Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

Dear Sir

The key concepts in relation to sustainable food systems in section 2.2. is well defined but not well described with examples. For example, in section 2.2.1, Sustainable Diets has been rightly defined as protective and respectful of biodiversity and ecosystems, culturally acceptable, accessible but these points are not clearly explained with appropriate examples. Though the example of the Mediterranean diet is given its major components were not mentioned and so it is difficult to understand why it is a typical example of Sustainable Diet. I think it is better to explain the examples which help to understand the definition of a sustainable diet. For example, in Bengali diet, there is a special role of several types of greens. There is a ritual like 'Choddo sag' (14 greens) which involves eating of all these green and its considered to be auspicious in Bengali tradition. To emphasize the point of protective and respectful of biodiversity and ecosystems examples of uncultivated, forest foods which are often highly nutritious can be given.

Similar points can be raised about the section 2.2.4. Resilient Production Systems where Resilient Agricultural Production Systems is defined as the capacity of agro-ecosystems, farming communities, households or individuals to maintain or enhance system productivity by preventing, mitigating or coping with risks, adapting to change, and recovering from shocks, examples were not elaborated.

Addition of examples will help common practitioners to understand all these important points in a much practical manner.

Yours sincerely

Debarati

While I have only been able to briefly look at the draft document, there are a couple concerns that I have which are historically overlooked as I have harped on in previous forums. Thus, please allow me to mention them and ask how these are being or will be addressed in the final draft of the report.

1. The operational feasibility of agronomic interventions: This is basically an oversight in the development effort, but it severely hinders acceptance by smallholder farmers. When you carefully look at agronomy it does an excellent job of determining the physical potential of an area but says nothing about how the farmers will operationally achieve that. That is how much labor or access to contract mechanization is needed, and how readily available is it, with the default assumption that it is not a problem and labor is infinitely available. Basically, how often is it assumed that smallholder farmers working alone or maybe assisted by an adolescent son can manage their hectare plus of land as easily as research/extension officers can manage a 0.10 ha research of demonstration plot assisted by a hired labor crew. When you think about it, it is kind of a ridiculous assumption! The underlying problem is that the operational limitation in smallholder cultivation has fallen into an administrative void between the agronomist as applied biological scientist and the social scientist. Within the typical development effort who has the responsibility to estimate the labor requirements need to implement innovations, the availability of that labor and most critically what are the rational compromises smallholder farmers should make as integrate the innovation into their limited operational resources and the other farm enterprises they are involved with. When this is done most likely you will find the farmers are maxed out and maximizing, not the return to a give crop or livestock enterprise but maximizing the total return to all farm enterprises. I like to think of this a separating THE SCIENCE OF FARMING as defined by research/extension for the ART OF FARMING taking into consideration the limited operational capacity and integration across all enterprises. How much of the persistent yield gap between research/extension and farmers can be accounted for the limited operational capacity of the farmers? Is this a greater problem than lack of knowledge? Please visit and consider the following webpages and links within them: https://smallholderagriculture.agsci.colostate.edu/integration-an-under… ; https://webdoc.agsci.colostate.edu/smallholderagriculture/OperationalFe…

2. Dietary Energy Balance: Another but highly related concern is the dietary energy balance between what smallholder farmers have access to and what they are expected to exert in doing a full day of agronomic field work. The difference is about 50% with farmers only having access to approximately 2000 to 2500 kcal/day when the need more than 4000 kcal/day. While we recognize that most smallholders are poor and hungry we usually fail to see that as a major hindrance to crop production. If you consider 2000 kcal/day as representing basic metabolism, smallholder farmers often are barely able to have access to enough energy to meet the basic metabolism requirements with little energy for heavy manual labor such as land preparation using a hoe, which consume some 300 kcal/hr. This then substantially curtails the workday to a few diligent hours of labor, perhaps paced for a couple more. It than extends the crop establishment time for up to 8 weeks with progressively declining potential yields, until the crop is established too late to for sufficient yield to meet domestic food security needs let alone have some surplus to move up the value chain. The result of both these issues is to consider emphasizing drudgery relief instead of crop or animal extension education. Please consider the following webpages and included links: https://webdoc.agsci.colostate.edu/smallholderagriculture/ECHO-Diet.pdf ; https://smallholderagriculture.agsci.colostate.edu/ethiopia-diet-analys… ; https://webdoc.agsci.colostate.edu/smallholderagriculture/BrinksDrudger…

I think that hits the main point. If these issues are included please point out where so I can quickly review them. Thank you.

This document cover well many topics of contemporary interest.

What future for animal-based foods vs lab grown meat for instance; bio fortification, hydroponics, millets, chemical & antibiotic free food stuffs, foods replaced by food supplements? Implications of these innovations on food production systems and family farmers.

Should they look for livelihood alternatives giving up farming?

