Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

This member contributed to:

    • On behalf of We Effect, a Swedish cooperative development cooperation organisation, I share cases and comments collected from our work with partner organisations.

      We have numerous cases of home gardens. First out is a case from Zimbabwe where one of our partner organisations has seen that with the adoption of organic farming input, farming costs have been reduced by more than 90% (Cost of producing a 200L cow fertiliser cost US$5 while cost of Ammonium Nitrate inorganic fertiliser is US$54-$75). Members of our supported partner organisation are now producing food at a minimal cost. In Gambiza, Chiundura, Getrude who relies on gardening projects testifies that besides having the organic fertilisers (fish hydrolysate and lab serum) helping in the growth of her vegetables, she has realised that they control aphids and help keep the crops healthy. She has moved from using artificial fertilisers ever since she got the information from the organisation Women and Land in Zimbambwe (WLZ) about organic liquid fertilisers. Training initiatives have also attracted many people to join WLZ groups and with it, there has been an increase in WLZ membership with the final result of 95% of members applying climate resilient farming practices.

      More cases and comments are attached:

      Attached: Case of domestic organoponic gardens in housing cooperatives in Central America.

      Attached: Case of azolla crop cultivation on Palestine

      Attached: Cases of urban and peri-urban low water usage agriculture in Palestine

      Attached: Comments from our Zambia land office on the two questions of: 

      • What are the most appropriate policies (and gaps in existing policies) along the rural-urban continuum to address issues of land tenure, urban expansion into farmland and the growing competition for natural resources?
      • In what ways can the incorporation of climate resilient agricultural and circular economy practices in urban and peri-urban agriculture provide climate co-benefits for all and enhance climate resilience?

      If more best practice cases of home gardens are of interest, or more in-depth information about the ones listed above, we are happy to contribute with such.

    • On behalf of We Effect,

      We Effect, a cooperative, Swedish development cooperation organisation, is focusing its contribution on two thematic areas: environment & climate change and gender equality.

      Environment and climate change

      • Pollution and biodiversity loss as drivers of inequalities in FSN outcomes and its link to climate change is largely missing. Biodiversity in general requires more attention in the report as it is the basis for food production. Pollution, biodiversity loss and climate change must be viewed together as they are reinforcing and interlinked trends. For example, regarding pollution - when talking about trade (esp. global trade), this has a polluting aspect, especially emissions which we know are contributing to climate change, having unequal impacts on different groups and widens inequalities. For instance, as it leads to lost harvests with droughts and floods increasing in frequency and magnitude (and the droughts and floods harm biodiversity), where usually smallholder farmers are more vulnerable than large food producers. 
      • The paper often refers to caste - but it could also mention clans and tribes to make it more globally appropriate.
      • Disasters and natural hazards as drivers of inequalities in FSN outcomes is largely missing and deserve more attention - there are wide differences among groups and individuals’ capacities to cope, absorb, adapt, and transform in the face of shocks and stresses. These in turn influence their FSN outcomes, as their livelihoods, crops and harvests are damaged, as well as the economic impacts which affects the ability to access healthy and nutritious food and safe and clean water.
      • Food waste, vegetarian/vegan food trends and their influence on FSN outcomes is missing - the link between emissions and food more could be highlighted more.
      • P.50 when referring to availability of land and scale of production, this should mention biodiversity loss as a negative consequence of monocultures as this could also harm food diversity as well as ability to grow food.
      • The climate section, p.85-87, could be strengthened. There is no explicit mention of gender and other intersections, except poverty. It also does not reflect on the vulnerability of agriculture in general and smallholder farmers to climate change and their relatively limited capacity to adapt and manage changes vis-a-vis large corporations. It is also missing how climate change alter the types of crops that farmers can grow and harvest as well as how it alters the seasons of harvest - which all affect availability, access, utilisation, stability, sustainability, and agency. It should also mention that climate change can alter the nutritional value of certain crops. It should also mention that very little of climate finance is targeting agriculture, and smallholder farmers in particular (less than 2%) - which is deepening the already existing inequalities. Climate change is also affecting soil fertility which is making it more difficult to make a living as a farmer and reach FSN outcomes. Climate change, for example, is increasing the risk of cyclones and hurricanes, and these tend to cause saltwater and/or sand intrusion in farmland making it impossible to grow food where it has been traditionally grown (unless you have a lot of money and can recover the land--> increasing inequalities).  

      Gender equality

      • Agency should reflect collective agency and not merely individual agency, especially for women, as change and claims occurs when they mobilise and become stronger together. Research has proven that women rights organisation/mobilisation is the main factor for advancing gender equal policies which is a prerequisite for advancing gender equality within a society.
      • There is a lack in the draft to fully recognising gender-based violence, including economic violence and simply not sexual harassment and exploitation, as part of the deep-rooted discrimination towards various gender identities and the interlinkage to all aspects of the value chain and in relation to all six dimensions of FNS.
      • Addressing social norms also need to reflect gender-based violence risk mitigation approaches to materialise positive change, as changes in power dynamics may increase the prevalence of gender-based violence. Also, increase focus on that the programming itself is not reenforcing gender-based violence.
      • The report tends to lean towards a binary on take – and subsequently lack addressing how to strategise bringing sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) on board in a context where this is more of a risk living as a SOGI person.
      • The concept gender needs to move away from drawing a parallel to gender and women in the report – and recognise how the gender power dynamics between gender roles within societies (non-binary) plays out and create inequalities.  
      • Universal protection needs to be problematised as it tends to be more about poverty reduction that ensure solid governmental structures for care work and other types of social protection.

      With kind regards,

      Hanna Sjölund

      Head of Policy

      We Effect