Глобальный форум по продовольственной безопасности и питанию (Форум FSN)

Es fundamental el análisis relacionado con los costos ocultos para que nuestros sistemas agroalimentarios sean sostenibles.

Sin embargo, hay diferentes contextos y situaciones en cada sistema agroalimentario, dependiendo del tipo del producto, del destino del producto, de los actores sociales involucrados en ellos; ya que el impacto que genera cada producto es diferente en términos socioeconómicos y nutricionales, como también en términos del medio ambiente, de la biodiversidad, de la foresta, entre otros.

Entonces, cualquier análisis sobre los costos ocultos debe tomar en cuenta esos aspectos, que varían también según regiones y según países.

Les adjunto dos estudios de caso que contribuyen tanto en los aspectos metodológicos de evaluación/cálculo de los costos ocultos; como en el conocimiento específico de la situación de los dos estudios de caso.

• El primer estudio de caso es una investigación cuyo contenido no sólo hace referencia a un estado de situación (diagnóstico) sino que también plantea Propuestas de Políticas Públicas (Alternativas).

Es un estudio que analiza las subvenciones a los productos alimenticios en general, comprendiendo a los alimentos para las poblaciones vulnerables, a los insumos para los alimentos básicos; y a los productos de exportación.

En el análisis sobre las subvenciones a los productos de exportación, se considera el principal producto agroindustrial exportado en Bolivia, como es la soya transgénica, producida en el Oriente del país y procesada por la gran agroindustria exportadora; y uno de sus costos ocultos es la subvención a los hidrocarburos (diésel y gasolina) que cada año se incrementa más y más.

Bajo la perspectiva de la Rendición de cuentas del gasto del presupuesto público, en el año 2022, esos costos representan el 53.24% del total de las subvenciones, el 10.27% del total del Valor Agregado Bruto Agropecuario; el 7.61% del Producto Interno Bruto (PIB nacional); incidiendo también en la disminución de las Reservas Internacionales Netas (RIN)y en el crecimiento de la Deuda Externa.

Si a ese costo oculto de los hidrocarburos se añaden los otros costos ocultos no contabilizados (como los créditos blandos, la liberación del pago de impuestos a la exportación, un Régimen Agropecuario Unificado sumamente insignificante; liberación de impuestos para importar su maquinaria; y otros); la Rendición de cuentas del gasto del presupuesto público es mayor.

El tema de las subvenciones (que comprende los costos ocultos) es fundamental en el modelo de desarrollo económico que actualmente implementa Bolivia, y está en pleno debate socioeconómico y político por la serie de implicaciones que tiene; no solo en el aspecto económico sino también en la destrucción del medio ambiente (deforestación, quema de la Amazonía; uso en el aumento de agroquímicos que contaminan el agua y la tierra, y matan la biodiversidad); su incidencia en el cambio climático; en el desplazamiento de cultivos básicos por los de exportación; aunque también tiene incidencia en el mantenimiento del Índice de precios de los alimentos básicos y en el control de precios.

En las Propuestas de alternativas se plantea una metodología para determinar los costos ocultos, y a partir de ello, la reorientación de las subvenciones enfatizando en Políticas de Apoyo Público a la Agricultura de Conservación y a la Agroecología para lograr un Sistema agroalimentario sostenible.

Este estudio ha sido enviado a los responsables de la toma de decisiones gubernamental (sin respuesta hasta el momento) y también está siendo difundido a través de publicaciones on line, como libro, como artículos de prensa…suscitando un debate en todos los sectores de la población (urbana-rural; productores campesinos, poblaciones vulnerables, agroindustria exportadora, académicos, intelectuales y otros) con el propósito de conformar un sistema agroalimentario más sostenible.

Para una información más precisa y mayor difusión, se adjunta en attached esta investigación, tanto en su versión en español como en inglés.

• El segundo estudio de caso (escrito el año 2022, antes del Informe de la FAO “El estado mundial de la agricultura y la alimentación 2023”  SOFA 2023)  hace referencia a los costos ocultos en la determinación de los Costos de Producción de los productos básicos (la papa) de la agricultura campesina de la zona del Altiplano y valles de Bolivia, y los precios de venta de éste producto, precios que no logran cubrir sus costos de producción por lo que se origina una sobreexplotación de la mano de obra familiar, un deterioro de la tierra productiva y agotamiento/contaminación del agua, y por supuesto, ingresos económicos bajos de las familias productoras que inciden en una mayor pobreza rural.

Para su información, se adjunta en attached copia de este estudio (que también hace referencia a los costos ocultos de la soya transgénica) que fue publicado y difundido en la Prensa Nacional en el año 2022.

…….

