Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)


New Food System Integrated Program to support the transformation of food systems into nature-positive, resilient, and pollution free system

The world continues to face challenges to meet food and nutrition needs of existing 8 billion people equitably, and to ensure that nature, on which food production is based, is protected and enhanced to meet needs of future generation. Currently, at least 38% of the world’s total land area is under agriculture[i] production, and agricultural production accounts for up to 90% of global deforestation[ii]; and 50% of the freshwater biodiversity loss[iii]; and 70% of global freshwater withdrawals[iv]. According to a new study, food systems about third of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions[v]). The consequences of unsustainable food production extend into aquatic systems. This makes agriculture the largest source of water pollution, which then runs off into aquatic ecosystems and coastal areas.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of UN (FAO) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) are developing a global program to support selected nations to catalyze the transformation to sustainable food systems that are nature-positive, resilient, and pollution-reduced. This program – Food Systems Integrated Program – will be funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and co-financed by countries, GEF agencies and other partners. The Food Systems Integrated Program is the second largest program approved in the GEF’s programming cycle for 2022 – 2026, known as GEF-8. FAO and IFAD aim to align the program with the outcomes of the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit and collaborate with partners, such as the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, the Nature Conservancy, and the Regional Development Banks to deliver greater results.

The Food Systems Integrated Program will focus explicitly on sustainable, regenerative, nature positive production systems and support efficient value/supply chains covering selected food crops (maize, rice, and wheat), commercial commodities (soy, oil palm, coffee and cocoa), livestock, and aquaculture.

To maximize potential for transformative change, the Program will operate at two levels -global and selected national/sub-national levels - and promote work around transformational “levers” (governance and policies, financial leverage, multi-stakeholder dialogues, and innovation and learning) for advancing systems transformation.

At the global level, the Program will support:

  • Strengthening global policy coherence for more sustainable food systems.
  • Leveraging public, private and financial sectors through encouraging concrete actions on both the production and demand sides toward use and expansion of sustainability standards and commitments to environmental and socially responsible sourcing.
  • Catalyzing new opportunities across spatial (landscapes/ jurisdictions) or vertical (supply chain) dimensions to help maximize scale potential for impact within and beyond national boundaries.
  • Catalyzing access to knowledge, technical expertise, and capacity development on issues that represent common challenges across multiple countries or specific geographical regions (including south-south exchanges).

At the country level, and depending on the context, the objectives of the projects are:

  • Creating an enabling environment to shift toward sustainable and regenerative food production systems through a diversity of approaches.
  • Reducing livestock’s impact on the environment and contribution to zoonotic spillover and supporting production of alternative protein sources.
  • Expanding investment in sustainable aquaculture management that is explicitly linked to land-based practices, impacting freshwater and coastal marine ecosystems.


As a part of program development, FAO and IFAD, in consultation with the GEF and other key partners have developed the Theory of Change (TOC) and the Draft Results Framework for the Program. 

The Food Systems Integrated Program development team invites your views and suggestions on these two documents.

Theory of Change:

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


Draft Results Framework:

Are the Outcomes planned appropriate and adequate for food systems transformation?
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?
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.
  • Successful examples of public-private partnerships for food systems transformation.
  • Research gaps or innovations on food systems transformation for global environmental and climate benefits.

Note: The two documents are available for downloading on this webpage and comments are welcome in English.

The inputs received will contribute to finalize the Theory of Change and the Results Framework for the Food Systems Integrated Program. Furthermore, both documents will be presented to the GEF Council, most probably in June 2023 for their approval and these will guide country child projects in Argentina, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Chad, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Eswatini, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tanzania and Türkiye.

We thank in advance all the contributors for reading, commenting, providing inputs on these two documents, and sharing case studies.

Sameer Karki

Technical Officer with the FAO-GEF Coordination Unit under the Office of Climate Change, Biodiversity and Environment of FAO

This activity is now closed. Please contact [email protected] for any further information.

* Click on the name to read all comments posted by the member and contact him/her directly
  • Read 64 contributions
  • Expand all

Few observations that can impact FS

1.Urbanization is resulting in reduction in land available for cultivation.

2. Continuous enhancement in population to asking more land for development

3. Vertical expansion in urban development can decrease encroachment of land intended for agriculture.

4. Extraordinary enhancement land prices making farmers abandon agriculture which is less profitable in nature for so many factors that influence production namely 1. Water scarcity 2. Climate changes 3. Fluctuating prices 4. Lack of sustainable financial resources. These issues needs special attention for betterment of FS

5.Use of AI in accurate weather forecasting and dissemination of outcome to agri-farmers, aquaculturists and animal husbandry wherever farming takes place, irrespective of large and small scale levels. 

One of the major barriers is absence of Financial Literacy among marginal farmers, especially women across all sectors of agriculture, animal husbandry and aquaculture.

The absence of Financial Literacy felt in different ways.

1.  Management of glut production 

2.  Obtaining and repayment of loans

3. Managing variable sources of income

Three important factors that influence / that are needed for sustainable FS included

1.Employment of AI system

2. Financial literacy

3. Development  and introduction of weather doctoring technologies

Successful Scientific case study

Iron-Enriched Fish Powder Improved Haemoglobin Levels in Adolescent Girls of West Jaintia Hills District of Meghalaya, India (2002). Asha Kurukkan Kunnath, Suseela Mathew, Mukteswar Prasad Mothadaka, Ravishankar Chandragiri Nagaraja Rao. Biological trace element research 2022 v.200 no.5 pp. 2017-2024.


1. One of the extremely serious health implications, especially in adolescent girls and expectant mothers is low levels of haemoglobins. Despite so many attempts the problem is not solved completely.

2. During fishing operations (marine) significant quantities of unwanted and very low priced fish gets into fishing nets. These fish catches left outside fishing harbours are sources of pollution and when in degradation spread diseases too. At times these catches are used as poultry feed purposes. One of the best methods of utilization is making these catches into powered form that could be preserved for longer periods of time when prepared in hygienic conditions by scientific methods. These powered fish can be used in various value added products that included soup to meet protein requirements of people living in hinterland regions, who are undernourished and are economically underprivileged to afford expensive food items.

The study

This study was carried out to assess the efficacy of sodium iron EDTA (NaFeEDTA) salt-enriched fish powder in addressing iron deficiency in adolescent anaemic girls. This was a 60-day randomised double-blinded, controlled intervention trial involving 123 girls age ranging from 10 to 19 years in three villages of West Jaintia Hills District of State of Meghalaya in India using soup made out of sodium iron EDTA (NaFeEDTA)-enriched fish powder (250 mg/100 g). The influence of the iron-enriched powder on blood haemoglobin levels and serum iron was determined. The research also analysed the food consumed by the study subjects during the study period and it was found that there were no significant differences between the iron-enriched and control groups. The results indicated that the girls predominantly consumed cereals with little fruits, vegetables and meat. On an average, 100 ml of soup prepared out of 10 g of fish powder per day was consumed that theoretically provided about 25 mg of iron each day. Following intervention, all the participants in the group that consumed soup made out of NaFeEDTA-enriched fish powder had significantly higher haemoglobin levels and serum iron and a lower prevalence of anaemia than the control group. The effects of NaFeEDTA salt-enriched fish powder were statistically significant and it can be inferred that NaFeEDTA-enriched fish powder was highly effective in controlling iron deficiency and reducing the prevalence of iron-deficiency anaemia among the adolescent girls

Dear FSN Sameer sir good afternoon.

I am engaging long time in agriculture's media sector, how I can contribution my role in agriculture sectors promotion. I came from yet still Agriculture family background. I recognize the about the agriculture value how is important for man. I wish in terms of play role in agriculture sector from my side. Many many thanks for giving me opportunity space in consultation.

Please find my contribution attached.

Dhanbahadur Magar

Chief Editor : Agriculture Journal monthly magazine

Program presenter : Agriculture base, Talk show program 'Our Agriculture, Our culture'

Program presenter : Indigenous ethnicity, mother Tongue, ''kanug vejha" In Indigenous Television Nepal

Informal  : Researcher and commercialization : Pepino melon fruit first time in Nepal 

Meseret Tsegaye Haile

Dear Program Development Teams,
Thank you very much for giving us a chance to give our inputs. We found both the Theory of change and Result framework are well drafted. Please find attached our few inputs on the theory of change and result framework. Hope it helps.  

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?

Yes indeed, they are barriers of Ethiopian food system too. But, a few barriers to add: -

  • Lack of access to agricultural and rural financial services
  • Weak land ownership infrastructure
  • Inadequate access to agricultural inputs & technologies
  • lack of adoption of agroecological practices

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

Yes, they are appropriate.

Questions on the proposed Result Framework

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

Yes, they are appropriate.

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?

