CFS Advisory Group for CGIAR
V0 draft of the CEEI note for e-consultation: Observations by Rod Cooke (CFS advisory Group member representing CGIAR).
Thanks for your invitation of 26 April to comment. The seven CEEI stated in the covering note are:
1. Building resilient supply chains for FSN
2. Urban and peri-urban food systems
3. Conflicts and the fragility of food systems
4. Revitalizing climate policies for FSN
5. Recognizing the role and rights of food system workers
6. Building a meaningful interface for diverse knowledges and practices for FSN
7. Emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases challenging FSN.
The seven CEEI identified by the HLPE are very broadly based and cover the most important issues affecting food security and nutrition. The trends identified, aspects described and references listed in some of the CEEI are somewhat narrow and should be expanded. I offer comments below.
1. Building resilient supply chains for FSN.
I note that the title is now in the V0 Building resilient and equitable supply chains for FSN. I had argued for this in my mail of 29 March to CFS. That mail gave several supporting references to the supply chain /value chain literature. I now add an update on the evolving CGIAR research portfolio: one of the new research initiatives has the title ‘Rethinking Food Markets and Value Chains for Inclusion and Sustainabilities’. This provides many recent references and analyses for consideration by the HLPE team.
This Initiative aims to provide evidence on what types of bundled innovations, incentive structures, and policies are most effective for creating more equitable sharing of income and employment opportunities in growing food markets, while reducing the food sector’s environmental footprint.
This objective will be accomplished through:
A full description of this initiative (and associated references) can be found on the cgiar.org site under ‘Portfolio Explorer’.
2. Urban and peri-urban food systems
I noted in an earlier exchange last March that Peri-urban food systems have been studied by many groups and are very country/location specific; a key factor being changing peri-urban land values – often a hot political issue. I recommend an approach that would ease any derived policy convergence would be along the lines of ‘ Strengthening food systems in the context of urbanisation and rural transformation’.
HLPE 15 (2020) on building a global narrative to 2030 included as recommendation 9:
‘ADDRESS THE SPECIFIC NEEDS OF DIVERSE RURAL AND URBAN CONTEXTS IN FORMULATING FSN POLICIES’. The associated text – to revisit in this consultation to strengthen the drivers and key questions -includes:
In box 14 of that HLPE 15 report there is DEFINING A ROBUST RESEARCH AGENDA. That note identified the several issues as being critical and emerging; the first one noted was ‘anticipating the inter-connected future of urbanization and rural transformation’.
In that context, I add an update on the evolving CGIAR research portfolio: one of the new research initiatives has the title Resilient Cities Through Sustainable Urban and Peri-Urban Agrifood Systems.This Initiative aims to support a vibrant, largely informal urban and peri-urban agrifood sector, to help improve sustainability, equity and opportunity growth, and mitigate risks to human and environmental health. This objective will be accomplished through:
A full description of this initiative (and associated references) can be found on the cgiar.org site under ‘Portfolio Explorer’.
3. Conflicts and the fragility of food systems
HLPE 15 (2020) on building a global narrative to 2030 included as recommendation 10: ‘ADDRESS THE FSN NEEDS OF THOSE AFFECTED BY CONFLICTS’. The associated text, pertinent to the ‘drivers’, includes:
Provide timely, adequate and nutritious emergency food relief for people affected by conflicts, including displaced people.
Ensure the availability of clean and adequate water and sanitation to facilitate food production, preparation and utilization in conflict and post-conflict situations.
As emergency relief is phased out, rebuild the conditions to have normal functioning food systems in post conflict situations.
Revitalize development and governance capacity and expertise in areas relevant to sustainable FSN during conflict and in post-conflict situations.
The recent HLPE paper on the Ukraine crisis discussed at the CFS B/AG meeting on 28 April updates some of this thinking
4. Revitalizing climate policies for FSN.
This should replay the CFS 49 (October 2021) discussion and background documents on the three UN Rio Conventions and FSN. That event addressed the issues critical to the world’s food security and nutrition, as a follow up to the Ministerial Round Table held at the UNFSS Pre-Summit, where links between the Conventions were highlighted as they relate to food security. An IFPRI/CGIAR speaker at CFS 49 discussed the role of research in supporting the Rio Conventions, and noted that a lot of today’s challenges are a result of under-investment in research, especially research focused on environmental challenges. Noting that governments currently spend more than USD 700 billion annually to support farmers and food production, less than 3% of this goes towards agricultural innovation, and that CFS intervention called for incentives to induce a change.
