Foro Global sobre Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición (Foro FSN)

The discussion paper does bring into perspective the concept and the important facets of an NSVC especially on taking a multi-dimensional approach towards achieving NSVCs. There will be a need to consider that in order to achieve significant levels of nutrition, integration of more than one food system/commodity will become pertinent; however for some developing countries this could pose a challenge and an opportunity simultaneously. The challenge being that different food systems/commodities have differing value chain dynamics that they have to navigate, therefore creating a complex system around trying to promote NSVCs. On the opportunity side it prompts engagement with the relevant policy makers to enable promotion and adoption of NSVCs, this can include considering smart incentives for those with a deliberate strategy of integrating enhanced nutrition into their value chains in the same way that there are incentives for protection of the environment, this could hold true for nutrition senitivity.

To also ensure that nutrition is not just a by-word; there will be need to promote sensitivity right from the production level; for example for the Maize Value Chain- promoting cultivation of Quality Protein Maize (QPM) could form a first stage activity to ensure that communities that consume maize as staple are receiving adequate nutrients. Therefore the process of value addition will not affect the nutrient composition of the finished product.

Developing a business case for the role of private sector/SMEs around the nutrition nodes of a VC like blending and fortification, will also go along way in demonstrating that there is value in using an NSVC lens when developing VCs; there is need to also demonstrate that there is no subsequent increase in production costs as the food will not be affordable to the low income segments. Parallel to all this, nutrition awareness and labeling should form a greater part of business model development in order to promote and generate demand for consumption of the nutritious foods.

Finally there will be need to consider the maturity stage of the VCs as this could be a great determinant for the adoption of a NSVC lens as well as promotion of consumption of high nutritious foods. Some VCs could be ready for nutrition sensitivity, whilst some need to still come full circle to quality product development first, then into the next stage of nutrition sensitivity (blending and fortification). Not to say that some VCs can not outrightly develop as NSVCs from the onset. 

English translation below

Las cadenas de valor no unen sus eslabones en los territorios debido a la falta de presencia efectiva de los gobiernos, esto hace que el campesino no tenga el conocimiento y la infraestructura indispensable para tomar desiciones constructivas de un sistema de seguridad alimentaria sostenible. 

Value chains do not join up links in the territories due to the lack of effective government presence. Hence, farmers do not have the necessary knowledge and infrastructures to make constructive decisions for a sustainable food security.

English translation below

Kouakou Valentin KRA

Université Alassane Ouattara

Côte d’Ivoire



‘’Comment faire en sorte que les chaînes de valeur contribuent à améliorer la nutrition ?’’ : Le cas de la Côte d’Ivoire en Afrique de l’Ouest.



L’Afrique connaît une croissance démographique et une urbanisation rapides depuis la fin du XX e siècle. Dans ce contexte, les besoins alimentaires sont de plus en plus grandissants et le monde rural ne parvient plus à répondre efficacement à la problématique vivrière ; en raison des conditions bioclimatiques défavorables, l’exode rural et la question foncière. L’agriculture intra-urbaine et singulièrement le maraîchage se présente dès lors comme une alternative importante pour garantir la sécurité alimentaire. Ce type d’agriculture et principalement le maraîchage intra-urbain occupe une place primordiale dans la chaîne de valeur favorable à la nutrition. Sa proximité avec la ville, son accessibilité à toute période de l’année, ses réponses adaptées aux habitudes alimentaires induites par l’urbanisation et l’occidentalisation des populations africaines font de ce type de maraîchage la plus importante chaine de valeur favorable à la nutrition.



Cependant, en ce qui concerne la Côte d’Ivoire, cette agriculture et donc le maraîchage intra-urbain reste encore dans l’informel, la précarité et n’est pas prises en compte dans les politiques de gestions des villes. Les agriculteurs ne disposent pas d’espace sécurisé pour leur activité et sont contraints de squatter les terrains laissés en friche dans les rares bas-fonds des villes. La question foncière urbaine se présente comme la véritable problématique à laquelle est confronté le maraîchage dans nos villes ivoiriennes. Ainsi ces espaces hydromorphes qui en principe sont des zones inconstructibles sont de plus en plus lotis, vendus à de nouveaux acquéreurs et construits. Dans certains cas, ils sont transformés en décharges pour ordures ménagères à ciel ouvert. Le maraîchage fait de plus en plus place aux constructions anarchiques et aux ordures ménagères. D’ailleurs ces dernières polluent les eaux d’arrosage et constituent des risques sanitaires énormes pour les consommateurs. Cette activité est rendue précaire et vulnérable en raison des politiques de gestion de nos villes africaines qui restent encore passives, voire indifférentes en ce qui concerne l’agriculture intra-urbaine.



