Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

Member profile
Browse all members

Ms. Juliana Tangari

Member since
Organization: Comida do Amanha Institute
Country: Brazil
Field(s) of expertise:
I am working on:

Food systems challenges, urban food systems opportunities, Brazilian food policies, local food policies and strategies in Brazil.

I work at Comida do Amanhã Institute, as Director and General Coordinator of LUPPA - the Brazilian Lab on Urban Food Policies. I am graduated in Law and hold specializations from Università di Camerino, Organization for the American Estates, European University Institute and The Hague Academy of International Law. I was the chairperson of the local Food Policy Council of Rio de Janeiro (CONSEA-Rio) from 2016 to 2018 and a member of the Champions Network of the UN Food Systems Summit in 2021.

 

This member contributed to:

    • Congratulations for this report. Beautiful and very useful work.

      It provides a broad approach to food security, taking into account all its 6 dimensions, although I believe the sustainability aspect didn't get a deeper attention. Moreover I'd like to mention a couple of experiences and examples from Brazil: 

      - the program LUPPA, mentioned in 5.4.2, is a civil-society led project oriented not only to be a supportive network for municipalities in Brazil but also a platform to spotlight food policy innovation (as highlighted in 5.4.3) and a enabler of food policy strategies (5.4.1). For that, within the program we've been able to observe and study several governance structures and test their usefulness, like the municipal transversal agencies for food policymaking and monitoring - Interdepartamental Chamber for Food and Nutrition Security, aka CAISAN, in its Portuguese acronym - a widespread policymaking structure in Brazil, by which several municipal offices or departments come together to plan a (ideally) coherent municipal food strategy. In LUPPA we support cities to enable their CAISANs because they represent an important institucional enabler, as mentioned in 6.4.1.

      Another widespread structure present in Brazilian cities is the food policy council, usually called in Brazil by the name of Food and Nutrition Security Council (or CONSEA, in its Portuguese acronym). These councils are enabled at all federation levels (municipal, state and national) and are very important to keep the dialogue between public authorities and civil society / stakeholders. Food policy councils in Brazilian cities act not only at policy monitoring but algo in policymaking - usually they provide guidelines for the food strategy and /or to enable food-related policies, like those related to communal kitchens, urban agriculture, and food banks.

      Regarding the multi-level policy coherence enabler (6.4.3) I'd like to raise awareness to the Brazilian "SISAN" - the national System for Food and Nutrition Security. SISAN was created in 2006, and besides the federal hiatus of 2019-2022, it has been evolved to, among other goals, support the dialogue and technical support among government levels for better food policymaking.

      In 5.3.1 and 6.4.6, the report highlights the importance of human resource capacities and for that I want to call attention to a case study with Brazilian cities led by EMBRAPA in partnership with LUPPA ("Food and Cities", 2023, attached) in which we found that well trained and supported teams were considered the first enabler of good local food policies.

      In 6.4.6 I suggest more attention should be given to the importance of local food systems diagnostics and planning and how municipal authorities and civil society organizations need technical support to better understand local food system bottlenecks, opportunities of change, negotiation techniques, understanding trade-offs, good practices of policy planning, including budget allocation.   

      Examples of food policy innovation (5.4.1) can also be seen in Brazil, like the "Mesa Solidária" program of Curitiba (a innovative partnership to provide free meals to vulnerable people) and the "Mumbuca" program of Maricá (a kind of social currency that is used within municipal boundaries to transfer income to vulnerable people, who then can use such currency at local restaurants and other public facilities) - all examples of food policy innovation are presented in LUPPA Journals 2nd edition - attached (luppa.comidadoamanha.org).

      Finally, regarding partnerships, highlighted in 5.3.2, I call attention to the work of a quasi-public agency for social services in Brazil - "SESC", that currently leads one of the main food bank programs in Brazil - the "Mesa Brasil" program, partnering with several cities nationwide to fight food waste and food insecurity.

      Considering the recommendations and typology of policy instruments found in chapter 6, I believe there could be room to mention the importance of technical assistance, and all sorts of capacity support through local programs to support urban and peri-urban farmers and other urban food actors that need technical support to better thrive (food procurement alone, without some sort of technical assistance / knowledge support can be useless). In general, I think these final recommendations (6.5) are missing or giving less attention to the sustainability dimension of food security. 

      See the attachments: