Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

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 

Review Comments from the Center for International Forestry Research – World Agroforestry (CIFOR-ICRAF)

This submission compiles comments from four scientists working on inequality and nutrition at CIFOR-ICRAF.

On the whole, we found the report to be quite comprehensive and detailed and a laudable effort to bring issues of inequality and inequity to high level discussions of FSN. Congratulations!

We have a few comments and concerns. They are organized first as general comments, followed by some specific chapter by chapter comments.

General comments:

• There is very little discussion of corporate power and the ways that multinational corporations have shaped both the inputs system for food production (eg seeds) and their marketing and production of unhealthy foods. There is a brief mention of the infant formula controversy, but with no historical background, why it is important and its important implications for equity. Similarly, there is no discussion of sugar taxes and the role of corporate lobbying in Latin America to fight these.
• The discussions on the dimensions of food security seem forced and not well integrated. In several places (because these are introduced in several places), it felt like the authors felt obligated to address each dimension even when there was not much content. Perhaps this should be dropped.
• The discussions trying to link income and nutrition are somewhat contradictory (p. 51 and p.56). Mehraban and Ickowitz 2021 find a negative relationship between changes in income and dietary diversity in Indonesia using a large sample that is representative of over 80% of the population. 
• In the discussion on price supports for agriculture, I don’t think that the report does justice to the pros and cons of cheap food; this discussion should be more nuanced and more thorough. Who benefits from cheap food? What kinds of foods? What has this done to diets in LMICs? Urban populations vs rural; overweight and obesity issues. The positive impacts, i.e, reductions in hunger. I think this whole issue could itself be a chapter.
• There is no discussion on the role of trees and forests as local sources of food, nutrition, feed and fuel to complement subsistence, as well as a buffer for inequalities and shocks.
  • This includes the role in provisioning of vital wood energy/firewood widely used in food preparation by vast rural populations. It is crucial to link energy poverty with nutrition as this can determine which diets household can afford to prepare and consume.
  • Although there is a short discussion on fishing and access, there is no discussion of hunting; some places where this can be addressed: p.78: “One key area of national political economy is land inequality and access to common resources such as fisheries (e.g. in ponds, lakes, rivers or oceans). Please add forests. There is no mention of HLPE Sustainable Forestry for Food Security and Nutrition. June 2017. HLPE Report 11. https://www.fao.org/fsnforum/resources/fsn-resources/hlpe-report-sustainable-forestry-food-security-and-nutrition.
  • Other important sources on forests and tree contributions to nutrition:
    • https://www.foreststreesagroforestry.org/news-article/new-fta-brief-contribution-of-forests-and-trees-to-food-security-and-nutrition/
    • https://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/FTA/FTA-Highlights-5.pdf
    • Ickowitz et al https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35809591
  • The role of forests and trees and related systems as buffers for inequalities and shocks could also be highlighted, such as in the recent GFEP poverty report. https://www.iufro.org/science/gfep/gfep-initiative/panel-on-forests-and-poverty/

• Chapters 5 & 6 and the suggestions both for concrete actions and for transformative change are very useful. However, these could be strengthened in some places by being a bit more specific. For example, in table 5.1: it is unclear who is supposed to take the listed actions. National Government? Donors? Private sector?
• In one of the key paragraphs, where the text says: “Transformative change incorporates actions across the entire food system that require fundamental changes to food system governance to redress power imbalances that have ‘normalised’ high rates of food insecurity and malnutrition”, we are missing a description or analysis of who governs the food system. Without understanding that, it is difficult to advocate for change. If it is corporations, how are we going to get them to change their behavior?
• Overall, how the information is packaged to place greater emphasis on certain critical nuances could be revisited. For instance, the role of agriculture extension and rural advisory services is subsumed in Chapter 5 under investment in information systems and leveraging digital technologies. The role of training and effective delivery channels of relevant knowledge in helping address inequalities in FSN has not been covered.
• Though the report captures many elements on inequalities with regard to food systems, the geographical examples given could be more varied. This would bring out the importance of context specific recommendations to address regional issues for meaningful policy actions. There are, for instance, interconnected trade arrangements (e.g. between Africa and Europe on cash crops such as coffee, tea, cacao, cotton) still operating under colonial legacies where value addition regarding exports has not changed much in the post-colonial era. These policies have a direct bearing on traditional food production systems. Some of this could be highlighted in Chapter 3 with more concrete examples, especially for Africa which has the greatest FSN inequalities.
• A stronger conceptual framework could both improve the narrative and reduce the complexity of the report. This includes the use of terms in different ways: In Chapter 5 agency and power are presented as principles while in Chapter 6 they are presented as Transformative Actions. Investment in information systems, leveraging digital technologies is presented in Table 5.1 as action and elsewhere as transformative action under the data and knowledge revolution in Chapter 6.  One option is to merge these two chapters, more tightly integrating principles and transformative actions, based on a logical theory of change that is informed by the prior analysis of the root causes of FSN inequality.
  • For example, the report could be organized as follows:

1. Define inequalities in food security and nutrition and lay out a coherent conceptual frame that presents FSN in the context of a complex coupled socio-ecological system
2. What are the patterns of inequalities in FSN?
3. Where do they occur (spatial (within and between countries, among populations, between gender and. temporal patterns)?
4. Why do FSN inequalities occur?
5. What are the solutions to addressing FSN inequalities, and what has worked where and why? Are there pathways to scaling up promising, viable solutions
6. Policy recommendations

• The following key questions would guide the report:

1. What is the state of FSN through the lens of inequality?
2. What are the drivers of FSN inequality?
3. What are the plausible policies, and institutional responses to address the FSN inequalities?

Chapter by chapter comments:

Chapter 1

Introduction

The reference to inequalities should include urban communities where inequality is constructed through a complex confluence of structural socio-economic factors, both historical and contemporary. Gender and cultural issues are critical drivers of FSN inequity and should be mentioned in the introduction. Assumptions about what leads to better outcomes and how should be critically assessed.

Why inequality and inequity

Global shocks like Covid-19, conflict and economic turbulence are singled out as livelihoods and FSN outcomes. Climate change is another important global shock.

How is marginalization defined? There are multiple dimensions of marginalization and it is not clear that there is a linear relationship from marginalization to inequity to inequality, to worse FSN outcomes, especially when the authors suggest that wars, drought and pandemics could be compounding factors that increase the vulnerability of certain groups. Consider revisiting the logical framework of these relationships.

Addressing inequality and inequities

This section makes it very clear that while inequality and inequality in FSN are acknowledged, the analysis and understanding of causal pathways are poorly understood, and need more work. However the point about the absence of a clear lead for inequality “in ministries or global systems” and inequality falling through the cracks is problematic. For example, the world is falling behind in meeting the goals of hunger, education and health, even when there are dedicated government departments to these issues. What does “global systems’ refer to? Is it not clear what point is being made in the sentence regarding the PANTHER principles.

The introduction to the discussion of FSN goals is notable. But what are these goals and who defines them? Who tracks progress and who is accountable to whom?

To better illustrate the causal links between hunger and malnutrition, cognitive capacity (learning) and economic outcomes, the authors should refer to the Cost of Hunger in Africa series; there are also many very good studies on hunger, nutrition and early childhood outcomes which in turn produce adverse intergenerational outcomes, which exacerbate inequality.

Concepts and definitions

Agency is the ability of an individual to act and even determine which action to take. It implies power and resources. Please explain further how agency “situates FSN within a rights framework”.

This cited from HLPE, 2020 but what exactly is meant by “regenerating social and economic systems”?

Chapter 2

It is important to define upfront the FSN outcomes of interest and perhaps justify the choice of outcomes. At this point, one might only guess that the FSN metric in Table 2.1 is the outcome. It is also important to distinguish between food security and nutrition outcomes because while the causes are somewhat correlated, the policy interventions required are different. What is the relationship between the dimensions of food security and FSN outcomes?

The statements on page 37, “FSN inequalities exist within countries regardless of national economic status” and, “inequalities are a function of how the global food system is constructed” are generalizations that mask the complex factors that determine or shape food systems. I would suggest more nuance and elaboration of these two claims.  Differences might include (but are not limited to): local geographic differences in land productivity or agroecology; demographic and household characteristics; governance, institutions and policies; urban versus rural.

Chapter 3

What are “other systems”? How is it defined in this context? A systems perspective that situates FSN in the context of a coupled socio-ecological framework could provide greater conceptual clarity. The narrative structure is hard to follow. Perhaps the food systems framework (production, aggregation, processing, storage distribution, consumption etc.) could provide a more coherent narrative structure rather than the more granular treatment (e.g. components of production like livestock and land). Also, it is not clear what “other production resources” refers to.

There is uneven treatment of the different topics. For example, the implications of inequality are discussed regarding land and livestock on FSN but not finance and information or value chains and markets. Similarly, there a discussion on the impact of food environments on the six FSN dimensions but not a similar discussion for Value chains and markets or land and livestock.

While the report has provided some useful analysis on complex issues of land tenure and inequalities in food production, emphasis on pro-women policies in patriarchal societies such as in Sahel could be further highlighted.

Chapter 4

The narrative structure could be simpler if the sections were organized around bigger systemic issues such as

1. Culture and social norms - and to include stigma and shame in this section. While it makes sense that gender deserves dedicated treatment, many aspects of gender inequality have their roots in culture and social norms and find their “legitimate” and contemporary expression in laws and institutions.
2. Governance, institutions, and policies would include all natural resource policies that relate to production and trade.
3. Conflict
4. Climate change
5. Globalization

There are limited references on land and resource rights. Two excellent sources are:

• The 2022 Land Gap Report, especially chapter 4 on indigenous and local community land rights https://www.landgap.org/
• Uneven Ground: Land inequality at the heart of unequal societies, from 2020 https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/uneven-ground-land-inequality-heart-unequal-societies . This is referenced elsewhere but not in this section.

