Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

Dear HLPE Steering Committee,

In addition, please see below comments specifically in relation to the case study of ZBNF.

Re: the potential policy pathways forward section 4.1 Availability – focuses initiatives

The government of India in its recently presented Union budget for the year 2020-2021 has recommended adoption of ZBNF as one of the practices for sustainable cropping. So, this is being promoted not just in few states of India but nationwide. Research evidence suggests that ZBNF reduces the cost of inputs (biological) when compared to inputs (chemical) under non-ZBNF for paddy, maize, groundnut, cotton, tomato and Bengal gram. Annual subsidy savings from adoption of ZBNF varies from USD 72 million to UD 290 million depending on the total cropped area in Andhra Pradesh shifting to ZBNF (25% of total cropped area in the former and 100% area in the latter)

Government of India Union Budget 2020-2021 [Internet]. Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, India. [cited 2020 Feb 20]. Available from: https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/doc/Budget_Speech.pdf

Galab S, Prudhvikar Reddy P, Sree Rama Raju D, Ravi C and Rajani A. 2019. Impact Assessment of Zero Budget Natural Farming in Andhra Pradesh – Kharif 2018-19. A comprehensive Approach using Crop Cutting Experiments. Hyderabad: Centre for Economic and Social Studies

Niti Gupta, Saurabh Tripathi, and Hem Himanshu Dholakia. 2020. Can Zero Budget Natural Farming Save Input Costs and Fertiliser Subsidies? Evidence from Andhra Pradesh. New Delhi: Council on Energy, Environment and Water

Smith et al. (2020) Potential yield challenges to scale-up of zero budget natural farming. Nature Sustainability Jan 2020. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0469-x

All the best,

Kerry, on behalf of the SHEFS consortium Indian partners: Dr Nikhil Srinivasapura Venkateshmurthy and Dr Sailesh Mohan, Public Health Foundation of India & Centre for Chronic Conditions and Injuries, India

Kerry Ann Brown

PhD, ANutr, FHEA

Assistant Professor

London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine

Dear HLPE Steering Committee,

Re: Contribution to the HLPE Consultation on the V0 draft of the Report "Food security and nutrition: building a global narrative towards 2030" from the Sustainable and Healthy Food Systems programme of research (SHEFS).

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this interesting and timely draft report. Please see attached and below a response from the SHEFS team to each of the consultation questions. We have provided relevant material, evidence-based suggestions, references, and concrete examples wherever possible to supplement or complement the current statements in the draft report. We have a number of papers currently under review or in preparation and would be more than happy to send on as soon as they are published or provide advanced copies as and when required. Please do not hesitate to contact myself or any other member of the team If you require any further information or contributions to writing.

• We support the inclusion of sustainability as an additional dimension to define food security and nutrition, as well as the benefits of using a food systems approach for research, policy and practice. The below references emphasise these statements and provide evidence on the impact of climate change on food security.

• Scheelbeek et al (2018). Effect of environmental changes on vegetable and legume yields and nutritional quality. PNAS, 115 (26) 6804-6809 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1800442115

• Alae-Carew et al. (2020). The impact of environmental changes on the yield and nutritional quality of fruits, nuts and seeds: a systematic review. Environmental Research Letters, 15(2) https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab5cc0

• Scheelbeek et al (2020, under review BMJ). Resilience of UK fruit and vegetable supply: environmental threats to the supply of “5-a-day” Conclusion: “Given projected climate change, increased reliance on fruit and vegetable imports from climate vulnerable countries could negatively affect the availability, price and consumption of fruit and vegetables in the UK. This may have a particular impact on the dietary intake and health of vulnerable groups in the UK including older people and low-income households. Inter-sectoral actions across agriculture, health, environment, and trade are critical in both the UK and countries that export to the UK to increase the resilience of the food system and ensure population health.”

