Dear facilitator, Mr. Alwin Kopse, dear colleagues, this is a great work. Thank you again for the opportunity.
I want to say that I share the views of Mrs Carola Strassner, particularly concerning the points 1.3 and 2. on what she, elegantly, called “right” understanding. As I concisely put forward in my second contribution, definitions (e.g. SFS or FNS) are but “constructs” (conceptual and political agreements) and as such should be understood and used, in a dynamic and adaptive way. Please, see point 4 of my contribution. So, I consider very important the point 2 raised by Mrs Carola Strassner.
The issues raised by Mr. Beate Scherf also called my attention because are coming to reinforce my own perplexities in relation to our tendency to build up new constructs and abandon the previous without reference and without assessment. This is a huge chapter that I believe it is not the case to open on this debate. Everyone can understand what I am trying to say. Anyhow, it is difficult to me to understand why the “sustainable livelihoods approach” (SLA) is not taken on board by this new endeavour on SFS? What did-I miss in the development of ideas and agendas? I attach the relevant paper of the “Committee on World Food Security / CWFS, Twenty-sixth Session, September 2000, Rome, - Who are the insecure?” that shows that SLA is not about a peripherical approach but a core tool of analysis and policy-making. See also the FAO brief http://www.fao.org/docs/up/easypol/581/3-7-social%20analysis%20session_1...