More could be said about land and resource rights as a source of inequality in the conceptual framing to the report as well.

Chapter 5

This chapter outlines four “broad principles for crafting actions to reduce inequalities”, namely: Agency, power, context, and equity and equality-centred policy. However, in Table 5.1 the authors do not include or make any reference to these four broad principles. A third column could relate the actions and inequalities to be addressed and the principles.

In addition, the 10 actions outlined in Table 5.1 are strongly aligned with the agroecological principles of connectivity, participation, fairness, land and natural resources governance and diets, but the connection to these principles is not clear. The discussion of agroecology in the next chapter does not refer back to the principles that inform the actions outlined in Table 5.1.

Chapter 6

This could be the most important chapter in the report, and the title generates substantial expectations. A more coherent narrative structure would lay out, with compelling examples, the case for FSN transformation. Such a narrative would include the elements or components that define current inequitable FSN systems. A theory of change/transformation would help bring together the conceptual elements of such a transformation.

The subsections are not woven into one coherent story. What is the logical connection between and among the transformative actions? Where would the action happen? Who is accountable and to whom?

In the discussion on the right to food, the text should mention some contradictions with forest conservation; see Sunderland and Vasques: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2020.00029/full

Page 113; the citation of Rubens et al. (2021) should more critical. Increasing yield does not solve FSN inequality; it is not clear that supporting consumers to afford and choose healthy diets is a viable or even sustainable solution.

Page 125; second paragraph should be rewritten and simply read “Agroecology supports practices that have been implemented for decades……” The use of the adjective traditional in some respects suggests inferiority relative to modern or agro-industrial forms of agriculture.

The statement “agroecology is not yet as well established as organic farming” in Europe is interesting. Organic farming practices such as the use of cover crops, legumes, manure, composting and integrated pest management are inherent in Agroecological principles of input reduction, recycling, soil health, animal health, biodiversity, and economic diversification of farming enterprises. I am not sure what distinction the authors intend to draw between agroecology and organic farming.

The portrayal of agroecology as being in an ideological contest with concepts such as regenerative agriculture or nature-based solutions is unhelpful.

For this report, the discussion should focus on the agroecological principles that speak and relate directly to diet and nutrition equity, addressing the problems associated with the corporatization of food systems through long value chains, the dominance of monocultures and erosion of dietary diversity, the rise of highly processed foods that are rich in calories and sugar/salt and the links to NCDs. The Agroecological principles of co-creation of knowledge, social values and diet, fairness, connectivity (shorter/local supply chains and more embedded food systems that connect producers and consumers) and participation would be invaluable to this section. I would have expected to see in this section how the authors imagine agroecology as critical to the transformation necessary to tackle the root cause of FSN inequalities.

By Wenche Barth Eide, emerita, University of Oslo, Norway

My contribution relates to the human rights dimensions of this valuable draft report.

In the wording of the author team itself: «[T]this report [therefore] situates the fundamental issue of inequality in food security and nutrition within a broader framing of equity, rights, agency and sustainability.»

I wish to emphasize that this is precisely in the direction of what human rights scholars and activists have been waiting and hoping for from the UN, as linked here to analyses of the deeper real causes of hunger and malnutrition through, i.a, unequal power relationships and resulting conflicts of interest in different food systems. It was this step that the CFS process on Voluntary Guidelines on Food Systems and Nutrition did not want to fully take , and therefore left many disillusioned and disappointed by the fact that governments chose to deselect  a true human rights perspective.

The fact that HLPE itself is an independent entity, makes the CFS the  intergovernmental body finally responsible for fully keeping to the approach taken in this report and to operationalize it. If not, this HLPE document will - at least - serve as a comprehensive and competent step in furthering the development of this perspective for which there cannot now be any real return. I therefore also wish that the leadership of CFS and the Steering committee of the HLPE will help, through this report, to make human rights a standard feature of all future publications from CFS, so that it can live up to its commitment in its Global Strategic Framework for Food Security & Nutrition.

Several recent HLPE reports have laid parts of the ground, including the highly appreciated Report no. 15 which took a strong human rights approach in principle combined with a proposed expanded new framework for food security, as now followed up and utilized in the V0 of the current report.  

There are however two dimensions that the team seems to not have addressed:

1) that  of  the widespread «human rights illiteracy» among many users of these reports and other recommendations for human rights engagement in food and nutrition for greater equality and equity; however elementary knowledge about the UN system of human rights is very often more or less lacking;

2) the non-attention to how to link the work of the institutional UN development environment with its human rights  governance mechanisms, linked to monitoring of actions by  Member States that are parties to the original binding conventions in the international human rights system.

On 1: Many years of experience with attempts to further human rights perspectives in international fora, have demonstrated the fear by many politicians and civil servants of accepting human rights language and consequences for binding up commitments they think they cannot meet. Some of us have come to conclude that at least part of it may stem from ignorance of what the international human rights really are all about. The challenge of how to establish easy accessible information and training as «adult human rights education for food systems and nutrition» , is one that could deserve a special report or note from the CFS. FAO’s formidable work in this connection could be a starting point.