Finalmente, señalo que he leído en detalle el Informe SOFA 2023 y me parece muy importante y muy oportuno, aunque les faltó el análisis de los costos ocultos para los productos de exportación (soya transgénica, caña de azúcar, carnes vacuna y porcina, aceite de palma, entre otros) que varían de país a país.

Es muy importante que la FAO plantee este tema de análisis a todos los países ya que la FAO es un actor muy importante al cual los diversos países/gobiernos escuchan y consideran sus planteamientos y propuestas/proyectos.

En este sentido, sería interesante que la FAORLC implemente un Programa Regional de Análisis sobre los Costos Ocultos, componente fundamental en las Políticas económicas de varios países de ALT, no solo con la perspectiva de conocer a detalle la situación (diagnósticos) sino sobre todo en términos de planteamientos/propuestas de Políticas a futuro, para el logro de los ODS 2020 y Sistemas agroalimentarios sostenibles.

Con el deseo de que estos estudios de caso sean de utilidad para el SOFA 2024,

atentamente

Julio Prudencio B.

Assessing, communicating and acting upon hidden costs related to our agri-food systems is essential to pursue a trajectory towards the achievement of the SGDs at world-wide level. Yet, the heterogeneity of social, economic and political contexts, value chains, and production systems do not allow for a 'one size fits all solution'. Developing levers for internalising those hidden costs should therefore account for those context-specific dimensions, keeping nevertheless in mind global references of the SDGs.

Our case study contributes to both methodological aspects of the assessment of hidden costs, as well as specific insights in the context of pesticide use in France. The quantitative assessment hereby presented is conducted under a prospect of accountability of public budget spending, aiming at helping public authorities to identify financial flows of public funding linked to the effect of pesticide use, within a methodological framework based on the social norms at the core of the public system.

The results show that the cost paid by the public sector in France attributable to synthetic pesticide use amounted to 372 million euros, of which environmental costs are estimated at least at 291.5 million euros, health costs at least at 48.5 million euros, regulation at least at 31.9 million euros and public financial support to the sector at least at 0.4 million euros. For comparison, this total value of social costs represents more than 10% of the annual budget in 2017 of the French Ministry of Agriculture and Food (3,587 million euros). The analysis can be used as a monitoring indicator for the implementation of public policies in the context of the growing social and environmental issues they face.

Dear Sir/Ma,

Please find my submission to How can the hidden costs and benefits of Agrifood systems be effectively incorporated into decision-making for transformation.

Dear all,

A man's strength lies on what he knows and can give, most importantly when his right and benefits are protected and preserved, his goodwill is made known. This is the essence of sustainability! However, there is more to this discourse if there is no preservation and protection of ideas and discoveries of products which lead to hidden costs and inclusive and incorporation of decisions into food systems transformation becomes difficult to achieve. In other words, it might seems to be excluded when right is not included in the transformation but if inclusive right is a watchdog everyone will benefit and be willing to contribute to the transformation system. This is solely decision of incorporation of the system itself that gives right to benefactors and beneficiaries in the food systems globally. The decision of the body is paramount to the transformation of Agrifood systems.

This is not just Agrifood alone but even in other areas of life. It is the reason why some important discoveries of Agrifood systems whether in mechanize farming production or subsistence farming production are hidden, what they crave and ask for most of the time is right of protection and preservation of ideas and discoveries which lead to Agrifood transformation. What this means is that the hidden costs varies, first to the producers’ benefits, second to the consumers’ benefits which is likely not considered most of the time. The issues remain that they can't be fully known if their rights are not protected or preserved because of the benefits accrue in it. In other words, there should be a strong network at the local and national levels to create awareness of the benefits if known and this will help in monitoring and evaluating the input and effect of the decision-making body for a true transformation. And once this is done, incorporated in various levels, at the local, national and international there would be a policy sustainability in the Agrifood systems. At this time the local, national and international Agrifood farmers and non are sure of what they know and can bring to the table because of policy guidelines (right of preservation and protection). This can be term 'policy sustainability' of the Agrifood food system.

Meanwhile, at this point the effect and important become multiplied, thereby leading to more transformation in the Agricultural and food sector production. When the ideas and benefits are protected and preserved, the tendency of hidden costs are minimized to the safety of Agrifood systems benefits. However, there is need for protection and preservation of rights and benefits which is mainly the action for sustainability of whatever is being found or discovered to the benefit to humanity. Invariably, this transforms human race through Agrifood systems whether in addition to Agrifood or, is addition to human race on earth.

Nevertheless, incorporating benefits into decisions making is what sustains the effectiveness and the benefit multiplication. Some Agrifood farmers and non-farmers wish to see the security guaranteed first before making an important input in the cause of food system security. When this is actually guaranteed, they are sure of their parts that will impact the world positively and brings the needed transformation without hidden cost. Then the hidden costs would have been reduced or minimized drastically. Incorporating the benefits become policy sustainability to them, that is, whatever the benefits are become sustained because of the decision making process that drew the reality of it and for it, will transform generations.