• We fully support a move from focusing on quantity of food to quality of food; considering all forms of malnutrition (over-/under-nutrition and micronutrient deficiencies); the importance of situational context; and need for a less siloed, broader (food) systems approach. The section on evolution of policy approaches is currently less clear and below may be useful in terms of case studies and research gaps:

• Greater research required on the integration of sustainability and health evidence i.e., metrics and analytics to incorporate environmental and health risk analyses. In addition, to bring together evidence from different sources and consider multiple perspectives via the use of agency developing participatory methods, multi-criteria decision analyses, and equilibrium models

e.g., De Luca (2017). Life cycle tools combined with multi-criteria and participatory methods for agricultural sustainability: Insights from a systematic and critical review. Science of the Total Environment, 595: 352-370 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.2840048-9697

e.g., Jensen et al. (2019). Palm oil and dietary change: Application of an integrated macroeconomic, environmental, demographic, and health modelling framework for Thailand. Food Policy, 83:92-103 doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.12.003

e.g., Nesheim et al. (2015). A Framework for Assessing Effects of the Food System. https://doi.org/10.17226/18846

• Additional text recognising the challenges of policy implementation and evaluation e.g., barriers and facilitators to policy coherence or achieving the SDGs/agenda 2030. In particular why a systems approach is preferred: to take into account the dynamic nature of food systems, the available governance infrastructure, as well as the interrelated actors, interventions, outcomes and unintended consequences

e.g., Hawkes et al. Brief 1. Tackling Food Systems Challenges: The Role of Food Policy. In: Rethinking Food Policy: A Fresh Approach to Policy and Practice. London: Centre for Food Policy, 2019.

e.g., Parsons et al. Brief 2. What is the food system? A Food policy perspective. In: Rethinking Food Policy: A Fresh Approach to Policy and Practice. London: Centre for Food Policy, 2019

e.g., Egan et al. Guidance on Systems Approaches to Local Public Health Evaluation Part 1: Introducing systems thinking. NIHR School of Public Health, 2019

e.g., Brown et al. (in preparation 2020). Integrating food system policies to achieve Sustainable Development Goals: A scoping review of opportunities in India

• The section on policy approaches could provide more detail on the role of the food environment and policy pathways at different levels: the role of both systemic and individual behaviour change policies/interventions. Case studies can include country initiatives to incorporate sustainability into food-based dietary guidelines or sustainability food labelling as examples of sustainability focused initiatives as well as any challenges in implementation

e.g., The socio-ecological model as an example of a theoretical model, most recently used by the Nordic Nutrition Recommendation setting body to discuss their approach to setting Dietary Reference Values and Food Based Dietary Guidelines: Meltzer (2019). Environmental Sustainability Perspectives of the Nordic Diet. Nutrients, 11, 2248; doi:10.3390/nu11092248

e.g., The current development of the Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2022 or past Netherlands, Canada, Brasil, Australia and New Zealand FBDG, which exemplifies the challenges and benefits of considering health and the environment concurrently e.g., the reactions to the EAT-Lancet Planetary Plate (impact on global livelihoods) or industry/political manipulation of guideline development. Carey (2015). Opportunities and challenges in developing a whole-of- government national food and nutrition policy: lessons from Australia’s National Food Plan, Public Health Nutrition: 19(1), 3–14, doi:10.1017/S1368980015001834

e.g., Tobi et al. (2019). Sustainable Diet Dimensions. Comparing Consumer Preference for Nutrition, Environmental and Social Responsibility Food Labelling: A Systematic Review. Sustainability, 11(23), 6575; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236575

e.g., Brown et al. (in preparation 2020) What is the future for sustainability food labelling?

