Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

IFOAM – Organics International appreciates the opportunity to comment on the scope of the upcoming High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) entitled “Food Security and Nutrition: Building a global narrative towards 2030”.

We would like to convey the following feedbacks and suggestions.

We believe that, in order for CFS to increase its synergies with the broader political agenda, and at the same time ensuring convergence with initiatives that have similar or complementary objectives, this report should deliver an evaluation of the impacts and the implementation of CFS products in agreement with the endorsed document CFS 2017/44/11.

We know that a process of stocktaking is already ongoing through the bi-annual Global Thematic Events and we believe that this report could support and speed up the monitoring effort of the committee, evaluating the level of dissemination of CFS products and assessing their level of promotion among different type of stakeholders.

We also reckon that ten years after the CFS reform and the HLPE establishment, this report represents a timing occasion to perform a stocktaking exercise and to showcase policy uptakes of CFS products, supported by case studies and countries’ evidences, with a special focus on the perspective of those most affected by food insecurity and malnutrition.



We believe, as stated also by the CSM, that the report should distinctly refer to the contemporary global context, with the world community being off-track in the implementation of the SDGs and the worldwide agri-food system being a major player in producing negative externalities. Thus, the report should shed a forwarding looking perspective asking policy makers to deliver against the great expectations that lay behind achieving the zero hunger objective.



The report should consider the threefold challenge of achieving food and nutrition security for a growing population, while preserving and regenerate environmental integrity and at the same time ensuring that the ongoing transformation of global food systems supports social justice

In this regard, we invite the HLPE to take into account also framework approaches for better understanding and accounting the impacts and externalities of agriculture and food value chains (true/full cost accounting etc.). The hidden costs and benefits in the way we produce, process, distribute, and consume food are rarely captured in conventional economic analyses. Pathways for FSN interventions must recognize and strengthen those forms of agricultural production that explicitly enhance ecosystem services and build the natural capital that underpins food systems, creating regenerative forms of agriculture and a food system that generates multiple positive externalities.



References:

Full Cost Accounting to Transform Agriculture and Food Systems A guideline for the organic movement, developed in collaboration with the Sustainable Organic Agriculture Action Network (SOAAN), 2019

https://www.ifoam.bio/sites/default/files/tca_paper_final.pdf

TEEB (2018). TEEB for Agriculture & Food: Scientifc and Economic Foundations. Geneva:

UN Environment.

http://teebweb.org/agrifood/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Foundations_Repo…

IFOAM – EU, Feeding the people: Agroecology for nourishing the world and transforming

the agri-food system, 2016

https://www.ifoam-eu.org/sites/default/files/ifoameu_policy_ffe_feeding…

Estimados señores de la Secretaría del GANESAN:

Saludándolos cordialmente, por encargo de la Directora de la Oficina de Cooperación Internacional del Ministerio de Agricultura y Riego del Perú (MINAGRI) envío los siguientes comentarios y propuestas respecto a la consulta electrónica sobre el Informe que viene elaborando el GANESAN titulado: Seguridad alimentaria y Nutrición: Elaborar una descripción global de cara al 2030:

 

a. Compartir comentarios sobre los objetivos y el contenido del informe:

No se muestra claramente cuál es el objetivo del Informe. Se recomienda incorporar un acápite al respecto.

b. Compartir su experiencia sobre situaciones en las que diferentes partes usaron las recomendaciones del CSA, con el objetivo de mejorar la seguridad alimentaria:

En el mes de septiembre 2018, el Proyecto Sierra y Selva Alta[1], co-financiado por el FIDA[2], ha sido considerado como uno de los diez mejores proyectos de todo el mundo.

El objetivo central del proyecto es lograr que los pequeños productores rurales en las regiones de Sierra y Selva fortalezcan sus niveles organizativos y capacidad de emprendimiento, capitalizando de manera sostenible sus activos, a fin de mejorar el bienestar de la población rural e incrementar el valor de sus activos naturales, físicos, humanos, sociales y financieros.

El proyecto se desarrolla a través de cuatro componentes:

1. Valorización de activos de los pequeños productores rurales: mediante fortalecimiento de capacidades para el manejo de recursos naturales y elaboración de planes de manejo y gestión territorial.

1. Acceso a servicios financieros y no financieros: Fortalecimiento de las capacidades y valorización de activos para la articulación al mercado, servicios financieros inclusivos para los pequeños productores rurales, fortalecimiento de la asociatividad y liderazgo de los pequeños productores rurales y fortalecimiento del liderazgo comunal.