Les enjeux fonciers et urbanistiques sont contraignants et constituent des entraves sérieuses pour le maraîchage intra-urbain ; gage de la chaîne de valeur favorable à la nutrition dans nos villes africaines et ivoiriennes en particulier. Comment faire pour pérenniser et sécuriser ce type d’agriculture en Côte d’Ivoire? Il convient entre autres de :

• sortir l’agriculture intra-urbaine de l’informel ;
• sécuriser les espaces agricoles intra-urbains et singulièrement les bas-fonds maraîchers ; 
• faire intervenir des structures de développement agricole en vue de l’encadrement des agriculteurs ;
• prendre en compte l’agriculture intra-urbaine dans les politiques de gestion des villes ; 
• subventionner cette activité.

La prise en compte de ces propositions s’avère indiquée pour les pays africains au sud du Sahara et principalement la Côte d’Ivoire ; pays où nos recherches sont menées. Cela est important d’autant plus que l’agriculture intra-urbaine ; en plus d’être une chaîne de valeur favorable à la nutrition, se présente comme un secteur pourvoyeur d’emploi et de lutte contre la pauvreté.

Kouakou Valentin KRA

Université Alassane Ouattara [Alassane Outtara University]

Ivory Coast

How can value chains be shaped to improve nutrition? The case of Ivory Coast in West Africa.

From the end of the 20th century, Africa has experienced rapid demographic growth and urbanization. In this context, the food requirements are growing ever more and the rural areas no longer provide an efficient response to the food-producing problem; due to unfavorable bio-climatic conditions, rural exodus and land tenure issues. Intra-urban agriculture and, in particular, market gardening now becomes an important alternative in order to guarantee food security. This type of agriculture and, mainly, intra-urban market gardening, occupies an important place in the value chain favorable to nutrition. Its proximity to the city, its accessibility at all times of the year, its responses adapted to the ways of feeding brought about by urbanization and westernization of the African population make this type of market garden the most important in the value chain favorable to nutrition.

However, as for the Ivory Coast, this agriculture, and therefore, intra-urban market gardening is still informal, precarious and is not taken into account in the policies for management of the cities. The producers do not have areas reserved for their activity and are forced to squat on the land unfarmed in the infrequent low lying areas of the cities. The land tenure issue is the real problem faced by market gardening in our Ivorian cities.  Thus, these swampy areas which in principle are non-building areas, are more and more divided into plots, sold to new owners and built on. In some cases, they are turned into open air household garbage dumps.  Market gardens more and more give way to uncontrolled constructions and household waste. Moreover, the latter pollutes the irrigation water and are a grave sanitary risk for consumers. Market gardening is made insecure and vulnerable due to the management policies of our African cities which remain passive, let us say indifferent, with regard to intra-urban agriculture.

The urbanization and land tenure issues are restrictive and amount to a serious hindrance for intra-urban market gardening; benchmark for the value chain favorable to nutrition in our African and in particular Ivorian cities. What can be done to sustain and protect this type of agriculture in Ivory Coast? It will be useful among other things:

• to take intra-urban agriculture out of the informal sector;
• to protect intra-urban agricultural areas and in particular market gardens in low- lying areas;
• to involve agricultural development structures in order to organize the farmers into a system;
• to take intra-urban agriculture into account in the management policies of our cities;
• to give subsidies to this activity.

Taking account of these propositions would seem to be indicated for the Sub-Saharan countries and especially for Ivory Coast; the country where our investigations have been carried out. What is all the more important than just intra-urban agriculture is that, as well as, being a value chain favorable to nutrition, it is a sector which provides employment and fights against poverty.

Dear all, 

Following the post below from Sangeetha, I want to highlight the role that markets, informal sector and SMEs play in ensuring nutrition-sensitive value chains. 