On 2: Mechanisms include states’ parties periodic and obligatory  self-assessment of their current situation of respecting, protecting and fulfilling (facilitating or providing)  various human rights, as reported to the UN human rights formal monitoring bodies; furthermore, the capacity of these bodies to give constructive advice on identifying and implementing obligations. In this context, the development based and the legal human rights based approaches to the right to adequate food and healthy diets could be better integrated for mutual benefit and strengthening of each.

What is needed here would be an explorative and constructive review and dialogue of the prevailing institutional resources for each approach and how they could draw on each other, both in the UN and at Member State level. For example, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the parallel UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (both with regionally nominated members) might gain from new development based outcome- and process indicators; then in turn test how using these in actual human rights/right to food and nutrition monitoring in legal terms, would demonstrate  their added value in driving a human rights based approach.

Could for example the interesting example of Zambia in the report help build process indicators for the country’s next self-reporting to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as part of  monitoring the implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)? Or, how can ongoing work in Norway and other countries to hinder marketing of unhealthy foods directed to children, bring new process indicators to use in these countries’ own reporting to treaty bodies - with reference to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?

It would be nice to see such examples in the V1 of this exciting report!

Chapter 5 & 5

Further my previous comments; geographically some areas reginal economy is state land commercial crops. People are daily workers and low wages. So, they do not have purchasing power to buy high value good quality fish and mostly eat dried small fish species. Difficulties in distribution systems triggered this situation further. 

Inefficiency in distribution chain also contribute to increase the final price which is not affordable to many people of the country especially in the rural areas. 

Lack of product diversification at the market hindered the food choice and persuasion to eat fish.

Comment on chapter 4.

Through my experience in our society which is multy-racial some racial people prefer some varieties (I am talking about fish species) if those are not available at the market at the time, they come they go home without fish. it is cultural norm. And some days in a week they do not eat fish at all. In some area, especially in Kandy where Tooth relic temple located, people in surrounding area do not eat fish. it is also cultural norm. 

many people in the society in suburbs and city areas do not like to eat freshwater fish species due to feeling that smell is bad. 

In the southern part of the country men do not like engagement of women in active fishing and even active supporting to men activities but in Northern and Eastern part the situation is opposite the difference is culture and wealth of the family. 

political economy still men dominated some restrictions for women. Even men they do not have collateral to access formal financial institutions to get support for investment. 

Dear FSN Team, 

Thank you for this  very detailed well researched document and for providing us with a chance to make some comments.

On behalf of SEATINI-Uganda i would like to make the following  comments on the issues of trade, investment , value chains and markets and their impact on inequalities among Small Scale  producers. 

1. Inequalities and value chains and markets:  It is important to have a shared understanding of the term Structural Transformation and what it entails. The process where the agricultural sector is giving way to manufacturing and services is not Structural transformation as it is an indicator of premature deindustrialization.  The paper also asserts that this transformation is typically  accompanied by increases in income. Whose incomes? Most often the Small scale producers' incomes are negatively impacted by this process. There is a need to analyse further the reality of value chains at the national and local levels and the role of the Small scale producers/ Farmers (SSF) therein.  Most often the SSF are edged out of the markets as a result of market deregulation , lack of information  about product specifications and standards , poor infrastructure  ( roads , storage facilities..) and weak/non existent cooperatives which would have helped the SSFs to bulk and also negotiate for better prices for their produce. The domination of value chains by the private sector actors with limited government intervention to protect the rights of farmers has also negatively affected the SSFs. 

2. Trade liberalization:  In addition to the issues raised in the paper, please also consider the issue of the impact of the ongoing trade negotiations at the multilateral and bilateral levels. At the WTO level under the Agreement of Agreement of Agriculture (AoA) ,  a number of issues critical to agriculture i.e. domestic subsidies, box shifting , Special Safeguard Mechanism  (SSM), Public Stockholding for food Security have been put on the back burner. These issues must be urgently addressed.  Although trade liberalization leading to a reduction of tariffs can lead to availability of cheap food on the market but most often it leads to the collapse of local production. For example the influx of chicken parts from the EU to a number of West African Countries  ( Cameroon , Senegal , Ghana.. ) in 2017/18 led to the collapse of the poultry sector in those countries but also the collapse of maize production. 

3. Investment :  The issue of investment frameworks and their relation to FSN should be addressed.  Current investments especially the land based investment negatively impact on SSFs as they most often lead to land grabs and displacements. In most African Countries the investment legal lack adequate provisions to protect the SSFs. For example the Uganda Investment Code has no provisions for Human Rights Impact Assessments ( HRIA). This is despite the fact that there are Guiding Principles on large scale land based investments developed by the Africa Union , ADB and UNECA. The UN binding Treaty on Business and Human Rights also provides for guidelines to protect the rights of SSFs. It is imperative that these Principles are mainstreamed in the legal  frameworks and in the Bilateral Investment treaties in order to make them legally binding or else they will remain best endeavors.