Dear members of the FSN Forum,

It has been a suspenseful first week for the consultation “Towards a common understanding of Sustainable Food Systems”. Our special thanks go to the first movers who submitted their feedback in this early stage of the consultation period, as well as to the IT specialists that were able to resolve the technical problems that caused a temporary interruption of the FSN Forum website. The contributions so far highlighted specific challenges (e.g. climate change; pests and diseases; decrease of arable land and soil fertility; lack of investment) as well as additional concepts and approaches (e.g. agroforestry; cooperative agriculture; food safety; insect protein) in relation to sustainable food systems. In addition, insightful examples of food systems challenges at national and local level were provided, including from the Indian context.

Some questions were also raised with regard to the draft v1.0, including about its main objective and the focus on sustainability (rather than food security). The One Planet Sustainable Food Systems (SFS) Programme’s point of view is clear: 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. The SFS Programme is developing this document with the objective to strengthen a common understanding of the key approaches and concepts that are central to this shift. This will allow food system actors to speak the same language when deliberating on sustainable solutions to food insecurity and malnutrition – solutions that take into account all stages from food production to consumption, as well as their interlinkages with food systems drivers and impacts.

We are pleased that the feedback received in general has been supportive of the concept of sustainable food systems. We welcome further inputs and reactions, and particularly encourage contributors to refer as much as possible to the three guiding questions in the topic note.

Best regards and thank you very much,

Alwin Kopse

Deputy Assistant Director-General

Head International and Food Security Unit

Federal Office for Food and Agriculture FOAG, Switzerland

Does the draft adequately explain the principal components of a sustainable food systems approach (section 2.1.) and put the latter in relation to the approaches discussed in section 3.1.?

I would expand the definition of Sustainable Food System to clarify the concept that "food systems" potential varies according to "ecological areas". An arid area will be able to ensure food security for LESS number of people that areas with fertile soil, abundant water, optimal min-max temperatures. I would also introduce and highlight the concept that a "Sustainable Food System" is a system not overly affected by the impending climate change.

Ecosystem approaches must much more clearly mention livestock. Keeping holstein-friesian cattle in a hot desert environment, something done commonly in many areas, is not an example of a sound ecosystem approach. In addition it must be stressed that for an "ecosystem approach" to be defined as good it must be able to cope with the temperature/rainfall changes imposed by Climate Change

Are the key concepts in relation to sustainable food systems in section 2.2. well defined and described, including their importance for this publication?

Concepts are well defined but again much more emphasis should be put that all key concepts MUST be capable to cope with climate changes: higher min-max temperatures, drought/irregular rainfall

Is the list of terms in chapter 4 complete, are any important terms missing (if yes, please submit together with the respective definitions) or do you think certain terms may be redundant?

List is not complete. Terms that are missing: Pastoralism, Pastoralist Food Systems, Nomadic Pastoralism, Transhumance, Arid Areas

Food can be any nutritious substance obtained from animal and plants. However, some foods don't need to be nutritious and that do not provide nutrients, however, protecting and lubricating the mucus of intestine so the nutrients of the nutritious foods will be safely absorbed and rest secrete safely.  Therefore I divide food into two major types 1. Nutritious food 2. Non-nutritious food. Nutritious food is that which provide nutrients whereas not nutritious is that which don't provide any nutrient, however, protect the body from the diseases and disorders. In the case of crops, Food security starts when farmers get the yield of an edible crop.  Simply food security should start from the yield(seeds) and seeds are the reactants for the product(foods). Therefore we should protect good seeds as much as possible. In other words,  concept food security should start from the seeds of crops and young ones of animals, birds and fish. These useful creatures can only be secure by creating awareness among the public. To achieve high yield, The Govt should supply disease and pest resistant varieties to the farmers. As chemicals are toxic to the environment and health. Govt should focus on research to develop biocontrol agents and teach the formulation of these biocontrol agents to the farmers. In the developed nations the researchers really doing a great job in securing food and even their Govt is seriously taking food security as a major challenge. That is why most of the developed nations are self-sufficient and don't need to import food from other countries. However, in the developing nations, the situation is not stable. There is always a power struggle between the rich and the poor. Coups and other political issues make the people vulnerable to diseases due to unavailability and improvision of nutritious foods. The farmers are major producers of food however in a situation where farmers is a servant and landlords are governing on him, so how can he take interest in the health of crops. Marketing problems and other issues are also in these developing nations. Mismanagement and corrupt political system of the countries are also a major challenge to these countries. As a result, no remarkable work is done to secure foods. Consequently, the whole world has to suffer. In such situations, who will provide good seeds to farmers and who will provide him subsidies. Finally, when farmers collect yield, the contractor comes and buy at cheap prices. Food security is indeed a major challenge in these developing nations. So what is the best cycle to secure food? The best cycle to secure foods is the Govt should provide seeds, fertilizers, and bioagents to the farmers, then the farmers after harvesting and getting yield should sell to the Govt. The Govt will then store for the next year or distribute to the public in a way that food is accessible to all citizens equally. The final step is to discard the leftover of the foods or recycle if it is still ok. This is few steps to secure food. The other suggestion, if the developing countries due to their weak political system and oscillating type of Govt system cannot contribute to food security. The UN should provide subsidies to the farmers and other inputs so they enhance yield. The pests and diseases due to climatic changes have so far become more severe. When I go through the literature in 2018, I was surprised to see the diseases and pests have considerably increased and caused huge losses to crops. Not only pest and diseases, look how fire engulf millions of acre land in California USA a few weeks ago. How much food did we lose? There is no published report but it is the reality we have lost considerable yield. The draft you have uploaded is still immature and most of the definition are not clear. Considering pest and disease are the major threat we should not deny other environmental factors which are almost not our control. So good management of pest and diseases and appropriate agronomic practices maximum food can be achieved. As aforementioned due to political instability and corruption, most of the developing countries are not contributing to food security. Therefore the people of these countries are suffering a lot. To achieve Zero hunger in these developing countries is just an idea and impossible unless these countries bring changes in their system. Even zero hunger is a wrong terminology, it is impossible to reach zero hunger even in the developing nation. The scale should start from 01 to 100 rather than 0. The dead do not become hungry so 0 hunger is the most appropriate term for them. Furthermore, if a country is developed, it does not mean it is exporting agriculture products. However, the real developing country is that which is self-sufficient in the staple food and also export staple food to other nation. Construction of high bridges, roads, building, and other infrastructure does not indicate that the country is also developed in terms of agriculture. For the sustainable production of food, the first thing is Seed should be HC or CH(healthy certified/certified healthy). If the seeds are healthy and free of contaminants or diseases or pest or pest parts, there are 90 percent chances high yield can be achieved if not disrupted by environmental uncontrollable variables. Healthy seeds should be provided by the Govts free to their farmers and we can safely say, till no seeds have not highly affected by climate change. A global problem climate change cannot influence so much a farm of hundred acres. If we secure the food within the farms then rest to make it accessible to all people is very easy. Some people say resource scarcity major issue in the developing nations. In real the developing nations are full of resources and can produce more food as compared to the developed nation if properly guided and provided assistance to the farmers of these nations. The farmers of these countries should be provided with the latest scientific knowledge to grow crops. Pest, diseases, soil and water management in these countries is also a big problem. These issues need to be resolved to get enough food to feed the increasing populations. In conclusion, food security should start at the farm level.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to share with you my following experience done in Mollesnejta - Centre of Andean Agroforestry situated in the semi-arid valley of Cochabamba / Bolivia:

The loss of soil fertility at the global scale is alarming, as are the impacts of climate change. Conventional agriculture practices are reducing the organic matter content of soil as well as the soil´s capacity to regenerate nutrients to a minimum. In order to ensure food security in the future, sustainable agriculture techniques have to be promoted. These techniques should not only be productive, but also build soil fertility in the long term. At Mollesnejta- Centro de Agroforestería Andina, we apply dynamic agroforestry measures in combination with two agroecological techniques, with the goal of improving soil quality: (a) Activated Biochar and (b) Ramial Chipped Wood (RCW). Pruning material sourced from pruning in agroforestry systems was used as a soil amendment through both techniques. The presentation will describe the benefits of Activated Biochar and RCW and discusses their preparation and application to the soil, where both act as long-term carbon sink. Also, are provided the results of the experiences obtained at Mollesnejta- Centro de Agroforestería Andina after using these techniques. Both techniques proved to be effective at improving soil fertility and the capacity of rainwater storage. In combination with their impact as carbon sink it would be reasonable to intensify the practice of dynamic agroforestry.

Best regards,

Noemi Stadler-Kaulich

Firstly, the entire document is built on theoretical path but real world practical path is utmost important. For this, it needs to look in to all aspects country-wise. Then only it will have some use. I said “some” is basically because multinational seed and fertilizer companies impose on the individual countries to monopolize business interests whether they fit in to the system or not. This exactly what is happening in India and the same may be true elsewhere.  Also such foods including infant food is dumped into third world countries by Multinational Companies [MNCs] of the West where commercial agriculture is practiced. Officially Uttarkhand is an organic farming state. Government is giving chemical input kits “free” to create addiction and move away from organic farming. Different state governments are falling over each other in their haste to promote hybrid maize in the name of food security. Here governments are colluding with multinational seed companies. The fact is maize is not consumed as food in India.

Secondly, the entire document was built on the two words, namely “Sustainable” & “Resilient”.  Under unsustainable system, resilient has no relevance. The draft V1.0 refers the resilient production system to the ability of a system to prevent disasters and crises as well as to anticipate, absorb, accommodate or recover from them in a timely, efficient and sustainable manner. Theoretically it looks to be sound but in practice it is rarely achieved. The sustainable issue automatically mosque the resilient under sustainable system. The sustainable food system [SFS] is a food system that ensures food security and nutrition for all in such a way that the economic, social and environmental bases to generate food security and nutrition of future generations and not compromised. Under polluted water this is rarely achieved. For example, in Hyderabad city, where I live, crops are grown using highly toxic polluted water of Musi River. This is common all around urban India.

In India, National Advisory Council (NAC) released a National Food Security Bill, 2013.  In this there are two important clauses that needs mention in this context, namely – “Right to Food Security – Right to access of food security – 4. Every person shall have physical, economic and social access, at all times, either directly or by means of financial purchases, to quantitatively and qualitatively adequate, sufficient and safe food, which ensures an active and healthy life”; and “Rate for priority households – 24. The state government shall provide priority households whether rural or urban a minimum of 7 kg of food grains per person per month, at a price not exceeding Rs. 3 per kg for rice, Rs. 2 per kg for wheat and Rs. 1 per kg of millets at 2010-11 rates, which will not be revised upward for a minimum period of 10years from the date of notification of the Act”.  

