全球粮食安全与营养论坛 (FSN论坛)

TOC

The barriers identified reflect our experience, however, the following specific barriers can be made explicit:

-Lack of access to land and basic goods and services (health and education) for peasant communities, especially for women

-Lack of economic compensation for agroecological production (like that of most peasant communities in Central Africa, for example). 

-The production of food in rural Africa does not offer possibilities of labor and social inclusion capable of meeting the expectations of new generations

-Lack of policies that effectively promote the consumption of local and organic production (today imported food in Africa is imposed by the price, yet it comes from unsustainable production models).

-There are no international policies (binding mechanisms, taxes, for example) that require the largest emitters of carbon and the largest portfolios (capital, private sector) to effectively contribute to the implementation of a quality, fair and sustainable food system

DRF: 

The outcomes are appropriate and we explicit the following aspects: 

- Direct support policies and programs for peasant communities allow them access to land as well as to other basic goods and services (health and education). Policies for the redistribution of land and capital (reduction of inequalities, SDG 10) allow the implementation of these policies and programs.

- Agro-ecological production (0 carbon emissions, like that of peasant communities in Central Africa) is economically rewarded. Consumption of local and organic products is effectively promoted by minimizing imported food from unsustainable production and transportation patterns. Revenue generation from a progressive carbon tax mechanism that demands more from the largest emitters and progressive taxes on capital in the sector allows for sustainable and equitable food production, transportation and consumption

Dear Madam/Sir,

Attached please find a contribution of the Global Alliance for the Future of Food for the consultation on the new FAO-IFAD Food System Integrated Program.

We are a strategic alliance of philanthropic foundations collaborating on bold action to transform food systems. The recommendations expressed in this document are built after years of consultation with our members and based on strong collaboration with a wide range of partners supporting transformations towards healthy, equitable, renewable, resilient, inclusive, diverse, and interconnected food systems.

Contribution of the Global Alliance for the Future of Food

Dear Sameer Karki, dear FAO and IFAD teams,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the new FAO-IFAD Food Systems Integrated Program, its Theory of Change (ToC) and the Draft Results Framework.

As an alliance of philanthropic organizations deeply committed to food system transformation, this global program greatly interests us. We appreciate the systemic approach adopted on its ToC, and the comprehensiveness and ambition of the programme. In the past 10 years, the Global Alliance for the Future of Food has worked on a number of topics associated with levers of food system transformation and we would like to indicate references that might be useful in building the global objectives of this Program.

Commenting more specifically on the ToC and the questions (1) and (2):

● We observe that the fragmentation, limited policy coherence and ultimately unsustainable food system architecture indicated as barriers to transformation is problematized by the lack of integration of different global frameworks and associated national-level plans, i.e. National Determined Contributions (NDCs), National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs), National Food System Pathways (NFSPs), national food security plans, etc. Reviewing the complementarities of these different global agreements and national-level plans could be useful in reducing institutional fragmentation;

● We appreciate the indication of inadequate valuation of true costs and benefits of food systems as one of the main barriers to transformation. As indicated in the Draft Results Framework, there has been great efforts in developing True Cost Accounting and other methodologies to properly address these. The True Cost Accounting Accelerator has been building a number of resources (tools, frameworks, implementation guidance, case studies, etc.) that can support the implementation of this approach;

● We also appreciate the focus on improving the accessibility and availability of financing to food system transformation, particularly by supporting viable business models for transition to sustainable practices. We have identified that there are enormous untapped opportunities to finance food system transformation from a climate perspective, and that there is an urgent need to align food system finance and climate objectives. Additionally, more emphasis could be placed on redirecting financial flows away from harmful practices, and working together to better align public and private finance, creating greater impact. This has been one of the focus of the discussions on finance at the conferences of the Sustainable Food System Programme of the One Planet Network;

● On knowledge barriers and outcomes for innovations, in 2022 we published the Politics of Knowledge, in which we asked 17 diverse contributor teams from around the world how they understand, document, and communicate evidence about agroecology, regenerative approaches, and Indigenous foodways. It squarely addresses the barriers and opportunities for researchers and other knowledge holders to contribute to informing policy for more efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable agrifood systems. We invite reviewing the main findings of this effort, as they can support the use of broader sources of evidence while building knowledge management activities.

