Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

First of all, let me express thanks to those who has prepared the draft and to those who has arranged the online consultation.  

It is essential to outline the importance of timely prepared draft  and arranged discussions on Sustainable Food Systems. Since 2015 different actions have been taken towards Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) many of which are linked and addressed to sustainable food systems and its components.

Definition and approaches. A sustainable food system is a collaborative network that integrates several components in order to enhance a community's environmental, economic and social well-being. It is built on principles that further the ecological, social and economic values of a community and region. (Pothukuchi and Jufman, 1999.)

The reference document reflects the above classical definition and even goes beyond it since it is supposed to be a platform or guidance for all working under the issue of sustainable food security and nutrition linked to social inclusiveness, right to food and conservative use of natural resources in a rational and stable manner. At the same time it draws in the center of all the consumption and production patterns in the area of food and agriculture with balanced environment and rural livelihood. Therefore, it will be better to emphasize and articulate to role of agriculture as a basis of sustainable food system (SFS) and at the same time make it  has be easy for reading able and understandable for all actors, and first of all farmers, small and medium food producers, and consumers. 

The main sense of SFS is its socio-economic value in terms of human needs and economic results based on resilience and environment protection oriented to a positive or neutral impact on the natural resources environment (environmental sustainability).

Structure of SFS. On the other hand, SFS is a wide comprehensive complex of components, activities, outcomes and drivers. For example, based on using of the natural resources for producing and consuming food these systems serve social needs and norms in different cultural, economic and political environments which comprehensively influence dietary preferences. To some extent the sustainability of food system depends on financial and infrastructural factors including overall arrangements of financial system (currency fluctuation, limitation of financial flows, stability of banking sector and financial markets etc.) and international infrastructure (IT, transport routes, stoking facilities, stocking technology etc.). Therefore, in the components of SFSs the financial and infrastructural subcomponents on GEO component has to be included.

Activities. Food systems involve a multitude of people depending on food to consume and generate income (producers, processors, retailers and consumers governments, NGOs, agriculture and health officers, teachers, etc. Each of the listed groups has a different set of interest and power to influence food systems and play their own role in sustainability by using different types of instruments, institutions, regulations, subsidies, and laws through relative activities. From that point of view, among the activities listed in the scheme on page 10 it is suggested to add two more activities: stocking (after harvesting) and distributing (after marketing). Stocking is very important activity for stable provision of food and animal feed. Nowadays it requires a special attention due to limited facilities and climate change. For example, due to climate change the quality of stocks is very sensitive since possible impact of mycrotoxins etc. The activity, such as distributing, covers provision variety of food needed within sustainable diet to different location including remote areas. It also covers the principles, scope and net of social protection to poor and vulnerable consumers. It also plays a special role in the provision of equality. Therefore, these two activities are very important in the provision of the objectives of sustainable food systems.

Outcomes. In the set of outcomes of SFSs it will be good to show indicators for each outcome relevant to SDGs.  Food consumption is variably affected by a wide range of factors including food availability, food accessibility and food choice influenced by geography, demography, disposable income, socio-economic state, urbanization, trade liberalization, globalization, religion, culture, market fluctuation, and consumer attitude and behavior. These drivers result in several social, economic, health and environmental consequences on food consumption changes such as increase in nutrition-related NCDs, social inequalities, loss of biodiversity, climate change, fish stocks depletion, etc. All of them contribute to   food security linked to health through malnutrition, economic development, environment, infrastructure, trade and geopolitics. The absence of food security can have significant consequences for individuals and society in a whole, including malnutrition, obesity, disease, and poverty. Therefore, it is essential to emphasize the role and ways achieving food security and nutrition as results of well-functioning agri- food sector and SFS. In fact, food and nutrition security is not just producing sufficient food and to a certain extent encompasses the need in provision of access to food at all times for having the sustainable diet. Currently the aggregate production of food in the world is relatively enough for people but it is unequally distributed throughout territories and different social groups. Therefore, food insecurity and malnutrition (undernutrition, overnutrition, and micronutrient malnutrition) problems are widespread. These as well as the social, economic and environmental negative impacts of the current food consumption patterns and diets highlight the inadequacy of the global food system.

