المنتدى العالمي المعني بالأمن الغذائي والتغذية

Submitted by: Anna Marry, Senior Global External Affairs Advisor, Brooke

While very comprehensive overall, we believe that the report lacks nuance when it comes to inequalities in livestock. We recommend distinguishing between production (e.g. cattle or poultry) and working animas such as horses, donkeys and mules, since they play different roles with respect to equity and equality in food security and nutrition. The document acknowledges that livestock are not only a source of food, but also draught power and income. This warrants an expansion to explain the very different role various types of livestock play in food security and related inequalities.

Working livestock support food security indirectly, by enabling food production (e.g. as a source of manure, transporting water for crops or other livestock, ploughing fields etc.), but also, crucially, by generating an income that allows families to purchase nutritious food of their choice, as well as pay for other essentials that impact food security indirectly, such as medical bills or school fees.

It is also worth noting that working livestock play a different, particularly vital, role in women’s lives than other livestock, thus impacting gender inequalities. Two thirds of poor livestock keepers (approximately 400 million people worldwide) are women. In our research amongst poor women in four countries, 77% of participants ranked working equids (horses, donkeys or mules) as the most important species of livestock. Women don’t always own the animals, but they benefit from their work and care for them more often than men do. Women use equids for income generation activities, like waste collection or transporting agricultural produce to market. This income acquired by women tends to be spent on food, medical or school bills, directly benefitting the whole family, in particular children. Crucially, unlike other livestock, working animals help women perform heavy and time-consuming tasks that men do not normally do, such as fetching water for crops, other livestock or human consumption and hygiene. In doing so, they liberate women’s time for other tasks and empower them to gain a higher social status in the community.

Yet, almost all women we surveyed lack access to training and access to extension services, which would allow them to better care for and make use of their livestock.

We call on the report drafters to include this important dimension of working livestock and gender, and particularly, to recommend that women are provided with training opportunities and better access to extension services with respect to livestock handling and management.

In sum, Brooke welcomes this important report and calls for the following additions to be made:

1. Include the distinction between production animals and working livestock due to the different ways they contribution to food security inequalities;
2. Include a recommendation for better access to training and extension services for women livestock keepers to further reduce the gender dimension of food security inequalities.

UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food comments on the V0 draft of the report on Reducing inequalities for food security and nutrition.

"I wish to congratulate the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE-FSN) for the excellent “0” Version of the report and would like to thank for the opportunity to provide some comments and contributions from a human rights perspective." - Michael Fakhri, UN SR on the Right to Food.

1. The V0 draft introduces a conceptual framework informed by key principles established in previous HLPE-FSN reports (HLPE, 2017; HLPE, 2020), including agency, equity and justice.

The proposed framework is effective to highlight and discuss the key issues about inequity and inequality for food security and nutrition. However, is extremely important when presenting the framework, to stress how human rights instruments such as Human rights treaties and in particular the International Covenant on Social Economic and Cultural rights can provide practical guide to policy makers to operationalize these principles. They are a means to ensure entitlements and measures to monitor their achievement. Also, instruments such as the most recently adopted UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and other People Working in Rural Areas, can provide a guide to incorporate norms and standards of agency, equity and justice into national laws and policies, in favour of those categories of people that are so important for the human right to food.

2. The report adopts the definition of food security, proposed by the HLPE-FSN in 2020, which includes six dimensions of food security: availability, access, utilization, stability, agency and sustainability.

In my reports I mentioned “structural inequalities” as a root cause of human rights violations. Human rights law requires not only focusing on people who are poor, vulnerable, or marginalized but more importantly to scrutinize how people are made poor, vulnerable, or marginalized.^[1]   

Coherently with the framework identified above, equity and justice are indispensable elements to achieve food security. Therefore, these two principles could be added as transversal pillars to grant food security and the right to food in a substantive way. As I underlined in my report, we should scrutinize how inequality is produced, as it is not a natural occurrence but is produced by systems, including food systems.

Ending any form of violence across the food system is also indispensable condition to grant food security in an interdependent world.

3. The report adopts definitions of inequalities, inequities, injustice, unfairness, exclusion, marginalization, discrimination, patriarchy, racism, colonialism, ableism, empowerment…

In my upcoming report to be presented to the Human Rights Council in March 2023 I am suggesting adding another form of violence, which is in turn a cause of inequality: “erasure”. Erasure can refer to the “practice of collective indifference that renders certain people and groups invisible”^[2]. It arises from the narratives that set and are produced by political agendas, raising questions such as, whose stories are taught and told and by whom? Whose knowledge and experience are prioritized? Whose struggles are recognized? Whose dead are mourned? 

4. The deeper layer of structural drivers fundamental to understanding inequity, including sociocultural, economic and political aspects are examined, as well as actions and policies to reduce inequalities that mirrors these layers of drivers.

