities (Elsevier), 94(2019), 129-142.

1. Conceptual vs. actual approaches to achieve food security and nutrition

I find that a large proportion of the text of the report (particularly, the first sections) addresses the evolution of the Food Security ‘concept’ in recent years. This is important and needed; however, there should also be an equal focus on the evolution of policies, strategies and interventions at various levels (local, regional, national and international), which address food insecurity and nutrition issues, and aim to achieve the sustainable development goals one and two.  Thus, I would suggest that the report builds a more balanced structure between conceptual and actual approaches to achieve food security and nutrition.   

1. Food Security dimensions—Stability vs. Resilience

In the first section (A more comprehensive approach to food security and nutrition), the report discusses the the four dimensions of food security concept, and adds “agency” and “sustainability” as two vital dimensions that deserve to be elevated in conceptual and policy frameworks. My comment here is about the "stability" dimension of food security. In my view, under the burgeoning challenges presented by climate change, urbanization and other socio-economic and environmental issues, "stability" is not enough to ensure long-run food security and nutrition. I tend to believe that achieving the Sustainable Development Goals in many developing countries would depend greatly on the ability of these countries to build "resilient" crop and livestock production systems that foster food security to meet the needs of massive surges in the human population. Thus, we need to adopt a "resilience thinking" for food security and nutrition. System resilience can be understood as the amount of change a system can undergo and still retain the same controls on function and structure while maintaining option to ‘develop’. Resilience thinking accepts that the fundamental nature of a system is ‘change’ and hence the focus of management should be on ‘flexibility’ and not ‘stability’. Hence, a resilient system not only responds but also takes advantage of the opportunities, for example, through innovation. When there is a stress or disturbance, a resilient system is characterized by its ability to self-organize, its capacity to learn and capacity to absorb change. The transformative processes – deliberate or inadvertent – and system adjustments, then determine the outcome, which is, adaptedness of the system. The outcome of these transformative processes is how ‘adapted’ the coupled systems are, reflected by the ability to respond to food security challenges. The adaptedness is also reflected in how well the system is able to innovate and make use of newer opportunities. 

1. Migration has multiple forms, not only rural to urban migration

In section 3.1 (Demographic changes and urbanization, page 18), the report acknowledges the links between food insecurity and ‘rural to urban migration’. Indeed, food insecurity influences population dynamics and serves as a ‘push’ factor’ for out-migration from rural areas. However, we should not neglect the fact that internal migration can refer to a multitude of movements varying across space and time, i.e. that internal migration can refer also to rural-to-rural, urban-to-rural and urban-to-urban flows. While the interrelationships between each migration stream and food security may vary substantially, it is crucial to refer to each of these spatial patterns of migration in order to capture the full picture of human mobility in relation to food and nutrition insecurity. In connection with this, an important dimension to capture is the interlinkages that exist between food insecurity and both internal and international (irregular) migration flows. Abu Hatab et al. (2020) point out that international and internal migration in the context of some developing countries are inextricably interconnected, with internal migration a step towards international migration. Villarreal and Hamilton (2012) illustrate that internal migration may facilitate international migration when internal migrants move within the country to collect information and establish networks and contacts that can make further cross- border movements less costly. If countries do not like seeing migrants trying to get across their borders, they are really going to hate it as climate change and other environmental challenges in the future increase food insecurity.

Reference: Villarreal, A. & Hamilton, E.R. (2012). ‘Rush to the Border? Market Liberalization and Urban-and Rural-origin Internal Migration in Mexico’, Social science research, 41/5: 1275-1291.

1. Food Value Chains and food supply chains 

Surprisingly, the report mentions food ‘Value Chains’ only once, whilst it refers to ‘supply chains’ 20 different times. According to FAO (2014), the development of sustainable food value chains can offer important pathways out of poverty for the millions of poor households in developing countries. Food value chains are complex systems and they consist of all the stakeholders who participate in the coordinated production and value-adding activities that are needed to make food products, including farmers, agribusinesses, governments and civil society and other stakeholders. Further compounding the challenge, improvements to the value chain must be economically, socially and environmentally sustainable: the so-called triple bottom line of profit, people and planet (ibid). Thus, the report should emphasize the roles and importance of various actors along the food value chains in achieving food security and nutrition. 

Reference: FAO. 2014. Developing sustainable food value chains – Guiding principles. Rome

1. Recognize "indigeneity"— peoples and foods

There is a need to acknowledge the roles of indigenous peoples and foods in achieving food security and nutrition. Particularly, indigeneity has two dimensions in the context of food security; peoples and foods. Food insecurity is a serious public health issue for many indigenous populations in developing countries. Little information is known about the characteristics of the individuals or households experiencing this problem. While some food system studies have been published on indigenous people living in developing countries in recent years, many gaps remain about the nature and extent of food insecurity for indigenous people in these countries. More knowledge can help tailor food security programs and policies to the unique needs of these communities and population. Second, of particular relevance is the nutritious value of indigenous foods. While some of them are known and have been extensively analyzed in terms of micro and macronutrients, others remained considered as nutritious but few proper nutrition composition analyses have been undertaken. In many cases, government policies and development processes contribute indirectly to nutrition-related disease by not making timely and effective efforts to stimulate the use of nutritionally superior foods, including traditional indigenous foods and diets.

Reference: FAO. 2013. Indigenous Peoples' food systems & well-being: Interventions & policies for healthy communities.

Rome

1. "Synergies and conflicts"— great opportunities, but also potential disastrous outcomes 

The report raises multiple questions about the tradeoffs of achieving food security. However, I see a need to emphasize this further in the summary and recommendations sections. For instance, using land resources for climate action can contribute positively to eliminating hunger or eradicating poverty – think better managing pastures and forests making them more resilient, increasing the amount of carbon retained in soils thus making them healthier, or making our food system more efficient by increasing productivity and cutting out food losses and waste. There are also pitfalls when betting on land and nature to take up too big a role: zealously relying on excessive amounts of bioenergy, carbon-dioxide removal or nature-based solutions to get to net zero is a risky and unwise strategy. When badly implemented, these measures can result in further land degradation or counteract food security and sustainable development. 

