Глобальный форум по продовольственной безопасности и питанию (Форум FSN)

Related to HLPE questions: 1, 4, 5

The report seems rather comprehensive and interesting. On my side, I would advise to put more attention to youth engagement in the fight for food security and nutrition. While particular importance of youth is highlighted in the preamble of the report (Introduction), there is no single reference to youth in the whole report. Meantime, youth are the major drivers for any change/transformation and should the cornerstone for enhancing food security and nutrition. This is particularly reasonable in the context of the digital revolution in food and agriculture, where youth can play a particular role because youth are:

• At ease with change

• Adaptable

• Enthusiastic

• Fast learners of new technologies

• More aware of new tools

• More computer literate

• Good transfers of ICT skills

• Able to build partnerships

The application of information and communication technologies by young rural entrepreneurs can cover all the segments of the food value-chain: apps for production, trade, water, pest management, smart greenhouses, record keeping, trade and marketing of products, access to inputs, finance, social media advocacy, etc.

Among many benefits that youth engagement in rural entrepreneurship and digital innovation will have to overcome agriculture value-chain related constraints, it will also mitigate rural youth migration that creates imbalances in the age and potential skillsets in the remaining rural labor force, potentially threatening the capacity of the agricultural and food systems to sustain not only the rural economy but also urban communities.

Actions for forwarding youth can include:

• Skills and Capacity Development: collaboration with national and local governments and the private sector, development of practical skills on market-oriented agriculture and agribusiness enterprises, replication and scale-up models of success cases).

• Agribusiness Development: explore promising technologies and innovations for commercialization, establishing agribusiness incubators, promoting agribusiness startups to assess best practices, establishing demonstration farms and pilot agribusinesses as centers for profitable innovation; advocating for necessary policies to support youth engagement and job creation, etc.)

• Youth-focused Networking: establishing youth innovation agribusiness centers, connecting youth led research and youth led implementation on the field, organize internships with private agribusinesses and incubators for on-the-job training and skills development,  create incentives to attract trained youth into agribusiness entrepreneurship, promote better networking among young agripreneurs, conduct media events  to popularize and highlight youth achievements and emerging opportunities.

A promising case for promoting innovation and youth in agriculture is the Armenian National SDG Innovation Laboratory that envisions mainstreaming the culture of innovation and experimentation in policy making for sustainable development. It aims to further unlock Armenia’s development potential and accelerate the implementation of the Agenda 2030. Indeed, it is for the first time, that the government in cooperation with the United Nations establishes an innovation platform to support the SDGs implementation at country level. Currently, the project pipeline of the SDG Lab involves “Al in Agriculture” initiative that targets SDG2 (End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture) and SDG 8 (Promote inclusive and sustainable economic growth, employment and decent work for all). “Al in Agriculture” aims to introduce innovative digital data collection and information management system to agriculture through:

• Developing a real-time agricultural data register with the help of new technologies such as satellite and drone imagery, which will be verified on the ground by agricultural experts or farmers;

•  Applying remote-sensing technology artificial intelligence and aerial imagery for crop growth monitoring.

The SDG Innovation Lab has a potential of becoming a promising innovation platform for youth-innovators-to-youth-implementers cooperation and action. Details are available here:

https://www.sdginnovationlab.am/en/about-us

Naira Harutyunyan, PhD

[email protected]

Resources:

• Sanginga, N. 2015. Youth in Agribusiness within an African Agricultural Transformation Agenda. Youth in Agribusiness. Background paper, Feeding Africa, October 21-23, 20156. Available at: https://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Events/DakAgri2015/Youth_in_Agribusiness_within_an_African_Agricultural_Transformation_Agenda.pdf
• FAO IFAD IOM WFP. 2018. The Linkages between Migration, Agriculture, Food Security and Rural Development. Rome. 80pp. (http://www.fao.org/3/CA0922EN/CA0922EN.pdf). Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/CA0922EN/CA0922EN.pdf
• Armenian National SDG Innovation Laboratory. Available at:   https://www.sdginnovationlab.am/en/about-us

Overall the V0 report does address all key issues on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN). The extension of the conceptual framework from six dimensions (availability, access, stability, utilization) to eight, including AGENCY and SUSTAINABILITY are partially important; Figure 1 is a great way of visualizing and explaining these dimensions. Furthermore the evolution of the conceptual approaches and thinking on FSN is explained well and wonderfully summarized in Table 1.