CFS 49 also included a Monitoring Event: CFS Policy Recommendations on Climate Change and Water. This discussed the use and application of the CFS policy recommendations on Food Security and Climate Change (2012) and Water for Food Security and Nutrition (2015). An earlier presentation by the HLPE considered these reports, and the scope for improvements in these areas. CGIAR inputs are included in that CFS 49 background document. An especially relevant CFS 49 Side event was SE 13 October 14: ‘Innovation as a force for good in the fight against climate change and malnutrition’, that SE explored many of these climate policy issues.
In that context, I now add an update on the evolving CGIAR research portfolio one of the new research initiatives has the title ClimBeR: Building Systemic Resilience Against Climate Variability and Extremes.
This Initiative aims to transform the climate adaptation capacity of food, land and water systems in six low- and middle-income countries, ultimately increasing the resilience of smallholder production systems to withstand severe climate change effects like drought, flooding and high temperatures. This objective will be accomplished through:
A full description of this initiative (and associated references) can be found on the cgiar.org site under ‘Portfolio Explorer’.
The CFS Voluntary Guidelines on Food Systems and Nutrition (2021) are structured around seven focus areas encapsulating cross-cutting factors that are relevant for improving diets and nutrition. The second focus area is: ‘Sustainable Food Supply Chains to Achieve Healthy Diets in the Context of Economic, Social and Environmental Sustainability, and Climate Change’. This focus area includes ‘seeks to mainstream climate adaptation and mitigation and promote the sustainable use and management of natural resources’. The associated text bears re-visiting by HLPE in this consultation.
5. Recognizing the role and rights of food system workers
HLPE 15 (2020) on building a global narrative to 2030 included as recommendation 1: ‘UPHOLD THE CENTRAL ROLE OF THE RIGHT TO FOOD AND OTHER HUMAN RIGHTS IN FSN’. The associated text, useful to strengthen this CEEI, includes:
That HLPE 15 report presents six dimensions of Food security and one of those is ‘Agency’. The text relating to that aspect includes consideration of human rights and disparities in wealth, income and power dynamics.
6. Building a meaningful interface for diverse knowledge and practices for FSN
There is a vast literature on this topic. Much of that is captured in the evolving CGIAR research portfolio: one of the new research initiatives has the title Harnessing Digital Technologies for Timely Decision-Making Across Food, Land and Water Systems. This provides a rich source of relevant issues and recent references.
This Initiative aims to support sustainable and inclusive transformation of food, land and water systems by bridging the gender and urban-rural digital divide, improving equitable access to and quality of available information and systems, and strengthening local capabilities to best make use of the potential of digital technologies. This objective will be accomplished through:
7. Emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases challenging FSN.
In the CFS advisory group, we have had several discussions on the need for a ‘One Health’ approach; including presentations and side events at CFS 47 (February 2021). Much of that is captured in the evolving CGIAR research portfolio: one of the new research initiatives has the title Protecting Human Health Through a One Health Approach.
This Initiative aims to demonstrate how One Health principles and tools integrated into food systems can help reduce and contain zoonotic disease outbreaks, improve food and water safety, and reduce anti-microbial resistance, benefitting human, animal, and environmental health. This objective will be achieved through:
A full description of this initiative (and associated references) can be found on the cgiar.org site under ‘Portfolio Explorer’.
I hope that these comments are useful to the HLPE team taking these CEEI forward.
Dr R D Cooke
CFS Advisory Group member, representing the CGIAR System Organisation
The first two questions to guide this e consultation describe a very broad framework embracing the many societal factors that are associated with inequality (and on which many libraries of information exist):
Qu1. a. Defining inequality within the context of food systems and for food security and nutrition: What does ‘inequality’ mean through a food security and nutrition perspective; Commitments to reduce inequality (SDGs), efforts to improve measurement; Relationship between inequality and inequity….