Objectives and indicators. Achieving sustainable food security will require getting the priorities right and acting upon them. One of the main objectives of that has to be addressed to support right to food and food sovereignty. These priorities should necessarily include transition towards more sustainable food consumption patterns and diets. It requires working on both sides of the food chain i.e. food production and food consumption. The focus on sustainable diets integrated in a wider food system is original in this sense and helps to integrate different dimensions of food security and nutrition. However, diet itself does not reflect enough economic factors pushing people, in particular vulnerable ones, to follow up balanced diet recommendations due to access factor or infrastructural conditions (occurrence mycrotoxins or use of conservative or any other ingredients). Therefore, one of the instruments on the provision of SFS is a set an adequate indicators reflecting all components, activities, outputs and outcomes. It is also necessary for monitoring and analyzing SFS.  

The sustainability of food system has to be measured for further developing and implementing adequate food systems policy and cooperating with market based approach meaning market monitoring, market assessment and response analysis. How it might be measured is a question for further consideration and development.     

Recommendations

1. Sustainable food system is very comprehensive and complex issue that is reflected in the given draft. However, the links and interconnection between different approaches as well as their variations has to be more clearly elaborated and understandable for readers. It might be a more clear if visual instruments used for making it a more clear and transparent for all readers, actors etc. The difference between SFS and sustainable food chain is not clearly outlined. From my point of view, the first (SFSs) is more oriented to consumption while the second one is more about the circle from fields to its ending point.
2. Financial and infrastructural component on GEO component has to be included
3. In the part of activities two more activities have to be added (stocking and distributing).
4. One of the main objectives of SFS is the provision of food security that is not well enough expressed in parts of sustainable diet and sustainable food chain although it is clearly identified in SDG2 with its relevant components. It will be good to use universal or standardized approach in expression of main parts of SFS with referenced to SDGs and their indicators. With regard to food security its indicators has to be included in the part of sustainable diet.
5. For all parts of SFS, in particular of the part of sustainable diet, the social and economic indicators demonstrating sustainability such as poverty level, food budget, equality, literacy, and education level will help to outline the problems, purposes and ways to reach sustainability.
6. It is necessary to demonstrate or measure by relevant indicators each of approaches in particular sustainable food systems approach. It has to be done by using SDGs indicators with SDG1 and SDG2 as a core for reaching overall sustainability.   

In the draft there is also a request to add some definitions for categories of sustainable food systems. Please see my suggestions below.

Food types/ groups:

1. vegetables and legumes/beans
2. fruit
3. lean meats and poultry, fish, eggs, tofu, nuts and seeds, legumes/beans
4. grain (cereal) foods, mostly wholegrain and/or high cereal fibre varieties
5. milk, yoghurt, cheese and/or alternatives, mostly reduced fat.

Grouping of foods is based on the provision of similar amounts of key nutrients. For example, key nutrients of the milk, yoghurt, cheese and alternatives group include calcium and protein, while the fruit group is a good source of vitamins, especially vitamin C. (the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating, https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/food-variety-a…).

1. Sustainability information schemes – complex of tools and communication channels for timely and regularly producing, circulating and sharing of information by using new appropriate technology in assisting individuals, communities and all other actors of SFSs to meet their developmental needs.
2. Market-based approach – it is a mechanism for consideration changing conditions and requirements to direct limited human, financial, and natural resources into SFS in the most cost effective ways, programs and projects taking into account prices, profits and possible consequences for balancing socio-economic and environmental needs.

First of all, congratulations for a  huge undertaking. A few points/comments (which I would be happy to clarify further):

A. I would suggest that sustainable diets be used as an entry point to discuss sustainable food systems. People do not eat commodities, and value chains only contribute to specific elements of a diet. We certainly need to have more sustainable value chains but only once we have a clear understanding of what should be a locally appropriate sustainable – and therefore seasonal - diet.

Traditional diets were traditionally associated to a large extent with local food systems, this is not the case any longer given the growing disconnect generated by the commodification and standardization of foods and the bias towards international trade. In that perspective, the reference to the Mediterranean diet is well appreciated but reflects traditional food systems in the Mediterranean bioregion (see below). Nordic chefs tried to adapt it and ended up with the new Nordic cuisine. The traditional Corean diet is the basis for healthy diets in Seoul, etc… It is important to understand indigenous diets (and related food systems, see <http://www.fao.org/indigenous-peoples/ifs-seminar/en/>) and revisit them on the basis of relevant scientific knowledge.