However, specifically on the two new dimensions - agency and sustainability - the following points should be reflected upon, that come from my research on Ghana and highlight some of the realities on the ground; many which also hold true for other countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

On Agency:

Inequality between and within states; the case of Ghana:

In section 3.12 (Declining public sector investment in agriculture) the draft V0 is misleadingly pointing out that “The share of public expenditure devoted to agriculture has declined in almost all regions since the 1980s”, as the early 1980s marked a historical peak in subsides that lead e.g. to the infamous butter mountains and lakes of milk in Europe. However, public sector investment continues to be high in Western countries (i.e. the EU and USA in particular), while developing countries have not been allowed to or in other cases seem to lack willingness to invest intensively in the agricultural sector to compete with the West in this arena. In Ghana, as in many other African countries, the WTO de minimis ceiling is 10 % is far from reached, with on average 3% of the budget dedicated to agriculture the last 15 years (Marston, 2017). This inequality has to be evaluated on the background of missing tax revenue, and some cases financial mismanagement in many African countries; But also lack of dedication/importance of the agricultural ministries, as monies invested in agricultural research and extension services can hardly be used on posters and ads during the next election campaigns by the decision-making politicians.

The section does note importantly, but again too briefly, the role of development assistance in Sub-Saharan Africa. The role of so called ‘Development Partners’ and aid continues to be of high importance for many African countries. In Ghana specifically they have invested the majority of funds made available to the agricultural (and health) sector the past 20 years. However, aid and how it is used greatly lacks transparency and, hence, accountability on the DPs end, as well as on the end of the government. While these shortcomings have long been known and discussed (e.g. with the Paris declaration on aid effectiveness in 2005), very little is being changed. The DPs role, and particularly their power based on the monies they use to woo cash-strapped African government has arguably had a substantial influence on FSN in various ways across the continent, which at the same time has the highest prevalence of undernourishment (PoU) worldwide (with almost 20% of the population suffering). The SOFI report of 2019 highlights that the PoU has been most alarming in sub-Saharan Africa,with a slight but steady increase in all subregions between 2015 and 2018 (FAO, 2019).

The importance of agency for small-scale farmers cannot be overemphasized in this regard. In the case of Ghana, they have been poorly organized and, hence, lack representation during policy, budget and implementation decisions. Many of them do not know their rights, or are afraid to enforce it, if e.g. prices are being changed last minute by off-takers/market women, as they have/feel they have limited options to sell and want to preserve the relationship, even if it is to their disadvantage.

Furthermore, the “one-size-fits-all” intervention approach, usually focused on high-external input agriculture, which has been used by many DPs and the Governments in Ghana alike, is flawed and inappropriate. Yet again proper research (and willingness to understand farmers) is missing. Unsurprisingly farmers believe that technologies are introduced to farmers without any idea of their needs and aspirations (Dittoh, 2018, unpublished).

In case decent projects are introduced to communities, women describe that these interventions are often hijacked by the more educated people in the communities, some of who are either “absentee farmers” or are not serious with farming. In the end the “real farmers” are sidelined and do not know what is happening and therefore do not adopt the technologies (Dittoh, 2018, unpublished). This inequality is even more true for large interventions finance, e.g. by the World Bank and USAID, in which chosen participants/beneficiaries have to have the needed ‘assets’ to apply in the first place, leaving it to well-connected and highly educated elites/investors that will be “absent” on the field, leaving the real work to the small farmers in models praised as Nucleus-Outgrower scheme, increasing existing inequalities among farmers even more (Marston, 2017).

Moreover, great misconceptions prevail about farmers as well as gender (a trendy aid category in recent years), as proper research is not undertaken at all, or not taken seriously. Generalizations in cultural diverse places are misplaced all over the continent, such as there being a defined women’s crops in Ghana, because what is usually considered women’s crops can differ from community to community, even within the same districts, i.e. a “women’s crop” in one location can be a “man’s crop” in another location. Dittoh et. al (2018, unpublished) show that inheritance, whether matrilineal or patrilineal, plays a very minor role in access to land for women, because a large majority of farmers in all the three southern regions are migrants. This in turn makes access to productive resources, such as land, by the farmers especially women, quite difficult and leads to tenure insecurity on the land the migrants hire for rent or take part in the sharecropping arrangement. Very important points, often completely ignored by decision makers in the capital(s).

