全球粮食安全与营养论坛 (FSN论坛)

Germany's (GER) position on the HLPE consultation

GER thanks the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) for preparing and sharing the Topic Note regarding upcoming CFS workstream on inequalities. We highly welcome the opportunity to contribute at an early stage through the online consultation.

We welcome that the workstream addresses the important issue of reducing inequalities for food security and nutrition. Among other things, high inequality limits development opportunities and the realization of human rights like the right to adequate food. Reducing inequality is therefore one of the key tasks we face in the future.

In this context and with regard to the questions of the consultation process, we emphasize that meaningful gender and youth mainstreaming approaches can contribute to social justice. Moreover, we highlight the importance of giving representation to youth and women representatives in all their diversity, meaning that particularly representatives from all geographic, social and ethnic groups are represented, most importantly the most marginalized. Hereby, forms of intersectional discrimination and exclusion need to be considered and sufficient enabling and preparatory information opportunities need to be given to achieve meaningful gender and youth participation. One key factor hereby is the use of forms of feedback loops with previous participants, in order to assess the success and satisfaction of the way their participation was managed and to continually improve the processes. Furthermore, especially the process to choose who will represent gender and youth diversity from an entire society should be conducted transparently.

Hi all, 

I attached a document with some successful actions in Brazil. I hope they are useful. 

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute.

Best, 

Lissandra Amorim Santos

Reducing inequalities for food security and nutrition - HLPE consultation on the report’s scope

Response and recommendations from CARE - April 2022

Inequity in Food Systems

The issue of equity has recently become a focus among the international development community, culminating in targeted efforts to establish fair and just access to opportunities, resources, and distribution of benefits under the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals. This effort is consistent with the long-standing recognition that development is a human right, one which is individually owed to every human person and one in which all peoples are collectively entitled to participate, contribute to, and enjoy. First set forth in the Declaration on the Right to Development, adopted in 1986 (54 State Parties) and since reiterated in international human rights instruments (e.g. UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas), the right to development includes “equity” as an essential element. It is also inextricably linked to all other human rights in food systems, including the right to health, freedom from slavery and forced labour and the right to adequate food.

Despite efforts to adapt food systems and development goals to address the needs of those most marginalized first, certain groups are continuously being left out and left behind. Women, small-scale  farmers, peasants, fisher folk, Indigenous Peoples, and racial and ethnic minorities continue to face disproportionately high rates of hunger and malnutrition and associated health complications. Food insecurity and malnutrition are not randomized conditions, but rather are the results of social and economic systemic inequalities from local to global levels. Unequal relationships and power dynamics in markets, in households, and in policy processes, determine who has access to resources and who does not, shaping who is hungry and malnourished and who is not. This unequal access to food is rooted in inequalities of income, inequalities of political and economic power, and gender and social inequalities – leading to inequitable distribution of outcomes. And these inequities in our food system exist across both vertical and horizontal lines with vertical inequalities based on measured outcomes at household level (such as income) and horizontal inequalities affecting certain groups of people who are marginalized due to social exclusion. Often individuals and groups face an intersection of multiple disadvantages which can result in some of the most extreme forms of marginalization. For example, a person’s gender, ethnic identity, and spatial location can all intersect in a manner that excludes them from a country’s economy, political system, and food system.

Transforming food systems therefore requires addressing these underlying inequalities and restoring fair, or equitable, access to and ownership of resources, including water, land, and seeds, as well as access to information, technology, and justice. Adopting a human rights-based approach to this transformation will help to reveal the inequalities, discriminatory practices, and unjust power relations that are often undermining sustainable development efforts. Mainstreaming human rights will further reinforce that all food system actors are entitled to decent work, livelihoods, and safe and adequate food.

Many forms of inequity exist in food systems, however gender-based discrimination is one of the biggest sources of inequity. Women frequently face intersectional challenges – they face time poverty, low (or no) pay, denial of access to resources – and all the while shouldering reproductive and care responsibilities. Women and women farmers are key actors in every aspect of food systems. They have extensive skills and capacities and their roles are critical to global food production, natural resource management , household and community resilience, and to the way families eat. They have been key architects of community solutions to the pandemic. However they are undervalued, unpaid or underpaid, and constrained by systemic limitations on their access to natural and productive resources and labor market opportunities. Women are exposed to higher risks of famine, gender-based violence, and other forms of exploitations and abuse, in peacetime and in conflict, and they often eat last when food is scarce. CARE studies have shown that women are eating less frequently and less nutrition food than men, especially in areas of heightened conflict. In Afghanistan, men reported eating fewer meals three days a week, while women are eating fewer meals four days a week.