This is why it needs to be localize, nationalize and internationalize in every state or nation for true incorporation and inclusiveness of all for transformation of food systems in the world, thereby reducing hunger and poverty across the nations. Protection and preservation are keys to transformation for it and for them to be sustain and benefit to all in the world.

Thank you.

Esosa

Dr. Sazzala Jeevananda Reddy

Here the basic issue is “threat of hidden costs and benefits in agri-food systems is effectively incorporated in to decision making for transformation”. It varies with country to country; state to state within the country, etc. and primarily depending upon weather and climate change – natural variability and type of ruling. Therefore I am looking at India – state of Andhra Pradesh. The issues like adulterated-polluted foods that cause health hazards. In India people spend huge sums towards health hazards. This is the major threat of hidden costs.

People are accustomed to polluted wheat and rice, particularly supplied under public distribution system at subsidized price. At COP 21 at Paris meet MNCs were successful in thwarting any steps against to chemical inputs and GM seeds. MNCs were the major beneficiaries of chemical fertilizer inputs, pesticides-insecticides, etc. and Genetically Modified   [GM] seeds. So far nobody stopped their role in agriculture as governments are sub serving the interests of MNCs.

Here let me give a case of a farmer, Hemadri Reddy holding 40 acres of land invented by chance “Aundu Korra” that one time seeding gives four time harvests. Two years back [2002] for the first time planted in 5 acres. Each crop gave 10 quintals/acre. First time it fetched Rs, 5,000/quintal. Second harvest fetched Rs. 7, 500/quintal. 2^nd year in Kharif season added 15 more acres. Third yield sold at Rs. 9,500/quintal and 4th harvest will take some more time. The investment per acre is around Rs. 20,000. He applied three times irrigation for a crop. By giving more number of irrigations the yield will go down. BY growing “Janumu” and mixing that in the soil and through ploughing the land germinated Aundu Korra fetched Rs. 15,000/quintals.   Here the cost for tractor services got from fodder selling. Goat and Sheep manure on the proposed land is a cheap way of better fertilising system. This year he wanted extend two other crops, namely Korralu and Aricalu – all these are minor millets cultivated prior to profit driven green revolution technology which is a mono crop system, fodder is not suitable for animal feed and thus the traditional animal husbandry disappeared. The food is not nutritious and new diseases playing the major role. With this the cost of health care going up and up. Like this several hidden costs. In the case of millets the cost of lobour, etc. are minimal. Such innovations are aplenty in India but governments failed encourage spreading such innovations.

FAO on 7^th December 2018 approved India’s proposal to observe an International Year of Millets. FAO proposed Year 2023 as an International year of Millets. Millets consists of Jowar (Sorghum), Bajra (Pearl Millet), Ragi (Finger Millet), and minor millets together termed as nutria-Cereals. Though it is a good initiative, yet it is to be seen how far these are going to be implemented in the back-drop of MNCs!!!

Animal husbandry played vital role in household food & nutrient security in rural India under traditional agriculture. This system has been affected severely with the green revolution with poor quality fodder under mono-crop system. This increased hidden costs. The unhealthy food of rice and wheat produced under huge government subsidy is supplied again under huge subsidy in Public Distribution System [PDS].  This affected severely the millet based dry-land crops area and consumption of millet based healthy diet for human and animal [fodder]. As a result, the native land races of these crops are in great threat. There is procurement system for rice, wheat & cotton that are grown under high subsidies. No such system exists for millets/minor millets.

Fragmentation of holdings is one of the main causes of low agricultural productivity as lot of times; and labour is wasted in moving seeds, fertilizers, implements and cattle, etc. In 1970-71 the average size was 2.28 ha; this was 1.41 in 1990-91; and 1.08 in 2015-16.

Cooperative farming/agriculture system overcomes the problem of smaller farm holdings. Cooperatives though not new to India, in agriculture there are few isolated cases only. Anand Dairy Milk [White Revolution] cooperative was highly successful in Gujarat.  Private dairies are flourishing in the state of Andhra Pradesh. Sugarcane/Sugar cooperative in Maharashtra also showed the success path. Cooperative form of agriculture is the only solution under the present volatile political and climate conditions to achieve near sustainable production at farmers’ level and thereby strengthen their economic conditions and as well nation’s economy. Here farmers come together and cultivate the land without disturbing the boundaries by better utilization of the natural resources available in an effective way. Also, plan and store and sell the produce through cooperatives joining together. At present middlemen are profiting.