In my upcoming report I am suggesting a link between violence and inequality as mutual supportive drivers.  Structural inequality has made mass amounts of people more vulnerable to violence; in turn, systemic violence has been a significant cause of structural inequality. This vicious cycle of structural inequality and systemic violence causes widespread human rights violations.^[3] Food systems not only produce food but also generate and amplify violence that makes people more poor, vulnerable, and marginalized. I also highlighted how the “dependency path” whereby many countries are made dependent on food or fertilizer import for their food security made them particularly vulnerable to stress, shock, and crisis. I suggest the dependency on fertilizers, included its harmful impact on human and soil health could be highlighted as a fragility to deal with in the chapter 6 of the HLPE: “Transformations necessary for positive structural change to reduce inequalities in FSN”, coherently with the mention of agroecology as a solution.

On behalf of the International Land Coalition (ILC) Secretariat, we congratulate the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition for the important initiative and for the opportunity on contributing with inputs.

ILC is a global alliance of civil society and intergovernmental organisations working together to put people at the centre of land governance. The shared goal of ILC’s 300+ members is to realise land governance for and with people at country level, responding to the needs and protecting the rights of women, men and communities who live on and from the land with a common goal: Secure land rights, responding to the needs and protecting the rights of those who live on and from the land.

We find the draft report to be comprehensive and it incorporates the importance of land rights and tenure security quite well in the context of FSN.

On page 45, in the section related to land inequality, certain aspects in relation to control over land can be further strengthened. For example, control over land and over value-chains, which bear implications on land ownership and use, are absent.  Further, the implication of financialization of land can be further improved. (reference: https://d3o3cb4w253x5q.cloudfront.net/media/documents/land_inequality_conceptual_paper_2020_11_unearthing_less_visible_trends_en_spr_lavhFDK.pdf
 

We refer your attention to chapter 3: financialization and land grabbing have serious implications on the right of smallholder farmers. This can be included in relevant sections on land inequality and land grabbing as well in the section relating to ‘’equalize access to food production resources.’’

We are looking forward to contribute on next steps, if needed.

All the best and good job!

Cristina (on behalf of the ILC Secretariat)

Mothers First Submission to the HLPE-FSN consultation on the V0 draft of the report 

Date 17th January 2023

Author: Pat Mc Mahon, Founding director and head of advocacy Mothers First

Web site Mothersfirstcharity.org; Contact [email protected]; @1worldnutrition

Overview of submission: 

This submission centres around acute hunger and is focused on the 1.9 billion people in fragile settings, which accounts for 74% of extreme poverty. Over 350 million people live in poverty so extreme that they have Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) phase 3 and above. The names tell the story very well. 

Crisis  IPC Phase 3

Emergency  IPC Phase 4

Catastrophic  IPC Phase 5 

For those of us who have seen extreme hunger, the hunger that kills every day will have no doubt that these women, children and men are the furthest behind people in our world. The Secretary-General and the entire United Nations System repeatedly tell of the unfolding humanitarian emergencies, yet that narrative is not getting through in any tangible way. 

This current draft paper under review highlights this very well, with the Sub Chapter in Chapter 2 of the report on fragility still needing to be written. Given that people in fragile settings represent almost 25% of the world's population, fragile settings have only been mentioned eight times in the report. 

The central reason for this is that the SOFI Report, which is the anchor point of both the CFS and this consultation, is mandated to look at chronic hunger. It is undoubtedly welcomed that SOFI 2022 clearly outlined this recommending the Global Report on Food Crisis as the corresponding report that deals with acute hunger. 

By the very nature of our individual needs for sustenance, the vulnerabilities within the spectrum of food security are compounded directly by the severity of the food insecurity we find ourselves in. Given the number of people living in fragile settings who are experiencing crisis to Catastrophic levels of food security, we strongly advocate for the need for acute food insecurity to be integrated in all seven chapters of the report. 

Submission format 

This submission is organised into seven chapters. The first chapter seeks to disentangle key components of the acute food security crisis by transcribing three pages from the Global Humanitarian Overview 2023 entitled Hundreds of millions of people face hunger as a historic food crisis looms. The preceding six chapters examine different dimensions of the 2023 overview. We will look at the practical interpretation of the food insecurity rating and the impact acute food security has on mortality and nutrition status. We will look at finance through the equity lens of the right to food and the chronic underfunding of Humanitarian Response Plans. 

We will also consider the equitable inclusion of all groups affected by food security within this draft report and the CFS Frameworks.  We will take a more in-depth look at the numbers and the genuine possibility of 2023 being a year where food security goes from an issue of distribution to one of overall availability. 

The paper will conclude with four key recommendations for this consultation. These recommendations will be framed within the overall framework of the CFS.