4. Inequalities and Finance : Other issues to consider under Finance is the link between financialization, the commodification of social services  and SSF's  welfare.  The push for financial inclusion has seen the mushrooming of microfinance,  money lenders  and even online lending. Most of this financing is unregulated and the SSFs find themselves indebted as they have to find money to access  the commodified social services. Yet the price of their produce  is dictated by the middle men. In such circumstances the youth are running away from rural areas and agricultural production. Others are selling of their land to buy motor bikes to engage in transport business ( commonly known as Boda Boda). 

5. Fiscal policies: The fiscal policies ( budget and Tax ) have an impact on FSN. In most Countries in Africa, despite the Commitment under the Maputo Protocol to provide 10% of their budgets to agriculture , their budget to agriculture is below 5%. This has greatly affected agricultural production and food security.  Many African countries have not budgeted for food reserves and  infrastructure to be able to distribute food from areas where there is plenty of food to areas of scarcity. In Uganda just recently in North Eastern Uganda the people were dying of hunger yet in the South West food was in plenty.  Tax proposals can also have an effect on FSN. In Uganda for the FY2022/23 government instituted a tax on animal feeds which led to an increase in the price of eggs. 

Thank you for the opportunity to make our comments 

Dear HLPE-FSN,

The Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) appreciates the opportunity to provide input to the V0 draft of the HLPE-FSN report on “Reducing Inequalities for Food Security and Nutrition.” IFT is a global organization of approximately 12,000 individual members, in 95 countries, who are committed to advancing the science of food. We believe that science is essential to ensuring that our global food system is sustainable, safe, nutritious, and accessible to all. For this reason, we are encouraged to see this report addressing inequalities and inequities in global food security and nutrition. Our feedback and inputs to the report can be found in the attached document.

The Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) appreciates the opportunity to provide input to the V0 draft of the HLPE-FSN report on “Reducing Inequalities for Food Security and Nutrition.” IFT is a global organization of approximately 12,000 individual members, in 95 countries, who are committed to advancing the science of food. We believe that science is essential to ensuring that our global food system is sustainable, safe, nutritious, and accessible to all. For this reason, we are encouraged to see this report addressing inequalities and inequities in global food security and nutrition.

IFT applauds the HLPE for examining inequalities within the agri-food system and we recommend a deeper look at the middle-segment of the food supply chain and how food science & technology can be part of the solution in achieving greater equity in food and nutrition security. As an example, food science and technology has made significant contributions in reducing the cost of food through packaging and processing technologies that allow foods to be safe and stable for longer periods of time. It is acknowledged multiple times in the report that food processing has improved the affordability and safety of food, yet this is positioned as a disadvantage for healthy diets as it is assumed all processed foods are of poorer nutritional quality than fresh foods. However, this is not always the case as there are many processed foods that provide important nutrition and as mentioned in the report, households that lack a stable energy supply for cooking, have poor sanitation and water access, or are juggling multiple familial care burdens, often depend on these foods. IFT encourages the HLPE to take a more balanced view of the role of processed foods in enabling food and nutrition security and suggests in addition to boosting agricultural research (p 101), there should also be a boost in food science and technology research that is focused on providing more nutritious processed foods that are safe and affordable for disadvantaged groups. These technologies could include innovations that minimize spoilage of fresh fruits and vegetables to reduce cost and food waste as well as technologies that can increase nutrient density of foods and reduce food components/nutrients to limit (e.g., saturated fat, added sugars, sodium) while achieving consumer acceptable sensory qualities.

IFT would also caution including “innovation and technology” as a section in “the systemic drivers and root causes of FSN inequalities”. As already noted above and in the report, innovations, such as those in the Green Revolution have led to incredible improvements in food and nutrition security. While there may be unforeseen consequences that should be addressed, positioning these innovative solutions as causes of FSN inequalities is not warranted. In fact, the most recent FAO Science and Innovation Forum in October 2022 highlighted the “centrality of science, technology and innovation for agrifood systems transformation.” Further, in chapter 5 of the HLPE report, digital technologies are recommended to help reduce inequalities across the food system. IFT would recommend that innovations and technology be positioned as solutions but with a greater emphasis on utilizing a lens of equity in the development and expansion of innovations and technologies. Using a lens of equity may help prevent future unforeseen consequences to inequalities as well as build greater trust in science and technology. Lack of trust in science is one of the major drivers preventing uptake of new innovations and technologies.

IFT believes the science of food and application of technology are important for transforming the food system to ensure food and nutrition security for all. Food scientists and technologists share a commitment with the HLPE-FSN and the CFS to improve nutrition and food security globally. We hope the HLPE will consider our comments to continue to support advances in food science & technology research and development with a lens to equity. Please contact Anna Rosales, Senior Director Government Affairs and Nutrition ([email protected]) if IFT may be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Anna Rosales, Senior Director Nutrition and Government Affairs, Institute of Food Technologists (IFT)

Many thanks to FSN team for this open consultation. Because the V0 draft is too long and I was impacted by the COVID-19 Pandemic in the recent days, thus it is delayed for my feedback.