Commenting on Draft Results Framework, questions (3), (4) and (5):

● The collaboration framework and coalitions mentioned in 1.1 as possible intervention and outputs could also benefit from the extensive experiences of right to food coalitions, and national/sub-national food security and nutrition councils. The link between the food security and environment agendas are more than ever urgent and necessary, and complementaries between these different groups would only strengthen a more systemic food system transformation agenda;

● We invite the team to review the Systems Investment Assessment (SIA) tool produced by the Transformational Investing in Food Systems initiative (TIFS) as one possible methodology to support investment pathways toolkits indicated in 2.1. The SIA tool is based on the UNEP TEEBAgriFood evaluation framework and the Global Impact Investing Network’s Four Core Characteristics of Impact Investing and can be useful in facilitating comprehensive assessments of truly transformative investments.

Finally, responding to the question about inputs, advice, examples, and successful cases on:

● Scaling up approaches, policies, and sustainable/regenerative food system practices: we have been collecting several positive stories of food system transformation at different levels and topics. We particularly invite the team to review 14 stories on climate and food systems action and 6 examples of creative financing for food system transformation we published last year. Our Beacons of Hope Food Systems Transformation Toolkit summarizes some of the main levers of transformation identified in this study.

● Multi-stakeholder processes: the One Planet Network also reviewed 10 examples of sustainable food system multi-stakeholder processes, raising important lessons on participation, inclusivity, efficiency, and resilience of these mechanisms;

● Research gaps or innovations on food systems transformation: as indicated previously, the Politics of Knowledge report indicates 5 priorities pathways to address research gaps and needed innovations in supporting agroecological, regenerative and Indigenous food systems. We thank again for the opportunity to comment and we would be extremely grateful if we could be further informed about the development of this program.

Yours sincerely,

Global Alliance for the Future of Food

In Nigeria, it has been observed that increase in agricultural output is mainly driven by increase in the hectarage cultivated rather than agricultural intensification. Many of the agricultural practices used by farmers are unsustainable with very low adoption of Climate Smart Agriculture. Achieving the SDGs by 2030 would imply that many farmers would have to change from the business as usual scenario to ensure sustainable production and consumption. 

To achieve great success in the programme, we need to carefully train farmers and create an enabling environment for them to adequately make the most of training offers and government incentives. This is especially for women and youths who are often more disproportionately disadvantaged in access to productive inputs. 

Secondly, there is a need to introduce farmers to improved technologies that could aid production and processing. The use of technology for getting information on production, weather, and market information will go a long way in improving productivity and resilience and ultimately enhancing food security

I would like to say that I find appropiate the proposal in general.

The point is that its should include the success cases and experiences all around the world to achieve this challenges.

Of course we do not have the whole of the solutions, but yes part of it.

We cannot conitnue discussing without the adaptation and implementation of real proved tools to improve and advance, meantime we promote research and development of more and betters techs and experiences.

We need the voice of farmers, real farmers, from different regions, scales, activities...

As a farmer and Agronomist from Argentina, a country with more than 90% of No Tlll System adoption, and Honorary President of the NGO (AAPRESID) who develops this vision, I work worldwide attending the needs of knowledge not only for this technologhy, but also for organizational and partnership innovation to achieve this goals.

Always grateful to being part of the FSN Forum and available to share experiences, documents, papers, etc

The Program is a good start to global food systems transformation. Find my inputs on the ToC and results framework below.

1. The selected food crops' production systems are neither resilient nor nature-positive. A focus on the selected crops in the Eastern Africa context would further exacerbate food and nutrition insecurity in the region in the long-term, if we forecast based on the current trajectory. The crops selection could have been based on unique contextual factors across countries, regions, continents etc.  More resilient crops like cassava, yam, sorghum, and millet, among others, would be more sustainable in some contexts and would offer alternatives to the selected ones that the world is already over dependent on.

2. In the ToC, the assumption of indigenous knowledge and approaches to be backward and unsustainable is a missing barrier. Nature-positive and resilient systems have been in existence among indigenous communities and we can leverage on them to develop collaborative food systems transformation. The past, present and future are important in futures thinking in food systems transformation and food systems innovations may be as diverse as the food systems themselves in different contexts.

3. Another missing barrier is indifference in implementing strong accountability mechanisms for food systems actions across the globe. Paper-level agreements and commitments in global platforms have so far proven to be just that. It would be useful to have accountability strongly embedded in all the 2nd order outcomes.

4. Supporting CBOs/CSOs to establish and facilitate strong citizens-led forums to mentor, strengthen capacities, engage and influence food systems governance may be important in establishing community-led transformation and decentralization of food systems governance and power dynamics in the long-term. 

