Food security and nutrition: building a global narrative ...assets.fsnforumhlpe.fao.org.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/... · 2/23/2020 · V0 DRAFT REPORT # 15 – GLOBAL NARRATIVE

V0 DRAFT REPORT # 15 – GLOBAL NARRATIVE (January 2020) – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

1

Committee on World Food Security

High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition

Food security and nutrition: building a global narrative

towards 2030

V0 DRAFT REPORT

27 January 2020

Submitted by the HLPE to open electronic consultation

until 23 February 2020

This V0 draft is publicly available on the HLPE consultation platform:

http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/cfs-hlpe/discussions/global_FSN_narrative-v0

Please read the consultation instructions at the link above

Comments can be submitted online or sent by email to: [email protected] or to: [email protected].

This consultation will be used by the HLPE to further elaborate the report, which will then be submitted to peer review, before its finalization and approval by the HLPE Steering Committee.

http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/cfs-hlpe/discussions/global_FSN_narrative-v0

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

2

DISCLAIMER

HLPE V0 drafts are deliberately presented early enough in the process – as a work-in-progress, with their range of imperfections – to allow sufficient time to give proper consideration to the feedback received so that it can play a really useful role in the elaboration of the report. It is a key part of the scientific dialogue between the HLPE Project Team and Steering Committee, and the rest of the knowledge community.

This V0 draft may be thoroughly corrected, modified, expanded and revised after the present consultation.

In order to strengthen this draft, the HLPE would welcome submission of material, evidence-based suggestions, references, and examples, in particular addressing the important questions in the cover letter (pages 2 and 3).

For this reason we kindly invite you not to cite nor quote elements from this V0. Please refer only to the final publication for quotations.

Figures are intended as placeholders and will not be reproduced as they are in the final publication. Do not copy or quote.

HLPE Steering Committee

Chairperson: Mr Martin Cole (Australia) Vice-Chairperson: Mr Bernard Lehmann, (Switzerland) Steering Committee Members: Ms Barbara Burlingame (New-Zealand); Ms Jennifer Clapp (Canada); Mr Mahmoud El Solh (Lebanon); Ms Mária Kadlečíková (Slovakia); Mr Li Xiande (China); Ms Bancy Mbura Mati (Kenya); Mr William Moseley (United States of America); Ms Nitya Rao (India); Mr Thomas Rosswall (Sweden); Mr Daniel Sarpong (Ghana); Mr Kamil Shideed (Iraq); Mr José María Sumpsi Viñas (Spain); Ms Shakuntala Thilsted (Trinidad and Tobago).

Experts participate in the work of the HLPE in their individual capacities, not as representatives of their

respective governments, institutions or organizations

HLPE Secretariat

Coordinator: Mr Évariste Nicolétis Programme Consultant : Ms Paola Termine Loaned Expert : Mr Qin Yongjun Administrative Support : Mr Massimo Giorgi

FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION:

BUILDING A GLOBAL NARRATIVE TOWARDS 2030

V0 DRAFT

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 5

2. UPDATING CONCEPTUAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORKS ......................................................................... 8

2.1 A more comprehensive approach to food security and nutrition .................................................. 8

2.2 Evolution of policy approaches to FSN ......................................................................................... 12

2.3 The importance of implementing the right to food and other international guidelines .............. 16

3. CURRENT TRENDS, CHALLENGES AND VULNERABILITIES IN FOOD SYSTEMS .................................... 18

3.1 Demographic changes and urbanization ...................................................................................... 18

3.2 Climate change .............................................................................................................................. 19

3.3 Accelerated pace of natural resource degradation ...................................................................... 20

3.4 Smallholder farms play important roles ....................................................................................... 21

3.5 Changing demand balance between food/feed/fuel .................................................................... 22

3.6 Expansion and disruption in food and agriculture markets .......................................................... 23

3.7 High levels of food losses and waste ............................................................................................ 24

3.8 Continued coexistence of hunger and obesity ............................................................................. 24

3.9 The digital revolution in food and agriculture .............................................................................. 25

3.10 Growing concentration in agrifood supply chains ...................................................................... 26

3.11 Fragile and uncertain global economic situation ........................................................................ 26

3.12 Declining public sector investment in agriculture ...................................................................... 27