By including organic farming that includes components of traditional agriculture, namely animal husbandry, cropping system, crop rotation, etc. under cooperative agriculture system provide economic-food-nutrient security and as well provide employment. Organic agriculture is nothing but a traditional agriculture system wherein the later fertilizer is farmyard manure/green manure and for the former fertilizer is compost – several types.  With chemical input technology in 1950-60s with mono crop based farming killed the animal husbandry based farming and thus nutrition based food security.  To overcome the non-availability of farmyard manure, techniques were devised to create compost – on farm and off-farm [under traditional system]. Here progressive farmers’ innovation techniques can be incorporated.

Now people of developing countries are severely affected by the adulterated food including milk. Fruits are treated with chemicals. Chemicals are used to ripening of mango fruits. Oil is extracted from dead animals and mixed with others. Bt-cotton seed oil is produced illegally. Even though this is a major hazard the people of India are facing, the rulers are looking at real estate business at the cost of destruction of environment. Poor ethics and poor governance is ruling the roots of the nation. UN agencies can do something on such issues??? Whenever rulers change then nobody knows the changed government’s plans? 

In conclusion, as long as soil and water pollution play the role in agriculture, we may achieve production in quantity but not in quality; As long as we follow chemical input-mono crop agriculture system we rarely achieve the nutrition security; The foods supplied through market chain are unhealthy food excluding organic foods, whatever may be claims of the suppliers; UN agencies and agencies like World Bank must work and help in the eradication of role of pollution in agriculture instead of wasting money on issues like “global warming and carbon credits”; However, under vote bank politics the chances of implementation of agricultural technology that provides socio-economic, food-nutrition security and that is environment friendly are bleak; particularly with changing guard frequently. However there is an urgent need for improving the quality of life of farming community and to achieve this goal: Rulers must keep vote bank agenda aside and develop national policy on agriculture technology and financial assistance programmes to agriculture sector, more particularly to farming community; To achieve this goal states and central agriculture ministries must come together; and as well at state level both ruling and opposition leaders must come together to evaluate the policy and give concrete suggestions; By taking into account such suggestions from the states, the centre must bring out the policy document and implement the same. This will also save the wasteful expenditure. The governments must think seriously to eradicate the production and sale of adulterated food stuff; treating fruits with chemicals; etc. Instead of harping on global warming and wasting billions of dollars on them, UN agencies must plan to help the nations by encouraging studies related natural variability in rainfall and thus adapting agriculture to such variations; UN agencies must plan to help the nations by building agriculture systems like organic farming + animal husbandry under cooperative agriculture structure;

The two natural resources that are vital for agriculture are soil and climate.  Soil is static while climate is dynamic. Climate is beyond human control and thus needs to adapt to it.  The two main climatic parameters that play vital role in agriculture are temperature and precipitation.  In addition, the production is a function of agriculture technology and availability of sustainable irrigation facilities. 

Role of “Climate Change on agriculture production, price-rise and food-nutrient security” is an issue widely discussed in recent times at national and international level by UN agencies, by media as well by governments in their planning. However, all such discussions lack practicality verified with ground realities over different parts of the globe.  Sometimes the same organization presents two different reports that counter each other.

The author presented pros and cons on three agri bills brought out by the Indian government, in which contact farming formed the main component. However, later the government withdrew the three agri-bills. I submitted my comments to PM of India and Supreme Court appointed Committee [later published in a journal]. Prior to 2004 the ruling party started implementing corporate agriculture at Kuppam in AP with government money but failed. Here farmers whose land was used became laborers in their own land. I proposed cooperative farming, after 2004 the government assigned the task to prepare the plan of action to an Advisor. But the Advisor under the title cooperative farming included corporate farming that was failed. This I brought to the notice of states Chief minister of the AP State. He cancelled the program. Unfortunately he died in helicopter crash later. 

Madhya Pradesh [MP] government formed a separate “Agriculture Cabinet” and passed a comprehensive “organic policy” to make MP an organic state.  However, this does not translate in to action as the government is subsidizing (90%) to hybrid maize seed distribution programs involving the US based seed giant Monsanto and two other biotech companies under “Project Sunshine”.  This is named as “Yellow revolution” and also it is being implemented in Gujarat, Odisha, Rajasthan, among others. That means, government is telling something and doing something else due to the pressure from MNCs!!! Encouraging to produce polluted food.

