Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

Please find attached suggestions to the Nutrition and Food System v0 draft report from Ministry of Social Development. 

Any doubt please contact us.

Janine Coutinho

Ministry of Social Development

Dear CFS,

Attached please find comments from Global Dairy Platform in response to the electronic consultation on the HLPE Nutrition and food systems, V0 Draft report.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require any further clarification

Thanks & regards

Donald Moore

Dear colleagues,

Please find below my contribution to the draft paper:

Overall comments:

The paper is quite comprehensive however it still appears as a puzzle of different contributions from different authors, and it is still lacking a real synthetic, logical and comprehensive approach of Food systems and nutrition. As an example, the section on food processing and packaging p 81 is dealing only with food fortification as it seems that the writer of this section is a food fortification specialist. But I hope it is not a decision of the HLPE to say that food processing is only food fortification….

Actually, this is another comment I have that private sector is not well described and presented in all its complexity in the paper. Even if in the introduction and in the framework, private sector is supposed to be the main component of the food system as they are the value actors (represented by the four arrows on the left in the framework p 14), in the text private sector does not receive the same attention and representation (with case studies for example) than other actors such as governments or research. One concrete example, is p 77-line 16 saying that: “The private sector also has a role to play in terms in intervening across the value chain. “ This sentence is under-considering the role of private sector, as , from my point of view, the private sector is the MAJOR PLAYER that intervene in the food value chains, as almost all food value chains actors are private sector, from farmers, to traders, processors, retailers, etc… One of my main suggestion would be to give much more importance to private sector initiatives and experiences in section 4 dealing with best practices.

It should also emphasize that private sector is not only big multinationals, but is mainly represented by small and medium enterprises, farmers and other stakeholders. For example, 80 to 90% of food processors enterprises in developed countries are SMEs and this number is much higher in developing countries if considering the informal sector and all kind of micro and small enterprises in the food sector, most of the time run by women entrepreneurs. It is true that data are difficult to find in particular in developing countries about the importance of SMEs because of informal sector, however data are available in developed countries and could be highlighted anyway.

This low representation of private sector links to very few policy recommendations related with economic development, economic incentives, enabling environment for enterprise and agroindustries development (mainly for SMEs) which from my point of view would be very important for developing and supporting better food systems for healthy diets. The example from GAIN initiative related with Markets Places and innovations (Box 37, p 89) could be a good start to showcase this role of private sector: from my point of view, it should be better placed in the section of food processing. Value chains approaches are also missing, in particular nutrition sensitive ones such as developed by IFPRI, IFAD and others (see paper attached ).

Specific comments:

Another issue is that the paper failed to show the link between sustainability of food systems and sustainability of diets which is linked with healthy diets. Topics such as biodiversity, sustainable food production, sustainable food value chains, use of voluntary standards such as organic production, and other private schemes should be highlighted as well as the link with better nutrition and healthy diets.

In the section 4.2.2 related with changes in food systems, too much emphasis is given to modernization with high-tech and too little to supporting existing and healthy traditional and local food systems with alternative systems that already exists such as organic agriculture, innovative markets for sustainable agriculture, short circuits marketing systems, Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS), Community Based Agriculture (CSA), quality linked to geographical origin and geographical indications. Please see below some publications related with these systems in particular from CFS and FAO-INRA.

Please find below some useful publications where examples and case studies could be taken:

Publications on Geographical indications and Quality linked to Origin:

http://www.fao.org/in-action/quality-and-origin-program/en/

http://www.fao.org/in-action/quality-and-origin-program/tools/linking-people-places-products/en/

Publications on institutional procurement and PAA Africa:

http://www.fao.org/ag/ags/ivc/institutional-procurement/en/

http://paa-africa.org/2014/06/local-food-purchase-from-family-farmers-to-fight-hunger-african-governments-reaffirm-their-commitment/

Publications on innovative markets and sustainability:

http://www.fao.org/cfs/hlfsmall/en/

http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5907e.pdf

http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5398e.pdf

Project on Biodiversity for Nutrition:

http://www.b4fn.org/

Publication on PPP (for section p 105-line 15)

http://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/20e3ff08-df6f-4e48-abd3-037eccdde9df/

Publications on sustainable food value chains:

http://www.fao.org/sustainable-food-value-chains/home/en/

http://www.fao.org/sustainable-food-value-chains/what-is-it/en/

http://www.fao.org/ag/ags/ags-division/publications/publication/en/c/342479/

http://www.fao.org/ag/ags/ags-division/publications/publication/en/c/181167/

Best regards,

Florence Tartanac

Senior officer

Market Linkages and Value Chains Group

Nutrition and Food Systems Division (ESN)

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Rome, Italy

www.fao.org

1.    The purpose of this report is to analyse the ways in which food systems influence dietary patterns and hence nutritional outcomes. The objective is to focus on consumers and consider sustainability issues. The report aims to be solution oriented and to highlight efficient policies and programs. Are those major objective(s) clearly reflected in the V0 draft?

The draft offered some potentially very useful definitions (well done!) including one for food system. However, the authors did not stick to the definitions consistently in the later part of the report.  Otherwise, food system and value chains can be sensibly linked together and the discussion can continue through to the end outcomes of interest of this report, which are dietary patterns and then nutritional outcomes. This deviation appears a bit strange as almost the entire discussion of foods system focused on the 5 sets of drivers in the bulk of the report. This separation between food system and value chain is unfortunate in a way that the diagram, labeled as Figure 1, did not seem to clarify the relationship between the two. 