• Additional comments,

• Please recognise the role of underutilised crops in sections referring to diversity of cropping systems and trend to industrialised farms or monoculture.
• Figure on P11 referring to sustainability may benefit from a definition that explicitly references ecology or the environment. The difference between stability and sustainability is currently not intuitive.
• P14 reference to links between SDGs can be emphasised throughout the report. SDG2 cannot be achieved in isolation from a number of other SDGs, and has particular relevance to SDG3 good health and wellbeing; SDG 6 clean water and sanitation; SDG 10 reduced inequality; SDG 11 sustainable cities and communities and SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production).
• P15 figure 3. ‘quality of diets’ could either specify nutritional quality or represent both nutritional quality and food safety quality (aka to include quality assurance etc.).
• The identified trends are all of importance and could be condensed to provide greater impact. For example, section 3.4 The role of smallholder farms (P21) could be integrated into Section 3.6 Expansion and disruption in food and agriculture markets (P23) with also Section 3.10 growing concentration in agri-food supply chains (P26)? Or Section 3.2 (P19) could be combined with 3.3 (P3.3) to represent variability and uncertainty of climates as well as climate change.
• Consider referencing the sustainable city initiatives as a way to combat the demography changes referenced in section 3.1 (P18).
• Additional reference to support changing dietary patterns in LMIC: Law et al. (2019). Purchase trends of processed foods and beverages in urban India. Global Food Security, 23:191-204 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2019.05.007
• Additional reference for examples of digital revolution: Kayatz (2019). Cool Farm Tool Water: A global on-line tool to assess water use in crop production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 207:1163-1179, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.304 0048-9
• There is some repetition in the use of the case studies. For example, the Indian Right to Food can be combined with the NFSA, as they are explicitly linked: The NFSA was introduced following a landmark ‘right to food campaign’, which began in Nov 2001. The Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) filed a writ petition to the Court, citing that the right to food is an essential part of the right to life provided in Article 21 of the Constitution (PUCL vs Union of India and Others, Writ Petition [Civil] 196 of 2001, Rajasthan). Over a number of hearings, the ‘right to food campaign’ resulted in the Court making an order for eight food subsidy programmes to become legal entitlements under the Public Distribution System, whereby programme beneficiaries would be able to seek judicial redress if and when rights are violated. The voluntary Mid-Day Meal Scheme became an obligation for all states to provide cooked meals at schools; and the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS, assistance to pregnant/nursing women and children) were ordered to improve by integrating nutrition initiatives. The National Food Security Act, 2013 has become an umbrella legislation that leads all food-based initiatives to protect the Indian population’s food security and right to food.

Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to this consultation and very warm wishes for the revisions.

All the best,

Kerry, on behalf of the SHEFS consortium (including, Rosemary Green, Cécile Knai, Pauline Scheelbeek, Andy Haines and Alan Dangour)

PhD, ANutr, FHEA

Assistant Professor

London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine

Dear Sir or Madam

The Swiss Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG) appreciates the opportunity to provide input on the HLPE V0 draft report 2020: “Food Security and nutrition: building a global narrative towards 2030”.

We would like to congratulate the HLPE for the V0 draft report. The conceptual analysis on FSN is very comprehensive and is covering the main dimensions affecting FSN outcomes.

Our main focus for improvement of the report, concerns the stronger linking between the six dimensions of food security and between the realization of SDGs and FSN dimensions.

We have some suggestions for change and additions for your consideration and have structured our contribution along the five questions of the e-consultation. Please find our comments and inputs attached.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further question.

Best regards

Madeleine Kaufmann

Dear HLPE Colleagues,

Kindly find below and in the attached documents WFP’s inputs to the V0 draft of the report “Food Security and Nutrition: Building a Global Narrative Towards 2030”:

• While the HLPE framework includes the food environment and economic access (affordability) of diets as part of the food systems, in the “current trends and challenges section” of the draft report this concept is not reflected. We believe the chapter on current trends and challenges would benefit from including a section on cost and affordability as important determinant of food choices. Language for this new proposed section can be found in the attached Word document and we remain at disposal to exchange with the writing team or support with any information may be needed.
• In addition, the V0 draft of the report does not clearly explain the role of external food environments. It explains the role of personal food environments such as accessibility and affordability, but not so much the role of retail and commercial markets and the role of marketing and advertising, particularly to children and the influence this has on dietary choices and subsequently nutrition status. Section 3.6 does mention the expansion and disruption in food and agriculture markets, but this is mainly from the angle of international trade and industrialisation of the food supply, and does not really discuss/touch upon the other drivers and influences of food systems.
• Another aspect that is only briefly discussed is the role that dietary changes, as a result of the nutrition transition, has on climate change and vice versa. Perhaps, this has not been included due to the lack of evidence in this area.
• The sections “Climate change” (page 19) and “Changing demand balance between food/feed/fuel” (page 22) mention agriculture and food systems having a crucial role to play in mitigating climate change and the increasing demand for meat, which leads to use of land for feeding of livestock rather than of humans. This is however not reflected or tackled in the section ‘POTENTIAL POLICY PATHWAYS FORWARD (starting on page 32). We believe that if we are serious about having sustainable food systems we need to look at them from a global point of view, understanding that meat mass production is very resource-heavy and already having an impact on our environment (e.g. Brazil soy/beef example). Beyond a question of justice in terms of use of resources and emissions by the developed vs the developing worlds, we cannot expect countries to develop sustainably (with continuously growing populations) if we foresee them taking the same traditional pathway that moves out of agricultural production for humans to serve a growing demand for meat (as is happening in China). Ideally, advocacy at the global level should help developing countries leapfrog to a state where they do not need to pass through that phase to learn the lesson that agriculture should not be abandoned and instead prioritized (this is dealt with a bit in section “Declining public sector investment in agriculture”, page 27), but they are already (as they increase their meat production to a sustainable level) looking at other ways to feed an increasingly growing population in a way that does not strain local and global resources (pulses, alternative protein sources, less water-intensive meat production).
• Finally, the V0 draft of the report appears to be written in a very academic style, with lots of repetition throughout that could be condensed.

Many thanks and best regards,

Jacopo

Dear HLPE Steering team.

Please find attached some comments from The International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods (ICMSF) on the V0 draft of the HLPE Report on Food Security and Nutrition – Building a Global Narrative.

The Commission is happy to share (even at draft versions stages) our relevant opinion papers and our forthcoming book on the topic, in an effort to provide thought leadership to policy makers and other stakeholders, into the development of appropriate risk-based microbiological criteria and other risk management options as well as food safety management.

Kind regards.

Leon Gorris

Secretary of ICMSF (www.ICMSF.org)

The Netherlands

Dear HLPE team,

Please find attached New Zealand’s comments on the V0 draft of the HLPE Report on Food Security and Nutrition – Building a Global Narrative.

Kind regards,

Don Syme

Thanks for giving us opportunity to comment the draft. Attached are comments from the Sida funded programme Agriculture for Food Security 2030

Best regards

Assoc. Prof. Sofia Boqvist, Programme director AgriFoSe2030

Dear HLPE report 15 moderators,

I have read the HLPE report # 15 with interest and note that fish, fisheries and fisherfolk are mentioned 6, 3 and 1 time respectively.

This is surprising when one considers that in many South East Asian countries fish contributes over 50% of the animal protein consumed. Capture fisheries are in serious decline (marine and inland) and aquaculture (including rice-fish) is perceived to be the solution to dwindling fish supplies. In terms of nutritious food production integrated agriculture with best management practices for water, land, fish and crop management has shown to double profitability per unit area while delivering nutritious food in the form of rice, fish and vegetables free of pesticide residues as they are no longer applied. I attach publications.

Most of the animal protein and essential oils in fish feeds comes from the Peruvian anchovy fishery http://www.chinafeedonline.com.hk/taxonomy/term/13/?CFO . If more than the current 11% of the 1.3 million metric ton anchovy catch was used for direct human consumption (instead of fish and pig feed) many of the nutrition problems (including micro-nutrient deficiencies) in sub-Saharan Africa could be solved by the use of a fish-powder sprinkle on the carbohydrate staples.

Globally, more than 250 million people depend directly on fisheries and aquaculture for their livelihoods and millions are employed in fisheries and aquaculture value chains in roles such as processing or marketing. In addition fish provides more than one billion poor people with most of their daily animal protein. https://www.worldfishcenter.org/why-fish

Perhaps more reference to fish, fisheries and their contribution to improved human nutrition could be included.

Many thanks.

Best wishes,

Mike Akester

Dear Sirs,

We would like to share our vision on Food security and nutrition: building a global narrative towards 2030 - HLPE consultation on the V0 draft of the Report.

We send the document in Spanish and English.

Yvonne Colomer

Director Triptolemos Foundation

Dear Madam, Sir,

Herewith I send you my contribution for the HLPE consultation on the V0 draft of the report.

Your sincerely,

Stephan A. Bult

Independent researcher

Genova, Italy