1. Acknowledging the rural-urban “connectivity gaps” 

In section 3.1 (Demographic changes and urbanization, page 18), it could be useful to highlight the spatial dimensionality of the food system. As Akkoyunlu (2015) notes, linkages between urban centers and the countryside play an important role in processes of rural and urban change and sustainable development. Emerging trends and opportunities – such as increasing demand for food, as well as the changing nature of food demand as consumer preferences evolve, demographic patterns and environmental changes – all point to the importance of ensuring that rural-urban interlinkages are taken into account in urban planning and urban food security analysis and projections. In this sense, the food system increasingly links rural and urban communities within a country, across regions and between continents. Accordingly, cities play an important role in shaping their surrounding and more distant rural areas, and therefore land use, food production, distribution, marketing, consumption, resource use and environmental management should be viewed as matters of concern in both urban and rural areas. Acknowledging the rural-urban “connectivity gaps” is crucial for developing countries to establish more integrated and inclusive links within food systems and agricultural value chains to integrate the “rural-urban” dimension in strategies aiming for the development of more resilient food systems and more sustainable urbanisation. In this respect, the concept of city region food systems (CRFS) has recently emerged as a promising approach to support developing countries in making informed decisions to enhance the sustainability and resilience of urban and regional food systems while taking into consideration a more integrated view of territorial development across urban and rural areas (Dubbeling et al., 2017). The CRFS approach recognises the fact that urban food security is dependent on rural production areas and that the food system affects both urban and rural communities. Therefore, it promotes more integrated rural-urban linkages and more inclusive territorial governance structures in which cities and other regions can work together constructively to build resilient food systems that promote sustainable methods of food production, processing and marketing, and ensure food and nutrition security for all consumers and value-chain actors.

References: 

S. Akkoyunlu. The potential of rural–urban linkages for sustainable development and trade. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Policy, 4 (2015), pp. 20-40

M. Dubbeling, G. Santini, H. Renting, M. Taguchi, L. Lançon, J. Zuluaga, ..., V. AndinoAssessing and planning sustainable City region food systems: Insights from two Latin American cities Sustainability, 9 (8) (2017), p. 1455

Assem Abu Hatab, Maria Cavinato, August Lindemer and Carl Johan Lagerkvist (2019). Urban Sprawl, Food Security & Agricultural Systems in Developing Countries: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Cities (Elsevier), 94(2019), 129-142.

1. Address "missing middle" within food value chains in research and policy interventions  

Customarily, research and policy interventions have extensively concentrated on production and consumption, and has widely ignored other elements and actors along the crop and livestock value chain. However, the value chains in developing countries is rather complex and characterized by long marketing chains featuring large distances, many levels of traders and transactions, multiple steps and stages of processing, and a variety of employment-creating services and inputs. Particularly due to urbanization processes, traditional supply chains are lengthening and becoming more complex. In this regard, lengthening food value chains present opportunities for chain actors; however, it does not guarantee improved outcomes for all actors and stakeholders along the chain. The reason is to a great extent because the transition in the food system generates new challenges to farmers who face additional challenges with fulfilling new standards, to supply chain actors whose livelihoods may be threatened, and to consumers in the form of increasing food price and quality. Together these issues emphasize the need for research and policy to address the “missing middle” in value chains by considering the full continuum of the chain from production to consumption, including inter-linkages, distributional benefits, and institutional arrangements across different production and marketing channels.

References: Assem Abu Hatab, Maria Eduarda Rigo Cavinato and Carl Johan Lagerkvist (2019). Urbanization, livestock systems and food security in developing countries: A systematic review of the literature. Food Security, Springer, 11(2): 279299.

1. The dual directions of interrelations between Food Security and Conflict 

In section 3.13 (Civil Strife and Conflict), the report properly acknowledge that conflict is an increasingly important cause of food insecurity and malnutrition. That is, people living in countries affected by conflict and violence are more likely to be food insecure and malnourished, particularly in those countries characterized by protracted conflict and fragile institutions. However, conflict and social unrest have historically coincided often with periods of high and volatile food prices. After 2008, spikes in international food- and agricultural commodity prices had severely affected vulnerable population groups in developing countries and are now understood to have contributed to the emergence of various social unrest events. One of the most important recent cases of political changes that coincided with a period of high and volatile global food prices was the "Arab Spring" movement in 2011. This apparent simultaneity between food price inflation and food price volatility, on the one hand, and the likelihood for sociopolitical unrest to occur, on the other hand, has fueled a renewed interest in understanding the interlinkages and the channels through which food prices may cause social unrest (e.g. Abu Hatab, 2016; Arezki and Brückner, 2011; Raleigh et al., 2015; Abu Hatab and Hess, 2020). Therefore, there is a need to highlight the dual directions of interrelations between food security and conflict. Addressing these interactions can help identify critical components and develop a framework that can break links between food and conflict and enhance food and nutritional security in developing countries.

References: 

Abu Hatab, A., Hess, S. 2020. Have food prices triggered social unrest in Egypt?. A contributed paper (under review) to the XVI EAAE Congress, Prague, Czech Republic, August 25-August 28, 2020. 

 Food Price Volatility & Political Unrest: The Case of the Egyptian Arab Spring. CIHEAM Watch Letter No. 36. Zaragoza:

CIHEAM.

Abu Hatab, A. (2016). Food Price Volatility & Political Unrest: The Case of the Egyptian Arab Spring. CIHEAM Watch Letter No. 36. Zaragoza: CIHEAM.

Arezki, R., and Brückner, M. (2011). Food Prices and Political Instability. IMF Working Paper WP/11/62. Washington, D.C: IMF. 

We have read the report with great interest and found the approaches to the global problem of food security and nutrition both novel and fruitful. The writing is clear and well- structured. We look forward to the final version with recommendations. It should be added that this reviewer has not read the background reports, on which the descriptions are largely based.