  • A few interventions to add: -
  • Crop, Horticulture & Livestock to improve diversified diet (Outcome-1.1)
  • Land use planning, land reform, massive tree planting initiatives (Outcome-1.2)
  • Establish a finance system for farmers to access credit get insurance services and offer farmers financial literacy (Outcome 2.2).
  • Introduce resource planning integrated landscape and watershed management (Outcome 3.2.)
  • Strengthened climate smart livestock value chains (Outcome 3.3.)

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

  • Local government to create conducive environment in the implementation of overall food system transformation.
  • Development partners support financially & technically in the formulation of frameworks, generation of evidences, design various projects/programs.
  • Private sectors involved in the generation and provision of different technologies and innovations vital for the production, transportation and processing of foods along the value chain.
  • CSOs in the promotion and advocacy the food system to the public and the community at large.
  • Academia/Research in the generation of technologies and practices
Meseret (Mr.)

Dear Mr. Sameer Karki

Technical Officer with the FAO-GEF Coordination Unit under the Office of Climate Change, Biodiversity and Environment of FAO

Thank you for opening this space for participation.  I am pleased to share these ideas from a legal perspective, which are a simplified version and without bibliographical references of a previously published article of my authorship in:

- The Legal Personality of Rivers and Food Sovereignty, Tools for local development (Chapter 11) in Legal Personality for the St. Lawrence River and Other Rivers of the World, JFD Éditions, Quebec, 2023, pp. 313-24

- La personnalité juridique des fleuves et la souveraineté alimentaire, des outils pour le développement local (Chap. 9), In Une personnalité juridique et des droits pour les fleuves - A Legal Personality and Rights for Rivers. Montréal, Ed. JFD, 2021 237-50


I hope it will be useful.

Best regards,

Hugo Muñoz


The Legal Personality of Rivers and Food Sovereignty,

tools for local development



Food sovereignty and the legal personality granted to elements of Nature, such as rivers, are normally appreciated as two completely distinct and unrelated situations. Nevertheless, a convergence between the two is observed in relation to the potential effects on local development. This work is thus an effort to approximate food sovereignty and the legal personality granted to rivers from this point of convergence.

On the one hand, the claim to sovereignty serves to enhance the value of territory and food (A). On the other hand, the legal personality granted to rivers can contribute to the development of a responsible management of the hydrographic basin (B). Both mechanisms are thus able to contribute to the success of sustainable local development.

A. The claim of food sovereignty, a way to value territory and food

Since the mid-1990s, "peasant agriculture" has begun to be claimed. It is, in fact, a vindictive movement of self-preservation, which repudiates the so-called "corporate" agriculture, of "extractivist" nature. However, it must be said that such peasant agriculture has faced the difficulty of being able to unite under a single flag, what is in reality a heterogeneous group of agricultures.

The adjective "peasant" highlights the belonging to the country, to the countryside, to rurality. From there, several elements are (directly or indirectly) evoked that will serve to characterize this type of agriculture. Thus, while corporate/extractivist agriculture relies for its expansion on the phenomenon of Globalization, peasant agriculture vigorously claims food sovereignty.

Food sovereignty seeks to promote the anchoring to the territory and to emphasize the specificity of the food (b). This involves an important difference between food sovereignty and food security (a).

a. The distinction between food sovereignty and food security

In Latin America and perhaps elsewhere, some public authorities, like the critics of food sovereignty, often resort to a kind of opposition between food sovereignty, on the one hand, and food security, on the other. We are talking about food security as defined at the World Food Summit held in Rome in 1996, in the broadest sense of the term.

The reality is that there is no real opposition between these two terms, but a distinction of values put forward. The experience of the 2008 food crisis, as well as the current health crisis due to the Covid-19 pandemic, show the insufficiency of the current definition of food security. Among other aspects, it neglects the food vulnerability resulting from an excessive dependence on international trade to ensure the supply of food.

Several consequences follow from this distinction in values. Food sovereignty implies self-determination over what is produced and what is eaten, while at the same time assuming strong roots in the territories. These two characteristics run counter to the phenomenon of globalization, as they are based on the idea that there is no "exchangeability" between territories or between foods (they are not "commodities"). The emphasis is placed on the specific character of the territories where the peasants (producers) have settled and on the particularities of the foodstuffs produced there.

b. Territorial anchoring and the specificity of the food

With regard to territorial embeddedness, it is worth noting, as an example, that in Latin America corporate agriculture is clearly export-oriented and subject to foreign direct investment. Therefore, it is highly prone to the relocation of activity. In this sense, Latin American countries even "compete" with each other, to attract foreign investment in the agricultural sector. On the contrary, peasant agriculture is an activity that is totally rooted in the territory; it is a rooted, "territorialized" (also called "localized") agriculture.

