Foro Global sobre Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición (Foro FSN)

The deeper layer of structural drivers fundamental to understanding inequity, including sociocultural, economic and political aspects are examined, as well as actions and policies to reduce inequalities that mirrors these layers of drivers.

To vehimently assert that there are structural dysfunction as to the way and manner food systems have been handled especially in time of crises and disruptions, the entire food community can design a more resilient food systems for efficient coordination with better and measurable output from past experiences with indicators that have been predetermined by monitoring and evaluating such designs in the past.

The Associated terms of references for future proofing these new mechanisms can be or are the root causes of the failures experienced and these are ascertained through procedural testing.

These scopes would of course invariably maximize every possible tools and demystify new improvements in science and innovation within the food systems cycle.

These identifiable structural approach can be cascades of the different layers of drivers, either in policy formulation, transboundary institutional hierarchy which can be decentralised into simpler and effective structures for social cultural and geopolitical co-benefits.

Elaborating on the “Inequalities in food systems and other systems” and the “Systemic Drivers and root-causes of FSN inequalities”, we have to consider that “the engine of inequity” is also fueled by “labor inequalities” within rural communities, a feature to which the current draft report of the HLPE is not throwing enough light. At least in sub-Saharan Africa, where subsistence farmers prevail, the two lowest quintiles are trapped into trans-generational poverty and actual hunger or accentuate vulnerability because of unequal capabilities to access to labor (manpower). 

The topic is complex for a short intervention in the context of the current debate, but I will try to focus on some key elements of the rationale, also referring to some case-studies, to give a flavor from the reality on the ground, hopping, to call the attention of the HLPE to the topic, in order to be taken on board by the final report, opening the opportunity:

A.    Acknowledge (put the topic on the Agenda) 

B.    Build Knowledge (create evidence, elaborate conceptual construct, Monitor and Assessment) 

C.    Act (implication on the Programming exercise of Projects, Programs, Strategies and Policies. Projects and Programs must stop turning a blind/eye to differentiation within communities just labeling “their beneficiaries” as the vulnerable). 

a)    Poverty and FNS are related to inequalities that do not stop at rural communities’ gates. In poor rural communities relying on subsistence agriculture, not all poor are equally poor. Inequalities taking place within rural communities lead the most vulnerable to starvation through entrenched complex practices of access to labor, land, and food stocks. Access to labor is a major determinant of structural hunger in rural communities in Sub-Saharan Africa, yet, it is poorly addressed by the mainstream analysis and action that consider African communities as “labor-surplus economies”. This is both, wrong and unfair. 

b)    Subsistence farmers’ sustainability is at the core of food security and adequate nutrition. In fact, they represent the vast majority of the world food insecure. In the modern world, sustainability of subsistence agriculture is fragile and subsistence households are vulnerable. By definition, subsistence agriculture produces the strict necessary for the survival of the family. In such systems, pursuing high increase of outputs leads to overwhelming pressure over the limited production assets; namely labor and natural resources, including land and forest. That impacts negatively on the environment and on the increasing inequality within a rural community. Pressure over environment and accentuation of inequalities further compromise the already fragile sustainability of households and ecosystems.

c)    Typical subsistence systems present an equilibrium of inputs and outputs. In a subsistence system, in theory and in the real life, each person produces what is needed to reproduce his/her labor force (his/her productive capacity and that of his/her children, the future generation of producers), and sometimes that person may produce small surpluses. These surpluses must also support bad years, which, in average for these systems, occur once or twice in every 4-5 good years. Individuals, each peasant, and consequently each “subsistence” livelihood and subsistence communities, cannot produce significant structural surpluses to channel to the markets. What such societies can do is distribute manpower unequally among its various groups and subsequently some can accumulate. In short, someone has to go hungry so that this society as a whole can produce “surpluses”.

d)    However, rural communities relying on subsistence agriculture are in a process of market integration. People buy from and sell to the markets. In a schematic way, two are the main sources feeding trade; namely a) temporary surpluses and not structural ones and b) certain households cultivate more land and consequently have more production. Accurate analysis shows that the two dimensions are interrelated. Both sources of “surpluses” to sell to the markets are sources of structural hunger in the rural communities. 

e)    Deprived from structural surpluses, particularly during the “hunger gap – lean season”, the poorest households (varying from 20% to 40% of a predominantly subsistence community) “sell” their labor literally for a plate of beans to the “better off” that are in a process of consolidation of assets’ concentration. The “better off” manage to open and cultivate more land. At this stage, selling “under-cost” their labor force, the poorest households remain caught in the trap of trans-generational poverty. (see below an example from Northern Mozambique). 

f)    Labor control is much related to land control even when land apparently is “accessible” to all members of the community, even to the foreigners as Internal Displaced People (IDP). Much of the traditional institutions are aimed at regulating and controlling manpower and access to labor force. Actually, while we are focusing on land tenure (which correct), rural communities are claiming manpower shortage (“we don’t have enough power to work the fields”). 

