Глобальный форум по продовольственной безопасности и питанию (Форум FSN)

According to United Nations’ Committee on World Food Security "Food security is achieved when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life. According to FAO (The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2021 -doi:10.4060/cb5409en. ISBN 978-92-5-134634-1  nearly 12 percent of the global population was severely food insecure in 2020, representing 928 million people – 148 million more than in 2019. Increase in Food Insecurity could be attributed mainly to shortage of food and high food prices.

Shortage of food to meet the dietary needs and food preferences is closely related to production, and distribution. Food production is determined by many factors. Among these are  land use;  use of high yielding seeds/planting material, effective of soil and water management, control of pests and diseases,  and harvesting at correct times. Distribution in food that was produced is determined by transport of food from the farm and marketing.  Food distribution involves  storage, processing, transport, packaging, and marketing of food. Food-chain infrastructure and storage technologies on farms can affect the amount of food wasted in the distribution process. Poor transport infrastructure can increase the price of supplying water and fertilizer as well as the price of moving food to national and global markets. Ineffective Livestock management also causes food shortage. In this regard rearing of high yielding breeds, availability of animal feeds are important. In all these activities inequalities among food producers/farmers influence food security to a great extent.

Food Security can be broadly categorized to National Food Security and House –hold Food Security.

National Food Security

National Food insecurity (NFS)  is attributed to inadequate food production at national level and high prices consumers have to pay

In general, National Food Security depends on level of food production in a country and is affected by many factors common to the  country. Among these are wild animals such as elephants, monkeys destroying crops, disease such as Chronic Kidney Disease affecting thousands of farmers  in a number of countries , inadequate irrigation water supply due to droughts, lack of reasonable transport facilities, high prices of  seeds, fertilizers and other inputs, ineffective marketing, lowered land productivity . All these issue can be addressed satisfactorily  if the relevant authorities take cognizance of these issues in their endeavors to  increase national food security.

Nations do not have to have the natural resources required to produce crops in order to achieve food security, as seen in the examples of Singapore  where land and water necessary for food production are  limited  but Food Security is at 73.1 (100 is the most favorable) .According to FAO  In 2019, the high cost of healthy diets together with persistent high levels of income inequality put healthy diets out of reach for around 3 billion people, especially the poor, in every region of the world. Ref. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2021. p. 5. doi:10.4060/cb5409en. ISBN 978-92-5-134634-1

One of the important contributory factors for the decline in the productivity of land resulting in lowered Food Security is Land Degradation. Soil erosion, soil compaction, and nutrition depletion, cause productivity of land to decline, making crop production less profitable. (See the publication “Land Degradation- an overview by Stanley Weerarartna, published by Springer- eBook ISBN 978-3-031-12138-8 Print ISBN978-3-031-12137-1

 As indicated above several factors play important roles in food production. Efforts to strengthen the national food security require an integrated approach that combines crop improvement alongside sustainable land and water management, efficient irrigation, application of appropriate fertilizers and other inputs, effective marketing etc. To achieve NFS, the inequalities that cause NFS to be low need to be identified and appropriate straggles implemented. For example in countries/regions where NFS is at a low level due to lack of adequate irrigation water, water supply need to be improved by rain water harvesting, construction of water reservoirs etc, Such strategies are possible only in those countries which are financially sound.

House- hold Food Security

House-hold Food Security is closely related to the economy which has deteriorated during the last few years mainly due to drop-in crop production and several other factors. Prices of most food items have been on a steady rise since the last quarter of 2021 in many countries, and reached a record high in August 2022, with the year-on-year food inflation rate at nearly 94 percent, further limiting the purchasing power of households. ... Small scale farmers are the food producers in many countries. They are characterized by shortage of land, and capital.. Some pawn their gold jewelry to raise money to buy seeds, fertilizers and other inputs. 

Poverty reduction is an integral part of house hold food security. Without FS, poverty becomes a vicious cycle. As a result of poverty, access of people to adequate, good quality food that is required to be healthy is denied. Malnutrition caused by low FS, has serious consequences on health of people. The lack of food security is thus both a cause and an effect of poverty. In a region that is home to more than half the world population, building food security—and sustaining it—is imperative for people’s welfare and the economic growth that drives it. According to FAO, the number of undernourished people has increased from 526 million in 1995–1997to 567 million in 2006–2008.