As for self-determination over what is produced and consumed, food sovereignty supports, more or less clearly, the existence of a collective natural/born right to free choice over what is grown and what is eaten. A natural right that is exercised on a given territory. This aspect is today held as one of the components of the human right to adequate food, which further confirms the “jus-naturalism” approach followed.

Both the rooting to the territory, as well as the defense of self-determination over what is grown and eaten, are elements that act and make stronger the identity of food and, therefore, of the culture of the peoples. It is also another way of arriving at a justification similar to the one that gives rise to the signs that serve to communicate a specific food quality, deriving from its origin, such as the appellations of origin (PDO) and the protected geographical indications (PGI). Nor is it far from the logic behind recent efforts in the United States (“COOL rule”) and the European Union, among other examples, to make it compulsory to inform consumers about the origin of foodstuffs sold in bulk or the origin of the main ingredients of processed foodstuffs.

Food sovereignty thus calls into question the tradability of food and, as a result, its characterization as a mere commodity. In this context, the word sovereignty was well chosen because of its semantic link to the word territory. Territory is used to characterize food.

In Latin America, the use of the term food sovereignty is often associated with a protest approach. This sometimes leads to the replacement of the term by another such as "food autonomy", as is the case in Quebec. Nevertheless, some countries in Latin America and Europe do not have concerns about the term. For example, in order to motivate the adoption of the law "for the balance of commercial relations in the agricultural and food sector" in France (2018), the French government has referred quite often to the specific term of food sovereignty.

It must be said that the debates around agriculture and territory are not far from the debates around water. By the same logic, if territory and food are not tradable, neither should water be.  It is precisely here that an important common point can be appreciated between, on the one hand, the effects of Food Sovereignty, and on the other hand, the effects of granting a legal personality to Nature and, more particularly, to rivers.

B. The legal personality of rivers, a way to emphasize responsible river basin management

For the Law, nature and all its elements are held as things. Such a conception, inherited from the Colony, has very recently been strongly questioned by legislators and, in particular, by judges in various countries. This has had the effect of recognizing the legal personality of nature (a) or of certain of its elements, such as rivers (b).

a. The legal personality of nature, a legal fiction for the protection of the environment

Among the foundations of law, we find a classification that distinguishes between persons (subjects) and things (objects). However, what falls into one or the other category has been subject to evolution over time. As far as subjects are concerned, one could say that in the past not all human beings were considered as persons. Slavery, among other examples, highlights such a situation.

The law has also been able to add certain abstract constructions to both categories. By way of legal fiction, new subjects, called legal/moral persons, are unquestionably part of the category of persons (corporations, cooperatives and even states). In a similar way, "intangible" goods, such as subjective rights or goods resulting from intellectual property, are nowadays part of the category of things.

This distinction between persons and things, has for effect that the subjects can exercise a domination on the objects. This domination takes different forms, but persons are the only ones capable of having rights and obligations. Such capacity is part of the attributes of the legal dimension associated with the person, in other words, of his legal personality.

In the context of the legal protection of the environment, nature and its elements are held as objects. The ultimate objective of this protection regime is therefore the well-being of people. This corresponds to the so-called "anthropocentric" approach followed by the Law.

Some innovative approaches are nevertheless present in the national laws of certain countries. For example, the notions of Buen Vivir -Good Living- (from Quechua "sumak kawsay") and Vivir Bien -Living Well- (from Aymara "suma qamaña"), both inherited from South American indigenous cosmovisions, are now included in the constitutions of Ecuador and Bolivia respectively. These constitutions were both adopted at the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century.

These concepts, which are close to the idea of sustainable development, are distinguished from it by the fact that they do not follow an anthropocentric approach. As an integral part of the constitutions mentioned, they are intended to irrigate all Ecuadorian and Bolivian laws and regulations. This has a direct and substantial impact on the conception of the environment.

It is also worth mentioning how some countries in Latin America, but also elsewhere, have adopted measures that have the effect of recognizing a special legal status for nature. Generally speaking, there is talk of granting nature a legal personality. This has been seen more recently, in relation to rulings by judges (see for example: the "Río Atrato" in Colombia, in 2017; the "Río Vilcabamba", in Ecuador, in 2011), as well as through laws (see for example the Bolivian framework law, related to Mother Earth -Ley Marco de la Madre Tierra- of 2011).