1. I am a little intrigued by the choice of food crops - I would have expected millets to be included, as a climate resilient crop, besides this being the International Year of Millets. Likewise, I am surprised to see oil palm under commercial crops, given that the negative environmental impact of the crop is well known.

2.  Thrust on local enterprises and value chains I feel should be highlighted more strongly in the Results Framework. Their relevance was clearly demonstrated during the COVID pandemic.

3. Impact of nature positive methods improving soil health and thereby plant health and supply of nutritious food may be more explicitly stated.      

4. In terms of scaling up, I was part of a Farming System for Nutrition Feasibility Study under the consortium research programme on Leveraging Agriculture for Nutrition in South Asia (LANSA).

Starting with a cluster of seven villages in the state of Odisha, India, based on the evidence generated, funding was obtained from the state government to replicate the approach across an entire Panchayat (covering 25 villages). The state government also included support for nutrition sensitive agriculture in its agriculture budget.     

Sharing the evidence with the Indian Council for Agricultural Research led to the approach being demonstrated by Krishi Vigyan Kendras (farm science centres), for wider outreach. (See http://59.160.153.187/blog/taking-farming-system-nutrition-approach-sca…)

5. Sharing research evidence with both the community and policy makers at both subnational and national levels is important for uptake (See http://59.160.153.187/voices-of-change; http://59.160.153.187/content/wardha-district-collector-meets-mssrf-lan…; http://59.160.153.187/sites/default/files/NITIAayog-MSSRF_Copy%20of%20F…).    

Focussing ob the outcome 'Pathways for public and private investment in food system transformation', PSM members wanted to give the following perspectives. Firstly, we would emphasise that in Results Framework the outcome, or the objective, is what the goal should be, not just the means to get there. That goal is for food security, underpinned by a global sustainable food system for society to support the attainment of the SDGs and, in particular, food security and food accessibility at affordable prices for both rural and urban consumers.

We therefore need prompt and meaningful progress of how all individual farms, with their current level of sustainability practices in agricultural (crop, livestock, fisheries) production, can successfully implement sustainable farming that supports the foundation of a Sustainable Food System. We need to be able to improve farmers, and their families, prosperity and for people and institutions to invest in the systems transformations to achieve that.

In support of attaining this sustainable agriculture, fisheries and livestock we need to recognize that there are many important interlocking and mutually supporting approaches, techniques and strategies designed to sustainably improve production, enhance resilience and reduce/sequester GHGs. This includes agroecology, which is one of many innovative approaches but also, other approaches for sustainable production, which includes everything that well managed farms, ranches and forests produce- food, feed, fiber, clean energy, ecosystem services, biodiversity etc. We do not limit these approaches to just production of agricultural commodities but rather everything that farms, of all sizes, produce including ecosystem services.

These ‘solution pathways’ include (but are not limited to) climate smart agriculture, precision agriculture and improved nutrient use efficiency that uses a variety of strategies and tools such as digitalization and improved seeds to support the adaptive capacity of agriculture. There is a concern that framing these strategies and approaches from only a societal or political standpoint and not from the perspective of the farmer provides false dichotomies which can get interpreted as the environment vs. large corporate interests; social issues vs. big business. It therefore gets harder to focus on the tools and management practices that individual farms need to use to sustainably develop their farming operations.

We believe we can better focus on the areas of convergence and the approaches and strategies that can be demonstrated to be better alternatives for individual farms and farming systems, to increase the sustainability of farming to better support rural and urban populations. These approaches includes everything that well managed small and large farms and forests do and produce: food, feed, fiber, clean energy, ecosystem services, biodiversity etc. This is not limited to just production of agricultural commodities but rather everything that sustainable farms can deliver, including ecosystem services and practices that increase soil organic matter, improve soil tilth and production for the farmer, and sequester CO2 from the atmosphere.

At the same time, by benchmarking best practices it enables both old and new techniques to be easily compared, to demonstrate best performance, impact on employment and income, with a full assessment of not just financial, but all economic  costs. Many of these strategies and approaches can be monitored and accomplished with digitization tools, decision support tools, knowledge sharing and inter-disciplinary stakeholder collaboration.

As requested by the Development team, we would emphasise that a  key part of that stakeholder collaboration is farmer representation and voice at local, regional and national level. We believe that a way forward for an integrated mechanism for the voice of farmers would be to use the proposed interactive dialogues proposed as part of the consultations during last year’s  Food Systems Summit, and should continue with the forthcoming Stocktaking exercise in July. In addition, interactive sessions, conducted in-country would provide valuable information and feedback of how best to further develop varied, sustainable farming systems pathways with the farmers themselves. The PSM welcome the opportunity to take these farmer dialogues forward to enhance the convergence and implementation of sustainable agricultural approaches.