On the framework we have developed, as part of LANSA, we have focused on assessing the pathways for delivery of nutritious foods (what we are calling post-farm gate). The framework can be used by practitioners, donors, policy makers, to understand how to make agricultural value chains and markets more efficient when delivering nutritious food. It starts assessing the value chain from the consumer  perspective (analysing if the targeted households are choosing to purchase and eat the nutrient-dense target food) and then assesses the supply side (looking if tehre are aligned interests for actors, both private and public, to produce and distribute the products). 

The framework has been used for 12 case studies in South Asia, assessing different market pathways (food fortifcation, promotion of dairy value chains, social enterprises, public-private partnerships, pulibc distribution of food). We will be presententing the initial findings on 25-26 April, including all the example and specific recommendations. Please, RSVP by 17th April to confirm you place.

The second week of the consultation has brought insightful and interesting comments from the participants. The members of the RBA WG on VC and nutrition would like to, first of all, thank the contributors for their participation. A number of reflections revolved around the challenges and opportunities that arise when a nutrition-sensitive lens is applied to VC development, while also highlighting a number of areas of tension and convergence.

Contributors have noted the potential for a value-chain approach to focus on single commodities that may not contribute to improved nutrition and may exacerbate the downsides of monocropping and reinforce the lack of agro-biodiversity.  The more inclusive approach described in the framework highlights the importance of bringing demand and nutrition considerations into the analysis, helping to identify interventions meant to address these nutrition problems. This aspect is perhaps more forcefully presented in two of the references underlying development of the framework (Gelli et al., and De la Peña, Garrett, and Gelli).  Short value chains, attention to local markets, and the use of neglected and underutilised crops are key elements of the NSVC framework that could be emphasized more. 

The comments also emphasize the need to place the framework, which focuses on VCs as part of an overall approach to development, more firmly in the context of food systems and the surrounding enabling environment.  For example, while understanding the usefulness of a VC approach, Bioversity International promotes a “multi-chain” approach as part of a development strategy for smallholders.  Diversity in production, marketing, and consumption can help improve the robustness of production systems, the provision of environmental services, and healthy diets. This can also help to support gender and inter-generational equity (www.bioversityinternational.org/initiatives/healthy-diets/ and www.bioversityinternational.org/news/detail/enhancing-benefits-for-smallholders-across-biodiverse-value-chains/).   

The framework should pay more attention, the contributors also seem to suggest, to issues of indigenous knowledge, women, environmental sustainability, and the multiplicity of actors involved in making value chains work for nutrition.  This last observation raises important questions about VC governance:   What are the interests among the different stakeholders along the VC?  What are the activities that each one should do? How might this vary by political, economic, institutional, and social context?  What incentives or disincentives do the different actors have?  And what sorts of policies, programs, or mechanisms are needed to help ensure coherence and effective actions among them, including issues of information, capacity, and coordination, to ensure that the value chains that are developed function so as to benefit the nutrition of the most vulnerable? Responsibility and accountability seem to be key here.   And while the framework mentions the need for monitoring and evaluation, one participant argues that, in fact, periodic assessments (and so, it seems, consistent monitoring over time) need to be carried out.  

The role of the private sector seems to one particular area that should be explored in more depth.  Some participants caution about the risks associated with PPP and emphasize the need to ensure actions go beyond an economic assessment of VCs and focus on the nutritional needs of consumers. The Private Sector Mechanism Position paper includes interesting strategies to be promoted to link agriculture, nutrition and health.  The private sector is undoubtedly a key player in the development of VCs and, indeed, of entire food systems, beginning with smallholders for whom farming is a livelihood and a business.  We would be interested in knowing more about experiences or approaches to share about how to make VC governance more effective that take these considerations into account. 

The issue of food loss and food safety (especially for perishable crops) was mentioned by several contributors as a key dimension that needs to be considered at all stages of the VC. The RBA WG shares these views and would like to reinforce the importance of hygienic and safe handling along the VC to ensure that nutritious and safe food is made available for human consumption. As pointed by some of you, strict regulations on food safety may, however, exclude smallholder farmers from the VC, as the small producers may not have the resources or capacity needed to comply with such requirements. We would be grateful for any experiences that have successfully managed this trade-off between food safety and inclusion of smallholder producers.