Evidence shows that land tenure and other natural resource rights are strongly associated with higher levels of investment and productivity in agriculture – and therefore with higher incomes and greater economic well-being. Land rights for women are correlated with better outcomes for both them and their families, giving women greater bargaining power at household and community levels, improving child nutrition, and lowering levels of gender-based violence. Yet, while rural women produce up to 80 percent of food consumed in households in developing countries, they make up fewer than 15 percent of all smallholder landowners. Women struggle to not only secure land titles but also to obtain credit and insurance, purchase seeds and equipment, and access agricultural training. Women are often excluded from decision making spaces, comprise a large percentage of seasonal, part-time, and low-wage work, and are primarily employed in the informal sector. On a household level, women’s food security and nutritional needs are neglected in countries and regions where discriminatory cultural and social norms exist. The culminating effect of all these barriers is a systemic gap between what women can contribute to food systems and what they are able to do today. This gap is only widening due to the pandemic, which is rolling back 50 years of progress in gender equality —both in the workforce and at home. Gaps in women’s leadership and in supporting women’s unpaid care burdens mean that the pandemic and the proposed solutions are furthering inequality.

Gender inequity harms not only women and girls but entire households. Countries where women lack land ownership rights have an average of 60% more malnourished children. When women are empowered , entire communities are lifted out of poverty. Research shows that if women had equal access to rights such as land and labor rights, their yields would increase 20-30% and an additional 150 million people annually could be fed. Tackling gender inequities will help dismantle the barriers women face —boosting productivity, promoting good nutrition, and leading to better outcomes not only for women, but for everyone in the food system.

Inequity across gendered lines plays out at the international level, too—global solutions consistently ignore women, their rights, and the critical role women play in food systems. Furthermore, reports and policies on hunger itself leave women behind. Of 84 global policies and plans designed to address hunger released between September 2020 and December 2021, only 4% refer to women as leaders who should be part of the solution or provide funding to support them. 39% overlook women entirely. CARE’s review confirms that, despite women’s and girls’ significant roles in food systems, global responses to hunger crises are still either ignoring them or treating them as victims who have no role in addressing the problems they face. Women aren’t just left out of creating solutions to end hunger; the organizations tasked with supporting them actually make them invisible. This makes it nearly impossible to determine the full scope of the problem. Of all available global datasets and dashboards on hunger or gender equality – only one—from UN Women—provided sex-disaggregated data, and that is only for 2019.

To make food systems more equitable, all actors—including governments, as well as development and humanitarian organizations—should prioritize responding to the needs and impact areas that women themselves have prioritized as critical: livelihoods, food security, mental health support, and health services. Immediate and medium-term livelihood recovery and food assistance is critical at all levels. There also must be increased efforts to create partnerships and work with women leaders and local Women’s Rights Organizations to ensure inclusive and gender-responsive policies and decision-making at all levels. All actors should also work with women’s groups, listen to women, and ensure they are targeted in recovery programs and funding. It is critical to create accountability mechanisms that guarantee women’s voices in any COVID-19, conflict, or food security related response. Global solutions are not keeping pace with the magnitude of the problem because they continue to overlook the importance of gender equality. Global policies must work towards equality if we ever hope to end hunger, not just this year, but into the future. That requires investing money, time, and training in women leaders; listening to their voices; and honoring their right to be at all tables where decisions are made.

For equitable and just food system transformation we must adopt transdisciplinary, inclusive, and rights-based approaches. This implies that we should ensure integrated, participatory, rights-based approaches to governance and policymaking at all levels to address the structural inequities and power imbalances in food systems. This includes building processes and policy platforms on democratic principles, transparency, accountability, and inclusive participation to ensure that policies are both evidence- and rights-based.

Successful Programs and Policy Initiatives

Successful initiatives to reduce the inequality gaps are ones that strengthen the capacities, skills, and confidence of women, youth, and Indigenous Peoples in food systems so they can collectivity challenge social norms; increase ownership and control of resources and assets, increase access to markets and services; and strengthen their voice to promote equitable power relations in households and communities.

Successful response strategies:

- Have a cross-sectoral response and clear indicators and targets that promote women and marginalized groups rights to food, decent work, reliable markets, and healthy environments.

- To combat gender inequity strategies must include tools and models to engage men and boys in all relevant protocols and interventions in food systems to enhance male responsibility in sharing production and reproduction burdens and to advance the elimination of all forms of gender-based violence.

• - Provide non-conditional financial and capacity-building support to women’s organizations, social movements, networks, and women’s collective action, including legal and negotiation training skills. This could be done through farmer/pastoralist/fisher schools and other social learning models.