Qu 1. b Identifying drivers of power asymmetry that cause and perpetuate inequality
Qu 1. c Paths toward equality
Qu 2. Share good practices and successful experiences on policy, legislation, interventions and initiatives that have proven successful at: reducing inequality gap and its potential impact on food security and nutrition outcomes; ensuring the effective legal framework to guarantee equal rights …; empowering the role of small farmers’, producers’ and workers’ organizations in making food systems more equitable and accessible; addressing capacity gaps ….
The risk of such a broad opening framework is that the scope of this HLPE report would be too diffuse, inadequately focused on FSN, and re-invent some of the wheels developed by other organisations. I outline below key reference sources that cover much of the FSN ground of questions 1 & 2, and respond to question 3 on recent references that should be considered in this report. And my brief summaries below of those sources (which in turn include many associated references pertinent to question 3) respond to some of the items in question 4.
I. Much of that Qu 1&2 context was investigated leading up to the UN Decade of Family Farming 2019-2028 which highlights the important role family farmers play in eradicating hunger and shaping our future of food. Family farming offers a unique opportunity to ensure food security, improve livelihoods, better manage natural resources, protect the environment and achieve sustainable development, particularly in rural areas.
The Global Action Plan of the UN Decade of Family Farming 2019-2028 aims at accelerating actions undertaken in a collective, coherent and comprehensive manner to support family farmers, who are key agents of sustainable development. That Action Plan comprises 7 pillars:
Pillar 1. Develop an enabling policy environment to strengthen family farming
Pillar 2–Transversal. Support youth and ensure the generational sustainability of family farming
Pillar 3–Transversal. Promote gender equity in family farming and the leadership role of rural women
Pillar 4. Strengthen family farmers’ organizations and capacities to generate knowledge, represent farmers and provide inclusive services in the
urban-rural continuum
Pillar 5. Improve socio-economic inclusion, resilience and well-being of family farmers, rural households and communities
Pillar 6. Promote sustainability of family farming for climate-resilient food systems
Pillar 7. Strengthen the multidimensionality of family farming to promote social innovations contributing to territorial development and food systems that safeguard biodiversity, the environment and culture
Pillars 1, 4, 5 and 7 are directly relevant to this e consultation.
II. The CERES 2030 report (deriving from a partnership between Cornell University, IISD and IFPRI) was discussed at the CFS AG/B meeting on 18 March (cited also by IFAD and GDPRD at that meeting). This studied sustainable solutions to end hunger, and developed ten recommendations of which the first three focused on “ Empower the Excluded”:
1. Enable participation in farmers’ organizations.
2. Invest in vocational programs for rural youth that offer integrated training in multiple skills.
3. Scale up social protection programs to help create a bridge for people living in poverty to find productive jobs.
III. The IFAD RURAL DEVELOPMENT REPORT (2021), titled Transforming food systems for rural prosperity.
This report underlined that food systems need to be changed dramatically so that a new food system may deliver available, accessible, adequate, and nutritious food for all in a sustainable manner. The new food systems must aspire to become fair, inclusive and sustainable.
The overall goals of a food system’s transformation are to ensure that people are able to consume diets that are healthy, to produce food within planetary boundaries and to earn a decent living from their work in the food system. Livelihoods, nutrition and environmental goals are interlinked. Central to these desired outcomes is the need to ensure that food systems are resilient to shocks from weather extremes, pest and disease outbreaks, climate change and market anomalies.
The key recommendations of this Report of particular relevance to this consultation included ‘What can governments do?’ That section is re-stated here:
A failure of food systems is a failure of governance. National governments play a central role as drivers and implementers of change, yet global markets and geopolitical considerations also play a crucial role. Policymakers, governments and stakeholders can support this transition by:
Providing incentives that reward responsible investments, nature-based solutions and agroecological strategies, and low carbon and climate-resilient techniques. Investments in food markets need to be fair: food markets need to be accessible to rural people and farm/ non-farm small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) on fair terms. Increasing investments in infrastructure can help with this.
Building and strengthening responsible investment principles and practices related to labour conditions, gender equality, the environment and climate.
Ensuring opportunities for large numbers of smaller-scale producers, supporting the marketing of their products and developing the entrepreneurial skills of rural people, particularly youth.
Spurring scalable innovation among local, small, food system actors by investing in digital technologies and in production techniques that, once tested, are also suitable for scaling up, such as those related to nature-based solutions and agroecology.
