Partnerships Development in the field of Food Security and Nutrition as well as Agricultural and Rural Development
We like to comment mainly on the conceptual framework and respond to the question “Do you think that this framework addresses the key issues of FSN?”.
The answer is: yes and no.
Yes, the two dimensions of ‘agency’ and ‘sustainability’ are important and needed additions to the conceptual framework. No, the way these two dimensions are introduced and explained in Section 2.1 is not mature and requires further thinking.
Sustainability: this dimension is needed to express the danger of entering into pathways that undermine availability, accessibility, or utilization objectives of food in the long term. This includes climate change impact, resource depletion, environmental degradation, but also other sustainability dimensions such as unsustainable economic settings, or socio-political circumstances which could lead to a turnover and endanger FSN for some or many. As for climate change, sustainable food systems need to be aware of such developments and invest in mitigation or adaptation. Sustainability is thus the concept of ensuring a healthy diet on the long term - such as stability is the capacity to buffer short term shocks and crises. The report should not make the mistake in associating the ‘sustainability’ aspect solely with ‘environmental’ sustainability. This means reworking the text considerably and adapting the definition. Specific comments to current definition: food system practices can often not influence the relevant trends to a degree that can prevent the risks at hand. Therefore sustainability means in most cases the capacity of detecting those trends and the ability to react (adaptation) rather than to influence (mitigation). The term ‘interrelationships between ecological systems and food systems’ is vague and does not really add to other dimensions.
Agency: Agency is very important as it introduces a food system element into the FSN concept. We have to remind ourselves that the FSN framework serves SDG2, while a food system approach serves several SDGs. What in a food system can be problematic and counteract to achieving healthy diets that is not yet captured in the other FSN dimensions? It is a fact that some people don’t choose the healthy options (and in a food system framework one would say: healthy and sustainable options) even though these are available, accessible, good utilization is guaranteed, and there is no short or long-term problem. The reasons are manifold and rooted in uneven distribution of power and information within a food system or food value chains. People might lack information what is healthy, the available accessible food does not correspond to personal preferences, or people are ‘nudged’ into food choices that are not good for them and satisfy hedonistic needs or demands induced out of interests from other food system actors, thus replacing healthier food choices or food choices that correspond better to their un-influenced preferences. The examples on historically disadvantaged individuals and communities are very important, but they are not the only ones. Under-priviledged people being mal-nourished because of accessibility problems, but also because of food-illiteracy or predominant un-conscious / un-reflected food choices exist in all societies. Vulnerable populations (e.g., children, parents) in particular are to be protected from undue marketing and misinformation. The agency dimension needs therefore to point towards the unequal distribution of power and influence, and the lack of information on the consequences of food choices.
In particular, we see a danger of narrowing the agency dimension to the ‘all’ in the FSN definition, as the ‘all’ was already included in the other dimensions: food should be available and accessible for all, and good utilization guaranteed. So what is the difference? The agency dimension goes deeper. Food availability means food as commodities. Food accessibility means food products. Food utilization addresses meals and diets. Food agency adds the aspect of heteronomy, for example through marketing strategies or suggestive publicity or provision of biased information - against which the individual has no means to withstand.
In essence, this is not very different from what i read in the report, but in the context of FSN, it is NOT about the capacity of shaping the food system, but the the ability to eat the food that is sufficient, safe, nutritious and respects the self-determined and informed preferences of the consumer. Yes, agency is needed also for all other food system actors, the farmers, the supermarket clerk etc. But for FSN the focus is and should remain on what people eat. We are not in favor of the expression of ‘free choices’ which has a (neo)liberal connotation that hides that being well-informed and free of manipulations is the precondition of real ‘free choice’.
As summary, we propose the following definitions:
Availability: Having a quantity and quality of food sufficient to satisfy the dietary needs of individuals, free from adverse substances, and acceptable within a given culture, supplied through domestic production or imports.
Access (economic, social, and physical): Having personal or household financial means to acquire food for an adequate diet at a level to ensure that satisfaction of other basic needs are not threatened or compromised; and that adequate food is accessible to everyone, including vulnerable individuals and groups.
Utilization Having the ingredients for an adequate diet, clean water, sanitation, and the information how to use it, as well as health care to reach a state of nutritional well-being where all personal physiological needs are met.