Multiple solutions tailored to specific contexts (p.39) are called for, but there is a risk that the complexity of the system prevents concrete action recommendations. The report addresses the SDG Zero Hunger, but extends its scope to include overweight, obesity and malnutrition. This is fine, since a full picture of the problems connected to FSN is needed, and a global narrative part of the mission, but also problematic, since the actions needed to solve the different problems differ. 

The presentation leans heavily on agroecology and agroeclogical solutions as a pathway forward. It can be argued that advanced technology, biotech, new energy solutions, and other technological innovations are more promising. Large-scale agriculture and marketing have led to lower food prices, and increased quantities of food will still be needed, even if losses and waste must be reduced rapidly.  Needless to say, all solutions have to be put in a social and economic context.

The complexity of the system and the challenges it faces can be overwhelming and lead to an inability to act. There is a risk that recommendations will be regarded as too specific, and not solving all the problems identified. A recommendation is to look into research on how to handle wicked problems.

1)

COMMENT: Food Security and Nutrition is a crucial global issue and essential to human health and well-being. The four original dimensions are established and undisputed. Surely, a focus on production and quantity has come naturally, not least since farmers are paid for quantity of products of a defined minimum level of quality. A change in perspective will bring problems, not least when it comes to measurement.

The addition of Agency is tied to capacity, capability and knowledge on behalf of the consumer/household. It seems straightforward. There is, however, a slight problem with the sentence on Agency in Box 1:

Individuals or groups having the capacity to act independently and make free choices about what they eat and how that food is produced, processed, and distributed.

Should it say: “…have insight into how that food is produced, processed, and distributed.”?

That calls for knowledge and transparency, and together with the concept “freedom of choice” could be replaced by “free and functioning market”.

Compare Figure 1, where Agency connects to all people and food preferences. One could argue that free choice, meeting individual preferences, can also mean “wrong choice”. Although knowledge does not necessarily lead to rational decisions, the role of education and knowledge should be stressed.

The sixth addition, Sustainability, is problematic. The report usually defines Sustainability as an ecological concept, sometimes social but seldom economic. FSN requires Sustainability, but Sustainability includes FSN, if the triple bottom line definition of sustainability is used.  Social sustainability must include access to good food. Also, other SDG: s could be addressed.

As an answer to the question: Yes, the framework addresses the key issues of FSN, but Agency should be clarified. And think carefully about where Sustainability comes in; a suggestion is that this concept is more clearly considered in the re-writing of the report.

2)

COMMENT: The shifts are nicely laid out in Table 1.  Systems thinking and addressing the complexity are necessary, but may also lead to an inability to act. Figures of systems, like Figure 3,  need careful explanation, to reach the purpose. How is a single system defined? It is important that the report is introduced as a map, a credible basis of description, and not a statistical fact sheet. The dilemma is that the complexity can lead to an inability to act. Numerous examples must be added, for an understanding.

3)

COMMENT: 14 trends are identified, without grouping or structure, and why are they not called drivers? It could be useful to refer to Figure 3 here, or models of intelligence, where the external environment is are usually divided into political, economic, social, technological, environmental, legal. They could be presented through a supply chain from agriculture, inputs and production, processing, consumption. As it is, they are listed without a clear thought, and also not in any hierarchy. The report does not state the relative importance of the trends. Surely, conflicts, war and corruption are the most severe and difficult to tackle, and lack of economic growth the main reason for weak development. The role of trade and agricultural policy, subsidies, restrictions and regulations, are underestimated.

Box 2 lists numerous “challenges and vulnerabilities” but these are not clearly connected to the 14 trends and would need grouping and a lot of editing to stand as a good overview of relevant drivers. Again, there is no hierarchy in the listings, but all bullet points are seen as equally important. Although the trends are focusing on challenges and vulnerabilities, it would be refreshing to see some hopeful examples of development (Factfulness by Rosling recommended).

4)

COMMENT: The cases are crucial but few, with examples - some of them controversial - from Malawi, India, Brazil and China put forward. As a balance to the bleak trends, more examples of pathways are needed. A systematic search in databases would give fruitful results.

5)

COMMENT: More emphasis could be put on the importance of property rights, not only intellectual ones. The difficulties with participation and implementing agreements should be explained and stressed.

Some details: The expressions Global north and Global south are controversial.

The reference list needs a careful check; Lamy 2013 is lacking, FAO, 2014, top of p. 35 should be 2019? It is difficult to find SOFA 2012 and 2019, since they are hidden under FAO

In a more popular and widespread version, some of the detailed references could be left out. The final report deserves a wide audience.

1) 

The deepening of the concept is welcome, but it would be good to rethink the inclusion of sustainability as a dimension. It may be better approached by consistently having sustainability in its three dimensions integrated into the concept of food system: as “sustainable food systems”. If it would be kept as a dimension, it needs to be clear that it concerns both environmental, social and economic sustainability. In the draft, it is in some places only referring to environmental sustainability. See more on this in the attached comments.

Food safety could be more explicit.

Figure 2 does not add any value and should be removed.

2)

The analysis of the evolution is helpful to the reader, but needs to be adjusted. It should be clear in the text that availability, including quantity, continues to be important, together with quantity and the other dimensions. It is fundamental and highly context specific. See e.g. the food gap analysis in the 2018 WRI-report Creating a Sustiainable Food Future. The way the chapter 2.2. is written now, the narrative could fuel the trends of deagrarisation, reduced investments to agriculture and agricultural research, difficulties to attract youth to agriculture etc., which is surely not the intention. It must also be clear that the increased focus on quality encompasses quality of food and production – in some places it is stated only as quality of production.

Suggestions:

Add “Sole” or “only” to Table 1 i) “Sole focus on quantity of food produced”.

Remove the first figure 3

Paragraph 2.2. iii adjust the first sentence to: “The shift from only focusing on agricultural development to a more holistic “food systems” approach…”

3)

Section 3.2 on climate change – The wheat example is very specific and a bit out of place. It would be better to use references from larger scientific reviews of several studies and products such as the IPCC-land report (which is cited further down in the same paragraph).