Developing pricing systems that reflect the true cost of production, including the benefits of nature-based solutions and environmental costs.
Overcoming market constraints and constraints related to missing markets by having clear regulations, incentives and innovation programmes to support poor people’s food purchasing power and women’s bargaining power – and enable them to make better-informed food choices through training, labelling, and communication that reduces transaction costs and reflects fair pricing.
Building partnerships: governments, civil society, the private sector, academia and representatives of rural people need to come together with innovative governance mechanisms that give a real voice and influence to poor rural people.
This 2021 RDR also identified three key ways to ensure rural people benefit from a food systems transformation:
Create new employment opportunities and invest in local midstream food businesses. Local SMEs provide new ways to access both markets and non-farm employment opportunities, while supplying healthier foods to meet consumer demand.
Invest in agricultural systems by helping small farms become more productive and profitable
Focus on social protection measures that encourage better diets and livelihood opportunities.
The next three sources were cited in my mail of 29 March to the CFS Bureau/AG, regarding ‘Possible themes for the HLPE report to be presented to CFS in 2024’. I recommended in that mail including in the title and in the leading questions the issue of equity: 1. Building resilient and equitable supply chains for FSN.
IV. SOFI 21 included in the conclusion: WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO TRANSFORM FOOD SYSTEMS FOR FOOD SECURITY, IMPROVED NUTRITION AND AFFORDABLE HEALTHY DIETS. Six pathways were stated to address major drivers behind recent food security and nutrition trends. Pathways 3-6 have a direct bearing on poverty reduction/inequality and FSN.
The six recommended pathways described were: 1) integrating humanitarian, development and peace building policies in conflict-affected areas; 2) scaling up climate resilience across food systems; 3) strengthening the resilience of the most vulnerable to economic adversity; 4) intervening along the food supply chains to lower the cost of nutritious foods; 5) tackling poverty and structural inequalities, ensuring interventions are pro-poor and inclusive; and 6) strengthening food environments and changing consumer behaviour to promote dietary patterns with positive impacts on human health and the environment.
V. The CFS Voluntary Guidelines on Food Systems and Nutrition – still foremost in the memory of CFS B/AG colleagues- are structured around seven focus areas encapsulating cross-cutting factors that are relevant for improving diets and nutrition.
The first three focus areas and the associated text are directly relevant to this consultation: 1. Transparent, democratic and accountable governance; 2. Sustainable Food Supply Chains to Achieve Healthy Diets in the Context of Economic, Social and Environmental Sustainability, and Climate Change; 3. Equal and equitable access to healthy diets through sustainable food systems.
VI. HLPE Report – Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships (MSPs – HLPE 13, 2018). A key MSP mechanism described and also discussed in the follow-up meetings (mediated in 2019 by CFS Bureau members Germany and China) is the value chain (from farmer to consumer and all the stakeholders and links in between) to deliver on FSN. The term value chain and supply chain are often used interchangeably in the literature. The challenge is to ensure that these interventions and MSP developments benefit the poor farmers and smallholders. This discussion was informed by documents cited from CGIAR and IFAD, including a then recent book and associated articles from the CGIAR Centres CIP and IFPRI “Innovation for inclusive value-chain development: successes and challenges”: Andre Devaux, Maximo Torero, Jason Donovan, Douglas Horton, (2018). This book preceded Maximo coming to FAO as Chief Economist. IFAD had produced reports on the ‘Sustainable inclusion of smallholders in agricultural value chains’, and ‘ Public-Private-Producer Partnerships in Agricultural Value Chains’ (Mylene Kherallah, Marco Camagni, Philipp Baumgartner, 2015 & 2016). Much of that is revisited in IFAD’s current Rural Development Report, 2021 ‘Transforming food systems for rural prosperity’, cited in III above.
VII. Finally I draw your attention to a cautionary note on the challenges and probabilities of inequality reduction, cited in an ILRI e mail of 1 April 2022. This referred to Susan Macmillan’s ‘ Tiny Letter’ and the provocative article: 'Taking Stock: Justice Creep, Scott Alexander. . . justice is eating the world’.