Governments after chemical inputs technology crops grown under heavy subsidy under irrigation were included in Public Distribution System [PDS] again under “subsidized scheme” and made people to addict to unhealthy diet based on rice & wheat that lead even poor people suffering from new diseases, hitherto were with the rich. This way the governments with step-motherly policies affected the area under millets that provides healthy diet, which could not compete with subsidized rice & wheat in market. Thus poor stopped eating healthy millet food as it costs more than several times to that of rice & wheat under PDS. In some states like Andhra Pradesh used subsidized rice scheme in PDS to gain political power and wealth. This affected the animal husbandry component of agriculture.

With this introduction, let us see the production issues [below references provide specific issues].

            Sustainable development: There are umpteen numbers of definitions for sustainable development. Some are generalized and some are specific. Under generalized condition/ system: Sustainable development must meet the basic needs of people “today” without ruining the chances of “future” generation to do the same. However, in reality sustainable development is hindered by climate change & human interference in food system.

In general climate change is used as de-facto global warming. This has no meaning. This is clear from the definitions of climate change and global warming by IPCC [Inter-governmental Plan on Climate Change] and UNFCCC [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change]. Climate refers to all meteorological parameters, such as temperature, rainfall/snowfall, relative humidity, wind, solar radiation, etc. 

For agriculture, in Warm Tropics moisture is the limiting factor where most of the developing countries are located; and growing season length is the limiting factor in middle-latitudes – withdrawal time and onset time of winter -- where developed countries are located. For developing appropriate sustainable agriculture systems, the most appropriate is the studies on agro-climate and agro-meteorology. The scientific institutes rarely bothered on such studies as the global warming studies provide unlimited funds to make time-pass research. UN agencies support this. This is seen from Paris 2015 Agreement.

When the global warming studies are in the birth stage, I carried out agro-climatic and agrometeorological studies for India, northern Australia, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Upper Volta [now Burkina Faso] and Senegal countries.  All these I compiled in a book form [earlier they were published in Journals of international repute] (Reddy, 1993). Now the second edition is out from the publisher (2018) with the same title. Scientists from Pune University from India carried out the analysis for Maharashtra State in India in 2009; a student did Ph.D. from Pune University on Bhīma Basin in Maharashtra state earlier to this under my guidance. Such analysis provides the level of sustainability – drought risk. These are linked to local/regional rhythmic pattern in rainfall.

Droughts and floods are part of natural variability in precipitation and are modified by local conditions and method used to define them. Rao et al. (2013) presented elaborate study and presented an Atlas on Vulnerability of Indian Agriculture to Climate Change. The study has not really studied the climate change but used it as an adjective. This report presented a map of drought proneness. It shows except coastal Gujarat, all parts of India present less than 25%. In my work cited above [Reddy, 1993] they reach as high as 60% in the Western side of Western Ghats. 

In agriculture sense, climate change relates to water availability from rainfall and snowfall; and destruction of production through floods and cyclonic activity – they are region specific. However, they are the major sources for water availability at local and regional level. Normal rains rarely work for sustainability of dams/reservoirs, tanks, etc.  In the case of human interference, the major issues are the sharing of water and pollution – domestic, industrial and agricultural.

Sustainable development in the case of food: This relates to the security in food production and security in nutrition in addition to socio-economic security of farmers.  Over different parts of the globe, food production systems are highly variable. The two main systems are irrigated and rain-fed agriculture systems. The irrigation system is divided into further in flow irrigation [surface] and lift [wells & bore-wells] (groundwater). Rain-fed agriculture system relates to in-situ rainfall and thus directly relate to drought proneness.

Current agriculture systems are corporate, cooperative and traditional.  In developing countries around 2 to 5% of the populations are in agriculture sector. They follow the corporate/mechanized/commercial agriculture system.  In developing countries around 60% of the populations are in agriculture sector. Here the farming system includes the animal husbandry and follow crops/cropping pattern. However, this is affected by high yielding seeds under chemical inputs. Inputs cost has gone up. Also, farm holdings have drastically come down with the growth of population, and thus agriculture became uneconomical. To overcome this problem cooperative agriculture was proposed.

Box 1 “Red Ecovide, Brazil” – this system was in use before 1960s where, I remember as child, that neighbouring village farmers bring sweet potato in bullock carts [they grow under well irrigation, where bulls are used to lift water from the well] and exchange them for grain. Now there is no such thing.

Cooperative agriculture system overcomes the problem of smaller farm holdings: Cooperatives though not new to India, in agriculture there are few isolated cases only.  Anada Dairy Milk [White Revolution] cooperative was successful in Gujarat.  Sugarcane/Sugar cooperative in Maharashtra also showed the success path.  Israel government is implementing the cooperative agriculture with government’s assistance.