To give an example from Mozambique 

FNS in Mozambique overview: In 2022, 60 percent of the population in Mozambique lived in extreme poverty, with the poverty threshold at 1.90 U.S. dollars a day. That corresponded to roughly 20 million people in absolute numbers. (statista). Poverty is still predominantly a rural phenomenon in Mozambique. More than 70 per cent of poor households live in rural areas (ifad). The overwhelming majority of producers are subsistence farmers (USAID Fact Sheets).

 “In rural settings,   ....... seems to picture a situation where extreme poverty is very high (around 40%, i.e. the two lowest quintiles of rural population), better off situations are in phase of consolidation (around 20%, the richest quintile) and a “grey” area of those exposed in vulnerability, living on the edge of the poverty line (the remaining 40%) moving in and out of poverty according to external conditions, such as family illness and deaths, climate hazards, loss of jobs and cash income.” (FAO; “Protecting and improving households food security and nutrition in HIV/AIDS affected areas in Manica and Sofala provinces”; 2009 -2012).

On the whole, “for most farmers food security varies with the agricultural calendar”. That is, most farmers exhaust their reserves way before the next harvest. In general we can probably speak of temporary surpluses rather structural surpluses. (Food Security Survey (Medecins Sans Frontieres, UNDP/UNHCR, French Co-operation; 1994/95 season, Mozambique). On the other hand, some households are able to cultivate more land because they have access to supplementary labour. The access to extra manpower typically takes place under very concrete circumstances. Actually, access to more labour is possible in detriment of the poorest households when high labour requirements (clearing, weeding) and “hunger gap” / lean season are overlapping. At this stage, the poorest have to go and sell “under-cost” their labour force and, at this point, the poorest households remain caught in the trap of trans-generational poverty.

In Northern Mozambique, in the Macua society, a coping strategy through traditional social relations, called “o’lola”, takes place. This practice of “exchanging labor for food” enables considerable accumulation to those who benefit from the work of others. Suffice it to say that one day's work under "o'lola" can be paid with 3-4 kg. of cassava or sometimes with just a plate of beans, while the average flour production per workday corresponds to 7-9 Kg for cassava. Under these circumstances, a process of land concentration on the hands of few within the rural communities is taking place. For instance, in 1993, in Nampula Province, about 40-50% of the total land was held by only 25% of the subsistence producers that farmed between 4 and 5 times more land per household than the smallest 25%. The land accumulation must be understood not in terms of property rights on land (in Mozambique the State is the only owner) but in terms of farming capacity, i.e., the capacity of a farmer to have access to labor during the peak season.

To also keep in mind that IDP or vulnerable community members is almost always provided a plot to be cultivated. However, subtle and elaborated agreements allow those providing land (normally related to traditional elites) to easily turn the better-off. For instance, to the worse-off is given a new plot to be opened in the forest, which requires intense labor. After a number of cultivation cycles, when the land turns less fertile for certain cultures, the cycle normally closes with cassava which requires drastically less labor while produces more flour/ha. 

In Northern Mozambique, among the Macua people, the average household has five people, two of whom are children. In terms of labour force, if we consider man to be one agricultural labour unit, a woman is calculated as 0.7 of a labour unit and a children as 0.5. The cultivated area per capita varies in relation to several factors as the type of culture, crops rotation, to list only few. In Northern Mozambique the cultivated area/capita varies between 0.6 ha and 1.1 ha and the average cultivated area/household is of 2 ha, up to 3.7 ha in some groups. 

In dry lands, the average productivity in food crops is 450 -- 500 kilos of flour/hectare . So, a typical household of five with two ha of land could access to a production output, in food crops, of around 9.041/kcal/day. According to FAO the world average kcal/person/ day today is 2,800. For the industrial countries 3,380 and for Sub-Saharan Africa 2,195. The food and nutritional poverty line in Mozambique is around 2.150 kcal/person/ day and the MDER 1.617 Kcal/person/day.

So, there is a huge possibility that a household faces an annual average kcal food deficit. The situation is more dramatic throughout the year. It is noted that in the period of “abundance” (September) the per capita consumption is higher than the Kcal requirements, in January (a period of hunger but also of heavy agricultural work) there is a big deficit, and a more moderate deficit around May. It is to be noticed that September is the time of the cassava harvest, while May sees the maize, groundnut, and bean harvests and is also the marketing season. In January there is a Kcal deficit for all household groups and types whilst in May only one of the three household types has a Kcal deficit. This most vulnerable group cultivates a smaller area/household and/capita, has fewer cashew trees, is larger, and possibly has a younger head of household. This last aspect could be of interesting if related to the social stratification typical of Macua society, by age groups.