I think the FSN team has prepared a detailed document on a complex subject covering important points. Because the issues of this consultation are not in my expertise area, I only present some general comments for reference as follows:

General Comments

China is a large country with more than 1.8 billion people. Up to now, absolute poverty has been addressed in a historic way. Chinese government has comprehensively won the battle against poverty, lifting all 98.99 million rural residents out of poverty. However, I can only find a few words about China in this V0 draft. Thus, it is suggested to pay more attentions on the progress for reducing inequalities for food security and nutrition in China.  

Specific Comments

1. The text and fig1.2 are not consistent, and both of them are not consistent with the Table of Contents.
2. The 3-4 lines from the bottom on page 42 seem to be a title of subsection.
3. The 2nd line on page 49 need to add a finger before %.
4. There two sources for the box on page 61. Same for the box on page 62.
5. “farmland red lining” on 10-11 lines from the bottom on page 77 may be “cropland red line”.
6. “Taiwan” on 4th line from the bottom on page 78 need to be deleted because Taiwan is not a country, only a part of China;
7. “territorial considerations” on 17th line from the bottom on page 105 is better to change to “rural areas” for avoiding repeat of “consideration” in the same sentence.
8. “The next and final chapter” on 3rd line from the bottom on page 127 need to be revised.
9. The font and size of titles of section and subsection are not significantly different, which need to be identified more clearly.

Regards.

On behalf of the Gender in Aquaculture and Fisheries Section of the Asian Fisheries Society, we submit the attached responses to the questions posed for this consultation 

Our congratulations to the dedicated team that brought out the draft report on ‘Reducing inequalities for food security and nutrition’. The Gender in Aquaculture & Fisheries Section (GAFS) of the Asian Fisheries Society (AFS) (Https://www.genderaquafish.org/) submits comments, addressing the questions raised for the present consultation.

1. The Framework

Regarding the framework, it should also be able to provide practical guidance to policy makers in the field of fisheries and rural and social development. Information and examples about social inequality from (small scale) fisheries and aquaculture should be included, intersected by gender, ethnicity, class, caste, age, etc., among others on pg 12-17. ​​​​​​​

2. New definition of food security

The new definition of food security is appropriate. Small-scale fisheries (SSF) is an excellent illustration that could be used in the report to illustrate the need for all six dimensions of food security. availability, access, utilization, stability, agency and sustainability. It is pertinent to note that 800 million people (50% are women) around the world depend on smallscale fisheries and aquaculture for their livelihoods. The Illuminating Hidden Harvests (IHH) report (IHH, 2021) found that small-scale fisheries (SSF) account for at least 40 percent of global fisheries catch. About 90 percent of the people employed along capture fisheries value chains operate in small-scale fisheries. 45 million women participate in small-scale fisheries, including for subsistence. Small fish and midwater fish are especially nutritious and found abundantly in small-scale fisheries landings. These fish should be made available as food for those in SSF communities. In some places, access by small-scale fishers and fish processors is compromised by management decisions that grant control of the catch to large industrial operators and channel to fish to uses such as fishmeal. Co-management is likely implemented for about 20 percent of the catch from smallscale fisheries. To improve sustainability and stability of supply and access, greater use of comanagement arrangements is warranted through national fisheries policies. For each fisher in the small-scale sector, at least four other people are engaged in related land-based activities, such as the preparation of equipment, fish processing, and marketing. As a family-based activity, fishing makes a direct contribution to household food security, where women play a particularly important role both as the link with the market and as the provider of food in the household, in addition to their reproductive role. Utilization and agency are linked with the whole set of governance arrangements in SSF. ​​​​​​​

3. Definitions of inequities, inequalities, etc

No response ​​​​​​​

4. Major gaps

The report also needs to capture adequately capture the contributions of the informal sector of food economy / social economies such as dried/preserved fish value chains that largely remain overlooked and undervalued across science-policy-practice. Attention to the informal sector is important not only because its disproportionate contributions towards FSN of socio-economically marginalized communities particularly in the Global South, but also because of the unique threats to sustainability of such value chains (e.g., commercialization, inter-sectoral competition for coastal resources, and fish stock depletions) (Belton et al., 2022). Furthermore, such informal food economies are largely localized, deeply rooted in cultural and social norms, and remain integral to local culinary traditions that has lasted for centuries. For example, dried fish is a main consumer item in household food baskets in Sri Lanka with steadily increasing local production volumes over the past. Local dishes such as dried queen fish curry is a nutritious comfort food for Sri Lankans across income categories. In addition to the nutritional value, physical characteristics such as storability, portability, and affordability of such food items elevates their suitability for FSN interventions including during disaster and crisis situations (https://fish.cgiar.org/dried-fish-in-acovid-19-world/). Overall, attention to such socio-cultural and traditional linkages may provide an entry point for potential interventions seeking to harness the nutritional value of hidden and undervalued food items (Byrd et al., 2021) and thereby transform food systems in culturally appropriate ways. Perhaps the current sub-section on ‘culture and social norms’ (page 74) can be expanded to highlight some of these linkages? ​​​​​​​