These are indeed innovative approaches to Law, but paradoxically inspired by traditional indigenous cultures. It is about the recognition of rights to what was previously conceived as things, goods. This procedure is articulated around a legal fiction, similar to the one used to grant, for example, legal personality to legal persons. But, one could ask: what potential could this mechanism have for the protection of rivers?

b. The legal personality of rivers, a mechanism for protecting the hydrographic basin

The legal innovations described are fairly recent and, as a result, the real magnitude of their effects is still difficult to determine. Nevertheless, important legal consequences on the protection of the environment could emerge. As far as rivers are concerned, it is conceivable that new forms of organization of the territory could develop, having as a starting point their hydrographic basins.

Indeed, rivers and their basins could be held as legal persons. Then, it will be necessary to take into account the rights of these new legal persons. Thus, the so-called environmental "externalities", largely neglected, should be taken into account, in the form of legal obligations towards rivers. The rivers could thus become a kind of “creditors” of the users of the waters resulting from the basin.

But, beyond the subjective rights known as "patrimonial", the legal personality granted to the rivers should also include a set of non-patrimonial rights. In particular, those allowing to identify the river. It is obvious that the rivers already have names allowing their identification: for example, the St. Lawrence River in Canada. However, it is not only the geographical or cartographic considerations of the identification of rivers that interest us here; it is the legal effects.

In this context, the waters and other goods and services rendered by the river to the community, to society, could necessarily be the object of a recognition of origin. In such a context, the identification of the origin of these goods and services, originating in the specific river basin, will give them a character of belonging, of territoriality. These goods and services, provided by a specific river, will no longer be "simply" exchangeable goods or services. They will show a territorial belonging and, by this way, a particular management set up in a local environment.

This could well concern foodstuffs or products of another nature.  But it should be noted that this mechanism does not necessarily oppose international trade, just as food sovereignty does not do so either. In the case of rivers, it serves as a claim to the efforts made by a specific community to preserve its environment.

Another consideration is the potential of this mechanism for strengthening the coordinated management of transboundary basins. From the recognition of the origin of goods and services from the basin, a space of socio-economic organization that goes beyond the divisions imposed by the borders, could well develop. This is to the extent that the commitment to responsible management of the basin is emphasized.

The idea described in the previous paragraph is also valid with regard to territorial management involving the coordination of several territorial authorities. This mechanism can give visibility to a territorial management based on the notion of the hydrographic basin, which is implied in the idea of the claim of the legal personality of rivers. And it can contribute, by the way of the respect of the subjective rights (this time patrimonial) of the river (or of the Nature), to the modernization of the territorial planning made by the public authorities and the territorial communities.


This work brings to light links that, given current developments, are not very obvious, between the notion of food sovereignty and the granting of legal personality to rivers. Both have the potential to become approaches aimed at enhancing the origin of products and services. Such enhancement may well contribute to local development and responsible management of rivers and their basins.

In different contexts, these approaches are motivated by the claims of cultures and agricultures left aside by the dominant socio-economic development models, such as those inherited from colonial periods or, more recently, those resulting from economic globalization. The weaknesses of these dominant models are now very evident, especially when the world's peoples need to reduce vulnerability caused by environmental disruption, food insecurity, and globalized health crises, such as the Covid-19 pandemic. Strengthening the "rootedness" approach, which guarantees a real belonging to local societies, has the effect of increasing the resilience of these societies.

Law is called upon to become a more innovative discipline and to provide tools for social improvements. The alternatives and possibilities mentioned in this work are part of this hope. It seems to us therefore very relevant to continue in this direction.—

Lois Wright Morton, small holder farmer and board member of Solutions from the Land, a farmer-led NFP organization representing all scales of agriculture and food systems concurrently producing food and nutrition security, healthy ecosystems, rural livelihoods and other SDGs.

Thank you for the invitation to take part in the online consultation regarding the new Food System Integrated Program. On behalf of Solutions from the Land (SfL), I wish to present farmer perspectives on the proposed Change of Theory diagram, the draft Results Framework, and some overarching observations:

Overarching Observations:

First of all, SfL is very pleased to see the concept of “integrated” in the title of this new program. We fully support this important integrated effort for farmers, ranchers, fishers, and foresters to improve agricultural and food production per unit of land and water and ecosystem/habitat enhancing production and management practices while concurrently delivering biodiversity, quality ecosystem services; increased food and nutrition security; robust rural livelihoods and a host of other SDGs.

