Input to the consolidated feedback by the SFS Programme
1. The purpose of this report is to analyse the ways in which food systems influence dietary patterns and hence nutritional outcomes. The objective is to focus on consumers and consider sustainability issues. The report aims to be solution oriented and to highlight efficient policies and programs. Are those major objective(s) clearly reflected in the V0 draft?
We believe that the report highlights efficient policies and programmes quite well, overall. However, at least one important reference is missing: the Sustainable Food Systems (SFS) Programme of the United Nations 10-Year Framework on Sustainable Consumption and Production (10YFP). The 10YFP is global framework of action to enhance international cooperation to accelerate the shift towards sustainable consumption and production (SCP) in both developed and developing countries. It reports to ECOSOC and the High Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development.
The SFS Programme of the 10YFP is a multi-stakeholder partnership to promote sustainable food systems through activities at global, regional and national level, in both developing and developed countries. It contributes to the achievements of several SDGs, in particular SDG 2 and SDG 12, as well as a series issues covered by other SDGs including in the areas of health, biodiversity and ecosystems, partnerships, etc. One of the five focus themes of the Programme is “sustainable diets”. Under this focus theme the SFS Programme aims to promote diets that take into account the three sustainability dimensions in addition to food security, nutrition and health aspects, thereby linking consumption and production. It does so by raising awareness, promoting enabling environments, and facilitating access to knowledge, information and tools. For example, FAO, UNEP and the United Nations Standing Committee on Nutrition are joining forces under the SFS Programme, to lead on the development of broadly recognized methodologies and indicators to assess the sustainability of diets, with a view to produce guidance materials for governments and other relevant stakeholders on how to account for the different dimensions of sustainable development (social, economic and environmental) in their respective dietary recommendations.
In its resolution on Agriculture development, food security and nutrition of 2015 (A/RES/70/223), the United Nations General Assembly welcomed the launch of the SFS Programme. In October 2016, the FAO Committee on Agriculture requested FAO to strengthen its work on sustainable food systems in relation to the 10YFP.
The SFS Programme could be included, for example, under 4.1.3 and/or 4.2.3.
For more information see: http://www.scpclearinghouse.org/sustainable-food-system
2. Do you think that the overall structure of the draft is comprehensive enough, and adequately considered and articulated? Does the draft strike the right balance of coverage across the various chapters? Are there important aspects that are missing? Does the report correctly focus on the links between nutrition and food systems without straying beyond that?
We feel that chapter 4.2 could be strengthened, as a variety of further solutions are available, including solutions that are less “high technology” and more accessible to smallholders and low income farmers (see also our comment under 12 below).
As it is correctly presented in the report, one of the big challenges in agriculture today is to ensure that youth have the proper incentives to stay in agriculture. In addition, today’s youth has an important role to play in shaping tomorrow’s food systems. Therefore, we believe that it would be useful to address youth in a more integral way throughout the report, and not only under the sub-section “vulnerable populations” under 4.2.2. Similarly, the role of smallholders and women could be further streamlined in the report.
3. Does the conceptual framework need to be edited? Simplified? Should “the food environment” as defined in the draft be central to the framework?
When comparing the suggested definition for “food system” on page 11 with the one contained in the 2014 HLPE report that is cited as its source, we realized that the definition in the current draft differs from the one of the 2014 HLPE report in that it includes some new wording. Considerable consensus has emerged around the 2014 HLPE definition of the term “food system” (for example, it has been endorsed and /or used by the UN Secretary General’s High Level Task Force on Global Food and Nutrition Security, FAO, UNEP, UNSCN, the SFS Programme and many other stakeholders, and thus provides a strong basis. For this, and for reasons of consistency, we would suggest not to modify the 2014 definition. In case the experts should nevertheless decide to modify the 2014 definition, we would suggest that such wording changes should be as minimal as possible, for example: “[..] outcomes of these activities, including socio-economic (comprising also nutrition and health) and environmental outcomes.” In any case, we would suggest that possible changes to the definition be justified by some explanatory text.
Regarding the definition of “food environments” on pages 11/12: we would suggest to go beyond “healthy food environments”, focusing rather on “sustainable food environments”. Therefore, we would suggest to change the last sentence in the box into: “Sustainable food environments enable consumers to make nutritious food choices with the potential to improve diets, reduce the burden of malnutrition in all its forms, and improve the socio-economic as well as environmental impacts of their consumption patterns.”