The report appears to be rather conceptual and heavy on literature review. The solution orientation should be strengthened. The 39 boxes from page 71 to page 91 are good attempts but only some offered effective and practical solutions.

2.    Do you think that the overall structure of the draft is comprehensive enough, and adequately considered and articulated? Does the draft strike the right balance of coverage across the various chapters? Are there important aspects that are missing? Does the report correctly focus on the links between nutrition and food systems without straying beyond that?

The V0 draft is too long.  Chapter 2 needs to be shortened and refocused on how nutrition burdens vary according to the different food system typologies – which have yet to be developed apparently.  This is such a critical missing piece in the V0, which almost made it too early to share the report for public comment.

3.    Does the conceptual framework need to be edited? Simplified? Should “the food environment” as defined in the draft be central to the framework?  

The introduction of food environment was confusing. One reason could be that in the bulk of report the discussions about food environment deviated from its original definition. In addition, there is a lack of clear explanations on how food environment is different from food system and value chain yet also closely linked to both of them. The authors may want to re-evaluate how to articulate these constructs, and redraw the conceptual framework.

4.    Are production systems and their role in shaping diets and nutritional outcomes adequately addressed?

Not very obvious – should be included in the discussion of the food systems if the report sticks to the original definition of food system.

5.    Does this draft cover adequately the main controversies in the field of Nutrition and food systems? Are there any remaining gaps?

??

6.    The project team is working on a categorization of food systems. Are you aware of specific approaches of use in that perspective, and particularly of quantitative indicators that could be used?

7.    Does this draft adequately show the multiplicity and complexity of diets and nutrition issues across different food systems and specific contexts with a good regional balance?

This is where things got tangled, since the typologies of the food system have not been developed.  For the next version, there needs to be a clear delineation of how food systems could vary based on likely a country’s economic status. It could greatly help the authors to elaborate on the solutions to address the dietary and nutrition challenges in the different contexts and the readers to find solutions useful to their contexts – assuming the target audience is policy makers and program designers in country? 

8.    What areas of the document are in need of strengthening or shortening?

9.    Chapter 4, Section 4.1 contains case studies/examples of effective policies and actions in different contexts/countries across the food system for diets and nutrition. Could you offer other practical, well-documented and significant examples to enrich and provide better balance to the variety of cases and the lessons learned, including the trade-offs or win-win outcomes in terms of addressing the different dimensions of diets for FSN?

10.  Section 4.2.2 on “Institutional Changes and Governance Across the Food System Movements for Nutrition” requires more work, and more inclusion of evidence and of the various players. Any inputs on this section are most welcome.

11.  Is the report too technical or too simplistic? Are all the concepts clearly defined?

I enjoyed the technical richness, but I think the report should be packaged into different versions to tailor to the needs of different audiences. Most of the HLPE reports were technically sound yet pleasantly succinct.  A summary of the full report – if the end report remained long regardless – is what perhaps most readers would need.  Then there could be annexes, one of which should be the case studies and examples.  The key is that they also need to be grouped consistently with how the other parts of the report are going to be labeled. 

12.  Are there any major omissions or gaps in the report? Are topics under-or over-represented in relation to their importance?

The International One Health Ecohealth Congress in Melbourne has included a Food and Water Security Theme for the first time.  In the lead up to the congress, a pre-congress workshop on Sustainable Food Systems was hosted at the University of Sydney by the CPC/MBI Healthy Food Systems: Nutrition*Diversity*Safety Node.  Workshop participants issued a workshop statement (attached) that endorses key points included in your draft and proposes actions to address these pressing issues.  We hope that this statement will contribute to your important initiative.

Dear All,

With reference to the open consultation of the V0 Draft of the Report Nutrition and Food Systems, the Barilla Center for Food and Nutrition (BCFN) Foundation is willing to congratulate for the quality of the present document, and provide a contribution to the elaboration of the report.

As you might know, the BCFN is a private non-profit apolitical institution (www.barillacfn.com). Working as a multidisciplinary and independent think tank the Foundation produces valuable scientific content that can be used to inform and help people to make conscious choices every day about food and nutrition, health and sustainability Some of our works refer to point number 6 of your question list, providing specific approaches for the categorization of the food system. The attached document represents a summary of the BCFN contribution to the CFS Report, with particular relevance to two recently-released outcomes:

• The Double Pyramid 2016 – A more sustainable future depends on us, which presents the synthesis of the relationship between food and environment which BCFN has been analysing, with a multi-disciplinary approach, since 2009.
• The Food Sustainability Index, and the accompanying Fixing Food report, developed by the Economist Intelligence Unit with BCFN, which ranks 25 countries according to their food system sustainability, and is a quantitative and qualitative benchmarking model based on 58 indicators.

We hope that both these projects, which are at the core of the research activities of BCFN, can be deemed relevant and appropriate for their scientific contribution to the V 0 Draft Report, and hence be included in the document references.

We remain at your disposal for any additional information you might need.

With Best Regards,

BCFN Research Team

Estimados, enviamos de manera adjunta comentarios sobre el documento de referencia.

Cordiales saludos.

Dear HLPE Steering Committee, 

please, find attached comments to the HLPE report on Nutrition and Food Systems by CARE International.

We remain available for further consultations.

best regards

Theresa Jeremias 

Food and Nutrition Security Advisor

(Policies and Programmes) 

CARE Deutschland-Luxemburg