Improving agricultural productivity is essential for ensuring long-term food security and promoting poverty reduction in households.  Adequate food supply is a fundamental prerequisite for hose-hold food security, especially as the global population is projected to reach 9 billion by2050. Improving farm productivity through better technology and efficiency can help increase food production at  national as well as household level.  Historically, agricultural productivity has played an important role in poverty reduction. As poverty in Asia remains a predominantly rural phenomenon, improving agricultural productivity will have an increasingly large impact on economic development and poverty reduction.

Implementing pogrammes to reduce inequality among households in a country or region is important to achieve a reasonable level of food security. Inequality in health among people result in wide differences in the capacity to produce food and hence Food Security. For example in Sri Lanka a chronic kidney disease, affecting farmers and their house-holds in some parts of the country result in lowered Food Security. In such situations the relevant authorities need to implement relevant programmes to reduce the occurrence of the disease so that the level of Food Security among those house-holds can be increased. In fact, reverse osmosis plants have been installed in affected areas which has reduced level of differences in Food Security level among the households.

Most food producers in Asian countries live in villages. Hence, rural development can contribute substantially to poverty reduction and achieving a higher level of food security. As a majority of the region’s poor live in rural areas, national policy makers are facing a dilemma when choosing policies to stabilize food prices.   Some countries to maintain farm incomes at high levels do not implement practices to reduce high food prices. But, such policies tend to affect the poor non- faming households causing them to have a low food security.   High food prices can also reduce the farmer’s own purchasing power, forcing them to spend a large sum of money on seeds, fertilizers, and other inputs thus further reducing food production and thereby reducing Food Security. Rural economic growth and stable food prices, therefore, are essential in any strategy to increase Food Security.

An integrated approach is necessary to achieve food security. The factors, which cause food insecurity among different communities in the country need to be examined and action taken accordingly.

Dr. Stanley Weeraratna

Former Professor of Agronomy, Ruhuna University, Sri Lanka

European food policy has been a disaster for the biodiversity and robustness of the African seed industry. This was not intentional.

It took me awhile, but I now understand why I can't get the seed supplies I needed to help small farmers stop starvation in Uganda or other African countries. Initially I noted that most African countries have a very limited number of seed suppliers and that these seed suppliers sold a very limited number of products.  I also was told by Ugandan personnel that they wanted to use only non-GMO seeds.  

After a little investigation I determined that African countries sell most of their vegetables in the European market and Europeans wanted to buy only non-GMO products. They noted that it is very difficult to distinguish between a GMO seed product and a non-GMO seed product.  Most African countries limit the number of seed companies in their country and limit the import of seeds into their country to ensure that they are selling only non-GMO products.

It also is very difficult and expensive to get an Import Permit to import seeds into an African country even when you are importing seeds that have been declared to be non-GMO by a US grower such as those at Seed Saver Exchange.  I must use only the seeds that are available in Uganda unless I want to spend more than two years to get the proper Import Permit and Phytosanitary certification. I may need to wait a few years to obtain non-GMO, non-Hybrid green pole bean seeds or non-GMO, non-Hybrid corn seeds with strong stalks in Uganda if I am lucky. These seeds are very common in other parts of the world including Europe.

Regarding the concer Dr. Gerhard Flachowsky had, based on this flowchart, I think food safety is within the definition of food security in aspect of food utilization.

Dear FSN – Moderators, great job drafting this comprehensive and important report.

On discussion point 5 — drivers of inequity and actions to reduce these — I would like to bring to your attention two topical studies on understanding the unequal impacts of farming technology interventions in smallholder farming systems.

Thuijsman et al. (2022). Indifferent to difference? Understanding the unequal impacts of farming technologies among smallholders. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 42(3), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-022-00768-6

Bouwman et al., (2021). Herbicide induced hunger? Conservation Agriculture, ganyu labour and rural poverty in Central Malawi. The Journal of Development Studies, 57(2), 244-263. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2020.1786062

Many strategies to alleviate hunger and poverty revolve around improved farming, and mitigating social inequality is often an implicit aim (through working with resource-poor farmers). Nevertheless, the distribution of impacts of farming technology interventions among smallholders receives scant attention. We recently concluded a comprehensive, systematic literature review (Thuijsman et al. 2022), and were able to identify only 85 studies that assessed impact differentiation. Most of these were ex-ante studies; only 24 (!) studies presented empirical findings. 