I quote an excerpt below, noting that you have Iain Wright, DDG, ILRI in the HLPE SC ( copied here), who will doubtless have his views on this.
“Below are just two of the hundreds of reader responses to this issue '. , , There's an inherent underlying assumption that we would have equality of outcomes in a just world. There is absolutely no reason to believe this.
'It's basically pitting "justice" in a state of perpetual war against bad luck, uneven genetics, uneven geography, human self-interest, the natural tendency toward centralisation and hierarchy in both the economic and political domain, and basically every other force that creates unequal outcomes in human societies- not least of which is personal choice.
'Unfairness is baked into the world at so many levels or emerges so rapidly from organic human processes that expecting a mere absence of malice or even-handedness in dispute-resolution to produce equity is laughable, so in practice this vision of 'justice' has to become totalitarian and all-encompassing. Every variable- including personal choice- has to be coerced into irrelevancy.”
Dr. Rodney Cooke
General Comment on the questions stated in this e-consultation, from Dr R D Cooke CFS Advisory Group member, representing the CGIAR System Organisation.
This is a hugely important topic, which confronts many of the challenges to society and to human nature in delivering the SDGs. The conceptual framework (Question 1) is robust and far-reaching, but the risk is that this would lead to an HLPE report that would be too diffuse, inadequately focused on FSN, and re-invent some of the wheels developed by other organisations. This V0 seeks rightly to focus on FSN drawing on several earlier HLPE reports, but in several areas there are missing references to relevant earlier work by HLPE and other organisations ( comment below on questions 4 & 5). I have nothing to add to the definitions described in Questions 2 &3; those definitions are serviceable.
Question 4: gaps in the literature and data in the report regarding major inequalities in FSN (chapter 3 of V0).
4.1 The first inequality stated is ‘Inequalities in land, livestock and other food production resources’ (pages 45-52) much space is rightly focused on the inequalities confronting small-scale farmers (the 85% of all farms that have less than 2 ha and have just 12% of total farmed land). A key missing reference and source of relevant data is the report UN Decade of Family Farming 2019-2028. This highlights the important role family farmers play in eradicating hunger and shaping our future of food. Family farming offers a unique opportunity to ensure food security, improve livelihoods, better manage natural resources, protect the environment and achieve sustainable development.
The Global Action Plan of the UN Decade of Family Farming 2019-2028 aims at accelerating actions undertaken in a collective, coherent and comprehensive manner to support family farmers, and reduce the inequalities cited in V0. That Action Plan comprises 7 pillars:
Pillar 1. Develop an enabling policy environment to strengthen family farming
Pillar 2. Transversal. Support youth and ensure the generational sustainability of family farming
Pillar 3. Transversal. Promote gender equity in family farming and the leadership role of rural women
Pillar 4. Strengthen family farmers’ organizations and capacities to generate knowledge, represent farmers and provide inclusive services in the urban-rural continuum
Pillar 5. Improve socio-economic inclusion, resilience and well-being of family farmers, rural households and communities
Pillar 6. Promote sustainability of family farming for climate-resilient food systems
Pillar 7. Strengthen the multidimensionality of family farming to promote social innovations contributing to territorial development and food systems that safeguard biodiversity, the environment and culture.
Pillars 1, 4, 5 and 7 are directly relevant to this e consultation.
4.2 The second inequality stated is ‘Inequalities in finance and information ; (pages 52-53). These are the sources of major inequalities, but the treatment in V0 is superficial and out-dated. For example the reference to IFAD on finance is from 2015. After the opening paragraph in this V0, more recent text could be added. For example, I quote from the current IFAD web site on rural finance:
“The vast majority of rural people do not have reliable, secure ways to save money, protect and build assets, or transfer funds. This is particularly true for vulnerable groups, such as women, youth, and displaced people. Weak infrastructure, the limited capacity of financial service providers, and low levels of client education all contribute to this complex problem.
For over four decades, IFAD has made significant investments to promote inclusive rural finance (IRF) in more than 100 developing Member States, reaching an estimated 13.8 million voluntary savers and 11.95 million active savers and borrowers in 2019. IFAD has also led and supported the production of a large body of IRF knowledge and evidence; contributed to several global and regional policy processes; and participated in key partnerships such as the Consultative Group to Assist the Poor (CGAP) and the Improving Capacity-Building in Rural Finance (CABFIN) project. IFAD updated its 2009 Rural Finance Policy in December 2021, titled ‘ Inclusive Rural Finance Policy’.