There must be a demand for policies that place gender justice at the center for transformative change and increase investments into understanding, implementing, and strengthening equitable livelihoods in food systems.

- Affirmative action at organizational, policy, and legislative levels to promote women’s leadership, is critical to ensure equal participation and representation, and to allow women’s voices to be heard at local, national, and international levels within food systems discourse and decision-making processes.

- Policies that support women’s access and ownership over productive resources, and guarantee access to public goods and services (such as biodiversity, water and sanitation, and public health) to advance food security and nutrition are successful at enhancing food systems’ role in the reduction of inequalities.

- An adoption of a multi-stakeholder approach is also critical by ensuring health, education, climate and environment, social development, local government, and other relevant ministry budgets are planning for, and in coherence with, gender and indigenous people’s equality investments and plans in food systems.

• - Ensuring national and global accountability mechanisms and processes for all duty bearers in food systems are functioning and transparent.

Most recent references to be considered in this report.

• She Told Us So (Again) – CARE | March 2022
  
  Rapid Gender Analysis: Women’s Voices, Needs, and Leadership
  
  https://www.care.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/CARE-SheToldUsSo_3.2022-Rapid-Gender-Analysis.pdf
• Recipe for Response: What We Know About the Next Global Food Crisis, and How to Fight It – CARE | April 2022
  
  https://www.care.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Recipe-for-Response-What-we-know-about-Global-Food-Insecurity.pdf
• Data as a Force for Good – CARE | March 2022
  
  Women Respond: Quarter 3 Briefing
  
  https://www.care.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Data-as-a-Force-for-Good-Women-Respond-Quarter-3-Briefing-March-2022-1.pdf
• Don’t Leave Them Behind: Global Food Policies Continue to Fail Women – CARE | December 2021
  
  https://www.careevaluations.org/wp-content/uploads/Hunger-Policy-review-update-December-2021.pdf
• Sometimes We Don’t Even Eat – CARE | November 2020
  
  How Conflict and Covid-19 Are Pushing Millions of People to the Brink
  
  https://www.care.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Sometimes-We-Dont-Even-Eat-How-Conflict-and-COVID-19-Are-Pushing-Millions-of-People-to-the-Brink.pdf
• She Told Us So – CARE | September 2020
  
  Rapid Gender Analysis: Filling the Data Gap to Build Back Equal
  
  https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/RGA_SheToldUsSo_9_18_20.pdf
• Left Out and Left Behind – CARE | August 2020
  
  Ignoring Women Will Prevent Us From Solving the Hunger Crisis
  
  https://www.care.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Left-Out-and-Left-Behind.pdf

Inequality and inequity in agricultural development - From Ken Giller and Eva Thuijsman

Our team at Plant Production Systems, Wageningen University has a focus on understanding how we can reach poorer and disadvantaged rural households to support them to improve their food and nutrition security through farming. Our primary focus is Africa, but we have also conducted a comparative global analysis which is relevant and highlights differences between sub-Saharan Africa and Asia (Giller et al., 2021a).

In sub-Saharan Africa we see huge diversity among locations and within any single location across the continent (Giller et al., 2021b). Small farm size is a critical constraint to farmers achieving food self-sufficiency and food and nutrition security. This is true in annual mixed crop livestock systems (Giller et al., 2021b; Marinus et al., 2022) as well as in cocoa (van Vliet et al. 2021). This leads to what we have termed “The Food Security Conundrum” of sub-Saharan Africa (Giller, 2020). We critically reviewed how farming technology evaluation studies assess differentiated impacts in smallholder farming communities (Thuijsman et al., forthcoming, abstract attached).

Relevant publications are below – and we would be pleased to engage further with the HLPE team.

Giller, K. E. (2020). The Food Security Conundrum of sub-Saharan Africa. Global Food Security, 26, 100431 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100431

Giller, K. E., Delaune, T., Silva, J. V., Descheemaeker, K., van de Ven, G., Schut, A. G. T., van Wijk, M., Hammond, J., Hochman, Z., Taulya, G., Chikowo, R., Narayanan, S., Kishore, A., Bresciani, F., Teixeira, H. M., Andersson, J., & Van Ittersum, M. K. (2021a). The future of farming: Who will produce our food? Food Security 13: 1073–1099. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-021-01184-6

Giller, K. E., Delaune, T., Silva, J. V., Descheemaeker, K., van de Ven, G., Schut, A. G. T., van Wijk, M., Hammond, J., Taulya, G., Chikowo, R., & Andersson, J. (2021b). Small farms and development in sub-Saharan Africa: Farming for food, for income or for lack of better options? Food Security, 13: 1431–1454 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-021-01209-0

van Vliet, J.A., Slingerland, M.A., Waarts, Y.R., Giller, K.E., 2021. A Living Income for cocoa producers in Côte d'Ivoire and Ghana? Front. Sust. Food Syst. 5, https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.732831