In 2001, the then Chief Minister of undivided Andhra Pradesh State, N. Chandrababu Naiudu released a White Paper on Agriculture and Vision 2020 on corporate agriculture. Also corporate agriculture was implemented in Kuppam with government money and planned to extend the same in different districts of undivided Andhra Pradesh [with around 10,000 acres each]. Kuppam experiment failed. This was an export oriented commercial crop—baby corn. Dr. YSR, as opposition leader, asked me to present a black paper on these.  This was released in the Press Gallery of Assembly Hall on 15th February 2001.  Majority of the print media reported this on 16th editions.  One of the English daily reported with a heading “Cong advocates cooperative farming”.  It states that the aim of the ruling party is to pave the way for corporate agriculture at the expense of lakhs of farmers and farm workers in the state. Apprehended that the proposed corporate agriculture, if allowed to take over the farm sector, would further widen the rich-poor gap and that the farmers would become coolies on their own lands. In this backdrop, the solution lay not in corporate agriculture, but in cooperative Agriculture/farming 

When Dr. YSR became the Chief Minister in 2004, they announced that the government’s intension of introducing cooperative agriculture/farming. Unfortunately the advisor to the government, who was earlier associated with World Bank and Western MNCs, proposed corporate agriculture/farming under the disguise of cooperative agriculture/farming.  The farmers rejected this. I exposed this by writing to the chief minister as well presenting in the press.  The chief minister expressed willingness to review the proposal but unfortunately, he died in an accidental accident. 

Fragmentation of holdings is one of the main causes of low agricultural productivity as a lot of time and labour is wasted in moving seeds, fertilizers, implements and cattle, etc. In 19770-71 the average size was 2.28 ha; this was 1.41 in 1990-91; and 1.08 in 2015-16. Cooperative farming system of agriculture is the only solution under the present volatile political and climate conditions to achieve near sustainable production at farmers’ level and thereby strengthen their economic conditions and as well nation’s economy. Here farmers come together and cultivate the land without disturbing the boundaries by better utilizing the natural resources available in an effective way. Also, plan and store and sell the products through cooperatives joining together. At present middlemen are profiting.

            By including organic farming that includes components of traditional agriculture, namely animal husbandry, cropping system, crop rotation, etc. under cooperative agriculture system provide economic-food-nutrient security and as well provide employment, adulteration free milk. Organic agriculture is nothing but a traditional agriculture system wherein in the later fertilizer is farmyard manure/green manure and for the former fertilizer is compost – several types.  With chemical input technology in 1950-60s with mono crop based farming killed the animal husbandry based farming and thus nutrition based food security.  To overcome the non-availability of farmyard manure, techniques were devised to create compost – on farm and off-farm. Here progressive farmers’ innovation techniques can be incorporated. These issues are discussed in my book [Reddy, 2011] and the revised version is under printing.

Global Warming: So far none has established one to one relationship between anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase in the atmosphere and rise in global average temperature. Wide ranging predictions are seen in the literature using models that contributed huge quantity of CO2 through power consumption in running the computers.

Moving average technique is one such simple procedure that helps to separate trend from natural rhythmic variations. British Royal Society and US National Academy of Sciences brought out an overview “Climate Change: Evidence & causes” [24th February 2014]. The report includes a figure of annual march of global temperature anomaly along with 10-, 30- and 60-year moving average patterns using 1950 to 2010 data series. Here the moving average pattern showed the trend after eliminating 60 year rhythmic variation.

The fact is that the observed [adjusted-mutilated data series] global average temperature anomaly of 1880 to 2010 [using the procedure presented in WMO (1966)] presented a trend of 1.30 oC for 1880 to 2100. IPCC report fixed 1951 as the starting year of global warming and thus for 1951 to 2100 -- 150 years -- the raise in temperature is, [1.30/220] x 150 = 0.90 oC – if the data series are from 1850 to 2010, then it is [1.34/250] x 150 = 0.81 only. This trend is superposed by a natural cycle of 60-years wherein the Sine Curve varied between -0.3 oC and o +0.3 oC .

IPCC report state that more than half of the trend is due to greenhouse effect [global phenomenon] and less than half is due to non-greenhouse effect [local/regional phenomenon]. Greenhouse effect includes global warming caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases and volcanic aerosols, etc. Even if we assume global warming component alone is contributing by 50%, then the global warming is 0.90 x .50 = 0.45 oC.   USA temperature pattern [Raw and adjusted] showed a difference more than this. When we study jointly these, it shows global warming is practically negligible. However, annual and seasonal variations in temperature are far higher than 5.0 oC.  Non-greenhouse effects are presented by changes in ecology, namely land use and land cover changes and are represented by urban-heat-island and rural-cold-island effects. They are not associated with anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

Indian scientific groups are showing the rise in annual temperature is around 0.5 oC. The minimum temperature pattern showed higher rise over maximum temperature. Also, this temperature rise was not corrected to non-greenhouse effect – clearly seen in minimum temperature. The rise may be hardly around 0.2 oC only. This has no significance over the high year to year variabilities. Same is the case with USA temperature [U.S. Climate Special Report 2017].

