Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

International Livestock Research Institute Response

Does the work programme present a compelling vision for enabling strategic interaction and mutual support across existing initiatives, platforms, forums and programmes, given the stipulation of Res 70/259 that the Decade should be organized with existing institutions and available resources?

The proposed Work programme fulfills well the onerous task of putting together most relevant issues to nutrition for the next 10 years. Given the need to work with existing institutions and available resources the most challenging task would seem the coordination; this is briefly mentioned but might require more specific thought/content. Similar for the leadership needed to make it happen.

Research needs to have an important role here, all the more important because much nutrition research has over-relied on cross-sectional or cohort data which has proven misleading in the past. Evidence is presented as an appreciated input for practice and advocacy but not so much emphasis is given to the reverse i.e how practice/policy can contribute to build the body of evidence. Only for NCD, ‘targeted programme and policy evaluations are encouraged’; however the need for robust monitoring and evaluation should be promoted in a widespread manner, given the important evidence gaps existing at present.

What are your general comments to help strengthen the presented elements of the first draft work programme of the UN Decade of Action on Nutrition?

How could this draft work programme be improved to promote collective action to achieve the transformational change called for by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the ICN2 outcomes? What is missing?

The document focuses in ‘all countries’ and ‘all people’, and maybe does not spell out enough the challenges of the contradictory needs and contexts. Given the urge for sustainable diets and the environmental footprint of crop and livestock production, a delicate balance is needed between eating too much and too little, particularly when it comes to animal-source foods (ASFs), for which there are populations (namely poor women and children with diets little diverse) who would benefit substantially from extra ASFs, while more high-income populations should reduce its consumption. Similarly, special attention needs to be given to food losses and wastage, not only at consumer level, as included in the document under a point on education, but also throughtout the food systems. Fixing inefficiencies alont the value chains to reduce wastage is an essential part. Then, the importance of food environments, which provide too much access to unhealthy foods (not only to children, but to all age groups), and unhealthy lifestyles has not been considered in the document, despite the key role in nutrition.

The trade-offs of formal and informal food systems also need careful consideration, particularly as informal (wet) markets supply most of poor households purchased food. This links with urbanisation, which will be a major challenge in developing countries to adequate food supply, due to the pressure for rapid growth of value chains. We welcome the inclusion of food safety as a specific point, given the existing gaps in knowledge and the emerging evidence on the very high burden of food borne disease (FBD) and its major impacts on human health, nutrition, market access, and livelihoods. In 2015, the first global assessment of the burden of FBD was published by the World Health Organisation. The method used was very conservative. Still, the burden was similar to that caused by malaria, HIV/AIDs or tuberculosis, making FBD a major public health issue. Developing countries bear most of the burden of FBD, but these are often poorly measured, and therefore their impact underestimated. Effort is needed to improve FBD surveillance and reporting, starting with risk-targeting the most high risk products (ASF and fresh produce). Water and sanitation are touched upon in the document but not profusely covered; in particular, the role of environmental contamination from animals in rural areas needs attention.

It is also worth noting that food systems are not only a source of nutrients for consumers, but also form the livelihood of some of the most vulnerable households, who are agents in the food systems. For these households, the food systems may represent a pathway out of poverty and ultimately to improved nutrition. Value chain analysis can be useful to identify opportunites and barriers to act upon and build fairer food systems.

The current proposal is maybe weak in highlighting the mainstreaming role of women in improving nutrition. Women are not only a key nutritionally vulnerable group, but they also are a driver of change in the communities through empowerment and decision-making, that directly impact on nutrition and food saftey.

Do you feel you can contribute to the success of the Nutrition Decade or align yourself with the proposed range of action areas?

Yes, this aligns with ILRI’s areas of work, particularly the area of sustainable, resilient food systems for healthy diets, and we would be in a position to support action networks and contribute to building new evidence on nutrition-sensitive agricultural interventions, particularly in the area of livestock value chains and ASFs.

Do you have specific comments on the section on accountability and shared learning?

No