Marinus, W., Thuijsman, E.S., van Wijk, M.T., Descheemaeker, K., van de Ven, G.W.J., Vanlauwe, B., Giller, K.E., 2022. What farm size sustains a living? Exploring future options to attain a living income from smallholder farming in the East African Highlands. Front. Sust. Food Syst. 5, 759105. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.759105

Thuijsman, E.S., Den Braber, H.J., Andersson, J.A., Descheemaeker, K., Baudron, F., López-Ridaura, S., Vanlauwe, B., Giller, K.E., (forthcoming). Indifferent to difference? Understanding the unequal impacts of farming technologies among smallholders. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-022-00768-6

Abstract

With many of the world’s poor engaged in agriculture, agricultural development programmes often aim to improve livelihoods through improved farming practices. Research on the impacts of agricultural technology interventions is dominated by comparisons of adopters and non-adopters. By contrast, in this literature study we critically review how technology evaluation studies assess differentiated impacts in smallholder farming communities. We searched systematically for studies which present agricultural technology impacts disaggregated for poor and relatively better-off users (adopters). The major findings of our systematic review are as follows: (1) the number of studies that assessed impact differentiation was startlingly small: we were able to identify only 85, among which only 24 presented empirical findings. (2) These studies confirm an expected trend: absolute benefits are larger for the better-off, and large relative benefits among the poor are mostly due to meagre baseline performance. (3) Households are primarily considered as independent entities, rather than as connected with others directly or indirectly, via markets or common resource pools. (4) Explanations for impact differentiation are mainly sought in existing distributions of structural household characteristics. We collated the explanations provided in the selected studies across a nested hierarchy: the field, the farm or household, and households interacting at the farming system level. We also consider impact differentiation over time. With this we provide a structured overview of potential drivers of differentiation, to guide future research for development towards explicitly recognizing the poor among the poor, acknowledging unequal impacts, aiming to avoid negative consequences, and mitigating them where they occur.

La Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios, COFEPRIS, de es un órgano desconcentrado de la Secretaría de Salud (SSA), con autonomía técnica, administrativa y operativa y tiene como Misión el proteger a la población contra riesgos a la salud provocados por el uso y consumo de bienes y servicios, insumos para la salud, así como por su exposición a factores ambientales y laborales, la ocurrencia de emergencias sanitarias y la prestación de servicios de salud mediante la regulación, control y prevención de riesgos sanitarios.

Como se plantea en esta encuesta, la respuesta a esta desigualdad es multidimensional y que involucra a múltiples actores, lo que exige un enfoque holístico e integrado para un desarrollo justo y equitativo.

Una de las acciones que se pueden explorar es sobre el marco jurídico, que pueda garantizar la igualdad de derechos a la tierra y a los servicios básicos, pero también el derecho a la alimentación, y contribuyen de alguna forma a reducir las desigualdades, (Pregunta h del Apartado 4)

En el contexto del derecho a la alimentación incluyente, es necesario el aporte de la cantidad suficiente de nutrimentos para favorecer una vida sana. En este sentido, la adición o la restitución obligatoria de vitaminas y de minerales fungen como medidas regulatorias con el fin de atenuar el problema de la anemia en la población y de evitar carencias nutrimentales.

Por ejemplo, en México se tiene la NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM-247-SSA1-2008, Productos y servicios. Cereales y sus productos. Cereales, harinas de cereales, sémolas o semolinas. Alimentos a base de: cereales, semillas comestibles, de harinas, sémolas o semolinas o sus mezclas. Productos de panificación. Disposiciones y especificaciones sanitarias y nutrimentales. Métodos de prueba, en donde establece la obligatoriedad de adicionar y restituir nutrimentos en harinas de trigo y de maíz nixtamalizado:

http://www.dof.gob.mx/normasOficiales/3770/SALUD2a/SALUD2a.htm

Asimismo, el derecho a la alimentación incluyente precisa ejercer la regulación, el control, la vigilancia y el fomento sanitarios en materia de alimentos para favorecer la inocuidad alimentaria.

Dear colleagues,

I am pleased to share the RLC's contributions to the HLPE consultation, please find the document attached.

I hope it is useful. 