The total subsidies [food & fertilizer] have increased from Rs. 12,158 crore in 1990-91 to Rs. 1,29,243 crore in 2008-09, an increase by 10.6 times  and as a percentage of GDP, the total subsidies represent an increase from 0.85% in 1990-91 to 1.52% in 2008-09; The fertilizer subsidy has increased from Rs. 4,389 crore in 1990-91 to Rs. 75,849 crore in 2008-09 representing an increase of over 17 times and the fertilizer subsidy in India as percentage of the GDP varied from 0.47 in 2002-03 to 1.52 percent in 2008-09; The total food subsidy has jumped to Rs. 43,627 crore in 2008-09 from 2,450 crores in 1990-91, about 18-fold increase in less than two decades in absolute terms. But if one looks at the percentage of GDP, then the burden of food subsidies in India is much less than that of many other developing countries. The food subsidy in India as percentage of the GDP has varied from 0.41 in 1992-93 to 1.02 in 2002-03, and on an average remained at 0.66% over the last 19 years; During the nineties (1990-91 to 2000-01), fertilizer subsidy accounted for about 47% of the total subsidies and share of food subsidy was 35.1%. In the 2000s (2001-02 to 2008-09), food subsidy became dominant, accounting for 49.1% of the total subsidy while fertilizer subsidy accounted for 39.5%. However, during the last three years, fertilizer subsidy has taken the largest share and accounted for 58.7% of total subsidies in 2008-09. Y 2023 these have further increased in percentage with more area coming under irrigation and population growth. With all these farmers are producing unhealthy polluted foods.

There was a debate about whether the fertilizer subsidy benefits the farmers or the fertilizer industry. Furthermore, the benefits of fertilizer subsidy are heavily tilted to large farmers growing water-intensive crops like rice, sugarcane, wheat, cotton, in a handful of states. It also states that the share of farmer in the fertilizer subsidy increased from 24.54% in the triennium average ending (TE) 1983-84 to 75.62% in TE 1995-96 with an average share of 67.5% for the period 1981-82 to 2000-01 and the rest goes to the fertilizer industry.

More than 30% items subsidized by government goes in to black market; food items under PDS & chemical fertilizers. As per my proposal fertilizer subsidy directly given to farmers. This is under implementation and central government so far saved around one lakh crores. However this has to be implemented in all the states in India. At present the fertilizer purchased in black market goes to manufacturers of illicit liquor and fish/prawns ponds.

In Andhra Pradesh water-rich districts of East and West Godavari, Krishna and Nellore farmers declared crop holiday in three lakh hectares.  They expressed that national food security is not important to them but it is the farmers’ financial security important.  Overflow stocks from the Rabi crop, nobody there to lift neither these stocks nor the farmers getting minimum support price but government is helping millers-business lobby to export rice and amass wealth at the cost of farmers.   In Telangana, the state government declared crop holiday for Rabi paddy cultivation. Some suggestions: 

Firstly, provide input subsidies directly to farmers or farmers’ co-operatives instead directly to industry that saves the cost of black market by around 30%; Secondly, grains of dry-land crops that provide healthy food must also find place in subsidized sale under PDS system – only rice & wheat are the major beneficiaries, which is unhealthy food – Food and Nutrition Security Bill of 2013 included Sorghum, Pearl Millets, Finger Millet at Rs. 1 a Kg [wheat at Rs. 2 a Kg and Rice at Rs. 3 a kg] – on our proposal, however, the state governments are not implementing this as part of political game; Thirdly, Government must initiate action at war-footing to bring 100% cultivated area under canal irrigation – at present this is only 20% of the cultivated area & another 20% is under groundwater based irrigation, which is rapidly depleting and proportionately increasing power consumption to extract that water – though lakhs of crores are invested in irrigation projects by state governments but moving at snails speed due to corruption at political level; Fourthly, encourage farmers co-operatives – at present man-hours wasted by individual farmers to procure the basic needs is too large, natural resources are not properly utilized, sale of adulterated seeds, more particularly GM seeds & fertilizers are rampant; with the co-operative farming majority of them could be addressed and improve the economy of the farmers; Fifthly, improve the storage facilities & timely transport facilities – at present around 50% of the total production is damaged/rotten and illegally exported by middlemen due to non-availability of these facilities, that means it is nothing but we in reality achieving production at 50% level of normal production level effectively, which is still lower than research station results. This level of production we can easily achieve under organic farming by increasing area under irrigation at cheaper rate.. To achieve this following also must be attended.

Under Food Corporation of India,  food is rotting in the godowns; Government must encourage adapting traditional farming systems centered approach with organic inputs (that includes animal husbandry) in place of crop centered chemical input technology approach; Government must collect traditional inventions of progressive farmers and strengthen these with research and then transfer to farmers with which we can bring down chemical input use and thus air, water, soil & food pollution and achieve good quality better yields/food; Government must establish commodity boards/extension services & strengthen government based seed development corporations – at present these are infested with private sector seed companies -- Government must strengthen the NPM in place of chemical pesticides, insecticides, fungicides, etc. Most important issue to be tackled is: UN Agencies and world Bank must look at controlling MNCs thereby we can bring down unhealthy food, destruction of soil, cost of production, etc.