Section 3.5 on the balance feed/food/fuel – Here it may be relevant to add the issue of the rapidly increasing interest in carbon capture and climate compensation through tree planting. Both the aspects of rights of local communities, as well as the trade-off between different objectives (food/feed/fuel/carbon capture). In this section it would also be relevant to mention the risks of relying too heavily on food import.

Section 3.9 digital revolution

Rephrase / improve examples. Precision agriculture is not only for crops but also for other types of farming including livestock. Gene editing is today very relevant both for crops and livestock.

4)

It may be more appropriate call the sections “entry points” instead of “initiatives”. I.e. “availability as an entry point” instead of “availability-focused initiatives”.

In general – increased diversification in farming systems could be highlighted more in different parts of the report. One highly interesting example that you may want to raise is the diversifying farming for increased sustainability as studied in the UNISECO-program https://gis-slu.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=b115968b36c4445db96c4c077261a719

5)

Although acroecology is an important approach, it would be beneficial to the report to increase the diversity and highlight different approaches that can contribute to a sustainable food system.

Dear Sirs,

Greetings.

At the outset, let me compliment the HLPE e-consultant initiative and inviting our participation. Thanks for sharing the exhaustive outcome of the Draft V0. A detailed perusal speaks volumes of the efforts by the expert teams engaged in this unique exercise.

Infact, in the present context of the global concern on the epidemic Corona Virus and the challenged chinese food chain as its root cause, makes this report more relevant. Given the administered compliance with food security as advocated in the draft report, such eventualities can certainly be prevented. Observing the prescribed nutritional care essentially across the food chain should develop the immunity for the sections of deprived population. This even calls for fixing accountability on the respective sources for the non-compliance, enforced by an authoritative global body.

Please permit me to share a few thoughts herein on the exhaustive Draft V0 report. These emerge out of the experiential sharing, given my long term professional engagements with the food and agricultural sector in developing economies both in Asia ( India ) and Africa ( West, Central and North Eastern provinces). Official engagements have particularly been with the grassroots levels, besides discharging various policy making level responsibilities.

Referring to the Agenda 2030, the 4 Pillars, followed by the 9 dimensions as enumerated are quite relevant and exhaustive, particularly advocating the sustainability of the initiative. Nevertheless, considering the mission’s noble objectives, may I suggest that at least two of the following aspects deserve to be additional pillars to be incorporated. The rest will be additional dimensions to be considered for inclusion in the policy paper.

The possible titles for each of the narratives proposed are also indicated below the respective aspects justified.

1. Spreading the awareness of the better food standards across the population, particularly those at the bottom of the pyramid should be given utmost priority attention. Raising their aspirational levels, not just meeting the subsistence levels, but enabling them with sumptuously sufficient nutritional food supplies as their ‘fundamental right’ at the grassroot levels. This should be an very important dimension of implementation approaches. Political willingness and response from the governance will certainly follow.

AWARENESS CAMPAIGNS

2. Food systems, across the globe should strictly adopt the Food and Agriculture Value Chains in totality and avoid the prevailing fragmented value chains. This ensures equitable sharing of the revenues across the stakeholders in value chain, reciprocating their responsible contributions. The value chain covers the backward integration as well as forward, which ensures their contributions and engagements in the value chain remain sustainable.

SUSTAINABLE FOOD VALUE CHAINS

3. Localisation and Affordability of the technology interventions is hugely important, both in respect of the domain as well as ICT / mechanical innovations being advocated to the masses. The risk of adaptations of these interventions should be owned by the promoters (public or private sector) rather than the producers / stake holders in the food value chains. While Ease-of-Farming is important, the concern is also keep it safer, affordable and risk free adaptations. This will encourage more adaptations, while the promoters will remain cautious in advocating only the proven technology innovations.

TECHNOLOGY LOCALISATION & AFFORDABILITY

4. Mobilisation of investments in to food chains, and access to affordable finances, both equity participation as well as debt financing, across the food chains remains highly pertinent to implement the food security and nutritional aspects. Transformations will result only if the investments are inclusive, which should be an important policy advocacy across the nations, irrespective of their production levels.

ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE INCLUSIVE FINANCIAL RESOURCES

5. Inclusive financing programs for the food and agriculture operation as well as the new adaptations should be supported by a matured Risk Sharing Mechanism, wherein institutional lending support will certainly result. Live illustration is NIRSAL / AGRA concepts, widely implemented in African continent. Incidentally, let me offer to provide adaptable schematic programs, wherein a Corpus Fund will sustain these programs, having finalized this program for Nigeria in Africa.

INCENTIVISED RISK SHARING MECHANISM

6.Enforcing Crop Diversification, particularly in the context of optimum natural resource utilization & adopting climate control mechanism owing to exploitations, may even have to be mandatory.

ADAPTABLE CROP DIVERSIFICATION

7.Agriculture, being a primary sector in any developing economy, remains largely as a informal sector, unlike the formal structure as prevailing in other sectors in the economy. The prevailing ‘Informal’ setup, proving its sustainability over decades, should be recognised and necessary policy level support needs to extended. This takes care of the Small & Marginal holdings, wherein the grassroots level producers require the support for aggregation & collectivization of both the inputs as well as the output produced.

STRENGTHENING DYNAMIC INFORMAL SECTOR

I am sure these narratives are worth favorable considerations, for incorporation in the final document as appropriate, to be adopted by your esteemed organisation. At least, two of the narrations, particularly Item 1 - Awareness Campaigns & Item 4 - dealing with Access to Affordable Inclusive Finances are worth considering as the additional pillars under the proposed program.

Kindly feel free to revert for any further dialogue on these aspects or otherwise. It will also be an opportunity for me to be associated, particularly in finalizing these matters and also, taking it forward for implementation .

A pdf version of the above narratives is also enclosed for ready reference, which please acknowledge.