Kind regards,

Claudia Brito Bruno

Feedback from WFP Nutrition division:

Under point 4 (feedback on report development), the following key points are missing:

- A focus on inequalities and barriers presents within food-processing systems, which are essential to transform agricultural products safely, hygienically, and according to international and national standards/guidelines. Most food loss among smallholder farmers occurs between the production and the processing phases in LMICs due to a lack of technology, equipment, and processing facilities.

- A focus on women throughout the entire food system, as they are not just experiencing inequalities in the food production systems (inequalities in land rights, access to resources, credit, or inputs, and higher value lands) but also in primary and secondary food processing, and local food distribution (often as street vendors) and consumption (principal caregiver, last to eat, heavy workloads, etc).

The current outline seems very focused on food security vs nutrition. It would be interesting to frame equality around nutrition when nutrient needs are not equal.

Missing points around c.ii. because human rights are not the same as legal rights, so good governance should be expanded to explicitly include shifting norms to create the enabling environment needed to claim rights. (e.g. just because the government says that pregnant and lactating women have higher needs and should get more/better quality food, doesn’t mean that it will trickle down to practice in the community or household if there are other social structures or taboos that drive practice).

FSN FORUM. Reducing inequalities for food security and nutrition ( U 15 04 22)

Taking into account the CFS workstream on inequalities on food security and nutrition, the present contribution will focus on the following points, linked to my medical nutrition background:

1. Despite well-established food supply chains in HIC, food insecurity does exist, especially in urban low socioeconomic areas with demonstrated  negative nutritional issues, being the most  relevant overweight an obesity (Report A. iii)
2. Solving food insecurity does not require only the necessary  adequate physical and finance resources, for ensuring success  equally requires education. This  point should be evaluated under two circumstances, a) the greater required time and b) the setting up of an action for early prevention starting in  pediatric ages ( Report 1. B. ii). Concerning nutritional education, last stage for food security,  it is advisable to change the  classical concept of nutrient diets  for this of food diets, considerably easier to apply (Report C.). Supporting agroecological practices at small scale agriculture (Report Introduction, penultimate para) it will be helpful because implies also education.
3. References (If required more specific references can be supplied):

• Warnick J, Cardel M, Jones L, Gonzalez-Louis R, Janicke D. Impact of mothers' distress and emotional eating  on calories served to themselves and their young children: an experimental study. Pediatric Obesity 2022 Jan 05. doi: 10.1111/ijpo.12886                  
• Daniels L, Taylor RW, Williams SM, Gibson RS, Fleming EA, Wheelet BJ. Impact of a modified version of baby-led weaning on iron intake and status: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2018; 8: e019036.
• Crofts SJC, Lam J, Scurrah K, Dite GS. Association of Adult Socioeconomic Status with Body Mass Index: A Within- and Between- Twin Study. Twin Res Hum Genet 2021; 24(2): 123-129;  doi: 10.1017/thg.2021.14.Epub2021Apr14
• CDC. Age at first solid foods has no effect on childhood obesity. UPI.com. Published: 11 May 2016.
• Tester JM, Phan TLP, Tacker JM, Leung CW, Dreyer Gillete ML, Sweeney BR, et al. Characteristics of children 2 to 5 years of age with severe obesity. Pediatrics. 2018; 141: e20173228.
• Hilpert M, Brockmeier K, Dordel S, Koch B, Weiss V, Ferrari N. Sociocultural influence on obesity and  lifestyle in children: A study of daily activities, leisure time behavior, motor skills and weight status. Obes Facts. 2017; 10: 168-78.
• Zou X, Wang L, Xiao L, Xu Z, Yao T, Shen M. Deciphering the Irregular Risk of Stroke Increased by Obesity Classes: A stratified Mendelian Randomization Study. Front Endocrinol (Lausasanne) 2021; 12: 750999; doi: 10.3389/fendo.2021.750999.  

The first two questions to guide this e consultation describe a very broad framework embracing the many societal factors that are associated with inequality (and on which many libraries of information exist): 

Qu1. a. Defining inequality within the context of food systems and for food security and nutrition: What does ‘inequality’ mean through a food security and nutrition perspective; Commitments to reduce inequality (SDGs), efforts to improve measurement; Relationship between inequality and inequity…. 

Qu 1. b Identifying drivers of power asymmetry that cause and perpetuate inequality  

Qu 1. c Paths toward equality 

Qu 2. Share good practices and successful experiences on policy, legislation, interventions and initiatives that have proven successful at: reducing inequality gap and its potential impact on food security and nutrition outcomes; ensuring the effective legal framework to guarantee equal rights …; empowering the role of small farmers’, producers’ and workers’ organizations in making food systems more equitable and accessible; addressing capacity gaps …. 