3.13 Civil strife and conflict ................................................................................................................. 28

3.14 Persistent inequalities ................................................................................................................. 29

4. POTENTIAL POLICY PATHWAYS FORWARD ......................................................................................... 32

4.1 Availability-focused initiatives ...................................................................................................... 33

4.2 Access-focused initiatives ............................................................................................................. 33

4.3 Utilization-focused initiatives ....................................................................................................... 34

4.4 Stability-focused initiatives ........................................................................................................... 35

4.5 Agency-focused initiatives ............................................................................................................ 36

4

4.6 Sustainability-focused initiatives .................................................................................................. 37

5. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................... 39

5.1 Key summary points: ..................................................................................................................... 39

5.2 Recommendations: ....................................................................................................................... 39

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 40


5

1. INTRODUCTION

Food systems require a major transformation if the global community is to achieve Sustainable Development Goal #2 to end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture by 2030. The call to action of the Sustainable Development Goals is to “leave no one behind”, which places emphasis on equity, with special attention to youth and women, while at the same time underlining the importance of sustainability.

The many dimensions of food security and nutrition are entangled in a web of systemic problems, so big that they are nearly overwhelming. Following years of steady decline, the number of hungry people began to rise again in 2015, reaching 821 million people by 2017 (FAO 2019). Hunger, alongside other forms of malnutrition, including staggering increases in overweight, obesity, and micronutrient malnutrition, represents a catastrophe on a global scale. Around one third of humanity is now experiencing one or more of these forms of malnutrition. At the same time, agricultural and food systems face numerous challenges, including the degradation of natural resources, climate change, conflict, population change, and inequities in access to food and agricultural resources, among others. We are long past the time for clever slogans, aphorisms, and plans of action written on websites and in social media blogs. Required is an acknowledgement of the need for, and policies to facilitate, the dramatic restructuring of food systems, beginning with production systems.

In this context, in October 2018 the Committee on World Food Security requested that the High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) on Food Security and Nutrition produce a report that takes stock of HLPE contributions “with a view toward informing future CFS actions on FSN for all in the context of the 2030 Agenda”, with analysis that takes into account the perspective of those most affected by food insecurity and malnutrition. The overall aim of the report, as articulated in the CFS multi-year program of work is to: “elaborate in a forward-looking perspective a global narrative on FSN, enlightened by previous HLPE publications and considering recent developments in the FSN sector” in order to provide strategic guidance towards the achievement of SDG2 and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

In particular, the CFS requested that the objectives of the report include:

● Reflection on “the current state of knowledge, highlighting the main areas of consensus or controversy, as well as the major challenges, gaps or uncertainties”;

● “Highlighting, using concrete examples, the pathways through which the CFS policy recommendations built on those [HLPE] reports have contributed or could contribute to the advancement of the 2030 Agenda, of its goals and targets, at different scales;

● Informing the preparation of future CFS contributions to the High-Level Political Forum; ● Identifying the main factors affecting FSN that have not been considered so far and that

deserve more attention to inform future discussions towards the preparation of future CFS MYPOWs [multi-year programs of work].”

6

This report responds to this request from the CFS, and is framed around three urgent questions:

1. In what ways has thinking on FSN shifted in recent years as articulated in past HLPE reports and how can these insights feed into a global narrative on how best to meet SDG2 targets?

2. What are the key trends affecting FSN outcomes today that might help explain stalled progress on meeting SDG2 targets?

3. What are some of the most promising potential pathways to move past barriers and achieve FSN targets toward 2030?

This report seeks to provide answers to these questions. First, it outlines key conceptual understandings that are foundations of a global narrative on how best to meet food security and nutrition targets outlined in SDG2. Second, it provides an overview of the dominant trends that are affecting FSN outcomes around the world today, highlighting challenges, barriers, and potential opportunities. Finally, it maps out examples of possible pathways to resolve the vexing problem of stalled progress on meeting SDG2 targets.