Warm Regards

Ashok Meda

Ashok Kumar Meda

Senior Consultant

Centre of Excellence - FPOs

Dept of Horticulture & University of Horticultural Sciences

Government of Karnataka

Bengaluru

India

(Former Senior Banking Advisor, Institutional & Government Advisory, ING Bank / FMO, Amsterdam - Netherlands )

The European Commission welcome the HLPE initiative of launching a public consultation on the draft of the Report "Food security and nutrition: building a global narrative towards 2030".

We recognize that this consultation is important to build a common vision on Food Security and Nutrition and move the public agenda on this subject, particularly with the perspective of the UN Food Summit 2021.

In this context, it is with pleasure that the European Commission intends to contribute to this global dialogue. To this end EC services agreed on the comments that are enclosed to this note.

Dear colleagues,

I read the excellent and fruitful report of Food security and nutrition.

I have 2 suggestions:

• In terms of accessibility it is essential not to neglect the role of cash crops production as income generating activities (cotton, Gum Arabic …..Exec)
• There are some inedible species (biogas crops) for fuel production instead of using food or feed crops. More researches, investigation and sound policies are needed for production and oil extraction of these wild crops (eg. Jatrova sp. In Sudan and may be other sp. In other countries) .

D. Bakhita Mahgoub Elshafie

Director of Food security, Rural development

and Poverty reduction Department

Dear Colleagues,

Your Draft Report is a very interesting and in many cases a well balanced document.

Nevertheless, I allow me minor comments to some topics:

• Box 1 (p.10) sumarized 6 dimensions of food security. I miss food safety as dimension 7. Later „Food Safety“ is mentioned in the document (e.g. Figure 1). For my understanding – Food Safety is a very important parameter. There is no sense to have enough food, but it is unsafe. Therrefore, it should be a dimension in Box 1.

• p. 22 ff.: I miss some clear statements for the competition between food (men) and feed (animals) and (fuel). There exist some calcultions for the „Human edible fractions“ (hef; Wilkinson (2011) „Redefining efficiency of feed used by livestock“. Animal 5, 1014-1022; Ertl, P., Klocker, H., Hörtenhuber, S., Knaus, W., Zollitsch, W. (2015) The net contribution of dairy production to human food supply: The cause of Austrian dairy farms. Agriculture Systems 137, 119-125; ) in order to quantify the feed:food competition. Similar calculations are also possible with the Human edible protein (hep fraction).

• p. 25 ff.: The objectives of plant breeding (incl. green biotechnology and genome editing) should be more cleary formulated/defined. For my understanding, plant breeding is the starting point of the whole food chain. We need plants with important Input traits (e.g. biotic and abiotic stress tolerance, such as improved dry resistance, high water using efficiency, higher resistance against cold, heat, salt or salt water etc., more efficent use of N and CO2 from the air) and Output traits (higher content of nutrients, higher food safety) (see NASEM 2016; Nat. Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, 2016). Therefore „Plant breeding“ is the starting point and a corner stone for food security and nutrition in the future. It should be more underlined in the present HPLEdocument.

Many other aspects of food security in the future are mentioned (e.g. such as importance of smallholder farms, food losses and waste, hunger and obesity etc.), but I could not find some remarks to land grabbing in developing countries and consequences of cheap imports of low quality food (e.g. wings and heads of poultry, innerts animals of animal origin) from so-called developed countries into African and Asian countries and the significance/influence on the local agriculture and sustainable food security.

Best regards

Gerhard Flachowsky

In my view, the report is an important building block for enhanced policy to achieve SDG 2 to end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture. The report draws impressively on diverse literatures to advance a nuanced argument about the ways in which various components of the food security concept, and governance and institutions influence food security and nutrition outcomes. The report presents an important channel for conveying facts and information from the scientific community to policymakers and the general public. By enlightening society about the scientific consensus in relation to food security and nutrition challenges, general awareness among policymakers increases. One of the report’s significance lies in the way it interprets the implications of its central findings, and in its attempt to fill the “know and do” gap. The following are some comments that might be useful to take into consideration for the next versions of the report:

1. Regarding the need to adopt a holistic and integrated approach to food security

In my opinion, the single most important message from this report is the need for a more holistic “food systems” approach to food security and nutrition. The report ‘broadly’ points out the that it is essential to adopt a holistic and integrated approach that considers all the elements and activities which relate to the production, processing, distribution, preparation and consumption of food, and the output of these activities, including socio-economic and environmental outcomes. However, more emphasis should be placed on conceptualizing the approach by describing how various components of the food system interact in various spatial, agronomic, and socioeconomic contexts. We all know that ignoring the interconnections in the global food system is a major factor behind many unintended consequences that will have dire consequences for future food security and nutrition. Reconnecting the food system by acknowledging these interconnections from a holistic perspective will allow new levels of optimization at the scale of the whole system (rather than its parts). It will allow us to identify fewer and more synergistic interventions that reduce a far larger number of risks. As noted by Abu Hatab et al. (2019), a food system consists of both the core components of the food supply chain and key features of the broader biophysical and socioeconomic institutional context within which food production, processing, distribution, marketing and consumption activities occur. Moreover, given the complexity of the food system, it is essential for frameworks aiming to assess a food system to define the system's internal components and boundaries, as well as its linkages to the “external” world. The external world here refers to stressors (e.g. climate change, changing lifestyles and aspirations, new food habits and market structure), which influence the linkages and interdependencies between the components of the food system. In a holistic approach of this kind, the determinants and outcomes of the activities are considered as components in a complex system undergoing numerous dynamic exchanges, constantly evolving and responding to both internal interactions and the influence of external stressors. Furthermore, a system approach of this kind also recognizes that a food system consists of various elements that, when combined, include criteria that may not be present individually. Changes in one element of the system are systematic and thus may induce changes in another element. They are also dynamic as a result of feedback loops, while causes can become effects and vice versa.

Reference: Assem Abu Hatab, Maria Cavinato, August Lindemer and Carl Johan Lagerkvist (2019). Urban Sprawl, Food Security & Agricultural Systems in Developing Countries: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Cities (Elsevier), 94(2019), 129-142.