Another member of the group brought an essential dimension to the debate: women's empowerment. As rightly mentioned, there are not only opportunities but also risks for household nutrition if women's resources and time constraints are not carefully considered. The discussion paper (paragraph 10) points towards the implications of women's empowerment as a key mediator of impact on nutrition, not only in terms of time and resource constraints, but also in terms of the impact on their own health and nutritional status. Clearly there is a need to unpack this dimension of the framework and further explore the linkages between women's empowerment, agricultural VCs, and nutrition.

Your contributions are of great value to us. We appreciate the effort of those of you who have read the discussion paper, and welcome your views on how we may render it more operational.

As noted, we are very eager to hear about examples on the ground, initiatives that have been successful in developing VC to enhance nutrition, as well as interventions that have failed and provide useful lessons for future action. Thanks again for your contributions and for allowing us to learn from your ideas and experiences.

Dear all,

I would like to share with you some material produced by LANSA (Leveraging Agriculture for Nutrition in South Asia), a multi-partner research effort led by the MS Swaminathan Research Foundation in Chennai, India.

LANSA has published a conceptual framework of agri-food value chain interventions aimed at enhancing consumption of nutritious food by the poor, to guide the analysis of value chain-based interventions aimed at enhancing the intake of micronutrient-dense foods in Bangladesh, India and Pakistan.

You can access the document here: http://bit.ly/2oggt6Y

In addition, LANSA has also published three separate reviews of the current situation in Bangladesh, India and Pakistan, examining agri-food value chain interventions under three categories: naturally nutrient-dense food, foods of increased nutritional value and food distribution.

The studies are available here:

India: http://bit.ly/2nRYGQA

Pakistan: http://bit.ly/2oINl9t

Bangladesh: http://bit.ly/2oMbETr

I hope that you will find this information interesting and useful, please do not hesitate to share them widely.

Best regards,

Sangeetha

Sangeetha Rajeesh

Research Uptake Manager & Communication Specialist

Leveraging Agriculture for Nutrition in South Asia (LANSA)

The consultation states clearly that VCs are only one dimension of food systems, which is of course correct, but therefore remains biased towards the classical supply driven approach and risks reinforcing the prevailing confusion between food chains and food systems. The paper should therefore consider providing the rationale and a roadmap for reorienting food systems as an integrating concept for Agenda 2030.

There is now increased awareness that value chains have contributed so far to increased malnutrition through monotonous or unbalanced diets, increased socio-economic differences - and therefore poverty and marginalization – and dependence on food imports, erosion of biodiversity and environmental degradation. There is therefore certainly scope for drastic improvement.

The paper rightly mentions the need to go beyond the economic assessment of VCs. Too often economists keep mentioning food import as the cheapest option. It is urgent to revisit subsidies and incorporate environmental and social costs. Long food chains too often undermine local livelihoods.

Legal and regulatory frameworks need to be reviewed and adapted to integrate human rights. In recent years adoption of locally inappropriate standards, norms and regulations have eroded livelihoods of small-scale producers.

Consumers are not always equipped to adapt to change and make the right food choices. And they are often misinformed through inappropriate marketing. This aspect needs strengthening. 

In recent years the promotion of fortified foods for improved nutrition has de facto resulted in marginalizing local food systems and increased cosnumer dependence on imported foods. It is essential that the impact of such VCs on small scale food producers be monitored.

In recent years, spread of hypermarkets and public-private partnerships have resulted in increased concentration of food distribution. And cash transfers have encouraged beneficiaries to change their food practices, in particular through shifting food purchasing from traditional retailers to super markets.

The paper makes no reference to sustainable use of biodiversity (see Bioversity International), retrieval of indigenous knowledge, supporting local products, traditional food systems and value chains. Priority should be given to local markets and short food chains to relocalize diets and food systems. Small-scale food processing is essential for local diets, employment and resilience. While there will always be a need for national, regional and international trade (and in particular fair trade), it is urgent to relocalize agriculture and support local food systems to counterbalance the trends in the last decades.

And last but not least, it is urgent to make an inventory of and review relevant local practices with a view to generate practice-based evidence. Applying the IPES food research principles. 

Apologies for not answering the questions but both framework and questions seem geared to justify a narrow set of classical top down interventions.