The selected studies confirmed an expected trend: absolute benefits were larger for the better-off farming households, and large relative benefits among the poor were mostly due to meagre baseline performance. In our paper, we collated the explanations given for differentiated impacts along a nested hierarchy: the field, the farm or household, the farming system, as well as over time. The actual drivers of impact differentiation were more often suggested and modelled, rather than measured.

Current methods for impact assessment of agricultural technology interventions are ill-equipped to capture the processes of change that such interventions set in motion. This needs to change. Bouwman et al. (2021), provide a striking example of an unintended consequence of promoting labour-saving technologies - denying food insecure households a key opportunity to work for food during hunger periods. This study shows that the econometric methods commonly used in impact assessments are unable to distinguish positive technology impacts from growing social inequality as they disregard the negative impacts on non-adopters. Furthermore, technology adoption and impact studies tend to merely record effects on individual households, rather than unpacking the social mechanisms that produce these effects. In order to better assess unequal impacts of technology interventions, Bouwman et al. (2021)  argue, grounded understandings of local realities and farming systems are necessary, as well as a deliberate focus on relative ‘high impact’ areas.

Both studies highlight that it is important to consider the following in technology development and impact evaluation: 

1. recognize the poorer among the poor, 

2. acknowledge and investigate unequal impacts,

3. explicitly aim to avoid negative consequences, and 

4. include interventions to mitigate negative consequences where they occur.

I look forward to seeing the next version of this report!

With kind regards,
Eva Thuijsman

PhD candidate at the Plant Production Systems Group, Wageningen University, the Netherlands

Salutations Drafting team,

First of all what is High Level Panel of Experts? The earlier the UN and its Agencies drop this label, the better. Why? Because it contradicts the facts and grotesques experiences of the people on the ground. If any High Level Panel of Experts existed anywhere, the world would not be in the grips of crises after crises as we witness. In the Food Sector, if there were any High Level Panel of Experts in the Food Sector, why do we have a disorganised Food System that produces enough Food but entails so much waste and wastefulness through its value chains that results in millions needlessly suffering Food Poverty, Hunger and Malnutrition? Please, drop it because it is offensive to the Millions who die from starvation, hunger and food poverty.

Secondly, the construct of the consultation does not highlight the URGENCY of the World Food Crises!!! Are you aware that even in the Global North, Food Banks have become the norm for low paid professional workers? 

Thirdly, there is no mention of the Current Cost of Living Crises which already threatens widespread Spiraling Cost of Food and Food Poverty in Europe, UK and the Global North?

Fourthly, in the US, UK, Canada, and EU Countries, Farmers are paid to produce less - this policy is absent from your consultation. Where is the balance of Purpose, Profits and Ethics in the Theory and Applied Agricultural Economics.

By the time this consultation is over, millions would have died from Starvation, Hunger, Malnutrition, Food Poverty and Food Insecurity.

As said, this consultation come across as a too abstract and remotely removed from the practicalities of the world's starving. Given the precarious world context in which the consultation is being carried out, the consultation and ensued report should address the Existential Practicalities, Structural Causes, Harsh Consequences and Dire Urgency of the Global Food Crises Situation. It is suggested that a selection of the Hungry and Staring should be come members of the Working Panel to bring reality and immediacy to its credibility. Otherwise it remains detached and irrelevant to needed workable paradigms. 

Best wishes

Dear Drafting Team,

Inequality is one of the root causes of hunger and food insecurity, therefore, I consider this topic relevant and timely, reminding that Hungary was one of the sponsor countries proposing this issue to be included in the CFS Multi Year Programme of Work (MYPOW).

I appreciate the open, transparent and inclusive process, providing opportunity for all stakeholders to submit comments in the framework of this online consultation. I wish to start by congratulating the HLPE, its Steering Committee and the Drafting Team for the high quality of the V0 Draft, commending their efforts to rely also on previous HLPE reports and CFS policy papers.