The world faces the possibility of a paradigm change from food as a distribution issue to a supply issue. Early reports from countries on cereal production in India, Argentina and Brazil are down. We hope this submission will help calibrate how acute hunger aligns with the CFS thematic workstream in inequalities.

Including equity and acute hunger in a meaningful way would show considerable leadership and prowess to help bring together the humanitarian Development divide and move forward the aspiration that so many of us hope of the Grand Bargain in 2016.  

https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/about-the-grand-bargain

This submission extensively references four key UN Documents which specifically deal with acute hunger.

• Global Report on Food Crisis 

https://reliefweb.int/report/world/global-report-food-crises-2022-mid-year-update

• Global Humanitarian Overview 2023   

https://reliefweb.int/report/world/global-humanitarian-overview-2023-enaresfr

• The Hunger Hotspot Report (October to Jan 2022/2023 edition 

Hunger Hotspots - FAO-WFP early warnings on acute food insecurity │October 2022 to January 2023 Outlook

• Summary of CFS/ UN General Assembly high-level special event 18th July 2022

https://www.fao.org/3/nk508en/nk508en.pdf

Please find the submission attached.

Dear HLPE Steering Committee and the Project Team,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the V0 Draft “Reducing inequalities for food security and nutrition”.

Please find attached a contribution from the Philanthropic Foundations Mechanism (Agroecology Fund, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Global Alliance for the Future of Food).

Yours sincerely,

Recognising the effort invested in preparing the comprehensive report, the European Food Banks Federation (FEBA) takes the opportunity of the request for feedback to share the following comments and thoughts:

- In the sub-chapter on Food retail environment planning and governance (p. 107), the aspect of food donation should be considered not only as an environmentally sensitive, business-friendly, and socially responsible alternative but also as a relevant driver to foster food security.

- Related to this, in the section on Transformative action: a holistic approach to climate and sustainability (p. 119f), any reference to the importance of reducing global food loss and waste quantities, and therewith their impact on climate change due to occurring GHG emissions, when envisaging sustainable food systems is missing.

- Taking into account the aspects above, the relevance of Food Banks' activities, especially the recovery and redistribution of perfectly edible surplus food occurring at all stages of the food supply chain, should be mentioned as an effective means to reduce food insecurity while preventing food waste.

Please find attached the full contribution of the European Food Banks Federation.

Please find attached comments from the Migration & Food Security (MiFOOD) Network and the Hungry Cities Partnership

On behalf of the International Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF), we have a few additional points to add to the recommendations we posted last week. These are in relation to the discussion on pages 79-80 on ‘Fisheries policy and investment’, in order to indicate the breadth of the topic:

1. Millions on people depend on fisheries and related trades – most of these are in small-scale fisheries. The emphasis of governments on industrialization and large-scale fisheries is negatively impacting SSF and their food security through (a) depletion of inshore resources (which is mentioned); (b) accumulation by the few at the expense of the many; (c) pollution that is affecting marine and inland ecosystems;
2. The incidence of ‘ocean grab’ and ‘coastal grab’, which reduces the life chances and food security of SSF (see related references below) through blue economy developments (meaning privatization) along the coast.
3. Distant water fleets which affect inequality between nations (particularly between the Global North and South);
4. There is a great deal of literature on the contribution of aquatic foods to food security and nutrition, including of the poor, which can be drawn upon. Shakuntala Thilsted’s (winner of the 2021 World Food Prize) is one example. FAO also has a report on small, low-cost fish for food security and nutrition that is coming out in 2023.
5. The role of fishers’ movements (locally, nationally and internationally) in addressing not only sustainability issues in fisheries, but inequality issues too.

Related References

• Brent, Z., Barbesgaard, M., & Pedersen, C. (2018). The Blue Fix: Unmasking the politics behind the promise of blue growth.
• Bavinck, M., F. Berkes, A. Charles, C. Esteves Dias, P. Nayak, M. Sowman (2017). The impact of coastal grabbing on community conservation – a global reconnaissance. Maritime Studies (MAST), 16:8.
• Bavinck, M., Ahern, M., Hapke, H.M., Johnson, D.S., Kjellevold, M., Kolding, J., Overå, R. & Schut, T., eds. (2023). Small, low-cost fish for food and nutrition security. Technical Paper. Rome, FAO.
• Bennett, N. J., Govan, H., & Satterfield, T. (2015). Ocean grabbing. Marine Policy, 57, 61-68.
• Mills, E. N. (2018). Implicating ‘fisheries justice’ movements in food and climate politics. Third World Quarterly, 39(7), 1270-1289.
• Mills, E. N. (2021). The politics of transnational fishers' movements. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 1-26.

Attached, please read the official CSIPM's comments on the Zero Draft of the HLPE report. The overarching comment please read below. 