The risk of such a broad opening framework is that the scope of this HLPE report would be too diffuse, inadequately focused on FSN, and re-invent some of the wheels developed by other organisations. I outline below key reference sources that cover much of the FSN ground of questions 1 & 2, and respond to question 3 on recent references that should be considered in this report.  And my brief summaries below of those sources (which in turn include many associated references pertinent to question 3) respond to some of the items in question 4. 

I. Much of that Qu 1&2 context was investigated leading up to the UN Decade of Family Farming 2019-2028 which highlights the important role family farmers play in eradicating hunger and shaping our future of food. Family farming offers a unique opportunity to ensure food security, improve livelihoods, better manage natural resources, protect the environment and achieve sustainable development, particularly in rural areas. 

The Global Action Plan of the UN Decade of Family Farming 2019-2028 aims at accelerating actions undertaken in a collective, coherent and comprehensive manner to support family farmers, who are key agents of sustainable development. That Action Plan comprises 7 pillars: 

Pillar 1. Develop an enabling policy environment to strengthen family farming  

Pillar 2–Transversal. Support youth and ensure the generational sustainability of family farming  

Pillar 3–Transversal. Promote gender equity in family farming and the leadership role of rural women  

Pillar 4. Strengthen family farmers’ organizations and capacities to generate knowledge, represent farmers and provide inclusive services in the

urban-rural continuum  

Pillar 5. Improve socio-economic inclusion, resilience and well-being of family farmers, rural households and communities  

Pillar 6. Promote sustainability of family farming for climate-resilient food systems   

Pillar 7. Strengthen the multidimensionality of family farming to promote social innovations contributing to territorial development and food systems that safeguard biodiversity, the environment and culture  

Pillars 1, 4, 5 and 7 are directly relevant to this e consultation. 

II. The CERES 2030 report (deriving from a partnership between Cornell University, IISD and IFPRI) was discussed at the CFS AG/B meeting on 18 March (cited also by IFAD and GDPRD at that meeting). This studied sustainable solutions to end hunger, and developed ten recommendations of which the first three focused on “ Empower the Excluded”: 

1. Enable participation in farmers’ organizations.  

2. Invest in vocational programs for rural youth that offer integrated training in multiple skills.  

3. Scale up social protection programs to help create a bridge for people living in poverty to find productive jobs. 

III. The IFAD RURAL DEVELOPMENT REPORT (2021), titled Transforming food systems for rural prosperity.  

This report underlined that food systems need to be changed dramatically so that a new food system may deliver available, accessible, adequate, and nutritious food for all in a sustainable manner. The new food systems must aspire to become fair, inclusive and sustainable.  

The overall goals of a food system’s transformation are to ensure that people are able to consume diets that are healthy, to produce food within planetary boundaries and to earn a decent living from their work in the food system. Livelihoods, nutrition and environmental goals are interlinked. Central to these desired outcomes is the need to ensure that food systems are resilient to shocks from weather extremes, pest and disease outbreaks, climate change and market anomalies. 

The key recommendations of this Report of particular relevance to this consultation included ‘What can governments do?’ That section is re-stated here: 

A failure of food systems is a failure of governance. National governments play a central role as drivers and implementers of change, yet global markets and geopolitical considerations also play a crucial role. Policymakers, governments and stakeholders can support this transition by:  

Providing incentives that reward responsible investments, nature-based solutions and agroecological strategies, and low carbon and climate-resilient techniques. Investments in food markets need to be fair: food markets need to be accessible to rural people and farm/ non-farm small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) on fair terms. Increasing investments in infrastructure can help with this.  

Building and strengthening responsible investment principles and practices related to labour conditions, gender equality, the environment and climate.  

Ensuring opportunities for large numbers of smaller-scale producers, supporting the marketing of their products and developing the entrepreneurial skills of rural people, particularly youth.  

Spurring scalable innovation among local, small, food system actors by investing in digital technologies and in production techniques that, once tested, are also suitable for scaling up, such as those related to nature-based solutions and agroecology.  

Developing pricing systems that reflect the true cost of production, including the benefits of nature-based solutions and environmental costs.  

Overcoming market constraints and constraints related to missing markets by having clear regulations, incentives and innovation programmes to support poor people’s food purchasing power and women’s bargaining power – and enable them to make better-informed food choices through training, labelling, and communication that reduces transaction costs and reflects fair pricing.  

Building partnerships: governments, civil society, the private sector, academia and representatives of rural people need to come together with innovative governance mechanisms that give a real voice and influence to poor rural people.  

This 2021 RDR also identified three key ways to ensure rural people benefit from a food systems transformation:  

Create new employment opportunities and invest in local midstream food businesses. Local SMEs provide new ways to access both markets and non-farm employment opportunities, while supplying healthier foods to meet consumer demand.  