Selected References

1. Reddy, S.J., (1993): Agroclimatic/Agrometeorological Techniques: As Applicable to Dry-land Agriculture in Developing Countries. www.scribd.com/Google Books, 205p. [Book Review: Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 67: 325-27, 1994].
2. Reddy, S.J., (2000): Andhra Pradesh Agriculture: Scenario of the last four decades. 104p.
3. Reddy, S.J., (2008):  Climate Change: Myths & Realities. www.scribd.com/Google Books, 176p.
4. Reddy, S.J., (2009): Climate Change: Myths and Realities. A.P. Akadami of Science, Hyderabad, 13 [1-4] Jan-Dec.:163-175.
5. Reddy, S.J., (2016): Irrigation and irrigation Projects in India [Tribunalas, Disputes and water Wars Perspective]. BS Publications, Hyderabad, 132p.
6. Reddy, S.J., (2017): Climate Change and its Impacts: Ground Realities. BS Publications, Hyderabad, India, 276p.
7. Reddy, S.J., (2019a): Workable Green Revolution: Agriculture in the perspective of Climate Change. Brillion Publishing, New Delhi, 221p
8. Reddy, S.J., (2019b): Agroclimatic/Agrometeorological Techniques: As applicable to Dry-land Agriculture in Developing Countries [2^nd Edition]. Brillion Publishing, New Delhi, 372p.
9. Reddy, S.J., (2019c): Water Resources Availability over India. Brillion Publishing, New Delhi, 224p.
10. Reddy, S.J., (2023): Impact of Climate Change on Climate and Water Resources and Thus on Agriculture in India. C.B-6. Pande et al. (eds.), Climate Change Impacts in India, Earth and Environmental Sciences Library, https:/doi.org/10.1007/978-3.031-42056-6., pp.115-153.

Dr. Sazzala Jeevananda Reddy

Formerly Chief Technical Advisor – WMO/UN & Expert – FAO/UN

Fellow, Telangana Academy of Sciences [Founder Member]

Convenor, Forum for a Sustainable Enviroment

To effectively integrate the hidden costs and benefits of agrifood systems into decision-making, it's crucial to apply a multi-faceted approach, which includes conducting Life Cycle Assessments to understand environmental impacts, implementing True Cost Accounting to reveal actual costs, including externalities, developing integrated policy frameworks that balance environmental, social, and economic goals, and engaging diverse stakeholders for a well-rounded perspective. Utilizing advanced technologies and data analytics is critical in tracking and managing the impacts while establishing clear sustainability indicators and benchmarks aids in monitoring progress. Raising awareness among consumers and producers about the effects of food production, investing in research and development for sustainable practices, redirecting financial incentives and subsidies towards eco-friendly methods, and fostering public-private partnerships for resource sharing are also essential. These combined efforts lead to a more sustainable and equitable food system.

Ms Ariane Genthon has participated via the AI-based application. She is kindly sharing her submission with other participants.

"question": "Have you had the chance to review any materials related to SOFA 2023? Considering that SOFA 2024 aims to delve into the application of true cost accounting (TCA) through case studies, with the aim of advancing agrifood systems toward sustainability, do you have any recommendations to enrich the upcoming report?",

        "answer": "I would recommend to strengthen investigation into the labour costs with the aim of advancing agrifood systems. Agricultural economies continue to rely on numerous and low-skilled workforce, poorly remunerated. Labour rights in the agrifood economies are often not met with severe decent work deficits such as child labour which have a hidden cost (missed opportunity to invest in human capital and thus in capacity to adapt and innovate, missed opportunity to invest in health since child labour in agrifood systems often means long-term but invisible consequences on health, i.e. through carrying heavy weight, exposure to hazardous pesticides, working under-water etc.). Labour rights represent an important component of the sustainability of agrifood systems and a significant aspect in order to transform agrifood systems which would deserve greater attention.""question": "For the purpose of contributing to the content of SOFA 2024, are you aware of any relevant studies assessing hidden costs or benefits within agrifood systems? If so, could you please provide the title of the study, the author(s) and hyperlink(s) to any relevant documentation. "

"question": "For the purpose of contributing to the content of SOFA 2024, are you aware of any relevant studies assessing hidden costs or benefits within agrifood systems? If so, could you please provide the title of the study, the author(s) and hyperlink(s) to any relevant documentation. ",

        "answer": "No, but I can refer to two studies related to my above comment: ending child labour, forced labour and human trafficking in global supply chains (OECD, IOM, ILO, UNICEF - 2019) and investing in every child: an economic study on the costs and benefits of eliminating child labour (ILO - 2002)."

"question": "Can you provide a brief overview of the study, including a description of the agrifood system(s) or component(s) that were the focus of the assessment?",

        "answer": "In the first publication, agriculture is covered throughout - in the second publication, data on agriculture are found throughout as well."