1. Conceptual vs. actual approaches to achieve food security and nutrition

I find that a large proportion of the text of the report (particularly, the first sections) addresses the evolution of the Food Security ‘concept’ in recent years. This is important and needed; however, there should also be an equal focus on the evolution of policies, strategies and interventions at various levels (local, regional, national and international), which address food insecurity and nutrition issues, and aim to achieve the sustainable development goals one and two.  Thus, I would suggest that the report builds a more balanced structure between conceptual and actual approaches to achieve food security and nutrition.

1. Food Security dimensions—Stability vs. Resilience

In the first section (A more comprehensive approach to food security and nutrition), the report discusses the the four dimensions of food security concept, and adds “agency” and “sustainability” as two vital dimensions that deserve to be elevated in conceptual and policy frameworks. My comment here is about the "stability" dimension of food security. In my view, under the burgeoning challenges presented by climate change, urbanization and other socio-economic and environmental issues, "stability" is not enough to ensure long-run food security and nutrition. I tend to believe that achieving the Sustainable Development Goals in many developing countries would depend greatly on the ability of these countries to build "resilient" crop and livestock production systems that foster food security to meet the needs of massive surges in the human population. Thus, we need to adopt a "resilience thinking" for food security and nutrition. System resilience can be understood as the amount of change a system can undergo and still retain the same controls on function and structure while maintaining option to ‘develop’. Resilience thinking accepts that the fundamental nature of a system is ‘change’ and hence the focus of management should be on ‘flexibility’ and not ‘stability’. Hence, a resilient system not only responds but also takes advantage of the opportunities, for example, through innovation. When there is a stress or disturbance, a resilient system is characterized by its ability to self-organize, its capacity to learn and capacity to absorb change. The transformative processes – deliberate or inadvertent – and system adjustments, then determine the outcome, which is, adaptedness of the system. The outcome of these transformative processes is how ‘adapted’ the coupled systems are, reflected by the ability to respond to food security challenges. The adaptedness is also reflected in how well the system is able to innovate and make use of newer opportunities.

1. Migration has multiple forms, not only rural to urban migration

In section 3.1 (Demographic changes and urbanization, page 18), the report acknowledges the links between food insecurity and ‘rural to urban migration’. Indeed, food insecurity influences population dynamics and serves as a ‘push’ factor’ for out-migration from rural areas. However, we should not neglect the fact that internal migration can refer to a multitude of movements varying across space and time, i.e. that internal migration can refer also to rural-to-rural, urban-to-rural and urban-to-urban flows. While the interrelationships between each migration stream and food security may vary substantially, it is crucial to refer to each of these spatial patterns of migration in order to capture the full picture of human mobility in relation to food and nutrition insecurity. In connection with this, an important dimension to capture is the interlinkages that exist between food insecurity and both internal and international (irregular) migration flows. Abu Hatab et al. (2020) point out that international and internal migration in the context of some developing countries are inextricably interconnected, with internal migration a step towards international migration. Villarreal and Hamilton (2012) illustrate that internal migration may facilitate international migration when internal migrants move within the country to collect information and establish networks and contacts that can make further cross- border movements less costly. If countries do not like seeing migrants trying to get across their borders, they are really going to hate it as climate change and other environmental challenges in the future increase food insecurity.

Reference: Villarreal, A. & Hamilton, E.R. (2012). ‘Rush to the Border? Market Liberalization and Urban-and Rural-origin Internal Migration in Mexico’, Social science research, 41/5: 1275-1291.

1. Food Value Chains and food supply chains

Surprisingly, the report mentions food ‘Value Chains’ only once, whilst it refers to ‘supply chains’ 20 different times. According to FAO (2014), the development of sustainable food value chains can offer important pathways out of poverty for the millions of poor households in developing countries. Food value chains are complex systems and they consist of all the stakeholders who participate in the coordinated production and value-adding activities that are needed to make food products, including farmers, agribusinesses, governments and civil society and other stakeholders. Further compounding the challenge, improvements to the value chain must be economically, socially and environmentally sustainable: the so-called triple bottom line of profit, people and planet (ibid). Thus, the report should emphasize the roles and importance of various actors along the food value chains in achieving food security and nutrition.

Reference: FAO. 2014. Developing sustainable food value chains – Guiding principles. Rome

1. Recognize "indigeneity"— peoples and foods

There is a need to acknowledge the roles of indigenous peoples and foods in achieving food security and nutrition. Particularly, indigeneity has two dimensions in the context of food security; peoples and foods. Food insecurity is a serious public health issue for many indigenous populations in developing countries. Little information is known about the characteristics of the individuals or households experiencing this problem. While some food system studies have been published on indigenous people living in developing countries in recent years, many gaps remain about the nature and extent of food insecurity for indigenous people in these countries. More knowledge can help tailor food security programs and policies to the unique needs of these communities and population. Second, of particular relevance is the nutritious value of indigenous foods. While some of them are known and have been extensively analyzed in terms of micro and macronutrients, others remained considered as nutritious but few proper nutrition composition analyses have been undertaken. In many cases, government policies and development processes contribute indirectly to nutrition-related disease by not making timely and effective efforts to stimulate the use of nutritionally superior foods, including traditional indigenous foods and diets.

Reference: FAO. 2013. Indigenous Peoples' food systems & well-being: Interventions & policies for healthy communities. Rome

1. "Synergies and conflicts"— great opportunities, but also potential disastrous outcomes

The report raises multiple questions about the tradeoffs of achieving food security. However, I see a need to emphasize this further in the summary and recommendations sections. For instance, using land resources for climate action can contribute positively to eliminating hunger or eradicating poverty – think better managing pastures and forests making them more resilient, increasing the amount of carbon retained in soils thus making them healthier, or making our food system more efficient by increasing productivity and cutting out food losses and waste. There are also pitfalls when betting on land and nature to take up too big a role: zealously relying on excessive amounts of bioenergy, carbon-dioxide removal or nature-based solutions to get to net zero is a risky and unwise strategy. When badly implemented, these measures can result in further land degradation or counteract food security and sustainable development.