1. Capacidades para el desarrollo local con enfoque territorial: Desarrollo de capacidades del personal vinculado al desarrollo local, fortalecimiento de la asociatividad en gobiernos locales y apropiación de del Modelo CLAR[3] por los gobiernos locales.

1. Gestión del proyecto: Mediante el cual se habilita los recursos necesarios para la implementación del proyecto, para el seguimiento y evaluación, auditorias, elaboración de la línea de base.

En cuanto al ámbito de intervención del proyecto, incluye la sierra norte y central del país, así como una pequeña parte de la selva alta del departamento de San Martín. Abarca provincias y distritos de los departamentos de Lima, Cajamarca, Amazonas y San Martín. En total, el ámbito comprende 11 provincias y 85 distritos que alcanzan a 39,300 familias rurales organizadas.

Finalmente, entre los principales productos[4] logrados hasta la fecha, tenemos: (i) 36,751 familias con servicios del proyecto (94% de la meta); (ii) 359 organizaciones comunitarias rurales (106% de la meta) implementando planes de gestión territorial para una cobertura de 15,980 familias; (iii) 1,123 organizaciones de base (96% de la meta) implementando planes de negocios para un total de 17983 familias, y (iv) 85 gobiernos locales (100% de la meta) asistidos en la metodología CLAR.

c. Compartir las referencias que deben ser consideradas en el estudio sobre el conocimiento de seguridad alimentaria y nutrición:

A nivel nacional y en cooperación con la FAO, se realizó el estudio de “Evaluación de las políticas forestales y su aporte a los objetivos de la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional en el Perú, además se está implementando el proyecto de “Prevención y reducción de pérdidas y desperdicios de alimentos en el Perú.

[1] El proyecto se encuentra en el cuarto año de ejecución. El Programa de Desarrollo Productivo Agrario Rural-AGRORUAL del MINAGRI es el organismo ejecutor.

[2] http://www.sierrayselvaalta.gob.pe/el-proyecto-sierra-y-selva-alta-se-ubica-entre-los-top-10-del-ranking/

[3] Comité Local de Asignación de Recursos.

[4] http://operations.ifad.org/documents/654016/db28433f-4090-4811-9b07-8e7ea38a9424

Dear Commitee,

I wish to point out that organic agriculture may be adressed too, especially concerning its role in reducing environmental impact of food producion (i.e. reducing chemicals and antibiotics, that patter a very serious issue). Of course, organic agriculture may have pros and cons. Nevertheless, it would be important to take into consideration this practice too, at least as an option that can be better assessed in the future.    

on this issue, I wish to let you know about a recent review paper of mine   

Gomiero, T., 2018. Food quality assessment in organic vs. conventional agricultural produce: Findings and issues, Applied Soil Ecology,  vol 123 , 714-728.   https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0929139317302573 &nb…;

Best regards

Tiziano Gomiero PhD

https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=6507577820 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tiziano_Gomiero

The International Livestock Research Institute welcomes the opportunity to comment on the proposal that the HLPE submits a report on ‘Food Security and Nutrition: Building a global narrative towards 2030.’ We believe that the report should build on the lessons learned from the past 10 years to clearly articulate the challenges, opportunities, processes and partnerships required to achieve food and nutrition security by 2030.

We very much welcomed the previous HLPE reports, and in particular, the report ‘Sustainable agricultural development for food security and nutrition: what roles for livestock?’ The critical role of livestock and animal source foods (milk, meat and eggs), especially in low- and middle-income countries often gets overlooked in the debate about food and nutrition security. This is partly because of the very negative view of the livestock sector that is promoted through the traditional and social media by some sections of society in developed countries. However generic demands to reduce or eliminate animal source foods from the human diet are at best mis-placed and at worst irresponsible and unethical. Consumption of animal source foods varies hugely regionally (e.g. annual meat consumption in the EU is about 70kg per capita but only 8kg per capita in sub-Saharan Africa, this latter figure being about half the recommended amount). Thus, while reduction in consumption of animal source foods in developed countries may have some merit it is not appropriate to make such calls globally. We need some convergence on intakes – reduction in some part of the world but increases in others. An increase in consumption in animal source foods, especially in vulnerable groups including women of child bearing age and during the ‘first 1000 days’ would have huge benefits. There is growing evidence that it is not possible, especially in low- and middle-income countries, to achieve adequate nutrition in the first 1000 days without animal source foods in the diet. An increase in consumption of animal source foods among children who consume little or none would not only reduce physical stunting, but research evidence shows it would increase social skills, cognitive skills and learning ability. The World Bank estimates that Africa, for example, is losing 10% of annual GDP because of the long-term effects of childhood stunting.

Much of the negative perception of livestock arises because of the perceived negative impact of livestock on the environment, including on climate change through greenhouse gas emissions. While livestock to have environmental impacts most of these impacts rely on data from systems in developed countries being extrapolated to low- and middle-income countries. For example, it is often quoted that it takes 15,000 l of water to produce 1 kg of beef. This figure comes from feedlot type systems common in North America which are very different from smallholder beef systems or pastoral systems in Africa and Asia. Also, greenhouse gas emission levels are available for systems in e.g. North America, Europe and Australasia but not for most systems in Africa and Asia where very preliminary research suggests they are much lower.

We hope that the new report can build on the excellent analysis in the previous report ‘Sustainable agricultural development for food security and nutrition: what roles for livestock?’ I have attached some references that have become available since it was published.

Today we cannot make correct considerations about food security if we do not sufficiently take into account its indissoluble relationship with climate change and the sustainability of agricultural systems. The carbon footprint produced by the processes of food production, transport and processing should not be disregarded. However, in the context of global considerations, in which in which partnerships very diverse actors participate -many of them closely linked to industrial production and food trade, there is a tendency to minimize this fundamental angle in aim to reach consensus.

From this perspective, food security should more emphatically incorporate the vital importance of the biological and cultural diversity encompassed by the surviving traditional agroecosystems, which, despite all the FAO efforts and those of some governments, are now more than ever threatened.

The precepts contained in the Voluntary Guidelines on the Right to Foodwould have to be promoted with greater force, especially in a global context in which the new governments of countries that were, until recently, leaders in the development of national measures and legislations that helped to eliminate food poverty for millions, are no suffering enormous setbacks, due to the alignment of political decisions with the great economic interests of industrial agriculture. For this reason, not only the speech of the HLPE should be clearer and more emphatic, but should be accompanied by proposals to develop and enact binding political, legal and economic commitments in aim to prevent setbacks such as those we are now witnessing.

The growing tendencies to develop industrial agricultural systems to produce large quantities of food with the least possible intervention of people, even to develop an agriculture without farmers -based on the large technological display backed on enormous economic support imply, on the other hand, a great concentration of information and power. This developments should be pointed out clearly as potential threats to food justice, even if they probe highly productive.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

El día de hoy no podemos hacer consideraciones correctas sobre seguridad alimentaria si no destacamos suficientemente su relación con dos temas, ahora indisolubles: el cambio climático y la sustentabilidad de los sistemas agrícolas. La huella de carbono producida por los procesos de producción, el transporte y el procesamiento de alimentos son criterios que no pueden ser omitidos. Sin embargo en las consideraciones globales, en las que intervienen actores muy diversos; muchos de ellos vinculados a sectores vinculados con la producción industrial y el comercio de los alimentos, existe la tendencia a minimizar este ángulo fundamental.

Desde esta perspectiva, la seguridad alimentaria debería incorporar más enfáticamente la importancia vital de la diversidad biológica y cultural que engloban los agroecosistemas tradicionales, los que, pesa a todos los esfuerzos de FAO y de algunos gobiernos, se encuentran ahora más que nunca, amenazados.

Los preceptos contenidos en las Directrices Voluntarias sobre el Derecho a la Alimentacióntendrían que ser impulsadas con mayor fuerza, sobretodo en un contexto mundial en el que los nuevos gobiernos de países que fueron, hasta hace poco, punteros en el desarrollo de medidas y legislaciones nacionales que coadyuvaron a eliminar la pobreza alimentaria en millones de personas, ahora sufrirán enormes retrocesos, debido a la alineación de decisiones políticas con los grandes intereses económicos de la agricultura industrial. Por esta razón, no sólo el discurso de del HLPE debe ser más claro y enfático, sino que debe estar acompañado de propuestas para el desarrollo de compromisos políticos, jurídicos y económicos vinculantes que impidan retrocesos como los que ahora estamos atestiguando.

Las crecientes tendencias a desarrollar sistemas agrícolas industriales para producir grandes cantidades de alimentos con la menor intervención de personas posibles, incluso una agricultura sin campesinos, desarrolladas con un gran despliegue tecnológico y enorme respaldo económico implican, por otro lado, una gran concentración de información y poder. Estas deberían explícitamente ser analizadas como amenazas potenciales a la justicia alimentaria, aun si resultan muy eficaces en la producción de alimentos.