Invest in agricultural systems by helping small farms become more productive and profitable  

Focus on social protection measures that encourage better diets and livelihood opportunities.

The next three sources were cited in my mail of 29 March to the CFS Bureau/AG, regarding ‘Possible themes for the HLPE report to be presented to CFS in 2024’. I recommended in that mail including in the title and in the leading questions the issue of equity: 1. Building resilient and equitable supply chains for FSN. 

IV. SOFI 21 included in the conclusion: WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO TRANSFORM FOOD SYSTEMS FOR FOOD SECURITY, IMPROVED NUTRITION AND AFFORDABLE HEALTHY DIETS. Six pathways were stated to address major drivers behind recent food security and nutrition trends. Pathways 3-6 have a direct bearing on poverty reduction/inequality and FSN. 

The six recommended pathways described were: 1) integrating humanitarian, development and peace building policies in conflict-affected areas; 2) scaling up climate resilience across food systems; 3) strengthening the resilience of the most vulnerable to economic adversity; 4) intervening along the food supply chains to lower the cost of nutritious foods; 5) tackling poverty and structural inequalities, ensuring interventions are pro-poor and inclusive; and 6) strengthening food environments and changing consumer behaviour to promote dietary patterns with positive impacts on human health and the environment. 

V. The CFS Voluntary Guidelines on Food Systems and Nutrition – still foremost in the memory of CFS B/AG colleagues- are structured around seven focus areas encapsulating cross-cutting factors that are relevant for improving diets and nutrition.  

The first three focus areas and the associated text are directly relevant to this consultation: 1. Transparent, democratic and accountable governance; 2. Sustainable Food Supply Chains to Achieve Healthy Diets in the Context of Economic, Social and Environmental Sustainability, and Climate Change; 3. Equal and equitable access to healthy diets through sustainable food systems. 

VI. HLPE Report – Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships (MSPs – HLPE 13, 2018). A key MSP mechanism described and also discussed in the follow-up meetings (mediated in 2019 by CFS Bureau members Germany and China) is the value chain (from farmer to consumer and all the stakeholders and links in between) to deliver on FSN. The term value chain and supply chain are often used interchangeably in the literature. The challenge is to ensure that these interventions and MSP developments benefit the poor farmers and smallholders. This discussion was informed by documents cited from CGIAR and IFAD, including a then recent book and associated articles from the CGIAR Centres CIP and IFPRI “Innovation for inclusive value-chain development: successes and challenges”: Andre Devaux, Maximo Torero, Jason Donovan, Douglas Horton, (2018). This book preceded Maximo coming to FAO as Chief Economist. IFAD had produced reports on the ‘Sustainable inclusion of smallholders in agricultural value chains’, and ‘ Public-Private-Producer Partnerships in Agricultural Value Chains’ (Mylene Kherallah, Marco Camagni, Philipp   Baumgartner, 2015 & 2016). Much of that is revisited in IFAD’s current Rural Development Report, 2021 ‘Transforming food systems for rural prosperity’, cited in III above. 

VII. Finally I draw your attention to a cautionary note on the challenges and probabilities of inequality reduction, cited in an ILRI e mail of 1 April 2022. This referred to Susan Macmillan’s ‘ Tiny Letter’ and the provocative article: 'Taking Stock: Justice Creep, Scott Alexander. . . justice is eating the world’. 

I quote an excerpt below, noting that you have Iain Wright, DDG, ILRI in the HLPE SC ( copied here), who will doubtless have his views on this. 

“Below are just two of the hundreds of reader responses to this issue '. , , There's an inherent underlying assumption that we would have equality of outcomes in a just world. There is absolutely no reason to believe this.

'It's basically pitting "justice" in a state of perpetual war against bad luck, uneven genetics, uneven geography, human self-interest, the natural tendency toward centralisation and hierarchy in both the economic and political domain, and basically every other force that creates unequal outcomes in human societies- not least of which is personal choice.

'Unfairness is baked into the world at so many levels or emerges so rapidly from organic human processes that expecting a mere absence of malice or even-handedness in dispute-resolution to produce equity is laughable, so in practice this vision of 'justice' has to become totalitarian and all-encompassing. Every variable- including personal choice- has to be coerced into irrelevancy.” 

The number one [1] best change to make in reducing inequalities for food security and nutrition is agriculturally integrated 'permaculture' method and start converting mono-culture lands to multi-crop and multi-use species to produce the lumber the farm will need each decade, the straw the farm will need each decade, and the feed each animal there will need, the flowers that the bees need, etc. A functioning ecosystem as nature gives it to us; in an extensive, rich diversity.

