Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

First of all, we would like to thank the HLPE-FSN for sharing the V0 Draft and for the possibility to comment.

Hereby we attach the official comments by Hungary.

Inequality is one of the root causes of hunger and food insecurity, therefore, we consider this topic relevant and timely, reminding that Hungary was one of the sponsor countries proposing this issue to be included in the CFS Multi Year Programme of Work (MYPOW).

We appreciate the open, transparent and inclusive process, providing opportunity for all stakeholders to submit comments in the framework of this online consultation.

We wish to start by congratulating the HLPE, its Steering Committee and the Drafting Team for the high quality of the V0 Draft, commending their efforts to rely also on previous HLPE reports and CFS policy papers.

We agree with the concept outlined in the V0 Draft, seeking to address inequalities and inequities as main drivers of food insecurity. In this regard, we appreciate that the definition of food security is used in a broader sense, acknowledging that in addition to availability, access, stability and utilisation, the two new dimensions (agency and sustainability) play an essential role in the fight against food insecurity. Among the definitions, we appreciate and find helpful the clearly explained distinction between inequity and inequality.

We very much welcome the human rights approach throughout the document, putting in evidence the universality and the interlinkages among the various human rights, but the rights’ based approach of the document most detailed in Chapter 6 does not differentiate between levels of fulfilling the right to food, and not even calls upon to define a minimum level. Without this the responsibility of communities/states cannot be framed.

Similarly, we appreciate references to a number of SDGs as well. We would suggest to include also SDG 8 (Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all), considering the high number of food workers and other employees in the food systems and their labour rights. Furthermore, we would suggest including explicit reference to the right to decent work (including decent rural employment[1]) and consider it appropriate to make clear reference to the respective UN resolutions, for example when it comes to decent livelihood[2] or clean environment[3], on page 19. of this document mentioned only in brackets.

Regarding the "Systemic Drivers" in page 21, we find it not sufficiently comprehensive and exhaustive. We miss in particular the following important drivers of inequalities.

1. Lack of sustainability assessments of food systems, based on independent and neutral science. Outcomes of these assessments could help policy makers take the right decisions aiming to reduce inequalities. Science-based sustainability assessments should give due consideration to all environmental and particularly social externalities, including the „hidden costs”, applying the principles of true costs accounting[4].
2. Lack of appropriate policy environment (due to lack of appropriate sustainability assessments of food systems), with consequences listed below:

1. In general, incorrect distribution of subsidies, (favouring mainly large entities) which further aggravate the existing inequalities. It should be noted that the new agricultural policy maintains its main features that the basic income support tends to favour farms with larger areas, though new redistributive support for smaller farms can correct this disparity. Another important fact is that the agricultural policy of EU member states, like Hungarian agricultural policy should meet the EU requirements, thus will respond to environmental needs and challenges, such as soil, landscape, biodiversity, water protection, etc., in a much more comprehensive way than before.
2. Limited access for smallholders and other marginalized groups (women, indigenous people, etc.) to

- land and other natural resources,

- loans or credits

- inputs and technologies

- markets,

- research and innovation (The main focus of research is mainly industrial farming and corporations…)

We wish to draw attention to the indicator Inability to afford a meal with meat,

chicken, fish (or vegetarian equivalent) every second day available from the EU-SILC  survey as a major source of comparable information on access to food in the EU.

We welcome the references to power imbalances along the food supply change, often creating conflicts of interest situations, which are the major obstacles to transformative changes of food systems. We would find it indispensable to make a clear distinction of roles and responsibilities of the various stakeholders. Contrary to the present practice, multinational corporations and other lobby groups could be consulted but they are NOT supposed to be involved in decision making and they should not be allowed to use their strong power to influence policy decisions[5]. Decision making is the competence of governments. Furthermore, we consider it essential to draw attention to and duly address in the report the greenwashing attempts by many corporate stakeholders, including their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) measures[6]. Although CSR activities are generally welcome, the CSR messages are regularly positive, they cannot be considered in any way sufficient for the necessary transformative changes.

Finally, there is reference to Chapter 7 that summarises FSN recommendations. We are looking forward to the possibility to see and to form an opinion also on this chapter. This is even more underlined by the fact that the rights’ based approach to the topic implies global action and mutual responsibility of actors and nations in providing FSN solutions.

Overall, the study is well balanced, covering basically all aspects relevant to our field (children, the underprivileged, cultural aspects, regionalism, food sovereignty, legal approach, etc.).