1. Acknowledging the rural-urban “connectivity gaps”

In section 3.1 (Demographic changes and urbanization, page 18), it could be useful to highlight the spatial dimensionality of the food system. As Akkoyunlu (2015) notes, linkages between urban centers and the countryside play an important role in processes of rural and urban change and sustainable development. Emerging trends and opportunities – such as increasing demand for food, as well as the changing nature of food demand as consumer preferences evolve, demographic patterns and environmental changes – all point to the importance of ensuring that rural-urban interlinkages are taken into account in urban planning and urban food security analysis and projections. In this sense, the food system increasingly links rural and urban communities within a country, across regions and between continents. Accordingly, cities play an important role in shaping their surrounding and more distant rural areas, and therefore land use, food production, distribution, marketing, consumption, resource use and environmental management should be viewed as matters of concern in both urban and rural areas. Acknowledging the rural-urban “connectivity gaps” is crucial for developing countries to establish more integrated and inclusive links within food systems and agricultural value chains to integrate the “rural-urban” dimension in strategies aiming for the development of more resilient food systems and more sustainable urbanisation. In this respect, the concept of city region food systems (CRFS) has recently emerged as a promising approach to support developing countries in making informed decisions to enhance the sustainability and resilience of urban and regional food systems while taking into consideration a more integrated view of territorial development across urban and rural areas (Dubbeling et al., 2017). The CRFS approach recognises the fact that urban food security is dependent on rural production areas and that the food system affects both urban and rural communities. Therefore, it promotes more integrated rural-urban linkages and more inclusive territorial governance structures in which cities and other regions can work together constructively to build resilient food systems that promote sustainable methods of food production, processing and marketing, and ensure food and nutrition security for all consumers and value-chain actors.

References:

S. Akkoyunlu. The potential of rural–urban linkages for sustainable development and trade. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Policy, 4 (2015), pp. 20-40

M. Dubbeling, G. Santini, H. Renting, M. Taguchi, L. Lançon, J. Zuluaga, ..., V. AndinoAssessing and planning sustainable City region food systems: Insights from two Latin American cities Sustainability, 9 (8) (2017), p. 1455

Assem Abu Hatab, Maria Cavinato, August Lindemer and Carl Johan Lagerkvist (2019). Urban Sprawl, Food Security & Agricultural Systems in Developing Countries: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Cities (Elsevier), 94(2019), 129-142.

1. Address "missing middle" within food value chains in research and policy interventions 

Customarily, research and policy interventions have extensively concentrated on production and consumption, and has widely ignored other elements and actors along the crop and livestock value chain. However, the value chains in developing countries is rather complex and characterized by long marketing chains featuring large distances, many levels of traders and transactions, multiple steps and stages of processing, and a variety of employment-creating services and inputs. Particularly due to urbanization processes, traditional supply chains are lengthening and becoming more complex. In this regard, lengthening food value chains present opportunities for chain actors; however, it does not guarantee improved outcomes for all actors and stakeholders along the chain. The reason is to a great extent because the transition in the food system generates new challenges to farmers who face additional challenges with fulfilling new standards, to supply chain actors whose livelihoods may be threatened, and to consumers in the form of increasing food price and quality. Together these issues emphasize the need for research and policy to address the “missing middle” in value chains by considering the full continuum of the chain from production to consumption, including inter-linkages, distributional benefits, and institutional arrangements across different production and marketing channels.

References: Assem Abu Hatab, Maria Eduarda Rigo Cavinato and Carl Johan Lagerkvist (2019). Urbanization, livestock systems and food security in developing countries: A systematic review of the literature. Food Security, Springer, 11(2): 279-299.

1. The dual directions of interrelations between Food Security and Conflict

In section 3.13 (Civil Strife and Conflict), the report properly acknowledge that conflict is an increasingly important cause of food insecurity and malnutrition. That is, people living in countries affected by conflict and violence are more likely to be food insecure and malnourished, particularly in those countries characterized by protracted conflict and fragile institutions. However, conflict and social unrest have historically coincided often with periods of high and volatile food prices. After 2008, spikes in international food- and agricultural commodity prices had severely affected vulnerable population groups in developing countries and are now understood to have contributed to the emergence of various social unrest events. One of the most important recent cases of political changes that coincided with a period of high and volatile global food prices was the "Arab Spring" movement in 2011. This apparent simultaneity between food price inflation and food price volatility, on the one hand, and the likelihood for sociopolitical unrest to occur, on the other hand, has fueled a renewed interest in understanding the interlinkages and the channels through which food prices may cause social unrest (e.g. Abu Hatab, 2016; Arezki and Brückner, 2011; Raleigh et al., 2015; Abu Hatab and Hess, 2020). Therefore, there is a need to highlight the dual directions of interrelations between food security and conflict. Addressing these interactions can help identify critical components and develop a framework that can break links between food and conflict and enhance food and nutritional security in developing countries.

References:

Abu Hatab, A., Hess, S. 2020. Have food prices triggered social unrest in Egypt?. A contributed paper (under review) to the XVI EAAE Congress, Prague, Czech Republic, August 25-August 28, 2020.

 Food Price Volatility & Political Unrest: The Case of the Egyptian Arab Spring. CIHEAM Watch Letter No. 36. Zaragoza: CIHEAM.

Abu Hatab, A. (2016). Food Price Volatility & Political Unrest: The Case of the Egyptian Arab Spring. CIHEAM Watch Letter No. 36. Zaragoza: CIHEAM.

Arezki, R., and Brückner, M. (2011). Food Prices and Political Instability. IMF Working Paper WP/11/62. Washington, D.C: IMF.