The overall narrative articulated in this report builds on what we know about the situation, including scientific breakthroughs, the vast array of small and big innovations on the ground, and civil society and peasant mobilizations for equitable access to resources and social justice. It also highlights areas where we currently lack knowledge and where further research is needed. This report proposes a strengthening and consolidation of thinking, policy approaches and actions, drawing on multiple stakeholders and forms of knowledge, to achieve the required results. The main elements of this narrative are outlined below:

(1) With respect to conceptual thinking, the report highlights agency and sustainability as key dimensions of food security - alongside the widely referenced dimensions of availability, access, utilization and stability. It also emphasizes the need to incorporate and consolidate important shifts in approaches to FSN policy, including: a move from the focus on the quantity of food produced to a fundamental transformation of food and agriculture as a whole toward an emphasis on quality; a shift from a predominant focus on hunger to take a wider view of malnutrition that encompasses not just undernutrition, but also obesity and micronutrient deficiencies; a shift from a siloed approach to discrete food security problems to a food systems outlook that recognizes complexity and interactions of the food system with other domains and systems; and a transition from a search for a global solution to an appreciation of the diversity of situations that require diverse solutions. While these shifts in policy approaches have been underway for some time, as emphasized in HLPE reports, they are not always evenly adopted and consolidated in policy actions. The report also stresses the need to more systematically incorporate existing obligations, such as the right to food, into conceptual and policy frameworks.


7

(2) Regarding the key trends affecting FSN outcomes, the report also highlights a series of trends that have complex implications for all six dimensions of food security. These include trends that may be occurring in other domains - such as the global economy, environmental systems, and demographic change - but which intersect with FSN outcomes in important ways. These various trends have complex effects, in particular when taken together, and present potential barriers, and in some cases opportunities, for food security and nutrition. 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 to gain a fuller understanding of their potential impact and implications for policy.

(3) Drawing on HLPE reports and analysis in the wider literature, the report outlines examples of potential policy pathways to address these challenges in ways that build more resilient food systems that can better enable actors and stakeholders at all levels to contribute to meeting SDG2. The report focuses on potential policy actions designed to address each of the six dimensions of food security, recognizing the complex interaction of each dimension with the others, and cognizant of the key challenges, vulnerabilities, and opportunities embedded in the major trends currently shaping FSN outcomes.

The timing of this report is critical. The year 2020 marks the 10th anniversary of the establishment of the HLPE, and the deadline to reach the SDGs is only 10 years away. 2020 is just one year after the declaration of the UN Decade on Family Farming (2019-2028), and also marks the mid-way point of the UN Decade of Action on Nutrition. The report will also inform the upcoming 2021 UN Food Summit. While some progress has been made in the past decade on some of the key challenges to food security and nutrition that are the focus of this report, in responding to the SDG call to “leave no one behind”, we need creative solutions at multiple levels to get the global community back on track. Business as usual has been shown not to work. We must explore new avenues.

8

2. UPDATING CONCEPTUAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORKS

2.1 A more comprehensive approach to food security and nutrition

Understandings of the concept of food security have changed and evolved in important ways over the past 50 years (e.g. Maxwell 1996; Shaw 2007; Berry et al. 2015), and these updated insights have been consistently reflected in HLPE reports. The term “food security” was first defined at the time of the World Food Conference in 1974, amid a time of soaring food prices and widespread concern about the impact of market turmoil on world hunger. In that context, food security was defined as “[the] availability at all times of adequate world food supplies of basic foodstuffs to sustain a steady expansion of food consumption and to offset fluctuations in production and prices” (FAO 1974). This definition reflected the dominant thinking at that time that hunger was predominantly the product of lack of availability of sufficient food supplies.

Within a decade, however, important research that sought to explain why famine situations arose historically in certain contexts despite widespread food availability, led to important breakthroughs in our understanding of food insecurity (Sen 1981). This work showed that availability is only one component of the broader picture of why hunger persists, and that a person’s ability to access food is extremely important. This work also showed that there are a number of factors, such as market conditions, employment and livelihood viability, and ownership of assets that help to explain why some of the world’s most vulnerable people have been unable to access food even in situations of abundant food supply. This insight was reflected in the FAO’s 1983 definition of food security as “Ensuring that all people at all times have both physical and economic access to the basic food that they need” (FAO 1983) and the World Bank's widely cited definition of food security as “access of all people at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life” (World Bank 1986, p.1).