To guide the development of this new 21st Century program, a traditional Theory of Change planning model is being proposed. However, the enormous challenges local and global agriculture and food systems are now facing and the outcomes we seek require that we adopt a new approach, a change of theory. The keystone of this new theory is the placement of farmers, ranchers, fishers, and foresters at the center of all discussions and placing much greater emphasis on enabling policies, programs and market mechanisms that incentivize and reward them financially for delivering not just abundant high-quality nutritious food but concurrently the full range of ecosystem services that well managed farms can deliver. See SfL recs for HLPE Vo- Reducing inequalities for food security and nutrition and Candidate submission for V0 draft of the HLPE 3rd Note on Critical Emerging and Enduring Issues SFL 2022.05.17

A 21st Century integrated program acknowledges that incentives, policies, and investments with “transformation” goals must utilize multiple strategies to integrate natural, human and financial resources, knowledge, and activities to accomplish the 17 SDGs (which include nature-positive, resilient and pollution-free systems). The Sustainable Development Goals are interdependent, the reduction of poverty and ensuring food and nutrition security that accompany transformed food systems are dependent on abundant and high quality water and soil resources, and producers who can make a living from farming using a variety of science-based technologies, innovations and approaches that can be used to adapt to local conditions while allowing the producer to pivot and quickly adjust and change management under increasingly variable weather and accelerated climate change conditions. The SDGs cannot be achieved unless agricultural contributions are fully enabled. For agriculture to be successful, farmers must be successful in sustainably intensifying production of the full range of goods and services that come from well managed farming operations.

Thus, efforts to transform local and global food systems require active participation and leadership from farmers, fishers, ranchers, foresters—the keystone to abundant food systems and healthy agroecosystems. To this end we urge that this global document and recommended country-specific development and implementation actions at the country level pro-actively invite and engage their farmers, fishers, ranchers, foresters—those people (women, men, small holders, producers of all ethnicities and scales of agriculture) who are at the beginning of the food system-as they develop their own country specific policies, programs, projects, and investments.

Suggested edits/modifications to the Change of Theory Diagram and Results Framework for Food Systems Integrated Program are in the attached file.

Thanks for invitation to join the consultation and share the ideas practiced at ground level.

As proposed nature positive production systems and efficient value chains needs successful partnerships of smallholders collectives and value chain businesses with responsible financing investors with experienced organising CSOs which are the four major partners to build nature positive and resilient food systems at local, regional, national and global level. Theory of change and results framework includes these factors.

Our partnership model would like to share the practices for further inclusive results in the attached file.

  We thank those in charge of paving the way for discussion and offering some suggestions.

I would like to include some Arab countries in this great project.

Suggestions from this point of view are the following

  1. Most farmers in the world lack confidence in modern new equipment and methods to increase production and reduce the use of pesticides, water, etc., even if it is provided to them for free.
  2. Food in the near future is not similar to the food of the past or the present, it is with new technologies.
  3. The food industry is the engine of agriculture and absorbing the surplus to form strategic stocks.
  4. Many young people must start with small projects in several regions and then merge with each other to form strong, consistent and sustainable supply chains.
  5. Regarding South-South cooperation, this is a wonderful work, but it needs some sustainable successful experiences.
  6. Governments should update statistics regarding gender and dietary pattern, geographically and sectorally.

New Food System Integrated Program to support the transformation of food systems into nature-positive, resilient, & pollution free system.

The Great Youth Initiative for Food Security in Sudan

A worsening food crisis looms in Sudan amid economic deterioration, displacement and loss of crops The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Food Program (WFP) have warned that the societal impacts of conflict, economic crisis and poor harvest significantly affect people's access to food and that The number of people facing acute hunger in Sudan is likely to double to more than 18 million by September 2022. There are already worrying signs of diminishing access, affordability and availability of food for most people in Sudan, pushing more people into further poverty and hunger. Nearly 10 million people are acutely food insecure and need urgent assistance - according to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), the latest assessment projects conducted by the WFP, FAO indicate that nearly 10 million More than 21% of the total population of Sudan suffers from acute food insecurity and needs urgent humanitarian assistance in the period from June to September 2021.

This forecast duration corresponds to the major lean season for most of the regions analyzed where levels of food insecurity are the highest in any year in history.

According to the integrated classification of the stages of food security, the trends and seasonal shifts in this period include tribal conflict, low purchasing power (decreased purchasing power, some studies say 82%) and high food prices, which are the main drivers of food insecurity during the first forecast. In the lean season, about 2.7 million people will be in emergency (IPC phase 4) with approximately 7.1 million people in crisis (IPC phase 3) and over 16.5 million people in stress levels (IPC phase 3). The second of the Integrated Classification of Food Security Phases) of food insecurity. This represented an increase of 29.6 percent (from 5.5 million to 7.1 million) in crises (IPC Phase III) and 46.5 percent (from 1.8 million to 2.7 million) in emergencies (IPC Phase IV). Food security) compared to the current analysis period (April - May 2021 AD).

