We have read the report with great interest and found the approaches to the global problem of food security and nutrition both novel and fruitful. The writing is clear and well- structured. We look forward to the final version with recommendations. It should be added that this reviewer has not read the background reports, on which the descriptions are largely based.
Multiple solutions tailored to specific contexts (p.39) are called for, but there is a risk that the complexity of the system prevents concrete action recommendations. The report addresses the SDG Zero Hunger, but extends its scope to include overweight, obesity and malnutrition. This is fine, since a full picture of the problems connected to FSN is needed, and a global narrative part of the mission, but also problematic, since the actions needed to solve the different problems differ.
The presentation leans heavily on agroecology and agroeclogical solutions as a pathway forward. It can be argued that advanced technology, biotech, new energy solutions, and other technological innovations are more promising. Large-scale agriculture and marketing have led to lower food prices, and increased quantities of food will still be needed, even if losses and waste must be reduced rapidly. Needless to say, all solutions have to be put in a social and economic context.
The complexity of the system and the challenges it faces can be overwhelming and lead to an inability to act. There is a risk that recommendations will be regarded as too specific, and not solving all the problems identified. A recommendation is to look into research on how to handle wicked problems.
1)
COMMENT: Food Security and Nutrition is a crucial global issue and essential to human health and well-being. The four original dimensions are established and undisputed. Surely, a focus on production and quantity has come naturally, not least since farmers are paid for quantity of products of a defined minimum level of quality. A change in perspective will bring problems, not least when it comes to measurement.
The addition of Agency is tied to capacity, capability and knowledge on behalf of the consumer/household. It seems straightforward. There is, however, a slight problem with the sentence on Agency in Box 1:
Individuals or groups having the capacity to act independently and make free choices about what they eat and how that food is produced, processed, and distributed.
Should it say: “…have insight into how that food is produced, processed, and distributed.”?
That calls for knowledge and transparency, and together with the concept “freedom of choice” could be replaced by “free and functioning market”.
Compare Figure 1, where Agency connects to all people and food preferences. One could argue that free choice, meeting individual preferences, can also mean “wrong choice”. Although knowledge does not necessarily lead to rational decisions, the role of education and knowledge should be stressed.
The sixth addition, Sustainability, is problematic. The report usually defines Sustainability as an ecological concept, sometimes social but seldom economic. FSN requires Sustainability, but Sustainability includes FSN, if the triple bottom line definition of sustainability is used. Social sustainability must include access to good food. Also, other SDG: s could be addressed.
As an answer to the question: Yes, the framework addresses the key issues of FSN, but Agency should be clarified. And think carefully about where Sustainability comes in; a suggestion is that this concept is more clearly considered in the re-writing of the report.
2)
COMMENT: The shifts are nicely laid out in Table 1. Systems thinking and addressing the complexity are necessary, but may also lead to an inability to act. Figures of systems, like Figure 3, need careful explanation, to reach the purpose. How is a single system defined? It is important that the report is introduced as a map, a credible basis of description, and not a statistical fact sheet. The dilemma is that the complexity can lead to an inability to act. Numerous examples must be added, for an understanding.
3)
COMMENT: 14 trends are identified, without grouping or structure, and why are they not called drivers? It could be useful to refer to Figure 3 here, or models of intelligence, where the external environment is are usually divided into political, economic, social, technological, environmental, legal. They could be presented through a supply chain from agriculture, inputs and production, processing, consumption. As it is, they are listed without a clear thought, and also not in any hierarchy. The report does not state the relative importance of the trends. Surely, conflicts, war and corruption are the most severe and difficult to tackle, and lack of economic growth the main reason for weak development. The role of trade and agricultural policy, subsidies, restrictions and regulations, are underestimated.
Box 2 lists numerous “challenges and vulnerabilities” but these are not clearly connected to the 14 trends and would need grouping and a lot of editing to stand as a good overview of relevant drivers. Again, there is no hierarchy in the listings, but all bullet points are seen as equally important. Although the trends are focusing on challenges and vulnerabilities, it would be refreshing to see some hopeful examples of development (Factfulness by Rosling recommended).
4)
COMMENT: The cases are crucial but few, with examples - some of them controversial - from Malawi, India, Brazil and China put forward. As a balance to the bleak trends, more examples of pathways are needed. A systematic search in databases would give fruitful results.
5)
COMMENT: More emphasis could be put on the importance of property rights, not only intellectual ones. The difficulties with participation and implementing agreements should be explained and stressed.
Some details: The expressions Global north and Global south are controversial.
The reference list needs a careful check; Lamy 2013 is lacking, FAO, 2014, top of p. 35 should be 2019? It is difficult to find SOFA 2012 and 2019, since they are hidden under FAO
In a more popular and widespread version, some of the detailed references could be left out. The final report deserves a wide audience.
Lena Ekelund Axelson