In the end there are huge gaps on yield on farmers field compared to the expected yield. The question that arises is if this is due to practices OR “because what is offered [via projects that use mostly high external input methods] is too far from the reality on the ground?” as a senior public servant asked.

Data for development

The Section 3.12 also makes mention of the importance of improved data, knowledge and information sharing as key conditions to development and sustainable food systems. Yet again these very important comments are mentioned only briefly, at the end of the section. These points, however, are again only mentioned briefly while of high significance and, hence, not underlined enough in the V0 draft – especially the importance of data and deficiency there of on the African continent. It usually starts with the lack of funds made available, continues with the missing capacity on the district levels (where information could be collected most efficiently), and ends with M&E structures not in place. Or, as an internal report of the ministry highlights, that there is ineffective implementation and monitoring of the agreed courses of action, if issues are identified (MoFA, 2014, unpublished).

Between the Censuses of Agriculture in Ghana lay over 30 years. In the meantime, and also to a large degree still today, agricultural data is at best based on rough estimations and at worst … pure fabrications. Not without good reason, the World Bank declared that the next World Development Report in 2021 would focus on Data for Development, as quality data is the foundation for meaningful decision- and policymaking. Evidently, we need better data to make better decisions to ensure that “no one is left behind”. I believe that this aspect has not been sufficiently appreciated in the V0 Draft yet.

On sustainability:

Some of the important issues pertaining to sustainability are, again, rather mentioned as a side note, e.g. in Box 2 (p.30). The lack of research and training for low-external agriculture is a serious issue in Ghana. All ag colleges and universities focus on high-external input methods, often with books and curricula from the West.

Lacking an international ‘role model’ in which sustainable approaches have successfully been feeding the masses is also a big problem. Maybe India will solve the issue.

In Ghana, as in many other African countries, the young generation migrates to the cities rather than continuing the agricultural practices of their parents. Labor, which is so important for sustainable agricultural methods, is a big constraint. Many farmers continue to have difficulties to hire labor during peak farming times, such as land preparation and harvesting times, and if so only for high costs. Therefore, sustainable agriculture methods are viewed as too labor intensive and too costly for small-scale farmers, especially women, that rely on hired labor.

In the meantime agro-chemicals, e.g. for weeding, are sold cheaply and ubiquitously. In combination with a one-sided application of inorganic fertilizers and improper use of land tillage machinery, the Savanna soils in Ghana are characterized by rapid degradation

When sustainable/ low-external input agricultural methods are offered to farmers, e.g. by DP projects, they often neglect to investigate previous projects’ successes and failures, hence, repeating the same mistakes all over again. When promoting organic crop production for export, as some DPs do, the problem is the extremely cumbersome and expensive certification process for organic produce, which is impossible for farmers to continue after a project has expired (WFP, 2017).

The case studies from India on the spreading of sustainable agricultural methods were a great addition. More research and more sharing of data can have a big impact on the most vulnerable people affected by food insecurity and malnutrition.

All in all, most key trends are well identified and highlighted in the draft V0. However, the realities on the ground in countries like Ghana should be kept in mind, particularly in regards to dimensions of agency and sustainability, which can be further defined and highlighted.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment!

For further questions, comments or feedback feel free to reach out.

Jasmin Marston

[email protected]

Resources:

Dittoh, Saa (2018) Promoting Gender Equality and Mainstreaming within the Traditional and Cultural Settings of the Operational Areas of Selected Values Chains of GIZ MOAP and GIC in Ghana; funded by GIZ MOAP and GIC; unpublished.

 FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO (2019) The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2019. Safeguarding against economic slowdown. Rome, FAO

Marston (2017) Aid and agriculture : a constructivist approach to a political economy analysis of sustainable agriculture in Ghana, Freidok, Uni-Freiburg, available: https://freidok.uni-freiburg.de/data/16032

World Food Programme (WFP) and John A. Kufuor Foundation (2017) Addressing Sustainable Development Goal 2: The Ghana Zero Hunger Strategic Review; Full Report by Steiner-Asiedu, Matilda; Dittoh, Saa; Newton, Sam Kofi and Akotia, Chairty, Accra, July 2017.

Please see the attached comments.

Q3. Do you think that trends identified are the key ones in affecting FSN outcomes today that might help explain stalled progress on meeting SDG2 targets? Do you have additional data or information that could help refine the analysis of the interplay between these trends and FSN outcomes?