"question": "Could you describe the specific hidden costs and benefits associated with the agrifood system(s) or component(s) assessed? ",

        "answer": "While the elimination of child labour is a global goal, if we apply a pure economic approach, the benefits of child labour consists in a contribution of children to the households' income and a reduction of labour costs for production in agrifood systems. The costs could be summarized as opportunity cost of investment in human capital and in health for those children. Hidden costs of child labour use are increasing with the multiplication of certification and traceability systems and due diligence legislations banning child labour from import. In other words, child labour can lead to market exclusion."

"question": "What specific benefits are there to eliminating child labor in the agrifood system(s) or component(s) assessed?",

        "answer": "The benefits of eliminating child labour in agrifood systems would be manifold: (a) increase in human capital and skilled workforce able to adapt, innovate and transform in agrifood systems (b) increase in health outcomes for children when reaching legal age to enter the world of work becoming productive members of their communities (c) increase in access for actors, in particular poor farmers/producers, in the agrifood systems to access premium price, certification and in general markets affording a fairer distribution of value."

"question": "Why was the assessment necessary to uncover and address these hidden costs?",

        "answer": "It was necessary because child labour is sometimes seen by economists as follows: if children or their parents choose child labour over its alternatives, it must be the case that the net economic value (benefits minus costs) is positive. But this assumption is driven by an inability to assess hidden costs of child labour. Another assumption amongst economists is that if child labour derives only from a failure in economic development, and that child labour will disappear when the conditions of economic growth are met. This assumption is also debatable as child labour itself can be considered as a hindrance to economic growth (see benefits above). Another aspect is that with the growing number of legislation or soft law instruments adopted to ban child labour in commercialized product, the ability to investigate, identify and track child labour- in agrifood systems will become key."

        "question": "Could you please tell us when the assessment took place and which years were considered in the analysis? ",

        "answer": "Please refer to the titles provided."

        "question": "Can you provide a concise description of the methodology employed to uncover hidden costs and benefits?",

        "answer": "ILO 2002 study (which remains a reference): \"study attempts to calculate the economic costs and benefits of the elimination of child labour, with specific results for the various forms of child\nlabour, different sectors of society and different national and regional entities. In a general sense, the project considers the elimination of child labour\nas an investment and calculates its economic return. In doing so, it suggests\nthe commitment of resources necessary to achieve this elimination, and it\nindicates how the costs and benefits accrue to different stakeholders.\"\n"

        "question": "Was the assessment complemented by additional methodologies, such as quantitative or qualitative policy or scenario analysis? Did these supplementary methods deliver interesting results? ",

        "answer": "No additional methodology in my understanding "

        "question": "Please describe the data used in the assessment, including their source and nature. Additionally, if there were challenges related to the data availability, kindly elaborate on those challenges.",

        "answer": "Because the full complement of data required for such an analysis is\nnot available at the global level, we opted for a two-stage process. In the first\nstage, eight countries were selected for their representativeness of different\nregions and levels of development, and for the availability of data on child\nlabour: Nepal, Philippines, Pakistan, Kenya, Tanzania, Senegal, Brazil and\nUkraine. Teams in each country tried to fill in the data gaps through uncovering sources of information not known or utilized internationally, as\nwell as through surveys of knowledgeable informants and direct estimation.\nBased on this, they implemented country-level studies of costs and benefits.\nA second set of countries, while not intensively studied, offered more detailed information as a result of hosting household surveys. Many of these\nsurveys were assisted by IPEC in conjunction with its SIMPOC programme\nor the World Bank as part of its LSMS (Living Standards Measurement\nSurvey) programme; others were developed by national statistical offices.\nThus, between these two types of data sources, we had between 8 and 28 observations on all variables measurable by survey methods. (Details for each variable can be found in Annex 2.) For the remainder of the countries we relied on publicly available data, most commonly from the World Bank’s World Development Indicators (WDI) data set. As described more fully in Annex 2, the largely complete WDI and related data were used to extrapolate from the first two sets of countries (those studied in conjunction with this project and those with household surveys) to the third."

        "question": "Could you please highlight the key findings of this assessment? Were there any effective practices or methods that you found particularly valuable?",

        "answer": "The executive summary highlights what would be the benefits compared to the costs of eliminating child labour and this remains a striking statement."

        "question": "Did the assessment provide information relevant to policymakers or other stakeholders? For example, did it identify possible policy entry points to transform agrifood systems? If not, why?",

        "answer": "Yes in the chapter 9, implications for policy and research are outlined and could offer policy entry points for agrifood systems."

        "question": "Drawing upon your experience, can you identify key factors that can facilitate or hinder the success of future similar assessments for transforming agrifood systems across different contexts?",

        "answer": "Focusing on one structured value chain may facilitate the success of an assessment of child labour as a hidden costs in agrifood systems."

        "question": "What are the key factors that can hinder the success of future similar assessments for transforming agrifood systems across different contexts?",

        "answer": "No access to recent data in the target country/ies on child labour would represent a significant challenge"

        "question": "Were there any significant challenges encountered during the assessment process? Can you identify strategies or approaches to overcome these challenges?",

        "answer": "I was not involved in these processes."