State of Water Infrastructure in India: Presented at a Panel discussion session of AICE’18: Total Water Solutions, of American Water Works Association Conference on 16-17th November 2018 in Hyderabad.

India has around 18% of the world’s population, but has only 4.6% of the world’s water resources with 2.3% of the world’s land area. Though in terms of geographical area Chine is around three times to India, population and area under irrigation are more or less the same. The natural input to any surface water system is precipitation and snow melt which are highly variable with climate change. Also Human interference in terms of pollution and water availability estimates and management play critical role in the quantity and quality of water available in both space and time. In general: India uses around 25% of the world’s groundwater. Out of the total 5723 groundwater blocks in India, more than 30% are already in the danger zone due to overexploitation. This may go up to 60% by 2025.

In India, in 1960-61, around 30% of the net irrigated area was under wells & bore-wells. This has gone up to around 51% in 1999-00. In undivided AP level, they were 11% and 43%. In addition, wells & bore-wells are the main sources of drinking water in rural India. However, with indiscriminate pumping of groundwater, per pump irrigated area has drastically come down.  The River Sarayu that passes through Bihar & UP reduced the width from 1.5 km to 30-40 meters and polluted and thus groundwater depleted and thousands of hand pumps dried.

Immediately after the Independence, the First Prime Minister, Late Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru gave importance to irrigation sector wherein he considered “Dams are the modern Temples”. Yet around 60% of the cultivated area is still at the mercy of “Rain God”.  Irrigation Projects have been moving at snails speed as in the 7th & 8th 5-Year plan periods Watershed Development Programme was given top priority as this helped the party cadre to mint money.  Narmada Project is a classical example, which took several decades to complete the project. However, watershed technology failed in undivided Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka, etc.

Polavaram multi-purpose-cost effective project was turned into cost-ineffective. This was cleared by the Justice Bachawat Tribunal on all aspects in 1981. Until 2004 nothing has happened. In 2005 Environmental Clearance was obtained. The file on getting the national project status, Just before going to cabinet meet in 2009  Central Water Commission put a break by asking the state to modify the project plan for 50 lakh Cusecs a fictitious figure of maximum flood instead of 38.2 lakh Cusecs.

This raised the cost from Rs. 10,000 crores to Rs. 16,000 crores. While this is going on, the state government completed 1st phase of Rehabilitation and Resettlement, excavation of right and left canals. Just at that time the then Chief Minister was killed. After the new government was formed in 2014, the cost has gone up to Rs. 60,000 crores – few days back central water resources minister raised this to Rs. 80,000 crores.  In 2015 with three failures, by lifting water through pumps and putting into right canal and claimed it as inter-linking of rivers instead of completing the Polavaram project, that would have provided water through gravity.

In Telangana state, by completing the pending irrigation projects on war-footing the cost of rural-drinking water scheme would have comedown drastically. Also successive governments have been just watching the destruction and polluting the local water resources in and around Hyderabad including the two drinking water reservoirs wherein water is available through gravity. Groundwater is contaminated with nitrates, sulphates and poisonous chemicals.

One-thirds of the Telangana state’s population lives in Hyderabad with huge infrastructure, establishments and industries. At huge cost infrastructure was created to bring water to Hyderabad from River Manjeera, River Krishna and River Godavari but failed to stop huge  losses of around 55% of which 60% through pilferages and 40% through leakages.  Large population drink purified water.

Around 75% of the water turns into sewage and around 20% is passed through STPs and finally flows in to Musi and again turns into sewage. In the last two decades successive governments planned to convert Musi into Sabarmati, Narmada water flushes the pollution in to the Sea but for Musi proper planning is required.

Industries use “Zero Discharge” to overcome pollution control board’s action. CETPs have no proper technology to treat industrial effluents and thus effluents are diluted with sewage at 50:50 ratios and with some treatment dump into Musi River through Amberpet STP. Rainwater also turns into wastewater with sewage and effluents freely flowing.

The core ailments for these are: they go by theoretical path instead of practical path; under poor ethics and poor governance. Niti Aayog brought out a composite water management index relating to augmentation-restoration & management of water. In the case of urban water management Chinese brought out a “Sponge City” concept [infiltrate, detention, store, clean, utilize, and discharge].  They are theoretically sound but they fail practically in India under climate change and pollution conditions.

Whatever may be the system of agriculture, poor quality of surface and ground water is affecting the quality of food produced. People of Hyderabad eat food produced using polluted water. This is affecting health of people and the money spent on health care is increasing --   Stan Cox’s “Sick Planet: Food and health” was presented the global condition of health care and pollution [I contributed for the pollution part].  See below some of my publications on these specific issues.

Concluding Remarks

It is more appropriate to carry out studies based on the reality at country level and thus assess the food and nutrition security aspects at regional level.  Global warming is not an important aspect as it is created to share billions of dollars by UN/World Bank/NGO agencies. You can see the wealth of Al Gore!

Publications:

Akumanchi Annand, et al., 2009.  Agro-climatic Zonation of Maharashtra State Using GIS. Trans. Inst. Indian Geographers, 31(1).