Yes, the trends identified and detailed in section 3 of V0 draft are key ones in affecting FSN outcomes. Truly, I would like to appreciate and thank scientists involved for their excellent work. However, in my view, still there are more key challenges which have serious bearing on FSN but not mentioned in the list here. Consequently, as to me some of the key challenges to FSN worth listing under section 3 of the V0 draft report include:

1. Inadequate commitments of governments of some countries for Agri-sector
2. Unfavorable agricultural policies in some countries
3. Low capacity to prioritize, plan and effectively implement agricultural transformation strategies and projects for FSN at national and regional levels

Especially, these challenges qualify to be among key factors affecting FSN when it comes to sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) than other continents. But still, they should be considered among key challenges to Global FSN. This is because the majority of food and nutrition insecure people are found in SSA than any other continent in the world. Moreover, the challenge I have indicated as number one above is the most crucial to FSN due to the fact that the other two challenges listed above and some of the challenges listed in V0 drat are deep rooted in it. Thus, I suggest that the three challenges I mentioned above to be included as additional factors to those already listed under section 3 of V0 drat. Finally, I would like to bring to the attention of readers that if explanations or justifications are required to know as to why these challenges need to be included in the list, I will do it later in the future, please.

Global movement to exploit the creativity of the human brain and market knowledge and skills in emerging circular economies to increase the purchasing power    

Chandima Gunasena – [email protected]

The creativity of the human brain is immense, according to a research conducted by Torrance in 1961, identified lack of education and resources for working out ideas were some of the limiting factors of creativity among children. The fourth industrial revolution and immerging circular economies mostly depend on technologies, knowledge, and skills. Presently, in most of the developing countries, people earn for foods or in other words market hunger to generate labor for service-oriented employments. Hence, most of the children seek service-oriented jobs and discontinue their education in the early stages. They receive unhealthy foods and become sick during adulthood. Whatever they earn goes for food and medicine and this is the vicious cycle they suffer.

Food security and the ability to have nutritious foods will decide the quality of human resources of the developing countries and therefore, feeding developing countries and improving their knowledge and skills will have positive impacts on circular economies in developed countries as well as developing countries.

Therefore, primary production, value addition, and marketing must be coordinated to have sustainable ecosystem services and maintain resilience for future generations. At this juncture, it is very important to develop a global movement or a common model for spiritually coordinated natural resource sharing for production.

Comments

Overall balance

I acknowledge that the introductory explanation of the challenges to agriculture and food systems (p.5) cannot encompass everything, but I think two headline issues should appear in the second paragraph:

• the dominant role of the food industry in the supply of nutrient-poor foods, and
• the consequent need for concerted and robust political and policy action to constrain the excesses of the food industries and to promote nutrition-enhancing food formulations.

These two issues are gaps in the FSN approach and documentation. Here you could cite:

• Monteiro, C.A., Cannon, G., Moubarac, J.-C., Levy, R.B., Louzada, M.L.C. and Jaime, P.C. (2018). The UN Decade of Nutrition, the NOVA food classification and the trouble with ultra-processing. Public Health Nutrition 21(1): 5-17.

Incorporating agency and sustainability

These are two important constructs.

It is not just a lack of information and education but also the lack of ‘agency’ among consumers, which the Report correctly identifies, that enables the global food processing, manufacturing and distribution industries to continue to supply and profit from noxious and/or nutrient-deficient food products. The adverse and ‘disproportionate agency or power’ (p.9) of the food industry is reminiscent of the tobacco industry.

The section 3.10 Growing concentration in agrifood supply chains does not capture all critical dimensions of agrifood industry market power. See later.

Sustainability

On sustainability of agrifood systems in challenging natural and political contexts, and with a particular focus on seasonality, see:

• Poole, N., Amiri, H., Amiri, S.M., Farhank, I. and Zanello, G. (2019). Food production and consumption in Bamyan Province, Afghanistan: the challenges of sustainability and seasonality for dietary diversity. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 17(6): 413-430.

Policy approaches

Production still matters. See comment below on 3.8 Continued coexistence of hunger and obesity.