        "question": "Do you have any other information or comments on the use of true cost accounting assessments to uncover the hidden costs and benefits of agrifood systems that haven't been covered during this interview?",

        "answer": "No further comment - I (and ESP) remain available for potential in-depth exchange on this."

        "question": "How would you rate your overall experience with the interview conducted by the AI chatbot?",

        "answer": "Somewhat positive"

      "feedback2": {

        "question": "How natural did the conversation with the AI chatbot feel?",

        "answer": "Somewhat natural"

      "feedback3": {

        "question": "If you were to participate in a future study involving a qualitative interview conducted through a AI Chatbot, would you prefer texting with the same AI Chatbot or an actual human interviewer?",

        "answer": "Slightly prefer human interviewer"

السلام عليكم

اسمحوا لي مشاركتكم الرأي في التوجه المتبع في الجمهورية اليمنية التى تعاني حالة من عدم الاستقرار الاقتصادي والعيشي وحسب تقديرات IRC تبلغ حالة الفقر في اليمن بنسبة80%من السكان 28%من الأسر ليس لها دخل

غالبا ماتكون الفوائد الخفية تعكس الرضا النفسي  للفقراء عموما اذا ما تحصلوا على دعم لتوليد فرص عمل متنوعة واستدامة لضمان  النظم الغذائية  وبالتالي يوجهوا  متخذى القرار  نحو تقليل الاعتماد على المساعدات الغذائية الجاهزة ..وهذا ما ثم تكريسه في توفير وسائل ومعدات الإنتاج المدعومة وانشاء صناديق للقروض البيضاء وبنك التسليف الزراعي وجميعها الان في إعادة دورها التنموي 

غالبا مايسعى الفقراء للبحث عن فرص وعمل تحقق العز والكرامة الإنسانية في ضمان حصصهم كنتاج عادل لجهودهم واثرهم على التنمية المجتمعية والوطنية

هذا مايسعى له قطاع واسع من السكان ومتخذي القرار باتجاه متوازي 

   Global food systems need temporally imagined transformation. The cost of National food systems are influenced by the costs of food production incurred by farms and the governments. The hidden costs are borne by farms in the quest for enhancing productivity and production of crop commodities. Major unaccounted hidden costs are associated with natural resource management of farms. Over many years / decades farms need replenishments and rejuvenation. The costs for sustaining farm productivity of various integrated farming systems lead to many hidden costs that get accrued in farm economy. Cumulative hidden costs, computed over past few decades when intensive farming enabled stabilised global food systems. Challenges to farms arising out of the intense fight against vagaries of weather due to climate change have accumulated hidden costs over decades. Computing this hidden costs need AI supported simulation models to pinpoint such adverse effects on farms at given time periods in history.  Based on the contextual GDP of the nations where such episodes are rampantly disturbing farming practices hidden costs have to be worked out.  Compounding of decade-to-decade hidden costs need to be the basis for designing policies that would shock absorb farms from disastrous economic weakening. 

   One of the major farm input in the context of hidden cost is energy. Electricity, animal energy and farm machinery energy have been adversely affected by several external costs. Their compounded factorisation has to be done in order to arrive at the temporal hidden costs.

   In effect it can be concluded that National Food Systems and in turn Global Food systems have the adverse impact from hidden costs that get cascaded over time along the inflationary pressures.  

I am writing to share my recent contribution titled "Unveiling the Path Forward: Integrating Hidden Dimensions into Agrifood Decision-Making."

In this submission, I delve into the critical question of incorporating hidden costs and benefits into decision-making processes for the transformation of agrifood systems. Drawing upon my experiences with smallholder fruit value chain farming in Nigeria, the assessment uncovers insights into knowledge gaps, agronomic challenges, and economic diversification. The submission emphasizes the need for a holistic understanding and proposes policy recommendations that underscore the significance of addressing these concealed elements for fostering sustainable practices.

The key takeaway from this contribution is the call for an integrated approach. I advocate for engaging stakeholders, leveraging community knowledge, and utilizing both qualitative and quantitative data to guide decision-makers in adopting informed, inclusive, and transformative measures. The goal is to shape resilient and equitable agrifood systems.

Hidden cost and benefits of agri food systems is one of the very apt topic to discus in the forum. In India, though now become 2nd largest producers in agri foods but the economics always remains a bone of contention. Either to talk with direct farmers benefit or government support in terms of minimum support prices. Therefore life cycle assessment especially counting the ecosystem services involved is one of the very important parameters. Again like cosr A1, B1 , C1 and C2 are some of the important basis which needs to be talked with all minuteness involved. Proper documentation will cetialy help in further strengthening sustainability of agri-food system across the globe.