全球粮食安全与营养论坛 (FSN论坛)

Vincent Gitz

Program and Platforms, CIFOR-ICRAF
Kenya

Review Comments from the Center for International Forestry Research – World Agroforestry (CIFOR-ICRAF)

This submission compiles comments from four scientists working on inequality and nutrition at CIFOR-ICRAF.

On the whole, we found the report to be quite comprehensive and detailed and a laudable effort to bring issues of inequality and inequity to high level discussions of FSN. Congratulations!

We have a few comments and concerns. They are organized first as general comments, followed by some specific chapter by chapter comments.

General comments:

  • There is very little discussion of corporate power and the ways that multinational corporations have shaped both the inputs system for food production (eg seeds) and their marketing and production of unhealthy foods. There is a brief mention of the infant formula controversy, but with no historical background, why it is important and its important implications for equity. Similarly, there is no discussion of sugar taxes and the role of corporate lobbying in Latin America to fight these.
  • The discussions on the dimensions of food security seem forced and not well integrated. In several places (because these are introduced in several places), it felt like the authors felt obligated to address each dimension even when there was not much content. Perhaps this should be dropped.
  • The discussions trying to link income and nutrition are somewhat contradictory (p. 51 and p.56). Mehraban and Ickowitz 2021 find a negative relationship between changes in income and dietary diversity in Indonesia using a large sample that is representative of over 80% of the population. 
  • In the discussion on price supports for agriculture, I don’t think that the report does justice to the pros and cons of cheap food; this discussion should be more nuanced and more thorough. Who benefits from cheap food? What kinds of foods? What has this done to diets in LMICs? Urban populations vs rural; overweight and obesity issues. The positive impacts, i.e, reductions in hunger. I think this whole issue could itself be a chapter.
  • There is no discussion on the role of trees and forests as local sources of food, nutrition, feed and fuel to complement subsistence, as well as a buffer for inequalities and shocks.
  • Chapters 5 & 6 and the suggestions both for concrete actions and for transformative change are very useful. However, these could be strengthened in some places by being a bit more specific. For example, in table 5.1: it is unclear who is supposed to take the listed actions. National Government? Donors? Private sector?
  • In one of the key paragraphs, where the text says: “Transformative change incorporates actions across the entire food system that require fundamental changes to food system governance to redress power imbalances that have ‘normalised’ high rates of food insecurity and malnutrition”, we are missing a description or analysis of who governs the food system. Without understanding that, it is difficult to advocate for change. If it is corporations, how are we going to get them to change their behavior?
  • Overall, how the information is packaged to place greater emphasis on certain critical nuances could be revisited. For instance, the role of agriculture extension and rural advisory services is subsumed in Chapter 5 under investment in information systems and leveraging digital technologies. The role of training and effective delivery channels of relevant knowledge in helping address inequalities in FSN has not been covered.
  • Though the report captures many elements on inequalities with regard to food systems, the geographical examples given could be more varied. This would bring out the importance of context specific recommendations to address regional issues for meaningful policy actions. There are, for instance, interconnected trade arrangements (e.g. between Africa and Europe on cash crops such as coffee, tea, cacao, cotton) still operating under colonial legacies where value addition regarding exports has not changed much in the post-colonial era. These policies have a direct bearing on traditional food production systems. Some of this could be highlighted in Chapter 3 with more concrete examples, especially for Africa which has the greatest FSN inequalities.
  • A stronger conceptual framework could both improve the narrative and reduce the complexity of the report. This includes the use of terms in different ways: In Chapter 5 agency and power are presented as principles while in Chapter 6 they are presented as Transformative Actions. Investment in information systems, leveraging digital technologies is presented in Table 5.1 as action and elsewhere as transformative action under the data and knowledge revolution in Chapter 6.  One option is to merge these two chapters, more tightly integrating principles and transformative actions, based on a logical theory of change that is informed by the prior analysis of the root causes of FSN inequality.
    • For example, the report could be organized as follows:
  1. Define inequalities in food security and nutrition and lay out a coherent conceptual frame that presents FSN in the context of a complex coupled socio-ecological system
  2. What are the patterns of inequalities in FSN?
  3. Where do they occur (spatial (within and between countries, among populations, between gender and. temporal patterns)?
  4. Why do FSN inequalities occur?
  5. What are the solutions to addressing FSN inequalities, and what has worked where and why? Are there pathways to scaling up promising, viable solutions
  6. Policy recommendations
  • The following key questions would guide the report:
  1. What is the state of FSN through the lens of inequality?
  2. What are the drivers of FSN inequality?
  3. What are the plausible policies, and institutional responses to address the FSN inequalities?

Chapter by chapter comments:

Chapter 1

Introduction

The reference to inequalities should include urban communities where inequality is constructed through a complex confluence of structural socio-economic factors, both historical and contemporary. Gender and cultural issues are critical drivers of FSN inequity and should be mentioned in the introduction. Assumptions about what leads to better outcomes and how should be critically assessed.

Why inequality and inequity

Global shocks like Covid-19, conflict and economic turbulence are singled out as livelihoods and FSN outcomes. Climate change is another important global shock.

How is marginalization defined? There are multiple dimensions of marginalization and it is not clear that there is a linear relationship from marginalization to inequity to inequality, to worse FSN outcomes, especially when the authors suggest that wars, drought and pandemics could be compounding factors that increase the vulnerability of certain groups. Consider revisiting the logical framework of these relationships.

Addressing inequality and inequities

This section makes it very clear that while inequality and inequality in FSN are acknowledged, the analysis and understanding of causal pathways are poorly understood, and need more work. However the point about the absence of a clear lead for inequality “in ministries or global systems” and inequality falling through the cracks is problematic. For example, the world is falling behind in meeting the goals of hunger, education and health, even when there are dedicated government departments to these issues. What does “global systems’ refer to? Is it not clear what point is being made in the sentence regarding the PANTHER principles.