Rules of Procedure of the Committee on World Food Security Rule X 2. states that committee participants, including the United Nations and other intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations and civil society organizations and private sector associations are encouraged to consider in their respective governing bodies the outcomes of the Committee which are relevant to their own activities (Doctor of Philosophy in Applied Sciences the American University in Cairo).

Construire une nouvelle narration pour envisager les bases d’une coopération internationale en matière de sécurité alimentaire suppose, à mon sens, de porter un regard lucide sur le logiciel actuel. A avoir supposer qu’en démantelant les politiques agricoles de stabilisation on permettrait aux marchés de retrouver leur équilibre, on a nié la réalité de l’instabilité structurelle des marchés agricoles. La crise de 2007/08 est la conséquence de cette trajectoire de déni. Alors qu’une guerre commerciale est à l’œuvre et que l’OMC est dans une crise profonde, retrouver la voie d’un nouveau multilatéralisme suppose de faire le bilan de l’agenda agricole de l’OMC et de structurer quelques idées pour faire émerger de nouveaux compromis et de nouvelles coopérations. C’est également un enjeu crucial pour l’avenir de l’Union européenne tant les agendas européens et multilatéraux se sont superposés.

Pour alimenter votre réflexion, je vous conseille de prendre connaissance de nos deux notes de référence stratégique. La première est paru en juin 2018 (lien ci-dessous) et contient dans sa première partie une analyse historique de la discipline agricole de l’OMC. La seconde est entière dédiée au sujet de la réforme du multilatéralisme, elle va être publiée dans les prochains jours (pj).

http://www.agriculture-strategies.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/3.-Note_Reference_Strategique_Consensus_Reforme_PAC_250518.pdf

et en anglais

http://www.agriculture-strategies.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/STRATEGIC-REFERENCE-NOTE.pdf

A ta disposition pour en parler,

Bien cordialement,

Frédéric

Frédéric COURLEUX

Directeur des Etudes

www.agriculture-strategies.eu

The Typology Of Participation (Adapted from Pretty et, al., 1994)

1) Passive Engagement, i.e., people told what to do.

2) Informative Engagement, i.e., people simply answer questions.

3) Consultative Engagement, i.e., people consulted by external agents but decision-making power remains with agents.

4) Bought Engagement, i.e., people participate in return for incentives (e.g., cash, food).

5) Functional Engagement, i.e., people have a say but only after major decisions have already been made by external agents.

6) Interactive Engagement, i.e., people engage in joint analysis and take control over local decisions.

7) Pro-Active Self-mobilization, i.e., people take control and start action independent of external agents.

Thus, the seven levels of engagement range from:

Passive Engagement i.e., Coercion, Collusion (Goal-seeking), at one extreme, to Pro-Active Engagement i.e., Inspirational/Purposeful (Ideal-seeking) at the other.

The importance of qualifying the type of engagement is obvious. Given the different shades of engagement, it cannot be expected that all forms of engagement will produce the same outcomes.

A key aspect of inspirational/purposeful systems is their ability ( given the right environment) to go the higher level of purposefulness, i.e., to be ideal-seeking.

To the extent that purposeful behaviour and engagement do exist, they are most routinely manifest in terms of less than ideal-seeking behaviour (e.g., goal-seeking or multi-goal-seeking behaviour) exemplified in one of Pretty’s first four classifications of engagement (i.e., passive, informative, consultative, and bought engagement) or in one of Ackoff and Emery’s first six functional types of systems.

This means that, in practice, individual behaviour is still considered instrumental to the organization instead of the organization being instrumental to the individual (i.e., a means towards an end and not as an end in itself).

This ‘instrumental’ view of individual behaviour reinforces the dominant-hierarchy approach in organizational redesigns or re-engineering initiatives and allows for the prevalence of variety-reducing structures (i.e., Bureaucracies).

High long-term productivity and efficiency can only be possible when people are given the power to make decisions and their knowledge is valued (i.e., people exhibiting the desire for and ability to pursue an ideal).

Ultimately, it boils down to not only bringing the personal goals and values of participants together with the values and goals of the organization, but even more important, to align them with the fundamental purpose of the organization, namely, its Mission and Vision.

Thus, creating a truly sustainable project driven by ideal-seeking participants in search of their Higher Purpose!

People’s actions do not arise as simple responses to external or internal stimuli per se but as a response to situations determined by the relationship between the effectivities of the system and the environmental affordances through positive and negative feedback loops (Emery, 1985).

In other words, people’s behaviors are determined by the directive correlation between the individual and his/her environment. Thus, negative behaviors (i.e., maladaptations, such as apathy, lack of responsibility, commitment, participation, etc.) are attributable to an environment, or a specific organizational structure, that restricts the effectivities and affordances of its elements.