I agree with the concept outlined in the V0 Draft, seeking to address inequalities and inequities as main drivers of food insecurity. In this regard, I appreciate that the definition of food security is used in a broader sense, confirming that in addition to availability, access, stability and utilisation, the two new dimensions (agency and sustainability) play an essential role in the fight agains food insecurity. Among the definitions, I appreciate and find helpful the clearly explained distinction between inequity and inequality.

I very much welcome the human rights approach throughout the document, putting in evidence the universality and the interlinkages among the various human rights. Similarly, I appreciate references to a number of SDGs as well. I would suggest to include also SDG 8 (Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all), considering the high number of food workers and other employees in the food systems and their labour rights. Furthermore, I would suggest to include explicit reference to the right to decent work (including decent rural employment[1]) and consider it appropriate to make clear reference to the respective UN resolutions, for example when it comes to decent livelihood[2] or clean environment[3], on page 19. of this document mentioned only in brackets.

Regarding the "Systemic Drivers" in page 21, I find it not sufficiently comprehensive and exhaustive. I miss in particular the following important drivers of inequalities.

1. Lack of sustainability assessments of food systems, based on independent and neutral science. Outcomes of these assessments could help policy makers take the right decisions aiming to reduce inequalities. Science-based sustainability assessments should give due consideration to all environmental and particularly social externalities, including the „hidden costs”, applying the principles of true costs accounting[4].
2. Lack of appropriate policy environment (due to lack of appropriate sustainability assessments of food systems), with consequences listed below: a) Incorrect distribution of subsidies, (favouring mainly large entities) which further aggravate the existing inequalities. As a current prevailing practice, farm subsidies mainly support unsustainable, input-intensive, monoculture farming, with all the well-known negative consequences (biodiversity loss, soil degradation, etc.). This is confirmed by the recent FAO/UNDP/UNEP joint report on public support to agriculture. As the document says: „Globally, support to agricultural producers currently accounts for almost USD 540 billion a year, or 15 percent of total agricultural production value. This support is heavily biased towards measures that are distorting (thus leading to inefficiency), unequally distributed, and harmful for the environment and human health. Under a continuation of current trends, this support could reach almost USD 1.8 trillion in 2030.” According to the report, these “harmful” subsidies benefit mainly large-scale farms (to the detriment of smallholders) and include farm supports provided in the frameworks of the Common Agriculture Policy and the US Farm Bill. b) Misconceptions about taxes, including neoliberal policies guaranteeing low level of taxes for the largest and richest stakeholders, and often tolerating tax avoidance/dodging with no efficient measures against tax heavens. c) Limited access for smallholders and other marginalized groups (women, indigenous people, etc.) to

         - land and other natural resources,

          - loans or credits

          - inputs and technologies

          - markets,

          - research and innovation (The main focus of research is industrial farming and corporations…)

I welcome the references to power imbalances along the food supply change, often creating conflicts of interest situations, which are the major obstacles to transformative changes of food systems. I would find it indispensable to make a clear distinction of roles and responsibilities of the various stakeholders. Contrary to the present practice, multinational corporations and other lobby groups could be consulted but they are NOT supposed to be involved in decision making and they should not be allowed to use their strong power to influence policy decisions[5]. Decision making is the competence of governments. Furthermore, we consider it essential to draw attention to and duly address in the report the greenwashing attempts by many corporate stakeholders, including their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) measures[6]. Although CSR activities are generally welcome, the CSR messages are regularly positive, they cannot be considered in any way sufficient for the necessary transformative changes.

I found the report very informative and comprehensive highlighting the importance of inequalities for food security and nutrition. I think one of the issues that has not been covered in the draft report is regarding economic sanction policies and its contribution to right to health and food security for people living in targeted countries and the role of international community to prevent its humanitarian effects

Related articles:
The Effects of the Re-imposition of US Sanctions on Food Security in Iran (https://www.ijhpm.com/article_3947.html)
Assessment of the Effects of Economic Sanctions on Iranians’ Right to Health by Using Human Rights Impact Assessment Tool: A Systematic Review (https://www.ijhpm.com/article_3454.html)
COVID-19 battle during the toughest sanctions against Iran (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)3066…)
Conflict, sanctions and the struggles of Syrians for food security in the shadow of the UN Food Systems Summit 2021 (https://gh.bmj.com/content/7/1/e007477)

Dear FSN - Moderators, 

The inequity is a serious issue that your organization has rightly pointed out. Therefore, kindly register some of my views on that.

