全球粮食安全与营养论坛 (FSN论坛)

General Comment on the questions stated in this e-consultation, from Dr R D Cooke CFS Advisory Group member, representing the CGIAR System Organisation.

This is a hugely important topic, which confronts many of the challenges to society and to human nature in delivering the SDGs. The conceptual framework (Question 1) is robust and far-reaching, but the risk is that this would lead to an HLPE report that would be too diffuse, inadequately focused on FSN, and re-invent some of the wheels developed by other organisations.  This V0 seeks rightly to focus on FSN drawing on several earlier HLPE reports, but in several areas there are missing references to relevant earlier work by HLPE and other organisations ( comment below on questions 4 & 5).  I have nothing to add to the definitions described in Questions 2 &3; those definitions are serviceable.

Question 4: gaps in the literature and data in the report regarding major inequalities in FSN (chapter 3 of V0).

4.1 The first inequality stated is ‘Inequalities in land, livestock and other food production resources’ (pages 45-52) much space is rightly focused on the inequalities confronting small-scale farmers (the 85% of all farms that have less than 2 ha and have just 12% of total farmed land).  A key missing reference and source of relevant data is the report UN Decade of Family Farming 2019-2028. This highlights the important role family farmers play in eradicating hunger and shaping our future of food. Family farming offers a unique opportunity to ensure food security, improve livelihoods, better manage natural resources, protect the environment and achieve sustainable development.

The Global Action Plan of the UN Decade of Family Farming 2019-2028 aims at accelerating actions undertaken in a collective, coherent and comprehensive manner to support family farmers, and reduce the inequalities cited in V0. That Action Plan comprises 7 pillars: 

Pillar 1. Develop an enabling policy environment to strengthen family farming  

 Pillar 2. Transversal. Support youth and ensure the generational sustainability of family farming  

Pillar 3. Transversal. Promote gender equity in family farming and the leadership role of rural women  

Pillar 4. Strengthen family farmers’ organizations and capacities to generate knowledge, represent farmers and provide inclusive services in the urban-rural continuum  

Pillar 5. Improve socio-economic inclusion, resilience and well-being of family farmers, rural households and communities  

Pillar 6. Promote sustainability of family farming for climate-resilient food systems   

Pillar 7. Strengthen the multidimensionality of family farming to promote social innovations contributing to territorial development and food systems that safeguard biodiversity, the environment and culture.

Pillars 1, 4, 5 and 7 are directly relevant to this e consultation. 

4.2 The second inequality stated is ‘Inequalities in finance and information ; (pages 52-53). These are the sources of major inequalities, but the treatment in V0 is superficial and out-dated. For example the reference to IFAD on finance is from 2015. After the opening paragraph in this V0, more recent text could be added. For example, I quote from the current IFAD web site on rural finance:

“The vast majority of rural people do not have reliable, secure ways to save money, protect and build assets, or transfer funds. This is particularly true for vulnerable groups, such as women, youth, and displaced people. Weak infrastructure, the limited capacity of financial service providers, and low levels of client education all contribute to this complex problem.

For over four decades, IFAD has made significant investments to promote inclusive rural finance (IRF) in more than 100 developing Member States, reaching an estimated 13.8 million voluntary savers and 11.95 million active savers and borrowers in 2019. IFAD has also led and supported the production of a large body of IRF knowledge and evidence; contributed to several global and regional policy processes; and participated in key partnerships such as the Consultative Group to Assist the Poor (CGAP) and the Improving Capacity-Building in Rural Finance (CABFIN) project. IFAD updated its 2009 Rural Finance Policy in December 2021, titled ‘ Inclusive Rural Finance Policy’.

Financial institutions often perceive small-scale agriculture as being too risky and are reluctant to lend money to farmers and agribusinesses. Farmers themselves are reluctant to borrow for agricultural production because of their difficulty in managing risks such as climate-related shocks and livestock disease. Over the past ten years, IFAD has become a leader in the field of agricultural risk management (ARM). The Fund promotes a holistic approach to protect and strengthen rural economies and food production systems, at the same time as leveraging rural financing and investment in smallholder farmers.”