In 1996 the definition o food security was further updated, to incorporate nutrition and cultural dimensions, and with the addition of the word “social” in the FAO’s State of Food Insecurity report, this remains the most authoritative and widely used definition of the concept today:

“food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (FAO 2001).

This 2001 definition of food security featured important aspects that had been seen as central to the concept over the previous decades – not just availability and access, as outlined above, but also utilization, and stability, referring to nutritional uptake and ensuring the constancy of the other three dimensions (see text box below). These four dimensions had also been highlighted consistently in the academic literature on food security and nutrition (Webb et al. 2006; Barrett 2010). In 2006, the FAO published a policy brief to capture and reinforce these four key dimensions of food security as important for identifying policy pathways to improve food security (FAO 2006).


9

While these four dimensions of food security remain important, they still miss some elements that have come to be seen as essential for understanding food security and nutrition, particularly over the past decade. In particular, as emphasized in previous HLPE reports, “agency” and “sustainability” are vital dimensions of food security that deserve to be elevated in conceptual and policy frameworks. The addition of these dimensions to common understandings of food security reflect findings and analysis presented in recent HLPE reports, as well as advancements in the scholarly literature on food security over the past decade.

HLPE Report #14 highlighted the importance of strengthening “agency” in addressing global food and nutrition insecurity. Agency implies building the capacity of historically disadvantaged individuals and communities (including women, small farmers, indigenous peoples, pastoralists, fisherfolk, for example) to define their desired food systems and nutritional outcomes, and to take action in securing them (HLPE 14). Agency, then, captures the capacity of individuals or groups to make their own decisions about what foods they eat, and how that food is produced, processed and distributed within food systems. Most agency, or the ability to act on a problem, is situated, meaning that it is constrained by local power dynamics, wealth disparities, gender norms, and governance structures (Peter 2003). It should also be acknowledged that certain actors may have disproportionate agency or power in shaping the way we think about food insecurity, defining the solutions to this problem, and influencing the contours of food environments (Schurman 2017). As such, fostering agency is about strengthening the capacity of the disempowered to have a greater role in shaping their food systems, and creating political spaces for debate where power differentials are minimized. As HLPE #14 stresses, “Achieving agency implies the need for all people to have access to accurate information and the compliance of the right to food, as well as the ability to secure their rights over the resources required for production, harvesting and preparation of foods (HLPE 14, p.110).

“Sustainability” – which captures the importance of environmentally sustainable food systems and sustainable diets to long-term FSN, has been a feature of nearly all HLPE reports, including most recently HLPE #14 and HLPE #12. As the 2017 review of the HLPE contributions to CFS in support of the SDGs notes: “When looking at FSN, sustainable development in its different dimensions has actually been central in the narrative of most of the HLPE reports” (HLPE 2017). Sustainability as a dimension of food security implies food system practices that respect and protect the natural environment - the very basis of the food system - over the long term (Berry et al. 2015). Such an approach is vital because the degradation of the resource base undermines the capacity of ecological systems to support food production into the future. This longer-term element of sustaining the natural resource base is not readily captured by the stability dimension, which was originally added to take into account shorter-term disruptions, such as conflict, natural disasters, and market turmoil, that can undermine food security (FAO 2006). In addition to being central in HLPE outputs, the sustainability dimension is increasingly recognized in the broader literature as being integral to the concept of food security (Lang and Barling 2012; Garnett 2013; Berry et al. 2015), as well as in policy initiatives such as the Sustainable Development Goals.

10

Box 1: Current Understandings of the Six Dimensions of Food Security

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 an adequate diet, clean water, sanitation and health care to reach a state of nutritional well-being where all physiological needs are met.

Stability 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).

Agency 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.

Sustainability 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.

The incorporation of agency and sustainability into our understanding of food security makes sense based on the current standard definition of the term, which already implies these six dimensions. The mention of “all people” as well as “food preferences” in that definition signals the importance of agency, as it is important that all people have the capacity not only to access sufficient and nutritious foods that meet their dietary needs, but also their free choice as to the foods they eat. Likewise, the mention of “at all times” implies not only short term instabilities in food systems, but also the long-term dimension that the sustainability dimension captures. Figure 1 maps out how each of these dimensions is present in the current widely-used definition of food security.