B Territorial approaches are mentioned in the paper. They are well suited to operationalize complex concepts such as sustainability (which brings together economic, social and environmental dimensions). This should therefore come much earlier in the draft. Maybe this document could be of use? <collaboratif.cirad.fr/alfresco/s/d/workspace/SpacesStore/6daa60e1-d89e-4a59-9bfd-ff5f66a93130/TP4D_vENG.pdf>

The role of cities in driving territorial food systems and the need to improve urban-rural linkages are important dimensions of territorial approaches.

The paper refers to agroecological zones. We may want to add the concept of bioregions (A bioregion is a land and water territory whose limits are defined not by political boundaries, but by the geographical limits of human communities and ecological systems), which also brings in the human dimension. Interesting food system research (including prospective studies) use this concept as a basis, e.g. <www.kpu.ca/isfs/swbcproject>. Bioregions are usually subnational and often cross-border) which emphasizes the importance of local food governance.

C. Social sustainability should not be limited to « broad-based benefits for society ». it should not undermine culture, and should build upon social structures and traditional solidarity mechanisms. It would be important to further emphasize participation of people and institutions and give more attention to human rights (including the right to food, which provides a solid conceptual basis for social sustainability of food systems). We could also refer to the Agenda 2030 slogan « Leave no one behind »

On Fig 2 , any way we could have eco-social development at the top for a change? :-)

The paper refers to « traditional power dynamics » p. 14 . The word “traditional” may need to be clarified. Are we talking of political economy?

P. 41 on research and innovation, I am surprised there is no reference to the IPES-food work – in particular < http://www.ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/IPES/Principles/SFS.pdf> Priority should be given to generation and sharing of practice-based evidence, through knowledge management of promising practices and research action.

A precondition for sustainable food system is the revision of the legal and regulatory framework to provide an enabling environment. This dimension is missing.

The reference to urban and periurban agriculture (UPA) should be framed within an urban food system framework. Its role should not be limited either to food production since it usually also plays important social and environment roles.

I may have missed it but did not find in the sources any reference to the IPES-food work? <http://www.ipes-food.org/reports/>

General Comments

If this publication is for FAO, then certainly it is OK, but if its target is wider (stakeholders…) then some modifications would be advisable:

• A hierarchy for the related organizations and very similar terms (SFS followed by Program, SCP…) would improve the text comprehension.
• Avoid redundancies mainly appearing in section 2.1 and 2.2
• In general the content of the boxes is very clear and concise but the subsequent comments are longer than the required explanation or support.

Specific Comments

2.  (Page 4) SFS Key Concepts.

In my opinion it is ok in all its entries including figure 1.

The reasons (political, scientific) for CFS presence in the draft (p 9) is not clear to me, is it perhaps the ‘boss’ ?

2.1.2 (p 12) SFS Approach

Definition OK. Comments a little long, because of the good footnotes and references, the text could be reduced, thus gaining readability. I.e. the para ending with reference 31 is very informative and perhaps should be expanded.

The next paragraph is to me mainly focused on LMIC, nevertheless Food insecurity affect 12.7 % of hospitalized people in US (Leung C et al. JAMA Internal Medicine 2017; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0239), maternal food insecurity creates a barrier for exclusive breastfeeding (Orr SK et al. CMAJ 2018; doi: 10.1503/cmaj.170880), or a more general view the problem of poor urban children (UNICEF)

2.2 (p 16) Definitions and discussion of key concepts (in relation to SFS). If the content is added in brackets perhaps the following text can be reduced or even erased

2.2.1. (p 17)   Sustainable diets. In the comment after the box and in the second para I would suggest to quote the Alternative for proteins (from FAO Health & Sustainability) following, or instead of seafood. This comment could be reduced by avoiding redundancies.

2.2.2. (p 19) Sustainable Value Chain (FVC). FVC and FSFVC are mere concepts or planned actions? I’d suppress history

2.2.2.1 (p21) Sustainable Food Value Chains Approach. This is very well designed and could include the content of 2.2.2. Explain the evaluation possibilities for Circuits courts.  Because of the similarities with SFS Approach, could it be referred to its content and decrease repetitions?