Apart from IFAD 2021 for the IRF, other pertinent refs are available there, and also from the WB site.

The half page on information also does not do justice to this important source of inequalities. Many recent references are available, for example on ICTs/extension, on the web sites of FAO, WB, GFAR/GFRAS and on the sites of many bilateral development partners and the EC.

4.3 The third inequality stated is ‘Inequalities in value chains and markets’ (pages 54-59). The themes are covered well, but would benefit from some more recent references – not least from two HLPE/ CFS VG reports that are not mentioned here:

i) The CFS Voluntary Guidelines on Food Systems and Nutrition (2021) are structured around seven focus areas encapsulating cross-cutting factors that are relevant for improving diets and nutrition.  The first three focus areas and the associated text are directly relevant to this consultation: 1. Transparent, democratic and accountable governance; 2. Sustainable Food Supply Chains to Achieve Healthy Diets in the Context of Economic, Social and Environmental Sustainability, and Climate Change; 3. Equal and equitable access to healthy diets through sustainable food systems. 

ii) HLPE Report – Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships (MSPs – HLPE 13, 2018). A key MSP mechanism described and also discussed in CFS follow-up meetings in 2019, is the value chain (from farmer to consumer and all the stakeholders and links in between) to deliver on FSN. The challenge is to ensure that these interventions and MSP developments benefit the poor farmers and smallholders. This discussion was informed by documents cited from CGIAR and IFAD, including a then recent book and associated articles from the CGIAR Centres CIP and IFPRI “Innovation for inclusive value-chain development: successes and challenges”: Andre Devaux, Maximo Torero, Jason Donovan, Douglas Horton, (2018). IFAD had produced reports on the ‘Sustainable inclusion of smallholders in agricultural value chains’, and ‘ Public-Private-Producer Partnerships in Agricultural Value Chains’ (Mylene Kherallah, Marco Camagni, Philipp   Baumgartner, 2015 & 2016). Much of that is revisited in IFAD’s current Rural Development Report, 2021 ‘Transforming food systems for rural prosperity’.

References to the SOFI reports 2021 and 2022 could also be included here. 

Question 5&6: structural drivers of inequity, adequate coverage, and key trends.

5.1 Chapter 4 includes ‘climate in-justice’ (page 85-87). Reference to the COP 27 (November 2022) is recommended, either here or in chapter 6 (page 120 which just mentions COP 26), since this included the first ever official Food and Agriculture Pavilion at a Climate Change COP. This was co-hosted by FAO, CGIAR, Rockefeller Foundation, and convened 70 events involving the agrifood systems community. This was driven by the increasingly uncertain future for food, land and water systems, and for vulnerable smallholder farmers, and the need to ensure that they are centred in climate negotiations and action.

5.2 Chapter 4 includes one page on Innovation and Technology, which begins ‘Developments in science and technology have been hugely important for boosting both agricultural yields and the growth of incomes in many low and middle income countries…’ The following paragraphs include old hat on the Green Revolution, and some rather unbalanced comments about recent research topics that imply that smallholders are unlikely to benefit. The only CGIAR ref is from 2012; you may be aware that the CGIAR updated its research and innovation strategy in 2020 and has developed with partners a corresponding research portfolio in 2021. I recommend citing at least that research and innovation strategy. I quote from the web site:

‘This 2030 Research and Innovation Strategy situates CGIAR in the evolving global context that demands a systems transformation approach for food, land, and water systems in a climate crisis. CGIAR designs its work with partners to realize multiple benefits and that transformative change across five SDG-focused Impact Areas: (i) Nutrition, health, and food security; (ii) Poverty reduction, livelihoods, and jobs; (iii) Gender equality, youth, and social inclusion; (iv) Climate adaptation and mitigation; and (v) Environmental health and biodiversity. Recognizing the need to accelerate global progress towards the SDGs, CGIAR will invest in technological and institutional innovations, partnerships, capacity development, and policy engagement across all five Impact Areas.’