11

Figure 1 - Identifying Six Dimensions of Food Security in its Current Definition

These six dimensions are all interconnected in complex ways (see Figure 2). While they are sometimes referred to as “pillars”, the term “dimensions” is a better fit. Pillars might imply separate elements of equal weight in all situations, while dimensions allows for an appreciation of more complex interactions between them and also different emphasis in importance in different situations (Berry et al. 2015).

Figure 2 – The Six Interrelated Dimensions of Food Security

Access

Availability

UtilizationStability

Agency

Sustainability

SIX INTERRELATED DIMENSIONS OF FOOD SECURITY

Food Security

12

2.2 Evolution of policy approaches to FSN

Until recently, global food security solutions have largely conceptualized the problem in terms of a deficit to be addressed by increasing food production, and indeed some policy initiatives still prioritize production over other goals for the food system. Huge strides have been made in increasing global food production and reducing hunger in the past 50 years, but we have reached the limits of this approach. The reality is that global food and nutrition insecurity is a highly differentiated problem, especially at its edges where the hard to reach are situated. While the square peg of increasing food production addresses part of the variegated food and nutrition challenge, we need a more nuanced set of approaches to reach the remaining one in nine people in the world who are chronically undernourished today, a group that is often poor, disenfranchised and female (see Figure 3 below).

Figure 3: The Limits of ‘Square Peg’ Solutions For Resolving Global Food and Nutrition Insecurity

[Figure Note: Our attempts to resolve global food and nutrition insecurity are a variation on the "square peg in a round hole" problem. We have a hunger deficit, gap or hole, but our square peg, production biased solutions only address part of the problem, and in fact have no chance of completely solving this irregularly edged problem (a bigger square peg will not work)].

Over the past several decades we have begun to see important shifts taking place that have resulted in more nuanced policy approaches to addressing the problems of hunger and malnutrition (summarized in Table 1). These shifts in policy thinking are reflected consistently across all HLPE reports. They help us better understand FSN dynamics and identify challenges and weaknesses in the quest to improve FSN outcomes, and ultimately improve policies. HLPE findings, which are grounded in the scholarly literature, need to be brought more fully into policymaking in a consolidated and coherent way. As summarized in the review of HLPE contributions to CFS for SDG2 by the High Level Political Forum, it is necessary to take the full complexity and interplay of these shift into account when developing food security policy and programs (see HLPE 2017d).


13

Table 1: Critical Shifts in Food Security and Nutrition (FSN) Thinking

Shifts required in FSN thinking and policy

Old Thinking ► New Thinking

i. Focus on quantity of food produced

We need a fundamental transformation of agriculture and food systems that improve the quality of food and its production

ii. Hunger, or caloric deficits, are the problem

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

iii. Address FSN in sectoral silos

Food systems are connected in complex ways with multiple sectors (health, agriculture, environment, culture) & systems (ecosystems, the economy, social equity, justice, education and politics, rural-urban continuum)

iv. Global solutions (one size fits all)

Diverse situations require diverse solutions

i. Radical transformation of agriculture and food systems as a whole to improve FSN and achieve the Agenda 2030. This transformation requires a shift in agricultural production from quantity to quality, e.g., to nutrition-driven agriculture and a focus on sustainable production systems.

There is a strong link between sustainable food systems, ecosystem health and human health through diets. A shift towards healthy diets helps the transition towards environmental sustainability of food systems (FAO and WHO, 2018). This shift is based on common principles that can be applied to different cultures and agroecological zones, to identify win-win diets, that is a diet that is good for human health and the environment (Willett et al. 2019). Companies, industry and legal frameworks often shape food systems and eating habits which are major drivers of poor health and environmental degradation (through the promotion of diets characterized by high calories, added sugars, saturated fats, processed foods, and red meats). In turn, environmental degradation (resulting from bad diets) can exacerbate negative impacts on health, for example through effect of poor air quality from biomass burning for agriculture and land clearing and other impact on food security and nutrition (Willett et al. 2019; IPES-Food 2016).

ii. Beyond hunger, a new vision of FSN related challenges. HLPE reports have shown that a wider view of FSN requires a shift from a focus exclusively on hunger as the main FSN problem to one

14

that focuses on malnutrition in all its forms, including obesity and micronutrient deficiencies (HLPE 12, HLPE 14).