1. By failing to address equity, one invites distrust, affiliation with adversaries, and polarization against governance. On the other hand, no individual in society can be considered equal. People who are creative will be able to produce more goods and services. 

2. The World Economic Forum (2017) has published the Inclusive Development Index (IDI) with indicators, like growth and development (GDP per capita, employment, labor productivity, and healthy life expectancy), inclusion (median household income, poverty rate, income Gini, and wealth Gini), and intergenerational equity (adjusted net saving, public debt as a share of GDP,  dependency ratio, carbon intensity of GDP). With poor, innovative, equity, and environmental health mobilization, the population may rise with an urge to produce more children who can collectively earn enough income to ensure food, health, and education security for the family.

3. In the United States alone, 0.1% of Americans enjoy 90% of the country's wealth, and in this situation, there is a need for an alternative economic system that respects ecological diversity, the environment, democracy, and social-economic equality, as well as facilitates fair and reasonable redistribution of income and wealth (Siddiqui, 2018).

4. Between 2009 and 2014, there was an increase in China's inequality, since people who support socialism are also inclined to be distrustful, and so, these findings suggest that rising inequality could have political repercussions. 

5. As a result, machinery replaces labor in capitalist economies. This leads to unemployment. The amount of working hours per day is reduced in socialist countries. As a result, workers become sluggish and uncreative.

6. As the capitalist system cannot employ all the students passing out from the education system, and the socialist system is observed to promote laziness and lack of ambition; some students are drawn to (social) entrepreneurship to address, employment, equity, and the environment. As a result, universities and their extension networks should place a premium on student (social) entrepreneurship. 

7. However, less innovative individuals who are unable to compete in the market will always remain. As a result, they may want lower-cost technologies, simple communication methods, and more and more coordinated participation in extension projects. Involving small-scale producers in the development of a cooperative procurement, production, processing, and promotion system may thus aid in bridging the rich-poor divide. Thus, the most substantial support that can be provided to displaced or idle persons from the capitalist and socialist systems, respectively, is providing additional educational assistance (through extension education programs) and job mentorship. This may also enhance the purchasing power of less innovative individuals while creating demand for goods and services created by more innovative individuals.

Regards

Dear partners,

I hope that this a great opportunity for all especially for those from developping countries. These countries have to be taking into account when establishing strategies highlighted in the draft.

Dear Colleagues,

Attached, I will make some comments to your VO Draft to the V0 draft of the report „Reducing inequalities for food security and nutrition“:

•  I miss the term food safety in the title of the draft (e.g.: „Reducing inequalities for food security, food safety and nutrition“) 
•  There is no sense of enough food, if the food is not safe (e.g. it contains some toxic or undesirable substances, e.g. contaminants etc.). Food safety needs a certain attention in your paper.
•  The term „Human edible Fraction“ of all animal feeds should be also mentioned or considered in the adequate text or in tables; see some selected references, such as:

 CAST (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, 1999) Animal agricultural and global food supply. Talk Force Report No 135; July 1999, CAST, Ames. IA, USA

Ertle, P., Klocker, H., Hörtenhuber, S., Knaus, W., Zöllitsch, W. (2015) The net contribution of dairy production to human food supply: The case of Austrian dairy farms. Agricultural Systems 137, 119 - 125

Wilkinson, J.M. (2011) Re-defining deficiency of feed use by livestock. Animal 5, 1014 – 1022

•  In general, the food/feed competition between men and animals should be mentioned and if possible, the feed/food competition between men and animals should be avoided.
•  Did we show/mention enough activities to improve/increase the food production (such as  plant production incl. plant breeding etc.).

 Best regards

 Prof. Dr. G. Flachowsky

Institute of Animal Nutrition, Germany