Agency: Having the capacity to make food choices that respect the personal self-determined and well-informed preferences on what they eat and how that food is produced, processed, distributed and prepared.
[Replacing: Individuals or groups having the capacity to act independently and make free choices about what they eat and how that food is produced, processed, and distributed.]
Stability: Having the ability to ensure food security and nutrition in the event of sudden shocks (e.g. an economic, conflict, or climatic crisis) or cyclical events (e.g. seasonal food insecurity).
Sustainability: Having the ability to detect, mitigate and adapt long term (environmental, economic, socio-political) trends that could risk the food needs of present and future generations and ensure long-term food security and nutrition.
[Replaces: Food system practices that contribute to the quality of the natural environment on a long-term basis, ensuring the food needs of the present generations are met without depleting natural resources faster than they can be regenerated, and that the interrelationships between ecological systems and food systems remain viable.]
Figure 1:
Proposed modification to Figure 1 and FSN definition
Figure 2:
We disagree that the six dimensions are ‘interconnected in a complex way’, and it is difficult to understand what interrelations are meant in Figure 2.
We agree that the term ‘dimensions’ fits better. But dimensions should rather be clear-cut (orthogonal) and span a (six dimensional) space that contain all possible situations. This space has a region where at least one of the dimensions is sub-optimal and thus prevents FSN. Only when all six dimensions are above a threshold (which could be dynamic, thus depending on the values of the other dimensions), FSN is achieved (now) and able to cope with short and long-term developments. If all dimensions are above their threshold, focus and importance can be put into different dimensions, depending on the socio-cultural settings.
When FSN is not achieved, it is important to identify which dimension(s) need(s) to be improved first.
The associations of challenges and vulnerabilities to the six dimensions in Box 2 is very useful and shows that the six dimensions address clearly different challenges, even though not always the assignment is unambiguous (and in some cases i would have done differently).
In addition to the above, and pertaining to section 4 of the report, we would like to flag the following resources for the promotion of healthy and sustainable food environments and diets, produced by the JRC and relating largely to the EU context. In various regards these documents may help inform discussions and shape environments to promote health and the environment through optimised matching food policy and provision.
Toolkits to promote water intake and fruit in vegetable consumption in schools
http://dx.doi.org/10.2788/33817 (toolkit to promote fruit and vegetable intake in schools)
http://dx.doi.org/10.2788/95048 (toolkit to promote water intake in schools)
Caldeira et al. (2018) Public Procurement of Food for Health: technical report on the school setting. http://dx.doi.org/10.2760/269508
Costa Leite et al. (2020) Healthy, low nitrogen footprint diets. Global Food Security 24:100342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2019.100342
Bock et al. (2016) Tomorrow's healthy society - Research priorities for foods and diets. 10.2788/1395 (online)
Adrian Leip, Stefan Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann, Jan Wollgast
European Commission - Joint Research Centre
Г-н Kaz Fujiwara
Dear All,
As mentioned by a panelist/ speaker, Ms. Elizabeth Nyeko, CEO & Founder, Modularity Grid Ltd., during the third sesssion of webinar held today on 20/07/2020,
FAO Regional Office for Africa (RAF) has been discussing, with Modularity Grid Ltd., the potential for strengthening collaboration on digitalization and innovation in a broad range of private sector engagement in agriculture and food systems in Africa.
In the light of Covid-19, the initiative aims to promote collection and provision of accurate and timely data on agriculture and food systems in Africa with advanced digital technology and innovation such as satellite image, remote sensing and artificial intelligence (AI), for evidence-based decision making. The issues relating to use and scaling up of these innovations are critical for decision making by various actors, including policy makers, private sector/ value chain actors, small-scale producers/ family farmers as well as development partners.
To better understand the potential for uptake and widespread dissemination of digital innovation a survey is conducted with a wide range of stakeholders in order to validate the findings from an extensive literature review, which included barriers limiting the prevalence of software-enabled or data-driven approaches. An innovation interactive workshop is also planned to elaborate ideas and recommendations for the project, complemented by interviews. We welcome you to join this online survey: [https://forms.gle/KA89AYYtWxXyJVbA7].
Thank you for your kind cooperation!
Best regards,
Kaz Fujiwara