In the upcoming period, 130 localities are expected to witness a crisis situation (the third phase of the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification). A total of 51 locations moved between stress (IPC Phase II) and crisis (IPC Phase III) while three localities moved between crisis (IPC Phase III) and emergency (IPC Phase IV). Integrated Classification of Food Security Phases). The total population in crisis (stage 3) or worse is 9.8 million, which is 2% higher than the number of people with acute food insecurity in the June-September 2020 IPC analysis (9.6 million).

In addition to seasonal fluctuations and disparities, inter-tribal conflict and expected displacement may affect several areas and also cause deterioration in food security, as happened in El Geneina locality in West Darfur State. The localities of Halayeb and Jaibit Al Maaden in the Red Sea state will remain in a state of emergency (IPC Phase IV) as it is currently due to the impact of drought on livelihoods and price shocks. There is a slight deterioration in the population in crisis (IPC Phase III) or worse, in Jabet Minerals by 5% while Halayeb is improving slightly by 5% due to aid and the availability of pastures.

The localities of El Buram and Heiban in South Kordofan State will also move from the crisis phase in the current period to a state of emergency due to the prolonged insecurity and poor access to some isolated areas. During this period, families will increasingly rely on markets to purchase basic foodstuffs at prices far above normal. Livestock productivity will be at seasonally low levels during the dry season from May to June.

North Darfur:

Most of the farmers in Darfur, especially east and south of El Fasher, in the areas of Al-Tawisha, Fachar, Umm Kadada, Darmararit and Umm Sa’una, their agriculture depends on rain, and they have in their agricultural activities mechanized agriculture and traditional agriculture. Feddans, and most of their crops are food security crops such as millet, corn, peanuts, cowpea, watermelons.....etc. The problem with mechanized farming has become that the cost of hours of plowing with tractors is on the rise, until the price of an acre hour has reached 20,000 Sudanese pounds in the season of this year, most could not Farmers were encouraged to use tractors, and therefore the cultivated areas were reduced by half and to a quarter, ie to 20 acres and to 10 acres, which reduced production. Farms in those areas also suffer from insect pests that destroy the crop in a short time, and the farmer is not able to buy pesticides, and the Ministry of Agriculture has limited capabilities, and often its intervention is late after eliminating the crop.

The farmer faces some problems in marketing his crop. After harvest, prices are low and rise after the crop is in the hands of merchants, so prices become high. Farmers and shepherds also suffer from a lack of suitable drinking water, after the end of the autumn season and after the valleys, pits and ponds are filled, and with the availability of grass. This causes the shepherd to travel great distances with his livestock of up to 30 kilometers, and this effort loses them from their weight and reduces their production to once in six, and contaminated drinking water is a source of diseases. Is this why the prices of sheep, calves and camels drop to low levels in the summer, and the owner of the animals cannot travel great distances in search of water and grass, so he sells part of his herd to obtain the necessities of life, especially with the rising prices of goods, medicines and others.

Traditional rain-fed agriculture:

Its cultivated area is estimated at about 23 million feddans. It depends on manual equipment, local seeds, shifting cultivation, and the lack of fertilizer use, which led to a lack of production and productivity. Despite this, it plays a major role in providing food in rural areas and in the production of food security crops such as sorghum 11% of Sudan’s production, millet 90%, yellow sorghum, and sesame 28%. It also contributes to the production of cash crops, which are agricultural exports by exporting sesame and gum arabic all Sudanese production and 80% of the world's production is groundnut, hibiscus and watermelon, and production fluctuates from one season to another according to the amount and distribution of rain. Most of the livestock in Sudan are intertwined with this type of agriculture, as the area that is not harvested as fodder for livestock and other animals is utilized. It is estimated that Sudan owns more than 110 million head of livestock, including at least 30 million head of sheep. In the vast areas of natural pastures and water resources.

About 65% of the country's population lives in rural areas and practices traditional agriculture. Most of this sector has remained as it was before independence in 1956, relying on manual equipment, local seeds, shifting cultivation, and not using fertilizers. The traditional sector extends in the east, central, west and south of the country and plays a major role in providing food through the production of maize, millet and yellow maize. It also contributes to the export earnings by exporting sesame, gum arabic, peanuts, hibiscus, melon seeds and some medicinal plants. The cultivated area in the Gaza Strip was estimated in the mid-fifties of about 5 million feddans, then increased to about 7 million feddans during the sixties, to about 12 million feddans during the eighties and to about 23 million feddans during the nineties.