Mud bricks were something we used to a lot of and now we don't use, however going back to natural easy to make yourself structures could prove immensely beneficial to the bank account of the farmer, the material and industrial demand and supply chain, and the environment.

Supporting companies, cooperatives, and persons who make these types of changes gives us a great stock both in health for ourselves and our loved ones and the health of our ecosystem as a whole.

Like with boxing, ju-jitsu, painting, drawing, sculpting, music-making, or any art; it is little changes, almost hair-line that make all the difference.

Like mud bricks garbage and waste from the "previous area of ill consciousness" into the "era of coherent cohesive harmonious conscience," such as tires and bottles can be used as filament for structure - the 'Earthship' movement of New Mexico and the Permaculture movement worldwide has done a lot with this.

Where nature shows us combinations, modern science takes us in the 'direction of dissection" breaking down and isolating elements. This can be a good study but the curious absence of the direction of the connection is now prying at the door of destabilization.

Small changes can be made with global education and pronouncement to enhance the ecology to surpass all fears and all hopes to create an incredibly rich and vital atmosphere for all. It is totally doable.

Farmers are often shocked to hear of metaphysical templates for extreme production, however today we have many tested verifications of Rudolph Steiner's Biodynamic Agriculture - which is just a starting place for highly-productive earth culturing. Another area that modern science is unable to enter for whatever reason.

Regardless of current stigmas and proceeding with results-based navigation towards success it is time to start getting behind some of the people who are already doing this to spread the culture.

I have some recommendations on this.

Xprize has launched a Carbon Conversion Competition (which is still open for registry https://www.xprize.org/prizes/elonmusk), and several teams have won milestone prizes of 1 million dollars already such as the Climate Foundation (https://www.climatefoundation.org/xprize.html) doing a marine permaculture model which is surely going to be very important, and the University of Iowa who is doing a land soil-based enhancement much like our Bio-Tribe Team here in Panama (https://nutritionaldiversity.com/, https://gangmaker.org/A1/xprize-carbon-removal/). The XPrize group and community has become a fantastic group of environmentalists, and conscious scientists who are attacking things from every angle! There are groups on the Xprize site that are reforesting corrals in the oceans, and working cutting edge waste conversion technologies, and with the help of the masses, they can really get things going everywhere quickly.

After being a student of alternative agriculture for a decade this is the most promising splash on the radar I have seen.

So today I pray (and it is a special day for many reasons) that we each take five minutes and find one of these grassroots doing it for the love and the karma communities of actual down to Earth scientists to get us back on track!

Here in the mountains here, a river called the Cxxxxa should be full of fish to the point where you can't cross it without being pelted. This river has no fish. This is because of monoculture coffee farms that cover the mountain. The chemical runoff is so toxic no fish exit in the big Cxxxxa river. Such a gorgeous volcanic "black gold" soil area, a total shame.

This world is a food production machine, the problem is that we came up with "I know better than nature" model and ran that thing to ridiculous.

The good news is we can use most of the equipment and labor still we just need to change up our methods a bit. This turnaround prioritization will answer to climate change fears and enhance greatly our quality of life and happiness across the globe as well as that of all the living things here.

The second thing [2] to emphasize in reducing inequalities for food security and nutrition is the business opportunity and model that exists where new diverse small agricultures can produce for consumers non-toxic diverse nutrition. As they educate their community on the benefits of their product versus the grocery, the little man on the short end of this inequality can regain the income of agricultural labor and do much better than the previous working wage. 

For example; My cows get a Nutritional Diversity diet of a richness that other feeding areas do not have - not even close. My customer base is very solid. I have diverse vegetables of higher quality and growing strength and products the store does not have. I can almost immediately start putting this Nutritional Diversity diet (https://nutritionaldiversity.com/) together finding small farmers already doing 'permaculture' small organic farming and offering a full or half pantry of better quality goods to clients from several. I have educated them on something helpful that really does benefit their life and loved ones' lives. So this is a great business model all around that anyone can get into.

Wherever I go I help a few gardens even ones on urban balconies and rooftops and they are always happy to throw a bag of veggies at me when I swing through. I find these kinds of excellent qualities all over participation in a natural uplifting role like this. It is not a millionaire life every time but being in this groove of the record plays nicely. Being on the same positive, interesting learning "bio-page" (the great thing also about biological nature is no one person will ever get close to learning it all), with others is helpful and nurturing to social connections as well - arguably the thing we live for the most.

Humbly, 

Brandon E.

Nutritional Diversity Diet Science, Panama