It is not correct to say that we have reached the limits of increasing food production (p.12). There is much that can still be done to improve the quantity of food supplies and indeed, this will be necessary in the future. There is still scope for technological advances, but more importantly, there will be a need for sustainable intensification of production from smaller land areas: good agricultural land will be lost to climate change, resource abuse and degradation, and urban industrial development. Production capacity may also become constrained through lack of young farmers to replace the ageing population: see ‘A people perspective’, ch.1, pp.14-15 in:

• Poole, N. (2017). Smallholder Agriculture and Market Participation. Rugby, Warwickshire, UK and Rome, Practical Action and United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.

Moreover, while the overwhelming challenge is to provide nutrient-rich foods to combat micronutrient malnutrition and obesity, the threat of hunger and energy deficiencies has not gone away. It is never good to feel hungry, that is the risk facing many communities, and it will be exacerbated as natural resource systems become increasingly stressed.

Staple foods and the square peg

Staple foods that are energy-rich are not the enemy of good nutrition. Whole-grain cereals are proven to be pro-health. In fact, many staples such as cereals have good nutrition that is stripped out through regular processing, not just ultra-processing. But it is important to note that the contribution of cereals and whole grain foods goes beyond good nutrition in respect of nutrients. A greater focus on health matters. Dietary fibre is not usually classified as a nutrient but does confer proven health benefits in respect of digestion and metabolism. The right types of dietary carbohydrates (cf the wrong carbohydrates such as in UPFs) can combat many non-communicable diseases. See:

Lafiandra, D., Riccardi, G. and Shewry, P.R. (2014). Improving cereal grain carbohydrates for diet and health. Journal of Cereal Science 59(3): 312-326.

Stephen, A.M., Champ, M.M.-J., Cloran, S.J., Fleith, M., van Lieshout, L., Mejborn, H. and Burley, V.J. (2017). Dietary fibre in Europe: current state of knowledge on definitions, sources, recommendations, intakes and relationships to health. Nutrition Research Reviews 30(2): 149-190.

Reynolds, A., Mann, J., Cummings, J., Winter, N., Mete, E. and Te Morenga, L. (2019). Carbohydrate quality and human health: a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The Lancet 393(10170): 434-445.

It is in this context that focusing on food and nutrition falls short of the real challenges facing the global community, which are about health, and not just SDG2 but also SDG3.

We cannot neglect the production of staples which constitute more than half of global diets, and provide essential energy. We can improve the nutritional content through bio- and industrial fortification, both technologies with a proven ability to enhance nutrition and health, and we can improve nutritional content by enhancing food processing and manufacturing. The challenge here is to develop formulations of nutritious whole foods that are acceptable, indeed preferable, to consumers.

This needs more thought. In the context of the argument, the figure note to Figure 3 should not refer to a ‘hunger deficit, gap or hole’ but to a ‘nutrition hole’.

Therefore, the ‘square peg in a round hole’ is an important diagnosis of policy failure to address dietary deficiencies of nutrient-rich foods, but there is still two other holes at least:

• a square hole of hunger that the square peg of production fits
• a hole of food quality and broader health challenges that can be fitted by wholesome wholefoods

So in Table 1 I would prefer to see under New Thinking:

• We need to address malnutrition in all forms, including hunger, obesity and micronutrient deficiencies

Sectoral interactions

As noted above, there should be more explicit links to SDG3 with which SDG2 is very closely related. More awareness of the interrelationship of all SGDs would be helpful. This can be done without losing the primary focus. You could cite:

• Waage, J., Yap, C., Bell, S., Levy, C., Mace, G., Pegram, T., Unterhalter, E., Dasandi, N., Hudson, D., Kock, R., Mayhew, S., Marx, C. and Poole, N. (2015). Governing the UN Sustainable Development Goals: interactions, infrastructures, and institutions. The Lancet Global Health 3(5): PE251-E252.

Re the section: iii. The complex interactions between sectors. This discussion misses the opportunity to cite public sector policies as a part of the HLPE definition of food systems. ‘Institutions’ is too vague a term, too academic. This section is an opportunity to cite regulatory and legislative frameworks, fiscal policies, advertising and consumer engagement as factors which facilitate the direction of travel of the food system. It is also important to highlight to lobbying power of the agrifood industry, such as firms behind sugar, which test good regulations and legislation. Agency applies here in a forceful way, and more than industry social responsibility. Again, the tobacco industry and efforts to combat tobacco consumption are a useful comparator.