Thank you, 

Brian Baldwin, Development & Policy Advisor, Private Sector Mechanism, CFS.

Dear Sir/Madam  

Thank you for the invitation to participate in reviewing the theory of change and draft result framework in respect of the Food System integrated program.

Having gone through them, I feel the two documents are well elaborated. It would be helpful to see the implementation framework and plan so that some of the terms are further unpacked. 

Warm regards

Harris Phiri, Department of Fisheries, ZAMBIA 

Dear Sameer,

I appreciate the opportunity given to us to provide our inputs in the online consultation. We found both the Theory of change and Result framework to be well drafted. Kindly see attached a few contributions made on the theory of change and result framework. Kindly find my contribution below.

Theory of Change:

1. Do the barriers identified reflect your experience as Community Based Organizations (CBOs) / Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), private sector and local communities (women, men, youth, indigenous peoples)? Are there key barriers that are missing in TOC?

I’m making the following contributions on the barriers affecting food systems based on my experience as a Community Based Organization (CBO)/Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) working with indigenous peoples, women and youth smallholder farmers from the socially and economically disadvantaged communities.

In recent years, agricultural policies on trade, financing and value chains support have largely been focusing mainly at increasing yields and expanding production, particularly of staple crops. But the COVID-19 pandemic and associated conflicts, social unrest and wars have exacerbated the situation through supply-chain disruptions and high cost of energy causing spiraling food-price inflation.

Most low-income countries are unable to meet their domestic requirements for food, as population growth rate has outpaced the rate of food production.  This has also fueled rapid consumer demand for food and the intensification of agricultural production to meet the demand of both local and export markets. Government policies promotes conventional agriculture which utilizes monocropping cultivation with the use of artificial fertilizers to increase food production and meet up with the consumption demand. Climate change invasions such as extreme weather events like flood, drought and high rise in temperature introduces new pests, biodiversity loss of crop varieties and species were also major drivers of negative health, environment and economic consequences.

2. Do the first level Outcomes appropriate and adequate for transformation of food systems’ impacts on the environment?

For a sustainable food systems transformation that will benefit people, protect and restore nature, urgent action should be taken to reduce pressure for agricultural expansion, trade and economic development; that fosters increase in natural habitat conversion, deforestation, heavy use of artificial fertilizers and pesticides.

Draft Results Framework:

3. Are the Outcomes planned appropriate and adequate for food systems transformation?

Yes, we need to bring together all actors and participants from the national, regional & global levels and balance voices and build partnerships across board with mutual respect, collaboration and trust.

4. What could be examples of types of intervention and outputs that could ensure stronger engagement and ensure capacities of CBOs/ NGOs, the private sector, and communities (including women, men, and youth, indigenous peoples) to continue food systems transformation?

Scaling up nature positive food production and innovations that protect natural ecosystems against new conversions for food and feed production. Managing existing food production approaches sustainably, to the benefit of both nature, people and planet. Restoration, remediation and rehabilitation of degraded ecosystems and soil function for sustainable food systems transformation.

5. What might be specific contributions of each stakeholder group to the achievement of the components? 

In addition, the Program development team seeks inputs on your experiences and advice on:

Examples of scaling up approaches, including policies, for more sustainable/ regenerative food systems practices.

Successful examples of multi-stakeholder processes at national level that brings local communities (including indigenous peoples, youth, women and men), the private sector, the civil society and academia and the government to develop policies related to food systems.

Village Farmers Initiative (VFI) Nigeria’s strategic focus is on the elevation and promotion of indigenous food heritages. This is an all-inclusive approach that supports sustainable/regenerative food systems and embeds a clear goal on nature-positive food production.

Village Farmers Initiative’s Community engagement and outreach programs such as Community Biodiversity Management CBM showcases the role of smallholder farmers, women, youth and indigenous knowledge in saving lost landraces within community diversity management.

The program promotes sustainable use of natural resources, climate change mitigation & adaptation and regenerative agriculture and involves a lot of public-private partnerships across the value chains.

Research gaps or innovations on food systems transformation for global environmental and climate benefits.

We are currently engaged in partnership with various ongoing research work and innovations on food systems transformation for global environmental and climate benefits that will be published in due course.

Best regards,

Asikaralu Okafor

Executive Director,

Village Farmers Initiative (VFI), Nigeria