The restriction of effectivities/affordances gives rise to goal-seeking or “rational” individualistic behaviors as a requirement for short-term survival within this type of organizational structure and restrictive environment.

On the other hand, positive behaviors, such as high responsibility, commitment, accountability, etc., are attributable to a contrasting environment, or specific organizational structure that enhances the effectivities and affordances of its elements.

The enhancement of effectivities/affordances gives rise to ideal-seeking behavior through the purposeful pursuit of ideals.

The future of humanity is increasingly determined by the choices people make and their behavior, because ideal-seeking behavior and choice are intimately related (Ackoff & Emery, 1972).

Given the importance of organizational and/or institutional issues in terms of human behavior, it is only appropriate to focus on the importance of organizational design principles.

It is clear now that organizational structures that more closely resemble a bureaucracy (restrictive structure) reduce project performance, increase negative impacts, and do not allow for the sustainability of desired project outcomes.

On the other hand, organizational structures that more closely resemble a participative-democratic organizational structure (enhancive structure) enhance project performance, reduce/eliminate negative impacts, and allow for the sustainability of desired outcomes.

The main task and duty of any manager or leader isto create an organizational structure that gives rise to a culture conducive to ideal-seeking behavior!

https://medium.com/@JCWandemberg/the-art-wisdom-of-tropophilic-governan…

Here is a proposed solution to three major global crises: climate change, the food crisis, and social disintegration.

Could the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition quickly study the feasibility of this proposal?

---

There is a simple and intelligent way to achieve most of the Sustainable Development Goals quickly: to involve all components of human civilization, from the most humble citizen to the highest international institution, in changing the global food system.

By which magic trick?

Through a new governance tool: a world currency that would be issued by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) at the request of the UN General Assembly.

All it takes is for the IMF to create a division called the Organic Monetary Fund (OMF) which will issue a complementary currency, the crocus, whose money supply is indexed to the rich and diversified living biomass cultivated under a “Micro-farm Cluster” (MFC) label.

An MFC is a group of small, multi-purpose agricultural units that apply the principles of regenerative agriculture: agroecology, agroforestry and permaculture principles i.e. banning chemical fertilizers, synthetic pesticides, GMOs or intensive livestock farming. It allows farmers to share their knowledge, equipment and services.

Any IMF member country can participate in the OMF system provided that it promotes the establishment of agricultural cooperatives bearing the MFC label.

The higher the growth of living biomass in a country's MFCs, the more the government of that country receives crocuses from the OMF.

The crocuses are then assigned to each MFC, which distributes them among the natural persons who work there.

Crocuses can only be converted in exchange for the local complementary currency (CC) attached to the locality where the MFC is located.

The Crocus Currency would not compete with the current financial system because it is designed as simply complementary to it.

The crocus allows Nature to buy money instead of being bought by money.

In other words, ecological vitality, not the commodification of nature, is what generates money here.

This tool is therefore a means of giving nature added value without destroying it.

Rich living biomass is good for water and spontaneously inflationary. It makes the land indefinitely fertile instead of depleting it, which means growth and abundance for communities all over the world.

Above all, it will slow global warming more and more because through the power of photosynthesis, the OMF-crocus scheme is true natural geoengineering on a very large scale.

The OMF-Crocus Scheme was Finalist in the MIT Climate CoLab and UN Environment Contest ''Exploring Synergistic Solutions for Sustainable Development'' in 2018:

The crocus: Global Complementary Currency Pegged to the Production of Organic Living Biomass https://www.climatecolab.org/contests/2017/exploring-synergistic-solutions-for-sustainable-development/c/proposal/1334292

Please see:

3 Posters (One A4 page):

- english : https://drive.google.com/open?id=1fo_pxJnG4wqDxCjo5vpNkxwDgsFsjD8I ;

- spanish : https://t.co/DNcdDUyA4V ;

- french: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1p3WDEn5K60634lVXiAQKdp7o6Pi1gbuO .

2 images that summarize the beneficial of regenerating the agroecosystems:

- english: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1gUjvFBiVZMiJwWCwfZizEq81fFJLOajT

- french: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1JYR5rR1aIadymHunsXZnjJkUk-TTR48S

PDF (23 pages): Crocus for Talanoa Dialogue https://drive.google.com/open?id=1S1n3ol1dyt5H6V0M5Wgou0lGH9pzcMluzc4y-KfUEcY

Is it not urgent to study this solution?

It is still utopia, but we are forced into utopia.

Please note that this has absolutely nothing to do with cryptocurrencies or blockchain.