 

In regards to the discussion related to human rights and governance in section 6 of the document we would like to bring to your attention a document produced for FAO on legal entry points for the transformation of food systems for improved sustainability and nutrition where these matters are presented particularly in section 2 on the Nexus between human rights and agri-food systems and section 3 on the Framework to guide regulatory coherence towards sustainable agri-food systems.  You may consult to the document entitled «Transforming agri-food systems - Legislative interventions for improved nutrition and sustainability»  at  https://www.fao.org/3/cb6016en/cb6016en.pdf

Beside highlighting the functions of law, the document presents exemples of legal and policy interventions at regional, national and infranational levels that are key in the transformation of food systems. 

I start with an example of Food Security & Nutrition Bill brought out by the Government of India in 2013.  This is a good bill but the implementation by the state governments and cooperation given by the Centre negating the very basic foundations of the Act. Bill was passed by one political party and implementation by another political party. By implementing they consider it gives credit to the government that brought out the Act – vote bank politics. Also, during Covid-19 the implementation severely hampered.

In the case of USA the policies enacted by Democrats were negated by Republicans; and now Democrats started negating the laws brought out by Republicans. That means inequalities vary with ruling parties whims and fancies with respect to overall objectives. Realities are different from theoretical exercises. In this, even the voluntary organizations, World Bank, UN Agencies, etc. is not any different.

We have seen the scrambling of nations and UN Agencies for funds under false pretext of fictitious global warming by keeping the true face of climate change and agriculture policies, etc. In fact large part of the food produced is going as waste all over the world.

The world population crossed 8 billion on November 15. It took only 12 years for the world to add 1 billion new human beings. India continued to be the second most populous country in the world, with 1.41 billion people. China continued to be the most populous country, with 1.45 billion people. That is, the combined, one in every three people in the world belongs to either India or China. The population growth is now expected to shift majorly to African countries. Let me present few broad factors that have been contributing to inequalities for food security and nutrition. As long as they persist, no improvement is expected in near future but those agencies who talk on these will be the main beneficiaries. It was the case in the past and it is the case now and will be the case in future.

Inequalities vary with the population

• Male and Female
• Age of the people – older people % increasing
• Health conditions – creating new profit driven health hazards

Inequalities vary with location

• Local conditions
• Regional conditions
• National conditions
• Global conditions

Inequalities vary with nature

• Weather in a given year
• Natural calamities
• Political instability

Inequalities vary with human greed

• Increasing levels of adulterated food
• Increasing levels of Pollution in food
• Increased levels of use of alcohol/drugs

Inequalities vary with economic conditions

• Economic background [rich, middle class & poor]
• Industrial sector versus agriculture sector

Inequalities vary with technology

• Profit driven ultra-rich
• IT Sector

Inequalities vary with a gift

• By birth
• Wealth is concentrated in few peoples’ hands

Dr. Sazzala Jeevananda Reddy

Formerly Chief Technical Advisor – WMO/UN & Expert – FAO/UN

Fellow, Telangana Academy of Sciences [Founder Member]

Convenor, Forum for a Sustainable Environment

9
Can you suggest success stories from countries that were able to reduce FSN inequalities?

Addressing Food Insecurity in the Philippines through the Private Sector-Led Zero Hunger Coalition

In a 2021 FAO Report, food insecurity in the Philippines has reached 40- 60% of its population. Food insecurity is the consistent lack of food to have a healthy life because of economic situations. Hunger has substantial economic costs for individuals, families, and societies. Labor, often the only asset of the poor, is devalued for the hungry. Mental and physical health is compromised, cutting productivity, output, and the wages that people earn. Food insecurity compels people to remain within the cycle of poverty unless interventions are provided.

With food insecurity’s far-reaching effects on people, the UN Global Compact (Philippines) Zero Hunger Coalition seeks to address these issues and amplify the business case for zero hunger, ESG, and food systems transformation as a mechanism for inclusive and sustainable recovery and resilience in the next 5 years. We are guided by the UN Food Systems action tracks of (1) Ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all, (2) Shifting to sustainable consumption patterns, (3) Boosting nature-positive production, (4) Advancing equitable livelihoods, and, (5) Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stress.

In keeping with FAO’s 10-year Strategic Framework, our coalition’s main goal is the pivot to more efficient, inclusive, resilient, and sustainable agri-food systems for better production, better nutrition, a better environment, and a better life for all.