5. Structural drivers of inequality covered?

Chapter 2 deals with inequalities in Food Security and Nutrition Across Regions and Groups. For inequalities between groups it is recommended to also look into issues of inequalities between specific food producer groups across the food chain of farming, fisheries, livestock, aquaculture, forestr. In Chapter 2 no distinction is made in animal source food, while fish has a very different nutritional value and is of much higher nutritional importance than meat, in particular for children and lactating mothers and also a relaively cheaper source of protein. Policy priorities in most countries and internationally give priority to terrestrial animal-source food rather than aquatic. This needs to be redressed.

Chapter 3 deals with inequalities in food and other systems and FSN implications.This chapter has a strong focus on inequalities in agriculture food systems. Inequalities in aquatic foodsystems (fisheries & aquaculture value chains) are not included. Inequalities in fisheries and aquaculture should be included in all “fields” of inequalities, in particular regarding Tenure Rights, Market and Trade, Information and Technology, Finance, Participation and Decision making, Decent Work and Social Development, Security and Safety.

​​​​​​​6. Other trends that should be included?

Chapter 4. The systemic drivers and root causes of FSN inequalities (Pg 79 Fisheries policy and investment). In this sections more information should be given on SSF and impact of global trends like the policies on “blue economy”and “blue growth”. Although the international community has endorsed the SSF Guidelines, the implementation continues to meet major obstacles. The growing pressures of a ‘blue economy’, including the rapid expansion of aquaculture, wind farms, etc., pose multiple threats to small-scale fisheries, most fundamentally at the level of tenure rights, and access to resources and markets. Climate change and global environmental policies too are impacting small-scale fisheries in a major way. ​​​​​​​

7. Under/overrepresented topics

Women and gender are under-represented topics in this report on inequalities. Although the words “women” and “gender” occur frequently, they are used mostly in formulaic ways. The short subsection on Gender and FSN (starting on p. 41) soon grades into other inequality dimensions and is rather vague and simple. If the intent of this report is not to focus much on gender inequality, e.g., because of the ongoing issues over the halted process concerning the VG on Gender Equality and Women’s and Girls’ Empowerment, this perhaps this should be noted?

9 Success stories

Example of a success story include the state nutrition program of the state of Odisha, India where powdered dried fish has been introduced as part of the take-home ration. [News stories - https://mel.cgiar.org/projects/usaidipp/532/the-success-of-the-pilot-pr…- ;https://indianexpress.com/article/india/odisha-to-introduce-fish-in-nut…]. Also, ongoing research initiatives such as ‘Dried Fish Matters’ (a research partnership based in Canada with focus of dried fish social economies in South and Southeast Asia; https://driedfishmatters.org/) attempts to address the invisibility of informal food economies in research and policy.

References

· Belton, B., Derek S. Johnson, Eric Thrift, Jonah Olsen, Mostafa Ali Reza Hossain, Shakuntala Haraksingh Thilsted, 2022, Dried fish at the intersection of food science, economy, and culture: A global survey, Fish and Fisheries, https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12664 https://www.worldfishcenter.org/strategy-2030/index.html#bigfacts

· SMALL-SCALE FISHERIES AND THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD. Making the connection: exploring synergies in the implementation of the SSF Guidelines and the Right to Food Guidelines http://www.fao.org/3/cb4939en/cb4939en.pdf

· Priority Actions for Ocean Equity: https://oceanpanel.org/the-agenda/ocean-equity/ and https://www.cffacape.org/ssf-call-to-action

· Towards gender-equitable small-scale fisheries governance and development – A handbook: https://www.fao.org/voluntary-guidelines-small-scale-fisheries/resources/detail/en/c/1095418/

· The international Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication: https://www.fao.org/voluntary-guidelines-small-scalefisheries/guidelines/en/

· IHH. 2021. Illuminating Hidden Harvests: The contribution of small-scale fisheries to sustainable development https://www.fao.org/3/cb2879en/CB2879EN.pdf

Additional materials

Blue Economy and impact on (gender in) SSF, Climate change and impact on (gender in) SSF, Environmental policies and impact on (and gender in) SSF , International Trade and impact on (gender in) SSF

1. Bertarelli, D. (2021, March 22). “The Blue Economy Is an Ocean of Opportunity to Advance Gender Equality “. UNCTAD. https://unctad.org/news/blue-economy-ocean-opportunityadvance-gender-equality

2. Gustavsson, M., Frangoudes, K., Lindström, L., Burgos, M. C. Á., & de la Torre-Castro, M. (2021). Gender and Blue Justice in small-scale fisheries governance. Marine Policy, 133, 104743.