Financial institutions often perceive small-scale agriculture as being too risky and are reluctant to lend money to farmers and agribusinesses. Farmers themselves are reluctant to borrow for agricultural production because of their difficulty in managing risks such as climate-related shocks and livestock disease. Over the past ten years, IFAD has become a leader in the field of agricultural risk management (ARM). The Fund promotes a holistic approach to protect and strengthen rural economies and food production systems, at the same time as leveraging rural financing and investment in smallholder farmers.”
Apart from IFAD 2021 for the IRF, other pertinent refs are available there, and also from the WB site.
The half page on information also does not do justice to this important source of inequalities. Many recent references are available, for example on ICTs/extension, on the web sites of FAO, WB, GFAR/GFRAS and on the sites of many bilateral development partners and the EC.
4.3 The third inequality stated is ‘Inequalities in value chains and markets’ (pages 54-59). The themes are covered well, but would benefit from some more recent references – not least from two HLPE/ CFS VG reports that are not mentioned here:
i) The CFS Voluntary Guidelines on Food Systems and Nutrition (2021) are structured around seven focus areas encapsulating cross-cutting factors that are relevant for improving diets and nutrition. The first three focus areas and the associated text are directly relevant to this consultation: 1. Transparent, democratic and accountable governance; 2. Sustainable Food Supply Chains to Achieve Healthy Diets in the Context of Economic, Social and Environmental Sustainability, and Climate Change; 3. Equal and equitable access to healthy diets through sustainable food systems.
ii) HLPE Report – Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships (MSPs – HLPE 13, 2018). A key MSP mechanism described and also discussed in CFS follow-up meetings in 2019, is the value chain (from farmer to consumer and all the stakeholders and links in between) to deliver on FSN. The challenge is to ensure that these interventions and MSP developments benefit the poor farmers and smallholders. This discussion was informed by documents cited from CGIAR and IFAD, including a then recent book and associated articles from the CGIAR Centres CIP and IFPRI “Innovation for inclusive value-chain development: successes and challenges”: Andre Devaux, Maximo Torero, Jason Donovan, Douglas Horton, (2018). IFAD had produced reports on the ‘Sustainable inclusion of smallholders in agricultural value chains’, and ‘ Public-Private-Producer Partnerships in Agricultural Value Chains’ (Mylene Kherallah, Marco Camagni, Philipp Baumgartner, 2015 & 2016). Much of that is revisited in IFAD’s current Rural Development Report, 2021 ‘Transforming food systems for rural prosperity’.
References to the SOFI reports 2021 and 2022 could also be included here.
Question 5&6: structural drivers of inequity, adequate coverage, and key trends.
5.1 Chapter 4 includes ‘climate in-justice’ (page 85-87). Reference to the COP 27 (November 2022) is recommended, either here or in chapter 6 (page 120 which just mentions COP 26), since this included the first ever official Food and Agriculture Pavilion at a Climate Change COP. This was co-hosted by FAO, CGIAR, Rockefeller Foundation, and convened 70 events involving the agrifood systems community. This was driven by the increasingly uncertain future for food, land and water systems, and for vulnerable smallholder farmers, and the need to ensure that they are centred in climate negotiations and action.
5.2 Chapter 4 includes one page on Innovation and Technology, which begins ‘Developments in science and technology have been hugely important for boosting both agricultural yields and the growth of incomes in many low and middle income countries…’ The following paragraphs include old hat on the Green Revolution, and some rather unbalanced comments about recent research topics that imply that smallholders are unlikely to benefit. The only CGIAR ref is from 2012; you may be aware that the CGIAR updated its research and innovation strategy in 2020 and has developed with partners a corresponding research portfolio in 2021. I recommend citing at least that research and innovation strategy. I quote from the web site:
‘This 2030 Research and Innovation Strategy situates CGIAR in the evolving global context that demands a systems transformation approach for food, land, and water systems in a climate crisis. CGIAR designs its work with partners to realize multiple benefits and that transformative change across five SDG-focused Impact Areas: (i) Nutrition, health, and food security; (ii) Poverty reduction, livelihoods, and jobs; (iii) Gender equality, youth, and social inclusion; (iv) Climate adaptation and mitigation; and (v) Environmental health and biodiversity. Recognizing the need to accelerate global progress towards the SDGs, CGIAR will invest in technological and institutional innovations, partnerships, capacity development, and policy engagement across all five Impact Areas.’