 2.2.3. (p23) Food Loss and Waste.

Perfect, clear, very informative

2.2.4. (p26) Resilient Production. Definition OK. Comment a little bit long.

3 (p 29) Different Roads leading to Sustainability

Introduction and comment very clear. My comment only on:

3.1.4. (p36) Public health approaches.

Check content with SFS Approach (p 13).

4 Further definitions of relevance to SFS

Determinants of Health (p 51). In the clinical and practical grounds is considered the A. Smith (1987) health definition: ‘Individuals are healthy insofar they can function in their context’. That has been increasing the field of health (for example type 1 diabetes perfectly controlled individuals can be acting as normal healthy subjects apart from the daily insulin administration). Then the determinants can be: Adequate and sustainable food availability, Avoidance of alcohol and unhealthy substances, Reasonable physical activity, Adequate treatment and control of chronic diseases. These determinant should be implemented along the whole vital circle.

Hello everybody,

I hope to have posted my contribution in the right area of discussion (Food or forests?)!

Anyway : I think that forests are a great opportunity to both protect soils and environment and also supply food.

The coupled mature technologies of "wood to energy" (heat and electricity) by gasification and steam explosion should be investigated to offer the feasible opportunity of producing cellulose based forage for ruminants.

This could possibly represent an economic interest for  implement forestation instead of cutting trees for more soil room to traditional agriculture.

An integrated (energy, soil&climate protection & forage production)   exploitment of forest can be a model of innovative sustainable "meat production" (cellulose is not suitable as fodder for monogastric livestocks).

I'm looking for people interested in sharing opinions and technical/economic considerations on this possible (?) forests  protection giving to their cultivation/responsible use a stronger "economic interest".

As the "species" that survive are those the man is (positively) interested in.

The poor economic interest in forest sustainable exploitment destroys them more than fire!

I am interested in possible comments. Even not positive ones of course..

Thank you in advance.

Uranio

My thoughts on the subject of food systems are sent here as an attachment. I think I have not omitted anything important even though I was a bit pressed for time.

Best regards,

Lal Manavado

Here are some suggestions/ideas which some of you may like to explore.

Language

First some linguist thoughts about producing a document that … ‘is to become a reference document for anyone working towards more sustainable consumption and production patterns in the area of food and agriculture’ It will need to be re-drafted into a version that will be easy to read ‘first time round’. Perhaps this will come - but I’ve not noticed reference to language, interpretation and/or target people. As presented v1.0 is a complicated document written in techno-complex English that is suitable for others with similar scientific backgrounds and language skills.

Given the fundamental importance of the messages that are being promoted, requested, emphasized, it becomes essential that key community people – management, political, financial - with limited time, language capabilities and/or interest be captured. Everyone knows the gaps that exist between decision-makers across the academic-techno-political divides.

Preamble

Daunting draft document; daunting subjects, issues, prospects and information. How to feed estimated 10B people expected within the next 30 years given the same physical resources that we have today? The question is obvious, and the considerable feedback provided thus far is as generally critical of current progress - as it is with the galaxy of examples of ideas and opportunities recommended for further use/exploration. Much is being done; and if not always as recommended, at least documentation is being prepared and people are talking one-to-the-other (leastways in forums such as FAO/FSN).

The dynamic nature of socio-economic human development during the past 250 years – times of intensive global exploration, industrialization, urbanization, population growth and more - has been staggering. When allied to the current explosion in information exchange/knowledge of what is happening elsewhere following ever-more innovative tele-communication developments (and cheap air travel) the complexities of ‘what to do next’ overwhelms.

On the one hand there’s the recent UN/IFCC reports on Climate Change to further raise awareness (and the current UN/FCCC COP24 meeting in Katowice Poland); the need to implement the insurance investments that may provide for a measure of control over GHG emissions and, it follows, some semblance of control over rising ambient temperatures. Given the fragility of our living space on Planet Earth – that friendly atmosphere of gases that, at best, is just 20 km deep that sustains and protects us – there’s little room for manoeuvre where food production is concerned.

Not only are we living longer than our forebears, but we’re demanding more. However, half the world’s people remain poor notwithstanding that the middle classes are on the rise everywhere – therein are issues with widening gaps with millions of people being left behind. And the issues herein, of course, relate to these being rural people in fragile parts of the world; people who may eventually become the mass socio-economic and/or environmental refugees for the latter part of the 21st century.