Overall comment

The Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples Mechanism (CSIPM) once more reconfirms its recognition of the relevance the report “Reducing Inequalities for food security and nutrition” has. We welcome the fact that the CFS addresses this issue, being informed by an HLPE report on this topic. We recognize the general direction of the zero draft and its recognition of growing inequalities and that inequalities exist on many different levels throughout and beyond food systems (e.g. between and within nations) as well as the different histories of the marginalization and colonization of certain countries, regions, and populations.

However, the zero draft should be more explicit in the role of neoliberalism in deepening and sustaining inequalities of class, social status or caste within countries and widening the gap among countries. We therefore suggest locating the contradictions generated by capitalism and the current neoliberal model. Because the overarching issue lies in fact that the very nature of the neoliberal economic system is based on maximizing profit for shareholders rather than collective respect for the needs of people and planet and the governance thereof. Moreover, the financialization of our food systems remains a highly unaddressed issue, even though speculation and unregulated agricultural markets have been shown to cause hunger and inaccessible food prices. The Covid-19 pandemic has shown how it continues to concentrate income and wealth from the exploitation of people and natural resources.

During the pandemic it has been made evident how current models of production and consumption are based on the concentration of wealth and income. While hunger and poverty are rampant and workers can take up to 20 years to recover the purchasing power of their wages, the wealthiest private sectors – also in the food and agricultural sector – have made exorbitant profits. Since 1995, the top 1% have gained almost 20 times more of global wealth than the bottom 50% of humanity. The Pandemic has worsened inequalities with wealth of the 10 richest men doubling while the income of 99% of humanity are worse off. As a response, 73 countries face prospect of IMF backed austerity measures, risking worsening inequalities between countries and in countries.

Considering increased inequalities in and between countries, the report should include as central areas redistribution measures and fiscal policies. Important proposals and practices in this regard are debt cancellation, progressive taxes on capital and wealth, tax evasion, common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, windfall taxes on exceptional profits in times of crises, subsidies, overseas development aid, as well as measures to redistribute power in decision-making and power in the economy. A strong alternative is the social and solidarity economy that focuses on collective rather than individual wealth and human rights (including the right to food). Social and solidarity economies embrace cooperatives and other forms of collective creation of wealth with the voices of the constituencies playing a key and determining role, it provides both agency and empowerment. Therefore we encourage the HLPE to define social and solidarity economy within their report, taking into consideration the ILO's Conference Conclusions on Decent work and Social and Solidarity Economy and the support it has gotten by Secretary General António Guterres.

Before sharing our detailed comments below, sorted by chapter, we would like to point out some overarching comments about the conceptual framework.

We highly appreciate that the “engine of inequity” has a rights-based approach as its basis where food insecurity and malnutrition are seen as injustices for which duty-bearers are accountable. We also recognize the attempt to bring social justice into the framework.

However, from our point of view, the conceptual framework contains some shortcomings. First, the language that has been used reinforces systems of inequity. For example while referring to “the poor “ or “poor populations” instead of people with low incomes or low wealth populations. Therefore, a more inclusive language that puts people first should be used. Second, intersectionality should be considered as an aspect of critical race theory in terms of looking at the concepts of race and racism, and the construction of social, political, legal structures, institutional systems and the power distribution that impact food and nutrition security. It is important to act systemically and consider intersectionality, with effective institutions capable of guaranteeing rights, particularly the human right to adequate food and nutrition, and of strengthening social protection, food reserves and other inclusive strategies. The report should be looking at the processes of racialization which are wrongly ascribed to racism here. By influencing these structures and changing them is where the greatest long term real impact can occur. Racism generally means believing that a person's behavior is determined by stable inherited characteristics deriving from separate racial stocks; each of these distinctive attributes is then evaluated in relation to ideas of superiority and inferiority. This implies that there is a social construction in which certain groups of people are superior to others. This social construction is the result of social, economic, and political factors that have ascribed power to some groups, while leaving others powerless. As such the report should be looking at both Racialization and Racism. By influencing these structures and changing them is where the greatest long term real impact can occur.

A comprehensive analysis of the institutional roles and responsibilities to ensure the realization of human rights is required, from local authorities up to the global level, as well as between types of actors (executive, legislative and judiciary powers, rights holders), in which strengthening the judiciary powers to protect rights must be particularly considered.

Representation is an aspect of participation and not interchangeable. Participation and representation are two fundamental elements and principles of democracy. They affirm that a democracy is dependent on its citizens and those most impacted by systems of inequities and that this ownership is expressed through meaningful participation by and representation of all citizens and people in democratic institutions and processes.

Dear colleagues, please kindly find below the inputs from the World Farmers’ Organisation Working Group on Food Security:

WORLD FARMERS’ ORGANISATION             Tel: +39 06 421291 - C.F:97662560586

Via del Tritone, 102 - 00187 Rome (IT) [email protected] - Pec: [email protected]