Our coalition recognized the need for more stakeholders involved as one organization will not be able to address the issues of food insecurity. From 4 core members in April, we have grown to 40 organizations, 13 of which are from the People Pillar of the UN Global Compact (Philippines), 5 agencies from the UN System in the Philippines with primary support from the UNIDO and UNGC Network Phil. 5 from the LGUs led by the City of Baguio and 16 agribusinesses from Benguet. As a private sector-led initiative, Morination Agricultural Products, Inc. leads the coalition. Manila Doctors Hospital is our co-lead, supported by other members of the Private Sector and the CSO- ICM, Metro Pacific, Nestle, PPSA, Komunidad, Smart Communications, Eco-business, IRRI, Shinkozan, ADEC, and Yuchengco Center.

At the frontlines of our fight to zero hunger are our Benguet growers. For them to effectively take on the roles of food champions, our coalition has adopted UNIDO’s holistic approach to trade and capacity building structured around three key imperatives for our growers: (1) The people pillar is developing competitive productive supply capacities for our growers for them to be able to compete domestically and internationally; (2) We will also assist them in conforming to standards such as obtaining organic certification for their farms and Good Agricultural Practices certificates to prove compliance with market requirements in an internationally recognized manner; and third,  Enhance their connectivity to markets.

Among the first activities we have embarked on is the setting up of a systems-based multi-stakeholder approach in the Coalition. Our first year of operations functioned through the in-kind support of the members. We are also running a sustainability model to finance our operations. The establishment of the Zero Hunger Fund is also used to scale the initiative to be sustainable, inclusive, and just. Our members have defined our roles guided by our goals and their core competencies.

In a baseline study and round table discussion on our community leaders, the following challenges emerged for our growers: Undersupply and oversupply of vegetables, lack of water irrigation, lack of digital connectivity, unfair trade practices, limited access to markets, unpredictable weather conditions, poverty, an aging population, among others. With these, we seek to address these and will provide them an enabling environment, capacitate them and support them.

Our pillar is developing a Nutrition Agriculture program through the ADB grant application and the assistance of the Philippines Partnership for Sustainable Agriculture (the sustainable arm of the ASEAN Secretariat and World Economic Forum's Grow Asia) to transform our growers in taking their roles as effective food champions through learning, mentorship and assessment activities

ICM also is designing our zero-hunger roadmap. This would lend focus to our pillar’s milestones that would include 14 million of the Philippines’ ultra-poor in our value chains.

Manila Doctors Hospital through their adopt a community program will send community health workers to their hospitals for training. Moreover, they will design and execute sustainable health capacity development programs for our Food Champions’ pilot communities.

Metro Pacific is also our health partner in conducting health wellness checks of our growers. The Mwell app showcases a holistic approach to telemedicine—from doctor consultation, e-pharmacy, emergency services, and home care—to fitness and nutrition programs.

Together with the Baguio SMART City, we are also providing digital connectivity, designing and executing data architecture for a digital platform to integrate source mapping and e-commerce. We are also getting support in adopting climate-smart agriculture in the agri-food systems to accelerate climate action and improve resiliency during natural disasters.

From our growers’ crops, these are processed to become Nutripacks, thereby increasing their shelf life and adding value to our growers’ harvests, lessening crop wastage, and having additional market access with assistance from UNIDO, Baguio, and the Pillar. Guided by the Committee on World Food Security and the ASEAN Responsible Agri Investments, The Baguio Food Innovation Hub and Morination are establishing post-harvest facilities for Nutripacks production to support efforts in fighting hunger and providing livelihood in the local economy including ICM’s 14 million base of Filipinos in the supply chain.

Finally, Eco-business is documenting the Zero Hunger journey of the Pillar to amplify community-based stories as active economic & sustainability partners and to champion the impact of The UN Global Compact & sustainable business in achieving the SDGs.

In closing, food insecurity is a complex issue with the most adverse effects felt by the poor. In this instance, the private sector and all stakeholders need to take accelerated action to address these and in getting involved in a cause greater than ourselves and our organizations- getting out of our comfort zones but still playing to our strengths. In the end, we all have a role and responsibility in making this world better for all.

Immediate actions:

1. Support harvesting in the war zone and avoid any measures that would disrupt global food trade and negatively affect global food security. 
2. Separate essential from non-essential goods. We need to balance the need for strong economic sanctions and the need to maintain recent levels of food production to avoid a catastrophe. I believe both is possible. 
3. Collaborate at scale. We need to urge all relevant parties to protect food and food-related goods as essential and support their supply, especially to import-dependent countries. This is a call on countries to release their grain stocks on the market and support the hunger relief efforts of the World Food Program. 
4. Governments and companies need to ensure that smallholder farmers and subsistence farmers receive full support to increase their agricultural output.
5. And finally, fighting food shortages include fighting climate change. Agriculture has a major role to play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and environmental impacts, promoting biodiversity and enhancing resilience in food systems. Now is the time to prevent hunger crises through increasing sustainable productivity. Our first farmer-centric, science-based, digitally enabled collaborative Global Carbon Initiative, incentivizes the adoption of climate-smart farming practices.