Some interesting FSN Feedback then

Thus far there has been some provocative feedback – consider, for example, the handful of contributions from Messrs Jeevananda Reddy, Tinsely – all of which help establish the basis of new decision-making, revision, redrafting, re-evaluation of the existing draft v1.0.

In his highly pragmatic contribution Mr S. Jeevananda Reddy in India has already covered the issues – the need to be realistic when compiling standard texts with which others can work; the need to take account of the practicalities of real-life situations. He emphasizes this, for example, with a critique of definitions used and contradictions for supply of food in India – skewed support for agriculture, ad hoc interventions by the multinationals, expensive state food subsidies for poorer families, mixed support for basic staples – millet vs rice, maize, and more.

The unknowns of climate change will impact food supplies into the next short term – droughts that will follow in India – a country already over-exploiting surface and subterranean water resources – and home to 20% of the world’s people. There’s another 20% across the Himalayas in China – with similar tenacious food self-sufficiency long term.

Dick Tinsley rightly draws attention to farm power – and the unsustainability of smallholder producers when they have only family labour available; people ill-fed on a diet that does not support hard physical work over long periods. There’s no way that crop timetables can be met, and the crop performs below expectations; less food is produced.

Trade-offs between key priorities of any food system – poverty reduction, raised productivity, enhanced nutrition feature from Roger Leakey of the UK; he extrapolates into the unsustainability of ‘conventional modern agriculture’ in the world’s tropical/sub-tropical regions, where it contributes to land degradation and social deprivation. More on industrial agriculture below.

Perhaps best of all there’s George Kent of Hawaii with his robust messages that suggests ‘Nero fiddling whilst Rome burned’ (i.e. ineffectual leadership and/or no concern for others). The focus of this particular debate/request from FAO/FSN on ‘Food Security’ is way off target, according to Mr Kent, when the real target should focus upon enriching the lives of poor people - re-appraising global hunger issues with diagnosis, commitments and action plans. Underlying this are issues that continue to promote the sustainability of food systems that patently do not work for everyone; Mr Kent calls it ‘ignoring the political economy of hunger’.

Taking the best of what we currently have ….

Perhaps missing from the debate is the wide issue of smallholder production vs conventional modern production – with all the ramifications for those who highlight the potential of the former with the degradation that comes from the latter; and this no matter that industrial production tends to feed most of us. There’s a key point therein that leads to the application of food production that blends the best of the value chains that we have (and which are further developed within draft v1.0 as ‘sustainable food value chains’ and ‘green value chains’) wherein the wider global/socio-economic/environmental context is included – as illustrated in Fig.1 & Fig.2 of draft v1.0.

There’s an easy-to-read/understand of the blending issues/opportunities involved in an article prepared by Johnathon Foley and published by National Geographic: ‘Five Step Plan To Feed the World.’* In summary: 1. Freeze agriculture’s footprint; 2. Grow more on farms we’ve got; 3. Use resources more efficiently; 4. Shift diets; and 5. Reduce waste. The headings/steps are self-explanatory and the majority FSN network will be familiar with them; in any case, the original article says it all.

You only have to follow the trends of people leaving ‘agriculture’ worldwide to appreciate that lack of personal interest shown by the majority smallholders that ‘feed half the world’; no one wants the drudgery of poorly-resourced production/services. Equally, the issues of conventional modern agriculture are also well-known; industries that successfully fill supermarkets around the world on the basis of pragmatic short-term production systems, and which may pose risk for the longer-term.

Get the messages right with documentation such as draft v1.0 and it may be that there will be sufficient initiatives, legislation, decision-makers and world-class politicians that will steam-roller the changes required. Consider the redrafted/finalized ‘Sustainable Food Systems’ document as simply one more building block on the road to progress. There will be much more to follow.

Meantime, ensure that people everywhere take on board the urgency of recent UN/FCCC recommendations for climate change mitigation/reversal – including progress with COP24 in Poland this week. And implementation of the December 2016 Paris Climate Accords by the majority industrial and industrializing countries. Fail to get climate issues right and everything else fails too.