I note the inclusion of ‘political and economic drivers’ in Figure 3, but the box itself in the diagram and the explanation fall short of specifying precise policy factors such as taxes and subsidies; and the specific notion of agribusiness is absent. You may get some more penetrating ideas from:

• Maestre, M., Poole, N. and Henson, S. (2017). Assessing food value chain pathways, linkages and impacts for better nutrition of vulnerable groups. Food Policy 68: 31-39.

Please see Figure 1. Agri-food pathways and policy linkages for improved nutrition.

Specific solutions for diverse contexts, cf upscaling

iv. Diverse situations, variable solutions, global challenges.

A good case for specific solutions to diverse problem environments is Poole et al, op cit:

• Poole, N., Amiri, H., Amiri, S.M., Farhank, I. and Zanello, G. (2019). Food production and consumption in Bamyan Province, Afghanistan: the challenges of sustainability and seasonality for dietary diversity. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 17(6): 413-430.

A cautious note about scaling up and diversity is in the concluding chapter 11 Postscript: ‘Going local’ with development policies (pp.183-191):

• Poole, N. (2017). Smallholder Agriculture and Market Participation. Rugby, Warwickshire, UK and Rome, Practical Action and United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. DOI 10.3362/9781780449401.000 - 011

Policy

Section 2.3 The importance of implementing the right to food and other international guidelines usefully highlights the lack of progress with implementation of the obligations and voluntary guidelines (p.17). Once again, it is important to recognise and specify private sector responsibilities and well as the public sector responsibilities.

Section 3.1 should refer to the threat of declining agricultural populations and employment, and the likely scarcity of farmers as agriculture, particularly small-scale farming which provides the bulk of food is outcompeted by urban and non-farm employment; cf section 3.4 Smallholder farms play important roles. See Poole op cit, ‘A people perspective’, ch.1, pp.14-15 in:

• Poole, N. (2017). Smallholder Agriculture and Market Participation. Rugby, Warwickshire, UK and Rome, Practical Action and United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.

This chapter by Poole also draws attention to the role of women in agriculture.

In section 3.6 Expansion and disruption in food and agriculture markets, the paragraph on energy dense foods is important but I don’t think it fits under the heading. Find somewhere else for it, say, a section that focuses on industry? This would cover the agency power of the food industries.

Section 3.8 Continued coexistence of hunger and obesity cites Willett et al (2019) but it is important not to create the impression that simple redistribution of food energy can meet hunger – which is still growing despite the excess supply of calories at the global level. As you say: ‘the grim reality is that is one fourth of the world's population does not have regular access to a sufficient quantity of food (FAO et al. 2019)’. Redistribution of excess foods will not address that.

3.9 The digital revolution in food and agriculture – new technologies create more attractive opportunities for younger and better educated and entrepreneurial farmers. Make the link with the challenges cited earlier.

 Again, regarding 3.10 Growing concentration in agrifood supply chains, Murphy et al. 2012 is a bit old and not exactly plausible. The loss of small retail outlets is significant, even if there are gains due to economic efficiency and food safety. Shaping and restricting consumer choice, like political agency, are important dimensions of market power.

Multiple impact pathways

It is well established that there are multiple pathways by which agriculture can influence nutrition and health, and these illustrate some of the interactions among SDGs. See:

• Kadiyala, S., Harris, J., Headey, D., Yosef, S. and Gillespie, S. (2014). Agriculture and nutrition in India: mapping evidence to pathways. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1331: 43-56.
• Poole, N., Echavez, C. and Rowland, D. (2018). Are agriculture and nutrition policies and practice coherent? Stakeholder evidence from Afghanistan. Food Security 10(6): 1577-1601.

Poole et al summarise these as follows, making explicit the links to the wider economy:

1. Agricultural production as a source of food for own consumption

2. Agricultural sales and employment as a source of income for household expenditures on food and non-food goods

3. Agricultural and food policies which influence food access and availability through relative prices and affordability of specific foods, and of foods in general

4. Women’s roles in agriculture, household decision making and resource allocation affecting intra-household allocations of, and expenditures on, food, health and care

5. Women’s employment in agriculture balanced with child care and feeding responsibilities

6. Women’s own nutrition and health status, affecting childcare and nutrition, which may be compromised by own agricultural labour

7. Competition and entrepreneurism in the scale and diversity of agricultural production, and changes in productivity, which affect food access and availability at market level, cf. household level

8. Changes in the agricultural sector and related industries as a whole which have a macro-level and medium-to-long term impact on gross domestic product and productivity

This has relevance to section 3.11 Fragile and uncertain global economic situation.