Regarding the definition of “sustainable diets” on page 12: in line with the FAO 2012 definition, please add the following phrase at the very beginning: “Sustainable diets are those diets with low environmental impacts which contribute to food and nutrition security and to healthy life for present and future generations.”
4. Are production systems and their role in shaping diets and nutritional outcomes adequately addressed?
Production systems (agriculture, aquaculture and fishery, and pastoralism) receive rather limited attention in the draft report. Changes in these - often traditional - systems impact food and nutrition security of many people, in particular smallholders. This can be exemplified by the fact that currently many smallholder farmers are net food buyers. Maybe this could even be addressed in a specific sub chapter under 3.2.
5. Does this draft cover adequately the main controversies in the field of Nutrition and food systems? Are there any remaining gaps?
Looking at nutrition from a food systems angle implies that we have to link diets not only to consumption but also production. However, the current draft report focuses mainly on the health aspects of human nutrition, while the socio-economic and environmental aspects linked to nutrition are less covered. In our view, these aspects should be strengthened in the report. For example, there could be a separate sub-chapter on “sustainable diets” under 1.1. Similarly, chapter 4 focuses on the impacts of food production systems and food value chains on nutrition, but it does not address the impacts of human nutrition on other socio-economic and environmental impacts in food production systems. We would like to see a stronger reference to socio-economic and environmental externalities of current food systems, in which, often, external costs are not taken into account in the value chain and final consumer prices. It would be very valuable to include this; it could possibly be addressed under 4.1.4.
6. The project team is working on a categorization of food systems. Are you aware of specific approaches of use in that perspective, and particularly of quantitative indicators that could be used?
[no comments]
7. Does this draft adequately show the multiplicity and complexity of diets and nutrition issues across different food systems and specific contexts with a good regional balance?
The nutrition part is balanced. However, proportionally more data from developed country data sources seems to be presented (e.g. Euromonitor on page 22) – this may be due to a lack of available data, but it could be useful to aim for a more balanced representation. In case of lack of data, this could be presented as an area for further work.
In addition, there could be more attention to the footprint of countries. How much water and land (nutrients) they indirectly import via international value chains for their nutrition.
8. What areas of the document are in need of strengthening or shortening?
As mentioned earlier, we would welcome to see some additional focus on the linkages between nutrition and socio-economic and environmental aspects of food systems, including the socio-economic and environmental externalities of our nutrition choices impact.
9. Chapter 4, Section 4.1 contains case studies/examples of effective policies and actions in different contexts/countries across the food system for diets and nutrition. Could you offer other practical, well-documented and significant examples to enrich and provide better balance to the variety of cases and the lessons learned, including the trade-offs or win-win outcomes in terms of addressing the different dimensions of diets for FSN?
[no comments]
10. Section 4.2.2 on “Institutional Changes and Governance Across the Food System Movements for Nutrition” requires more work, and more inclusion of evidence and of the various players. Any inputs on this section are most welcome.
Include the above-mentioned 10YFP Sustainable Food Systems Programme under section 4.2.3 on “Nutrition governance, institutions and partnerships”.
11. Is the report too technical or too simplistic? Are all the concepts clearly defined?
The report maintains a good balance between technical information and examples in boxes to show how certain policy measures or programmes work in practice.
12. Are there any major omissions or gaps in the report? Are topics under-or over-represented in relation to their importance?
The report currently focuses mainly on the formal sector (e.g. focus on formal value chain actors on pp. 16-17; figures on formal value chain on pp. 68-69). However, many low income farmers and consumers depend on the informal market for their food sales and purchases. It may add value to the report if the informal sector would also addressed.
The report highlights several rather “high technology” solutions (e.g. on page 15 and page 92) such as food fortification, while there is relatively less focus on technology that is more accessible to smallholders and low income farmers, such as improved varieties of local crops that are more nutritious, developed for example through participatory plant breeding approaches.
Gender considerations and the role of women could be emphasized stronger throughout the report, and in particular in relation to the economic and socio-cultural drivers described on pp. 100-101, given the important role women play in producing, selling, buying and preparing food.
Patrick Mink