Peter Steele

Agricultural Engineer

Melbourne

Australia

05 December 2018

PS. Definitions

And, on an aside – those definitions contained in section #4 – long, verbose, confusing in places. Consider a ‘sentence or two’ definition (and then follow with supporting text – if required). Additional headings/text required in support of ‘Modern production systems’; the listing currently focuses upon ‘novelty’ (notwithstanding potential). To include additional farm-forestry, harvesting/gathering, novel foods production (e.g. protein from insects, algae, etc.); to include food processing (e.g. simplistic/minimum added value – use of sugar, salt, oil, desiccation); to include food production supporting sectors – energy, farm mechanization, labour, safety, irrigation, etc.). Sure, where do you draw a line? Difficult.

*Available at: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeature/feeding-9-billion

Hi I have read the comments and the draft and I am always a bit dismayed at FAO FSN, HPLE et al. and the continual lack of acknowledgement of the importance that fish and fisheries especially small scale fisheries and  aquaculture  (coastal and inland) play in 'glocal' food security and nutrition. There are now many cross level forums, organization, state and non-state and academic processes that explicitly outline the key roles that fish, and other aquatic organisms play in securing rural livelihoods and health in the Global South as well maintaining resilient coastal communities around the world. This massive source of food for humanity and agriculture (feed) is now under serious under threat from multiple drivers and yet I sense that through this type of forum, we are still locked into thinking of food as almost entirely as an issue of sustaining terrestrial production; there are now key studies showing very important cross scale linkages connecting terrestrial and aquatic social ecological systems with the developing of sustainable food systems, beyond simplistic narratives of production and distribution; food and wider food systems (value chains) are best viewed as complex systems, encompassing diverse social and ecological dynamics so their sustainability should be seen in this context.

Ron Jones 

ARDC, Intl. Co. Ltd., Phnom Penh, Cambodia

Thanks for the opportunity given and congrats for the hard and consistent work. Regarding your key question 3, Right to Food (R2F) and the Human Rights-Based Approach (HRBA) should be included, at least, in the glossary / list of terms in chapter 4.

A. Making the case:

1. The draft-paper clearly fosters the three dimensions of sustainability, i.e. economic, social, environmental, (also called the “Triple Bottom Line” / People - Planet - Profit (TBL or 3BL)). Yet, to “ensure Food and Nutrition Security (FNS) for all in such a way that the economic, social and environmental bases / assets are not compromised” (page 8 of the paper), Rights and Governance must be part of the picture. For the propose, the “livelihoods approach” could also be helpful.

2. Sustainable Food Systems (SFS), addressing Food and Nutrition Security (FNS), involve multiple rights and subsequent obligations as well as Governance challenges. These elements clearly emerge all along the draft-paper and in the very definition of SFS (e.g. ensure food security and nutrition for all, holistic approach, Responsible investments in agriculture and food systems, address underlying / root causes, among others). The draft-paper explains that “governments remain in the driving seat, promoting efforts towards coherent implementation of globally agreed frameworks and commitments”. Yet, the Right to Food (R2F) and the Human Rights-Based Approach (HRBA) are not explicit in the draft-paper. First step on Human Rights promotion and protection is to make them explicit. To act, based on Human Rights, we have to speak Human Rights. So, what is implicit in the draft-paper must also be explicit, at least as a term under chapter 4.

3. The paper refers to “food sovereignty”, which is a good step forward, and by doing so, indirectly refers to peoples “right to define their own food and agriculture systems”, putting “those who produce, distribute and consume food at the heart of food systems and policies rather than the demands of markets and corporations”. As Olivier De Schutter, former UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, said, “there is simply no other way we can combine the need to produce enough food for all and the need to meet the environmental challenge: only by supporting the vast mass of smallholders in the developing world, and by supporting them to produce for the local communities, can this challenge be met” (Desk Study on EC activities in the Right to Food area and on the Relationship between Food Sovereignty and the Right to Food, SOGES, Venetsanou, 2010 https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/file/13049/download?token ). However, the “food sovereignty” cannot substitute but combine with the Right to Food and HRBA (inter-complementary and mutually reinforced domains of action). Whereas “food sovereignty is a political claim defending the right of a community, whether at national or sub-national level, to decide how to feed itself and how to combine domestic production and international trade, the HRBA and the Right to Food (R2F) add a legal dimension to FNS” (idem).