Blackman, R.B. & Tukey, J.W., 1958. The measurement of power spectra. New York, Dower Publ. Inc.

Parhasarathy, B., Munot, A.A. & Kothawale, D.R., 1995. “Monthly and Seasonal Rainfall Series for all-India Homogeneous regions and Meteorological Sub-divisions: 1871-1994. Institute of Tropical Meteorology [IITM], Pune, India, 113p.

Rao, C.A.R., Raju, B.M.K., Rao, A.V.M.S., Rao, K.V, Rao, V.UVV.M., Kausalya Ramachandran, Venkateswarlu, B. & Sikka, A.K., 2013. Atlas on Vulnerability of Indian Agriculture to Climate Change, National Initiative on Climate Resilient Agriculture (NICRA), Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture (CRIDA/ICAR), Hyderabad, India.

Reddy, S.J., 1984. Climatic fluctuations and homogenization of northeast Brazil using precipitation data. Pesq. Agropec. Bras. (Brazilia), 19:529-543.

 Reddy, S.J., 1977. Forecasting the onset of southwest monsoon over Kerala. Indian J. Meteorol. Hydrolo. Geophys., 28:113-114.

Reddy, S.J., 1993.  Agroclimatic/Agrometeorological techniques: As applicable to dry-land

agriculture in developing countries”, www.scribd.com/Google Books, 205p, Book Review

appeared in an International Journal “Agriculture and Forest Meteorology”, 67: 325-327

[1994] – 2nd Edition with the same title, Brillion Publishing, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, 2019.

Reddy, S.J., 2000. Andhra Pradesh Agriculture: Scenario of the last four decades. July

2000, 104p.

Reddy, S.J., 2007.  Agriculture & Environment. January 2007, 112p.

Reddy, S.J., 2008. Climate Change: Myths & Realities., www.scribd.com/Google Books.,

176p.

Reddy, S.J., 2011. “Green” Green Revolution: Agriculture in the perspective of Climate

Change. www.scribd.com/Google Books, 160pp [Revised version is under publication]

Reddy, S.J., 2016. Irrigation and Irrigation Projects in India: Tribunals, Disputes and Water Wars Perspective. BS Publications, Hyderabad, India, 132p.

Reddy, S.J., 2017a. Climate Change and its Impacts: Ground Realities. BS Publications, Hyderabad, India, 276p.

Reddy, S.J., 2017b.  Prospective Survey: “Role of Pollution and Climate Change in Food and Nutrition Security”. Acta Scientific Agriculture, 1.4: 24-30.

Reddy, S.J., 2018a. Role of Climate Change on Recent Weather Disasters. Acta Scientific

Agriculture 2.4: 22-29.

Reddy, S.J., 2018b.  Urban Water Management for Sustainable Development: The Role of “Climate Change and Human Interference”. Acta Scientific Agriculture, 1.10: 43-53.

Reddy, S.J., 2018c. Impact of “Climate Change & Human Interference” on Water Resources Availability in India. Presented at AICE’18 Total Water Solutions held at Hyderabad on 16-17th November 2018 by American Water Association [AWWA].

Reddy, S.J., 2019. For a Workable “Green” Green Revolution: A Framework. Under

Communication.

Reddy, S.J., Juneja, O.A. & (Miss) Lahore, S.N., 1977. Power Spectral Analysis of Total & Net Radiation Intensities. Indian Journal of Radio & Space Physics, 6: 60-66.

Reddy, S.J. & Rao, G.S.P., 1978. A method of forecasting the weather associated with western disturbances. Indian J. Meteorol. Hydrolo. Geophys., 29:515-520.

Reddy, S.J. & Singh, S., 1981. Climate and soils of the semi-arid tropical regions of the world. In proc. Summer Institute on Production Physiology of dry-land Crops, APAU/ICAR, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, A.P., India.

WMO [World Meteorological Organization), 1966. Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland, WMO Tech Note 79, WMO, 195 TP 100, pp. 81, (Prepared by J.M. Mitchel, B. Dzerdzeevskii, H. Flohn, W.L. Hofmeyer, HH. Lamb, K.N. Rao & C.C. Wallen).

Reddy, S.J., 2013. Sustainable development in agriculture and food security in the perspective of Environment. World Environment Day-2013, Institute of Engineers India [AP Chapter]

Reddy, S.J., 2014. Water-logging and water productivity in Agriculture.

Dear FSN Forum Moderators,

Many thanks for this interesting discussion paper of the SFS Programme.