Since an estimated part of the area is located in the northern areas that are scarce except for the rain, the area that is harvested may not exceed 70% on average in the area that is cultivated, then the area that is not harvested is used as fodder for ostriches. For the most part, the traditional sector has remained as it was before independence, as mentioned above, and has been characterized by low productivity. Millet is the main crop in the traditional sector, but it did not receive attention until the time of technical equipment, and therefore its productivity declined significantly. Despite the doubling of the area from about 1.7 million feddans in 1971/70 AD to about 5.1 million feddans in the year 2000-2001 AD, an increase of 200%, but the volume of production only increased by 60%, or about 432 thousand tons at the beginning of the period To about 686 thousand tons in the year 2004/2003 AD. And if the situation is better for maize, it also reflects the decline in productivity from about 219 kg per feddan in 1971/70 AD to about 246 kg per feddan only in the 2003/2004 season. While the area increased from about 1.5 million feddans to about 7.1 million feddans, at a rate of 373%, production increased from about 474 thousand tons to about 1752 thousand tons, or 271%. However, the situation with regard to peanuts is better, as the productivity decreased from about 297 kilograms per feddan in the year 1971/70 AD to about 248 kilograms per feddan in the year 2003-2004 AD, at a rate of 16.5%, while the decline in the percentage of sesame reached about 46%, or about 162 A kilogram of Rama per feddan in the 1971/70 season, to about 87 kilograms per feddan in the 2004-2003 season. In general, the production of oilseeds crops in general has deteriorated, despite the increase in the area allocated to them from about 4 million feddans in the season of 1970/1971 to about 8.4 million feddans in the 2000/2001 season, i.e. 110%, but production did not increase by 27%, or about 1.1 million tons in the 1971/70 season. To about 1.4 million tons in the 2000/2001 season, then the area declined to about 6.7 million feddans, the volume of its production in 2003/2004 was about 1.4 tons. However, the scarcity of resources and capabilities hindered the continuation of these projects, through a water harvesting project in the fifties, and an experimental farm was established during the sixties, then the project stopped. Then there were the Jebel Marra development projects and the Jebel Marra development project.

It was hoped that the plan would turn to the quarter of the century 2004 / 2028 AD to restructure the sector through cooperative systems, intermediate technology, integrated rural development approach and rural credit, with the completion of this by introducing insurance coverage to modernize and develop the sector and maximize its role in the Sudanese economy. It was unfortunate that the executive program for the development of the agricultural sector left agricultural cooperation to the civil sector and limited the role of the state initiating the establishment of associations and helping cooperative farmers to manage them, at least in the early stages.

Hello everyone,

Thank you for the work and find my inputs below and attached.

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? Yes, but I suggest some inputs in :

  • Drivers:
    • Industrialisation
    • Change in behaviour
  • Impacts:
    • Disturbance in social cohesion
  • Barriers:
    • Inadequate use of knowledge on innovations

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

Draft results framework

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

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? We should think about how to secure the agricultural lands.

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

Program Components

Program Outcomes

Examples of types of intervention and outputs


3.2 Sustainable and resilient approaches[1] are mainstreamed and applied on the ground in farming, livelihood and landscape management systems, in target geographies and food systems at scale

Core Indicators:

  • 3. Area of land restored
  • 4. Area of landscapes under improved practices (excluding protected areas)
  • Area of land and landscapes secured
  • 6. Greenhouse gas emission mitigated
  • 11. Number of small-scale producers and rural people with improved livelihoods (including women, the poor and other disadvantaged groups) disaggregated by gender as co-benefit of GEF investment
  • Innovative food production and nature-based farm/landscape management practices (with sustainable and regenerative agriculture, sustainable livestock, and aquaculture as entry points) implemented adaptively and scaled out
  • Enhanced technical support/outreach programs for ,farmers providing them with alternatives for sustainable production and for agroecosystem management and restoration, using the Farmer Support System toolkit
  • Integrated and participatory capacity enhancement programs for farm families, enabling them to apply environmentally sustainable production practices, including action research/learning, farmer field schools and farmer-to-farmer exchanges, farmer business schools.

1] To sustainable and regenerative agriculture, livestock and aquacultu

 Harouna OUEDRAOGO from Burkina Faso