All CGIAR Initiatives that constitute the new portfolio contribute to the Poverty Reduction, Livelihoods, and Jobs impact area. The CGIAR web site also describes a selection of those Initiatives that primarily contribute to this Impact Area.

Chapter 5. “Actions to reduce inequalities in food and other systems to improve FSN”

5.3 Page 95 discusses equity/equality sensitive policy and cites 3 tools to that end, including SUN’s multi-stakeholder partnership toolkit. The pre-amble would benefit from ref to HLPE Report – Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships (MSPs – HLPE 13, 2018). 

5.4 Page 97 discusses actions to reduce inequalities in general terms and includes one page (page 101) entitled ‘Boost public agricultural research and other rural public investments, with particular attention to the needs of disadvantaged groups’. While stating that ‘Agricultural growth is effective at reducing poverty (Christiaensen, Demery and Kuhl, 2011) and is also an important factor in reducing income inequality…. the cited references (eg two IFPRI refs in this text from 21 and 12 years ago) are in need of updating. That relates also to my earlier comment in 5.2, above, on the CGIAR strategy.

5.5 Page 102 covers ‘Adapt inclusive value chain approaches to the local context to improve participation and outcomes of disadvantaged groups in value chains’, and cites a Devaux journal article; the book cited in 4.3, above, by the same authors gives a more complete source for those issues. That section includes an IFAD ref from 11 years ago. IFAD’s current Rural Development Report, 2021 ‘Transforming food systems for rural prosperity’, should be cited here.

That IFAD 2021 report notes that the overall goals of a food system’s transformation are to ensure that people are able to consume diets that are healthy, to produce food within planetary boundaries and to earn a decent living from their work in the food system. Livelihoods, nutrition and environmental goals are interlinked. Central to these desired outcomes is the need to ensure that food systems are resilient to shocks from weather extremes, pest and disease outbreaks, climate change and market anomalies. 

The key recommendations of this Report include

A failure of food systems is a failure of governance. National governments play a central role as drivers and implementers of change, yet global markets and geopolitical considerations also play a crucial role. Policymakers, governments and stakeholders can support this transition by taking 7 actions described in the report. 

This 2021 RDR also identified three key ways to ensure rural people benefit from a food systems transformation:  

- Create new employment opportunities and invest in local midstream

food businesses Local SMEs provide new ways to access both markets and non-farm employment opportunities, while supplying healthier foods to meet consumer demand.  

- Invest in agricultural systems by helping small farms become more productive and profitable  

- Focus on social protection measures that encourage better diets and livelihood opportunities.

Chapter 6. ‘Transformations necessary for positive structural change to reduce inequalities in FSN’.

6.1 Page 122 cites ‘Transformative action: data and knowledge revolution’, but should draw on, and cite clearly the HLPE Report 17 on ‘Data collection and analysis tools for FSN’, approved at CFS 50 (2022).

 6.2 The chapter concludes with a section ‘Structural reformation approaches with implications for equity’ which just includes a page entitled ‘Agroecology’ as defined by Altieri, 1995. The commentary is surprisingly out-dated, and very surprisingly overlooks to cite the wisdom of the HLPE Report 14 (2019) on ‘ Agroecology and other innovative approaches’, and the derived CFS policy document  approved at CFS 48 in June 2021.  This section would also benefit from consideration of the FAO report just released: The future of food and agriculture – Drivers and triggers for transformation. The Future of Food and Agriculture, no. 3. Rome (2022). https://doi.org/10.4060/cc0959en. Section 1.9 in that document covers driver 10, Innovation and Science (pages 160-184).

Question 7 is answered above implicitly in the comments for questions 5 & 6. Question 8 : redundant facts to eliminate; no rather a question of updating various sections, as discussed above. Question 9 on success stories from countries is for CFS Member Countries to consider.

Dr R D Cooke

CFS Advisory Group member, representing the CGIAR System Organisation

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.