Dear All

As to me, first of all the national government, extension service delivery and NGOs working in the field of food security must have conceptual clarity to address food security including the 3 pillars (food availability, access and utilization) because malnutrition is often observed even in surplus producing areas.

The 2nd critical issue preventing food loss and maintaining food safety. Due to lack of appropriate storage facilities, transportation mechanisms the produced food are often lost and their quality and safety are compromised. This in turn affects nutrition. Perishable products such as vegetables and fruits do not have optimum cold storage until, suitable packing and transporting mechanism. As a result they cannot be kept for long due to their vulnerability for damage and nutrition loss.

Absence of market information along the value chains also force producers for any price the buyer is willing to give. Here, the brokers gain more than the producer. Appropriate storage, market information, setting floor price would have saved the producer (this is done for cereals, coffee etc, but not for vegetables and fruits).

The other critical area is the application of pesticides/fungicides. Urban agriculture in the outskirt of big town uses rivers that are sometimes polluted from biproducts and wastes coming from industries. This pollutes the vegetable. Some pesticides also have residual effect unless there is adequate days between pesticide application and harvesting of the vegetables to bring them to the market

Hence, if nutrition, food safety and reasonable gain to the producers are expected the above mentioned factors should be seen along the value chain.

Takele Teshome

Pathways to Agricultural Productivity and Nutrition

By Ann Steensland

Deputy Director, Global Harvest Initiative

Reducing malnutrition and obesity are essential for economic productivity and growth, particularly in agriculture. Malnutrition leads to stunted physical growth, cognitive impairments and increases the risk for chronic disease, all of which make farmers less productive and make it more difficult for people in rural communities to develop off-farm enterprises.[1]

To meet targets for reductions in stunting (low height-for-age), wasting (low weight-for-height) and women’s anemia, and to increase exclusive breastfeeding in low- and middle-income countries, the World Bank estimates that governments will need to increase their nutrition-related expenditures by a factor of 2.3 over 10 years and donor funding will need to increase by a factor of 3.6 in the same period, for a total investment of $70 billion.[2]

While both men and women have roles to play in reducing malnutrition in the household, women are more likely to spend money on “reproductive” goods, such as nutritious foods, school fees or health care. Increasing a woman’s income through productivity gains and access to agricultural markets can improve the nutritional status, health and earning potential of herself and her family. Still, recent studies have shown that the linkages between agriculture, women’s empowerment and nutrition are not always straightforward.[3]

Increasing agricultural productivity requires two things that most poor women lack: financial resources to purchase productive inputs and time to learn new skills or develop new markets for their products. Without resources to buy productive inputs such as hybrid seeds, herbicides or irrigation technologies, a woman will spend more time planting, weeding and harvesting to increase her output. She may also spend time marketing and selling her products, further reducing the number of hours she has for reproductive tasks, such as childcare, eldercare, cooking and housekeeping, which in most contexts she will still be expected to perform.

A study of agriculture-nutrition linkages in Zambia found that for the poorest households the best agricultural pathway to improving nutrition is for women to increase the production of nutrient-dense foods.[4]  If women have access to assets or credit and can purchase time-saving agricultural inputs, the best pathway to improving nutrition is increasing the production of cash crops or high-value crops, such as fruits and vegetables, using the increased income to purchase nutritious foods. While circumstances vary greatly from one community to another, research in Africa and Asia confirms that identifying women’s time and resource constraints is essential to improving both agricultural productivity and maternal and child nutrition.

Thank you for the opportunity.

The producing companies should take into account all the aspects of value to the consumer needs (nutritional and economic ). This is possible only through enhancing the capacity and awareness level. In India, its essential to develop value chains to improve nutrition. There are multiple actors at multiple levels that have responsibilities to this value chain. Strategies need to be developed for strengthening coordination among the key players. There need to be convergence of schemes, not within the department but also converge the various sectors and the actors who are working to help the farmers and customers.

The need of improving the quality of value chains for nutrition enhancement links to a series of integrated processes starting with rainwater and watershed management, improved input use efficiency, soil health management, need-based fertilizer recommendation, integrated weed and nutrient management, pre- and post-harvest management, agro processing and value addition etc. Periodical assessments of value chain analysis need to be carried out for effective functioning and enhancing viability to benefit ordinary (below average and average) customers.