The introduction to the discussion of FSN goals is notable. But what are these goals and who defines them? Who tracks progress and who is accountable to whom?

To better illustrate the causal links between hunger and malnutrition, cognitive capacity (learning) and economic outcomes, the authors should refer to the Cost of Hunger in Africa series; there are also many very good studies on hunger, nutrition and early childhood outcomes which in turn produce adverse intergenerational outcomes, which exacerbate inequality.

Concepts and definitions

Agency is the ability of an individual to act and even determine which action to take. It implies power and resources. Please explain further how agency “situates FSN within a rights framework”.

This cited from HLPE, 2020 but what exactly is meant by “regenerating social and economic systems”?

Chapter 2

It is important to define upfront the FSN outcomes of interest and perhaps justify the choice of outcomes. At this point, one might only guess that the FSN metric in Table 2.1 is the outcome. It is also important to distinguish between food security and nutrition outcomes because while the causes are somewhat correlated, the policy interventions required are different. What is the relationship between the dimensions of food security and FSN outcomes?

The statements on page 37, “FSN inequalities exist within countries regardless of national economic status” and, “inequalities are a function of how the global food system is constructed” are generalizations that mask the complex factors that determine or shape food systems. I would suggest more nuance and elaboration of these two claims.  Differences might include (but are not limited to): local geographic differences in land productivity or agroecology; demographic and household characteristics; governance, institutions and policies; urban versus rural.

Chapter 3

What are “other systems”? How is it defined in this context? A systems perspective that situates FSN in the context of a coupled socio-ecological framework could provide greater conceptual clarity. The narrative structure is hard to follow. Perhaps the food systems framework (production, aggregation, processing, storage distribution, consumption etc.) could provide a more coherent narrative structure rather than the more granular treatment (e.g. components of production like livestock and land). Also, it is not clear what “other production resources” refers to.

There is uneven treatment of the different topics. For example, the implications of inequality are discussed regarding land and livestock on FSN but not finance and information or value chains and markets. Similarly, there a discussion on the impact of food environments on the six FSN dimensions but not a similar discussion for Value chains and markets or land and livestock.

While the report has provided some useful analysis on complex issues of land tenure and inequalities in food production, emphasis on pro-women policies in patriarchal societies such as in Sahel could be further highlighted.

Chapter 4

The narrative structure could be simpler if the sections were organized around bigger systemic issues such as

  1. Culture and social norms - and to include stigma and shame in this section. While it makes sense that gender deserves dedicated treatment, many aspects of gender inequality have their roots in culture and social norms and find their “legitimate” and contemporary expression in laws and institutions.
  2. Governance, institutions, and policies would include all natural resource policies that relate to production and trade.
  3. Conflict
  4. Climate change
  5. Globalization

There are limited references on land and resource rights. Two excellent sources are:

More could be said about land and resource rights as a source of inequality in the conceptual framing to the report as well.

Chapter 5

This chapter outlines four “broad principles for crafting actions to reduce inequalities”, namely: Agency, power, context, and equity and equality-centred policy. However, in Table 5.1 the authors do not include or make any reference to these four broad principles. A third column could relate the actions and inequalities to be addressed and the principles.

In addition, the 10 actions outlined in Table 5.1 are strongly aligned with the agroecological principles of connectivity, participation, fairness, land and natural resources governance and diets, but the connection to these principles is not clear. The discussion of agroecology in the next chapter does not refer back to the principles that inform the actions outlined in Table 5.1.

Chapter 6

This could be the most important chapter in the report, and the title generates substantial expectations. A more coherent narrative structure would lay out, with compelling examples, the case for FSN transformation. Such a narrative would include the elements or components that define current inequitable FSN systems. A theory of change/transformation would help bring together the conceptual elements of such a transformation.

The subsections are not woven into one coherent story. What is the logical connection between and among the transformative actions? Where would the action happen? Who is accountable and to whom?

In the discussion on the right to food, the text should mention some contradictions with forest conservation; see Sunderland and Vasques: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2020.00029/full

Page 113; the citation of Rubens et al. (2021) should more critical. Increasing yield does not solve FSN inequality; it is not clear that supporting consumers to afford and choose healthy diets is a viable or even sustainable solution.

Page 125; second paragraph should be rewritten and simply read “Agroecology supports practices that have been implemented for decades……” The use of the adjective traditional in some respects suggests inferiority relative to modern or agro-industrial forms of agriculture.

The statement “agroecology is not yet as well established as organic farming” in Europe is interesting. Organic farming practices such as the use of cover crops, legumes, manure, composting and integrated pest management are inherent in Agroecological principles of input reduction, recycling, soil health, animal health, biodiversity, and economic diversification of farming enterprises. I am not sure what distinction the authors intend to draw between agroecology and organic farming.

The portrayal of agroecology as being in an ideological contest with concepts such as regenerative agriculture or nature-based solutions is unhelpful.

For this report, the discussion should focus on the agroecological principles that speak and relate directly to diet and nutrition equity, addressing the problems associated with the corporatization of food systems through long value chains, the dominance of monocultures and erosion of dietary diversity, the rise of highly processed foods that are rich in calories and sugar/salt and the links to NCDs. The Agroecological principles of co-creation of knowledge, social values and diet, fairness, connectivity (shorter/local supply chains and more embedded food systems that connect producers and consumers) and participation would be invaluable to this section. I would have expected to see in this section how the authors imagine agroecology as critical to the transformation necessary to tackle the root cause of FSN inequalities.