4. The Right to Food (R2F) underpins the claim that people should be able to feed themselves as a matter of right rather than as a matter of policy choice. Poor are voiceless in the political “bargaining” to which policies’ design, interpretation and implementation are subject. Food insecure people, though in great numbers, are powerless in the political arena. The R2F sets benchmarks in the political negotiation and the trade-offs between efficiency and equity, defending people’s fundamental rights and freedoms as a non-negotiable bottom line. It does so, not at a rhetorical / abstract level of good-wishes, but, relying on the Human Rights machinery at Global (international law / binding commitments) and Country (national legislation and institutional arrangements) level. This way empowering vulnerable small-farmers can be highly relevant to sustainability (we could further develop and refer examples but, this is a big chapter and I would like to keep it as short as possible).

5. Once policies / Plans / Programmes are defined in a rights-based approach, “beneficiaries” become “rights-holders”, and the authorities designing and implementing programmes accept that they may be held accountable to them (duties-bearers). The Human Rights machinery as well as the HRBA provide a solid basis for an effective accountability. Several countries already fostered the Right to Food in their constitution and legal framework. Monitoring mechanisms, including claims and redress, are in place also at international level.

6. FNS deprived from the R2F may end up either as a catch-all rhetoric or strictly project/program anchored action. Effective ownership requires institutional and legal capabilities at country and local level. So, SFS programmes, along with technical and organisational proposals must also promote such institutional arrangements and capabilities.

B. Some key references:

1. Voluntary Guidelines on the Right to Adequate Food http://www.fao.org/3/a-y7937e.pdf

2. Right to Food http://www.fao.org/faoterm/collection/right-to-food/en

3. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Food/Pages/FoodIndex.aspx

4. European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: An EU policy framework to assist developing countries in addressing food security challenges. COM(2010)127 final. Brussels, EC, 31 March 2010. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0127:FIN…

5. Implementing EU food and nutrition security policy commitments: Third biennial report https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/implementing-eu-food-and-nutrition-secur…

6. Monitoring a moving target: Assessment of the implementation plan of the EU Food Security Policy Framework https://concordeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Assessment-of-the-…

7. The SR's opening speech on Right to Adequate Food meeting at the Committee of Food Security, 24 January 2017 https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Food/Event24Jan2017.pdf

Without having read the document in detail, the report has a relatively logic structure and broad attention relevant to be able to take up dialogue on sustainable food systems. A couple of subjects that could potentially deserve more attention in the document as part of future trends and what is currently challenging sustainability and providing opportunities are suggested below.

• Fragility, crisis and climate change: These should not be seen as isolated phenomena but part of system effects. They are all induced by human behavior and influence each other including the resilience of any food system. Conflict, displacement and economic collapse are a risk to the ability transition and building sustainable food systems. The combination is a major risk to the planetary thresholds/boundaries and can therefore impact food systems that are globally integrated with each other.
• Novel foods and production systems (both industrial and family farm level): These can/already provide opportunities for a shift in the availability of new types of food and feed (e.g. seaweeds, algae, insects for food & feed, aqua/hydroponics etc.). As these can contribute to the transformation of unsustainable practices towards more sustainable food systems that are more fit for a world of rapid change they should have an increased attention as part of defining/describing what is/can be contributing to different types of sustainable food systems.

Alwin Kopse, the facilitator of the consultation on One Planet’s draft on “A Sustainable Food System” said, while the ultimate goal is food security, it will not be achieved while the economic, social and environmental bases for food production and consumption are being compromised. In other words, the shift towards sustainable food systems is a precondition for global food security.”

This appears to be a response to my questioning the high priority placed on the sustainability of food systems, on November 24, available at http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/comment/9230 I would like to clarify my position.

I see sustainability as just one item in the list of desirable qualities in many things. When I buy a car, for example, I would like it to last a long time, but that is just one consideration among many. Sustainability is important in food systems, especially those that function well. However, I don’t see how it is a precondition for global food security.

Attention to sustainability seems to be displacing attention to the need to make serious efforts to end hunger in the world. I have yet to see a serious plan to end hunger, one that can realistically be expected to succeed. I would like to see a more serious commitment to ending hunger in the world. When we design a system that works well for everyone, we can talk about how to sustain it.