1) Why not use "food system" rather than "Agri-food" throughout? You define food systems, but then don't use that terminology consistently in the concept note. I read a subtle bias toward productivism in this, which may not be intended. It is vital for transitions to be systemic and not focused primarily on producing more food.
2) What is the theory of how a transition to sustainable food systems will happen, underlying the objectives of this program? It isn't clear; and without this, the program may facilitate transitions to something quite different than intended.
3) I think it would be better to refer to food security and nutrition as goals, rather than "food and nutrition security". Perhaps there is a good, agreed-upon definition of "food and nutrition security"; but I don't think this has been resolved in the same way that the definition of "food security" is agreed.
4) The descriptions of Work Areas are thin and seem to show a superficial understanding of barriers to a SFS transition. For example, it will take far more than "information" to improve Extension and "partnerships" to create "actionable knowledge, information and tools for SCP". In particular, Work Area 1 leaves out public policy. The intention may be to address public policy in Work Area 2, but it also belongs in Work Area 1.
5) Work Area 2 does not mention the weaknesses of Public Private Partnerships, which have been well documented and will continue to be highly challenging unless power imbalances between actors are understood and accommodated.
6) Designing principles to guide the assessment of sustainability, and leverage points to direct choices and behavior, have much broader applicability than only to market-based approaches such as eco-labels; yet these are only mentioned in the context of Work Area 3 (on market-based change).
1) Why not use "food system" rather than "Agri-food" throughout? You define food systems, but then don't use that terminology consistently in the concept note. I read a subtle bias toward productivism in this, which may not be intended. It is vital for transitions to be systemic and not focused primarily on producing more food.
2) What is the theory of how a transition to sustainable food systems will happen, underlying the objectives of this program? It isn't clear; and without this, the program may facilitate transitions to something quite different than intended.
3) I think it would be better to refer to food security and nutrition as goals, rather than "food and nutrition security". Perhaps there is a good, agreed-upon definition of "food and nutrition security"; but I don't think this has been resolved in the same way that the definition of "food security" is agreed.
4) The descriptions of Work Areas are thin and seem to show a superficial understanding of barriers to a SFS transition. For example, it will take far more than "information" to improve Extension and "partnerships" to create "actionable knowledge, information and tools for SCP". In particular, Work Area 1 leaves out public policy. The intention may be to address public policy in Work Area 2, but it also belongs in Work Area 1.
5) Work Area 2 does not mention the weaknesses of Public Private Partnerships, which have been well documented and will continue to be highly challenging unless power imbalances between actors are understood and accommodated.
6) Designing principles to guide the assessment of sustainability, and leverage points to direct choices and behavior, have much broader applicability than only to market-based approaches such as eco-labels; yet these are only mentioned in the context of Work Area 3 (on market-based change).