Recent data show that progress against undernutrition has declined in recent years, mainly due to conflicts and economic downturn. Unfortunately, the rate of overweight and obesity has continued to rise in all regions (FAO et al. 2019). The rate of obesity has increased faster than that for overweight. We are also understanding more about the prevalence of micronutrient deficiencies, which can have an enormous impact on quality of life and economic output.

These various forms of malnutrition - undernutrition, micronutrient deficiencies, and obesity and overweight - can coexist in the same country, community, household, and even individuals at different phases of the life cycle. In fact, undernutrition in early childhood can contribute to stunted growth and overweightness later in life (HLPE 2019; FAO et al. 2019). As such, it is important to focus on inequalities and at-risk populations in all countries, from low to high income. Among the structural aspects of food insecurity, and right to food violations, that stand out are deep inequalities in terms of power, income, gender, race, and access to natural resources and services.

iii. The complex interactions between sectors. HLPE reports have consistently highlighted linkages between sectors as well as between all of the SDGs. These findings illustrate a shift from seeing FSN as a sectoral issue to viewing food systems as connected in complex ways with other sectors (health, agriculture, environment, culture) and systems (such as ecosystems, the economy, social equity, justice, education and politics, rural-urban continuum).

The shift from agricultural development to a more holistic “food systems” approach has been advocated in recent years, including in conjunction with the 2030 Agenda (HLPE 12). The HLPE defined food systems as: “all the elements (environment, people, inputs, processes, infrastructures, institutions, etc.) and activities that relate to the production, processing, distribution, preparation and consumption of food, and the output of these activities, including socio-economic and environmental outcomes” (HLPE 8). According to the FAO, a sustainable food system (SFS) is a food system that delivers food security and nutrition for all in such a way that the economic, social and environmental bases to generate food security and nutrition for future generations are not compromised (FAO, 2018a).

Focusing on “food systems” allows us to consider all the elements (environment, people, inputs, processes, infrastructures, institutions) and activities that relate to the food production, post-harvest handling, distribution, marketing, and consumption, as well as their socio-economic and environment outcomes” (HLPE 12). Food supply chains represent one of the two parts of the food system, the other being food environments (see Figure 3). Food supply chains include all the stages and actors, from production to retail to consumption, including waste disposal. Food environments include the physical, economic, socio-cultural conditions that shape access to, affordability of, and preferences over, food choices (HLPE 12). Drivers of food system changes can be grouped in five categories: biophysical and environmental; innovation, technology and infrastructure; political and economic; socio-cultural; and demographic drivers (Ingram, 2011, in HLPE 12).


15

Figure 3: Conceptual framework of food systems for diets and nutrition

Source: HLPE 12, p. 26

iv. Diverse situations, variable solutions, global challenges. Each context is specific and calls for pathways and solutions that are designed and adapted for each context. The consistency of this finding illustrates a shift from focusing on global solutions to appreciating diverse situations that require diverse solutions – i.e. no one size fits all.

In previous reports (HLPE 10, HLPE 11, HLPE 12, among others), the HLPE highlighted the diversity of food systems across and within countries. These food systems are situated in different environmental, socio-cultural and economic contexts and face diverse challenges. Hence, actors need to design context-specific transition pathways to sustainable food systems. Such pathways combine technical interventions, investments and enabling policies and instruments, and incorporate different types of knowledge, including indigenous knowledge. They also involve a variety of actors at different scales. Yet, both incremental and adequate transitions at local scales, and more structural changes to institutions and norms at larger scales, are required in a coordinated and integrated way to achieve the transformation of food systems towards FSN and sustainable development. Agroecological and other innovative approaches are also attracting attention because of their capacity to contribute to the design of scale-specific interdependent processes (IPES-Food 2016).

16

2.3 The importance of implementing the right to food and other international

guidelines

The right to adequate food is recognized as a fundamental human right in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNGA 1948). States have the duty, obligation and responsibility to realize human rights, including the right to food, under international law, as outlined in the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UN, 1966). Governments reaffirmed “the right of everyone to have access to safe and nutritious food, consistent with the right to adequate food and the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger” in the Rome Declaration on World Food Security adopted at the World Food Summit in 1996 (UN 1996). Although governments have endorsed the concept of the right to food, the implementation of that right has been uneven in practice.

