Глобальный форум по продовольственной безопасности и питанию (Форум FSN)

1. V0 draft is structured around a conceptual framework that proposes to focus on six dimensions of FSN. Along with the four established pillars of FSN (availability, access, stability, utilization), the V0 draft also discusses two additional dimensions: agency and sustainability, which have become increasingly important and recognized dimensions to achieving sustainable food systems. Do you think that this framework addresses the key issues of FSN?

No, not enough.

Access: This is heavy on financial access but misses the physical and social issues.

Utilization: This misses the crucial social function food plays in cultural identity and ceremony, religious function, feeling of ‘self’, …

Stability: I have long argued stability is really an attribute of the 3 first components rather than separate as it begs the question stability of what? Answer: stability of availability, access and utilisation. And stability is not not good if the system is not delivering satisfactorily: it needs to change. Also, the words “Having the ability to ensure food security in the event of sudden shocks (e.g. an economic, conflict, or climatic crisis) or cyclical events (e.g. seasonal food insecurity)” are better related to resilience, not stability.

Agency: This is a good addition but need to be clearly differentiated from social access.

Sustainability: The text is only about environmental sustainability but the food system needs to also be socially and economically sustainable, ie the myriad enterprises that constitute the food system, and the billions of livelihoods they support have to sustainable.

Fig 1: needs to better reflect my points above and the 9 elements stemming from the FAO definition (after Ericksen 2006; Ingram 2011):

Access: Affordability, Allocation & Preference

Availability: Production, Distribution & Exchange

Utilisation: Nutritional value, Social value & Food Safety

Fig 2: This suggests one dimension (yes, better word than pillar) leads to another, when it is more complex than that; they all interact.

2. The V0 draft analyses in what ways thinking on FSN has shifted in recent years as articulated in past HLPE reports; and how these insights can feed into a global narrative on how best to meet SDG2 targets. Do you think that the analysis of the evolution of conceptual approaches and thinking on FSN clearly addresses its current adequacy to meet the SDG2 targets?

Up to a point. The shift to “food security and nutrition” is better than the older “food and nutrition security” as the latter suggested they were different concepts. But there is still the need to emphasize food production is only part of food security (see Ingram, JSI. Look beyond production. 2017. Nature 544 S27. doi: 10.1038/544S17a) and food security is only part of achieving good nutrition (see Ingram, J. (2020). Nutrition security is more than food security. Nature Food 1, 2.)

The key thing about food systems ‘thinking’ is that is addresses many (and arguably all) SDGs in an integrated way. Ie, Table 1, point iii needs emphasizing.

3. The V0 drafts identifies main trends that have complex implications for all dimensions of food security. While some of these trends have widespread agreement with respect to their implications for food security and nutrition, others have less agreement and as such require more research. 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?

Yes, good coverage. But more needs to be said in 3.10 about the role of corporations in shaping the food environment, esp in urban situations. Advertising empty calories, and the shift to convenience foods (often cheaper than fresh foods) are both major factors in driving all aspects of malnutrition.

Do you have additional data or information that could help refine the analysis of the interplay between these trends and FSN outcomes?

Yes, see Westhoek, H, JSI Ingram, S Van Berkum, L Özay and M Hajer. 2016. Food Systems and Natural Resources. A Report of the Working Group on Food Systems of the International Resource Panel. 164 p. UNEP Nairobi.

Also, some key issues that warrant stronger statements:

Increasing realisation a food systems approach is needed, and this needs to be start with constraints to eating patterns/diet choice rather than primary production. It will thereby reinforce this as a way to address the ‘Square Peg’ problem.

The crucial role of the private sector in transforming food systems – they are the agents of change.

That we need healthy diets from food systems which are environmentally and socially and economically sustainable.

The need to build capability in food systems analysis and management.

This is to make a follow up comment on question one of the discussion forums. In my comment I posted on 03/02/20202, I have recommended the inclusion of “Responsibility” as 7th dimension of FSN along with my brief justification for it. I remain firm with my recommendation. However, I see that its implementation at individual level will be difficult even impossible. This is because there won’t be direct legal means for enforcing responsibility for FSN at individual level. But still there are and/or there will be several indirect means of making people responsible for their universal right for food which can be introduced through process over time until all people of the world will internalize and accept the concept of responsibility for FSN. Consequently, if my recommendation for inclusion of responsibility dimension is accepted, I will suggest the possible indirect means of making people responsible for their universal right for food later.

First of all, I would like to thank the organizers for availing this online opportunity for interested scientists/experts so that they can forward their views and comments aimed at addressing issues of food security and nutrition (FSN) on the ground that global causes such as FSN requires global cooperation.

With my remark above, this time I would like to address the first question of this discussion forum entitled “Do you think that this framework addresses the key issues of FSN?”

I appreciate how the definition of FSN evolved in the last 50 years and its dimensions have been expanded. I agree that the previous four dimensions of FSN and the newly added two dimensions of FSN will greatly help to address key issues of FSN and achieve sustainable food system. However, in my view, the current six dimensions of FSN are not sufficient to address key issues of FSN and achieve the required impacts and results in global food system. This is because in my thinking one more important dimension which is “Responsibility” is missed out as key dimension/pillar of FSN. We know that the central point of FSN is the right of everyone to have access to safe and nutritious food and the current six pillars of FSN are designed to ensure this universal right for food. However, if each and every individual has the right for food, he/she should also be responsible for protecting, developing, nurturing etc. of his/her right. Each and every individual with this fundamental universal right should also be responsible so that he/she will not to abuse it. Otherwise, the right to adequate food without accompanying responsibility can’t be fully achieved. Even if achieved it can’t be sustained for long.

At this juncture, I would like to bring to your attention that most of the challenges described under section 3 of V0 draft report are the results of lack of responsibilities/insufficient responsibilities of actors of diverse types. Thus, unless “Responsibility” is included as 7th dimension/pillar of FSN, most of the challenges listed under this section will be difficult to be solved or addressed. Therefore I strongly recommend “Responsibility” to be included as key dimension of FSN.

I am sending my personal comments attached herewith. 

Best regards

Chandima 

 

I read the zero draft of food security,, I think:-

1- The draft discuss the food production more than food security and the right of foods because food security in related to how much money I have to buy the food not the lack or plenty of food.

2- food security and right to food doesn't mean food for free but food for works, thus food security related to how much money I can earn to buy the food for me and for my family

3- The hunger index or the poverty index related to the daily money income of 1.9$ not to food accessibility of lack of food, thus there is several suffered from (hidden Hunger) which means there is plenty of food every where in market and shelves of supermarket but in high expense more than I have or more that the money I have to buy the food.

4- We always produce safe food not healthy food, because healthy food depend on how much I can eat from this safe food to be sick, suffering from obesity or to be healthy. muck eat of safe protein or fat or other food means sickness,, thus we produce safe food not healthy food..

50 Big differences between food production and food security, The last may calls for nations, community, but food production for fields and agricultural activity.

Regards

Professor Nader Noureldeen Mohamed

Professor of Soil and Water Sciences

Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University, Egypt