Follow up comment under Q3 on section 3 sub-section 3.9 entitled “The digital revolution in food and agriculture”

This section sates that like any sector, food and agriculture sector will be affected by digital technologies (DTs/ICTs) and acknowledges that these technologies have important implications for food security and nutrition (FSN). It also tells about ongoing debates on whether those impacts are likely to be overall positive or negative. It further states that more research on impacts and potentials of DTs/ICTs are needed. Yes, it is important and timely to raise and discuss about the influence of DTs/ICTs on food and agriculture and its implications on FSN. This is because unlike other sectors such as space science medicine etc. food and agriculture sector has been tittle affected by DTs/ICTs so far. However, since few years back, DTs/ICTs started to influence food and agriculture sector and the influences of these technologies on this sector are likely to dramatically increase in the years to come. Therefore, it is wise to prepare to what will happen when the technologies will be fully and increasingly applied in food and agriculture sector and its implications on FSN. On the other hand, in my view, the issue about the ongoing whether those impacts are likely to be overall positive or negative should not be a big concern. This is because like any other technology, DTs can have either positive or negative impacts on food and agriculture and then on FSN depending the way we will be using it. For example if we take nuclear technology, positively, we can use it to generate electricity and negatively, we can use it to develop weapons of mass destruction. The same applies to DTs/ICTs. Therefore, let us (the world) choose DTs to have positive impacts on food and agriculture and then on FSN for our own sake, let us all be responsible for ourselves in using DTs to transform food and agriculture and ensure FSN. If we choose DTs to have positive impact, really it will have great potential to transform world agriculture and greatly help to achieve the required outcomes in FSN.

In this regard, this section of V0 drat report presented very good examples about positive applications of DTs in food and agriculture sector such as its recent application in precision agriculture and genome editing. It also discusses growing effects of DTs on food systems through block chain technology. I have also practically seen the incredible positive application of DTs in agriculture. The story is that last October, 2019 I was in Wageningen, The Netherlands for two weeks to participate in training course. In the course of the training, I and colleagues had a chance to visit a private dairy farm. We have witnessed that there were about 30 dairy cows in the barren where to one of the fore leg of each cow a sensor was fitted in ring form. At the middle of the barren above cows and below the roof an antenna was fixed to which each sensor fitted with each cow was sending all metabolic, physiological, health information etc. of individual cow to the antenna. The antenna then sends information in the form of signal to satellite owned or rented (I am not sure) by client Company form which software of the company process the information and avail it online to the customer. The customer then explore the web page of the company, login and get all information regarding each and every cow such as if a particular cow is in heat period, pregnant, sick, healthy etc. based on which he takes all necessary management measures. All examples presented above are high level applications of DTs in food and agriculture which are not suitable for developing countries due to several reasons. However, there is no harm if developed countries or anyone who choose and afford to apply high level DTs to transform food and agriculture. This is because still there are immense potentials with DTs to transform food and agriculture in developing countries to achieve FSN outcomes. This can be done by developing low level DTs such as internet based software applications targeted to increasing agricultural productivities, reduction of food wastage and lose; facilitation of agricultural commodity marketing etc. Such simple software applications do not require big data, big server capacities, high analytical and operations skill, GIS systems etc. This is because as opposed to most other technologies, DTs/ICTs are very flexible and thus they can be developed and applied at ranges of technical manpower and financial resource capacities. Therefore, I suggest that parallel to developing and using high level application of DTs in agriculture, due emphasis should be given to development and application of low technology level DGs suitable to developing countries especially in sub-Saharan African (SSA) nations to transform food and agriculture for FSN.

At this juncture, I would like to present an example how simple software applications can contribute to FSN outcomes. The point is that some six months ago I submitted a proposal entitled “Hotel & Restaurant Service Delivery Application (HRServeApp): Software application program for facilitating Hotel & Restaurant services provision” to a joint contest organized by climatecolab and Lufthansa Innovation Hub. As to me, one of the main benefits if the proposed software is developed and availed to users; it will greatly reduce food waste and lose in cities to appreciable extent (NOTE: THIS IS SOLELY IN MY THINKING AND THUS I MAY NOT BE CORRECT, PLEASE). Please, kindly see the details of the proposal at:

https://www.climatecolab.org/contests/2019/changemaker-challenge/c/proposal/1334701

or at: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hotel-restaurant-service-delivery-application-hrserveapp-wassie-haile/

This is because using the proposed application, hotels and restaurants can roughly estimate and know the volumes of their daily, weekly, monthly and yearly customers so that they can plan how much raw food material they need to buy and how much food they can prepare daily. Thus, food wastage in raw and prepared forms will be decreased to appreciable extent. Customers will also be able to easily identify hotels and restaurants in destination cities with services of their choices in terms of food type, quality, prices etc. online. To add one more example, a simple online platform can be developed and availed through which producers and customers (markets) can interact directly so that they can jointly plan what type of agric products to produce, at what prices, when etc. so that long market chains can be curtailed and thus food wastage in the course of transportation will be avoided etc. These are only few examples concerning ways to exploit low level DTs/ICTs to transform food and agriculture in the settings of developing countries especially in SSA. Otherwise there are several more ways to exploit these technologies to develop and grow agriculture in these countries which are little or not applied so far.

Over all, there are immense untapped potentials in DTs for transforming world food and agriculture to ensure FSN globally. But to exploit the ample potential with DTs, we need to customize, develop and use these technologies tailored to specific socioeconomic, cultural, development situations of a particular nation and continent. By the way individuals, societies, nations etc. should prepare themselves in the world to know and apply TDs/ICTs technologies not only for food and agriculture but in all sectors; and in all aspects of life for that matter. As to me, everyone needs to keep abreast himself with the rapidly advancing overwhelming TDS/ICTs even for his/her survival.

Finally, this is my last comment in this particular discussion forum and I would like to thank and appreciate once again the organizers in particular and FAO in general for opening this online discussion forum so that interested scientist, experts and professionals including myself could be able to contribute to the topic of discussion. On my side, even if I don’t know how much useful ideas, suggestions and comments I have contributed, I tried my best to my capacity and knowledge from the bottom of my heart. Apart from this, I enjoyed participating in this discussion because I learnt a lot reading the V0 draft document and reading comments of contributors posted on the platform.