3. Merayo, E. (2019, June 6). Steering gender to the centre of the blue economy. International Institute for Environment and Development. https://www.iied.org/steering-gender-centreblue-economy

4. Cohen, P. J., Allison, E. H., Andrew, N. L., Cinner, J., Evans, L. S., Fabinyi, M., ... & Ratner, B. D. (2019). Securing a just space for small-scale fisheries in the blue economy. Frontiers in Marine Science, 6, 171.

5. Musinguzi, L., Natugonza, V., Efitre, J., & Ogutu-Ohwayo, R. (2018). The role of gender in improving adaptation to climate change among small-scale fishers. Climate and Development, 10(6), 566-576.

6. Lau, J. (2021, November 5). Does gender determine how one experiences climate change?. World Fish Center. https://www.worldfishcenter.org/blog/does-gender-determine-how-oneexperiences-climate-change

7. Badjeck, M. C., Allison, E. H., Halls, A. S., & Dulvy, N. K. (2010). Impacts of climate variability and change on fishery-based livelihoods. Marine policy, 34(3), 375-383.

8. Global Programme on Risk Assessment and Management for Adaptation to Climate Change (Loss and Damage), Siebert,M., Schindler,S., Petersen,A.K., Hanke,N., & Schmidt,J. (2021). Climate change and small-scale fisheries-A climate risk management perspective for West Africa. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH. https://www.adaptationcommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/CRM-FactsheetWestafrica.pdf

9. De la Torre-Castro, M. (2019). Inclusive management through gender consideration in smallscale fisheries: the why and the how. Frontiers in Marine Science, 6, 156. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2019.00156/full

10. Sumaila, U. R. (2017). Trade and sustainable fisheries (No. 676). ADBI Working Paper. https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/230601/adbi-wp676.pdf

11. Biswas, N. (2018). Towards gender-equitable small-scale fisheries governance and development: a handbook. http://www.wocan.org/sites/default/files/Towards%20genderequitable%20fisheries-%20FAO2017.pdf

12. Adam, R., Amani, A., Kuijpers, R., Smits, E., & Kruijssen, F. (2022). Climate change, gender and aquatic food systems: call for action to address gender and social inequalities matters in the nexus. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/125417/0e1976b767cbb4a… 7ec60a.pdf?sequence=2.

Inequalities in aquatic food systems related to (access to) Tenure Rights, Market and Trade, Information and Technology, Finance, Participation and Decision making, Decent Work and Social Development, Security and Safety

1. Lee, K. (2021). Four strategies to achieve inclusive and equitable aquatic food systems. https://www.worldfishcenter.org/blog/four-strategies-achieve-inclusive-and-equitableaquatic-food-systems

2. Land Tenure And Sustainable Agri-Food Systems. (2021). FAO. https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2022/04/land_tenure_and_sustainable_agrifood_system_1.pdf

3. Simmance, F. A., Cohen, P. J., Huchery, C., Sutcliffe, S., Suri, S. K., Tezzo, X., ... & Phillips, M. J. (2022). Nudging fisheries and aquaculture research towards food systems. Fish and Fisheries, 23(1), 34-53. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/faf.12597

4. Fishy business: Millions of people missing out on their fair share of aquatic foods. (2023, January 12). Down To Earth. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/food/fishy-businessmillions-of-people-missing-out-on-their-fair-share-of-aquatic-foods-85538.

5. Nara, B. B., Lengoiboni, M., & Zevenbergen, J. (2020). Implications of customary land rights inequalities for food security: A study of smallholder farmers in northwest Ghana. Land, 9(6), 178. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/6/178.

6. Short, R. E., Gelcich, S., Little, D. C., Micheli, F., Allison, E. H., Basurto, X., ... & Zhang, W. (2021). Harnessing the diversity of small-scale actors is key to the future of aquatic food systems. Nature Food, 2(9), 733-741. https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00363- 0. 7. Hicks, C. C., Gephart, J. A., Koehn, J. Z., Nakayama, S., Payne, H. J., Allison, E. H., ... & Naylor, R. L. (2022). Rights and representation support justice across aquatic food systems. Nature Food, 3(10), 851-861. https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-022-00618-4.

8. Cojocaru, A. L., Liu, Y., Smith, M. D., Akpalu, W., Chávez, C., Dey, M. M., ... & Tran, N. (2022). The “seafood” system: Aquatic foods, food security, and the Global South. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 16(2), 306-326. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/721032.

9. Poulain, F., & Belton, B. (2021). Aquatic food systems under COVID-19. https://www.fao.org/3/cb5398en/cb5398en.pdf.

10. Levelling the playing field: Eliminating inequalities in accessing science, technology and innovation across value chains. (2022). Committee on World Food Security. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://www.fao.org/cfs/resources/detail/ar/c/1610122/.

11. Hicks, C. C., Gephart, J. A., Koehn, J. Z., Nakayama, S., Payne, H. J., Allison, E. H., ... & Naylor, R. L. (2022). Rights and representation support justice across aquatic food systems. Nature Food, 3(10), 851-861. https://www.ifpri.org/publication/rights-and-representation-supportjust….