Poole et al (op cit) is a potentially useful case to illustrate civil strife and the lack of effective governance. Afghanistan is a good case of ineffective state governance and severe under nutrition, and a reminder that public services are not always delivered by the public sector. In Afghanistan, it is (I)NGOs principally which operate at field level to ensure food security under conditions of a) disaster relief, b) humanitarian operations and c) development activities:

• Poole, N., Echavez, C. and Rowland, D. (2018). Are agriculture and nutrition policies and practice coherent? Stakeholder evidence from Afghanistan. Food Security 10(6): 1577-1601.

Policy pathways

I don’t think that section 4. POTENTIAL POLICY PATHWAYS FORWARD lives up to the title and I don’t think that a selection of some rather old examples adds enough to the report to justify the chapter – does it? Eg 4.4 is rather old… There could be much more to say on 4.6.

Global Ecological Cascade Platform (GEPC) to buildup spiritually coordinated Primary Production, Value Addition and manage circular economies 

Global movement to introduce the importance of native, rare, traditional edible fruits, vegetables and medicinal plants for the school community   

Sustainability depends not only on conserving rare flora but also explore the possibility of edibility and nutritive value of those. When the community identifies the taste and the nutritive values and medicinal properties of rare, native fruits, vegetables, and medicinal plants, they will start to add those plants into their home gardens. With the advancement of landscaping activities as a science, people tend to use plants having certain qualities like colorful flowers and leaves to decorate home gardens. Tissue culture technology proliferates these plants very quickly and distributes these plant varieties cost-effectively, allowing to spread rapidly within home garden ecological systems. This selective growing practice reduces the natural diversity of flora and minimizes the natural nutrient profile which is easily accessible not only for humans but also for other important pollinators like, bees, butterflies, small birds, etc.   

Therefore, there is a need to introduce the value of these rare, native edible flora to the future community to conserve the gene pool and use it to address the malnutrition and micronutrient deficiencies. This could be initiated by introducing a time slot into the school curricula and teach school community about the importance of tasting not only sweets and salt but also other tastes like, sour, bitter and umami to improve health conditions and address the malnutrition and micronutrient deficiencies via improving edible biodiversity within home garden ecosystems.  

Reading comments of scientists here, I am very much impressed by the comment of Professor Nader Noureldeen Mohamed of Cairo University. As to me, all his points posted here are absolutely right and worth serious consideration to further define and refine the concepts of FSN. Moreover, looking at his comments, I learn that the definition and concepts of FSN are yet to be evolved and broadened. I would like to thank and appreciate Professor Nader for sharing us with these new and important insights concerning FSN.

Dear Sir/Madam

Overall, I like the report structure, with its focus on six dimensions of food security and a review of discussion on each dimension.

I have three specific points/concerns to raise.

First, section 3.4 on small holders

While small holders dominate in terms of area in many developing countries (including India with which I am familiar), it is not necessarily the case that small holders are (a) producing more for the local market (b) are more diverse in crop mix and (c) have higher yields in relation to large farms.

This is brought out with evidence from multiple primary surveys in Madhura Swaminathan and Sandipan Baksi (eds), How do Small Farmers Fare? Tulika books, New Delhi, 2017 (and available through Columbia University Press).

Secondly, section 3.14 on persistent inequalities.

This is a very important point and must also refer to inequalities within the rural/agricultural economy (not just rural-urban, etc), as there are large gaps in terms of yield, income, access to resources within farming populations (see Swaminathan and Baksi again).

Thirdly, in section 4.5 on agency-focused initiatives.

HLPE (2018) contributed to this issue by examining multistakeholder partnerships and conditions under which they contributed to food and nutrition security.

Specifically, I would like to mention the partnerships such as Kudumbashree in Kerala, India, where the poorest women participated in collective action for raising agricultural production adn consumption.

Reference to HLPE (2018) would be appropriate.

On page 37, in reference to the National Food Security Act in India, the reference to the right to food campaign is incomplete as this is usually understood as a reference to NGOs which ran a website on the right to food. It is important to mention the multiple partners that drove the formulation of the Act: academics, NGOs, the Supreme court, unions and activists, and political parties.

Suggest drop the right to food campaign phrase or elaborate on it.

best wishes

Madhura Swaminathan

Indian Statistical Institute

Bangalore