You asked for comments/remarks and I allow me to make some comments/questions/remarks to your Draft V1.0:

• What is the objective of the present paper (only a summary/report about the present situation or also to show some ways out of the present situation and to show challenges for the future, some alternatives etc.?
• The objective of the report should be clearly defined at the end of your introduction.
• Sustainable food systems (SFS) should include all the important elements of sustainability, such as Land Use (incl. Land Foot Prints; LFP), Plant and Animal Breeding, Plant and Animal Health; Alternatives to present ways of food production etc.;
• The availability of arable land decreased from about 0.38 (1970) to 0.24 (2000) and will decrease to about 0.15 ha per inhabitant in 2050 (FAO 2012; Smith 2018). These developments can be considered as the largest challenge for population, but I could not find this problem in your Draft. Therefore, a more efficient use of arable land (including Land Footprints) should be one of the most important topic, if we discuss about sustainability.
• Comments to Figure 1: Resource efficiency should be more specified: e.g. in soil, water, fuel, some minerals etc.; Food safety should be added under Food security and nutrition. Furthermore, I miss the significance of sciences (soil, plants, animals etc.) as important drivers of the Food Systems.
• p. 12 and other places: Food security should be replaced by food security and safety. Secure, but unsafe food (e.g. contaminated with mycotoxins, heavy metals, dioxins etc.) cannot be any solution for the future.
• Figure 2: Land footprint should be added into the Environmental Impacts. Animal and plants health are mentioned, but plant and animal breeding should be added under Environmental impacts. For my understanding, the plant breeding is one of the most important starting points (see added paper 4) of the whole food chain. Such new aspects should be also discussed in the following text.
• To 2.2.; you started your SFS Programme with Sustainable diets etc. From my view, this is a very conservative view. I would start with the fundamentals of the food chain, such as Plant and Animal Breeding and coming step by step to sustainable diets about nutrient flow, emissions, sustainability, reduction of losses etc.
• p. 29: Sustainable intensification should be defined. Later (p. 30), you mentioned specific agronomic techniques, which are associated with sustainable intensification, but I miss the plant breeding as the starting point of the food chain (see above and paper 4 of the added reprints).
• p. 39; Table 1: I miss the term „Food Safety“ in this Table, at least in the last column (Public health approaches)
• p. 41: Research and innovation: Only some general statements. I miss some specific examples along the food chain.
• P. 44: I am a little bit surprised about the definition of „agriculture“. There are some other (better) definitions like: „Agriculture is the science and production of plants and animals, including fresh water and marine species for food, fuel, fiber and medicine“.
• I come back to my initial question (see above): What is the objective of the present report/paper? On chapter 4 (p. 44 ff.), you defined many terms of the SFS. What is new or innovative in these definitions?
• p. 53: I miss the definitions of „Food safety“(may be below „Food security“) and „Land footprint“(LFP in addition to W-FP and C-FP). Ecological FP is possible, but L-FP is more specific concerning the limited resource land (see above).

Some minor comments:

• You used many abbreviations. (It is one of the typical disease of FAO people/FAO-reports). Therefore, it is hard to read and to understand the paper for people from outside (like me). Either you reduced the number of abbreviations or you introduced a list of abbreviations at the beginning or at the end of your discussion paper. I think that such a Draft and also the final document should be understandable for people from outside and should be the base for a lively discussion.
• For readers and comments from outside, the numbering of the lines would be extremely helpful.
• p. 56: „Sustainable consumption and production“? I think that we have to produce first, before we can consume
• Annex 1 is very impressive, but it is extremely hard to follow all connections?

Finally, I would like to summarize/characterize/define a sustainable food system as: „More safe food for more people with limited natural resources (such as land, water, fuel) and low emissions (e.g. CF). This statement should/could be the most important objective for global food security and nutrition.

In addition, I allow me tol add some more recent reprints from our group dealing with „Carbon Footprints of protein of animal origin“ (paper 1); Land use for food of animal origin“ (paper 2); “Resource inputs and outputs of food of animal origin as well alternatives to traditional food of animal origin (such as insects, lab grown meat, simulated food, single cell protein, changes of eating patterns, reduction of food losses“ (paper 3); Challenges for plant breeders from the view of animal nutrition“ (paper 4).

Best regards

Gerhard Flachowsky

Congratulations for those who wrote this draft:

It will be better to add:

• With the demography growth, the SFS is crucial.
• Water biodiversity must be protected to avoid lack of fish d'or next generation.
• Countries reforms must give SDGs autonomy to municipalities to engage SFS to leave no one behind and create a SFS competition with awards to those with better initiatives.
• promote agro transformation industries with renewable energy promotion,
• As everyone is concerned, awareness raising to consumers is crucial. Introduce the SFS knowledges in school curriculum. Governments, academy, Civil Society with their responsibility(page 50)
• Good nutrition goes with good health, intelligence, good education, good well-being, good work, economy promotion(page 51)
• Good types depend on every country reality: e.g. Rice, maize, yams, casava...., animals, Fishes and all needed for the (sauce), fruits (page 53)
• For the interconnection policy-making(page 54) : Good reforms: vertical: from national to local and horizontal on the ground with social, economic and environmental development departments in a SDGs local center under the municipal committee.
• This SDGs center is for all literacy: data revolution, data collection, data conservation, initial local SDGs rapports as food literacy (p: 54)
• for market approaches it is important to develop transformational industries to promoter the SDG 12 by developing good repartition of these industries(p:54)
• Nutrition means good meals. What you est is a good quality for jour body (p:55)
• science food is artificial food (p:55)
• uncultivated food also is artificial(p58)
• Voluntary approaches: none(p:58)
• Food labelling: none(p58)
• Certification means that the agricultural products must be bio. (P:58)
• So for good nutrition you need to have good information. Because your good health depends on. (p58)