All CGIAR Initiatives that constitute the new portfolio contribute to the Poverty Reduction, Livelihoods, and Jobs impact area. The CGIAR web site also describes a selection of those Initiatives that primarily contribute to this Impact Area.
Chapter 5. “Actions to reduce inequalities in food and other systems to improve FSN”
5.3 Page 95 discusses equity/equality sensitive policy and cites 3 tools to that end, including SUN’s multi-stakeholder partnership toolkit. The pre-amble would benefit from ref to HLPE Report – Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships (MSPs – HLPE 13, 2018).
5.4 Page 97 discusses actions to reduce inequalities in general terms and includes one page (page 101) entitled ‘Boost public agricultural research and other rural public investments, with particular attention to the needs of disadvantaged groups’. While stating that ‘Agricultural growth is effective at reducing poverty (Christiaensen, Demery and Kuhl, 2011) and is also an important factor in reducing income inequality…. the cited references (eg two IFPRI refs in this text from 21 and 12 years ago) are in need of updating. That relates also to my earlier comment in 5.2, above, on the CGIAR strategy.
5.5 Page 102 covers ‘Adapt inclusive value chain approaches to the local context to improve participation and outcomes of disadvantaged groups in value chains’, and cites a Devaux journal article; the book cited in 4.3, above, by the same authors gives a more complete source for those issues. That section includes an IFAD ref from 11 years ago. IFAD’s current Rural Development Report, 2021 ‘Transforming food systems for rural prosperity’, should be cited here.
That IFAD 2021 report notes that the overall goals of a food system’s transformation are to ensure that people are able to consume diets that are healthy, to produce food within planetary boundaries and to earn a decent living from their work in the food system. Livelihoods, nutrition and environmental goals are interlinked. Central to these desired outcomes is the need to ensure that food systems are resilient to shocks from weather extremes, pest and disease outbreaks, climate change and market anomalies.
The key recommendations of this Report include
A failure of food systems is a failure of governance. National governments play a central role as drivers and implementers of change, yet global markets and geopolitical considerations also play a crucial role. Policymakers, governments and stakeholders can support this transition by taking 7 actions described in the report.
This 2021 RDR also identified three key ways to ensure rural people benefit from a food systems transformation:
- Create new employment opportunities and invest in local midstream
food businesses Local SMEs provide new ways to access both markets and non-farm employment opportunities, while supplying healthier foods to meet consumer demand.
- Invest in agricultural systems by helping small farms become more productive and profitable
- Focus on social protection measures that encourage better diets and livelihood opportunities.
Chapter 6. ‘Transformations necessary for positive structural change to reduce inequalities in FSN’.
6.1 Page 122 cites ‘Transformative action: data and knowledge revolution’, but should draw on, and cite clearly the HLPE Report 17 on ‘Data collection and analysis tools for FSN’, approved at CFS 50 (2022).
6.2 The chapter concludes with a section ‘Structural reformation approaches with implications for equity’ which just includes a page entitled ‘Agroecology’ as defined by Altieri, 1995. The commentary is surprisingly out-dated, and very surprisingly overlooks to cite the wisdom of the HLPE Report 14 (2019) on ‘ Agroecology and other innovative approaches’, and the derived CFS policy document approved at CFS 48 in June 2021. This section would also benefit from consideration of the FAO report just released: The future of food and agriculture – Drivers and triggers for transformation. The Future of Food and Agriculture, no. 3. Rome (2022). https://doi.org/10.4060/cc0959en. Section 1.9 in that document covers driver 10, Innovation and Science (pages 160-184).
Question 7 is answered above implicitly in the comments for questions 5 & 6. Question 8 : redundant facts to eliminate; no rather a question of updating various sections, as discussed above. Question 9 on success stories from countries is for CFS Member Countries to consider.
Dr R D Cooke
CFS Advisory Group member, representing the CGIAR System Organisation