In 2004, the FAO adopted the Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security (FAO 2005). In recent years, a number of states have adopted legislation to enshrine the right to food, and progress has been made in many cases, but there remains much work to be done to ensure this right for everyone (FAO 2019c). In December 2018, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas, acknowledging “their contribution in ensuring the right to adequate food and food security which are fundamental to attaining the internationally agreed development goals”.

HLPE reports have consistently emphasized the importance of upholding the right to adequate food that not only meets the minimum requirements for survival but is also nutritionally adequate for health and well-being, including most recently HLPE 12, HLPE13 and HLPE 14. As is outlined in HLPE 14, the realization of the right to food requires a shift from a focus on production to agency and inclusiveness in the transition to Sustainable Food Systems (SFSs).

It is important that food policy frameworks not only incorporate the right to food, but also other internationally agreed guidance for food security and nutrition. For many decades, countries have been participating in forums and intergovernmental processes to ensure food security and nutrition aligned with the multiple dimensions of food security. There has been a plethora of recommendations as universally-endorsed goals, targets, declarations and plans of action that uphold principles consistent with the right to food and other goals and targets relevant to food security, such as reducing inequities, ensuring rights for indigenous peoples, and endorsing responsible practices. These include the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security, which were endorsed by CFS in 2012 (FAO 2012b); the Principles for Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food Systems (PRIAFS), endorsed by CFS in 2014 (FAO 2014b); the Framework for Action for Food Security and Nutrition in Protracted Crises, endorsed by CFS in 2015 (FAO 2015b) and UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2007. States have signed onto numerous other initiatives and agreements with respect to environmental protection and international development.


17

Progress with respect to implementation of these obligations and voluntary guidelines has been slow, and even retrograde on some issues. This poor performance should be acknowledged, with countries and international agencies held accountable. Given the inattention to prior obligations, it seems unhelpful to create more. Indeed, efforts should be put into honoring past obligations for informing future policies and actions.

One of the factors behind the lack of implementation of these international obligations and guidelines is the fragmentation of food security and nutrition governance (Candel 2014). Although the Committee on World Food Security is widely recognized as a leading body in the establishment of international norms and guidance on food security and nutrition, there are many factors that influence FSN outcomes, such as economic inequities, trade rules, climate change, and other environmental stresses, not all of which are dealt with specifically in the food policy context, and which are often governed by other international governance arrangements. There is no specific mandate to enforce implementation of commitments on governments.

To sum up this chapter, it is important for the various actors - including governments, civil society, and the private sector and institutions - to cohere more consistently around a new consolidated framework that:

(1) Expands conceptualizations of food security to incorporate agency and sustainability;

(2) Incorporates shifts in thinking that recognize the need for: a radical transformation of food systems; a broader understanding of malnutrition; a food systems approach; and the need for diverse solutions;

(3) Prioritizes the right to food and other international obligations and norms relevant to food security and nutrition.

18

3. CURRENT TRENDS, CHALLENGES AND VULNERABILITIES IN FOOD SYSTEMS

There are numerous trends that influence food security and nutrition, and these trends interact with one another in complex ways. Some of these trends clearly present barriers to meeting the SDG targets, while others may present opportunities or have more ambiguous or debated effects that require further research to fully understand.

This report identifies 14 trends that have significance for food security and nutrition outcomes. The purpose of outlining these trends is to provide an overview of the potential variables affecting the six dimensions of food security, which in turn help in understanding the global community’s performance with respect to the SDG 2 targets. Box 2 below illustrates the challenges and vulnerabilities affecting each of the six dimensions of food security that emerge from an analysis of these trends.

There may indeed be other important trends and challenges that emerge in the future, and as such this list is not meant to be static or exhaustive, but rather illustrative of the ways in which the six dimensions of food security are influenced by major trends occurring not just within agriculture and food systems themselves, but also trends in the wider political, economic, and environmental spheres that have a bearing on food security and nutrition outcomes.

3.1 Demographic changes and urbanization

Demographic changes affect patterns of both food production and consumption, with complex effects that must be taken into account when assessing policy options for food security and nutrition. Although population growth rates are declining globally, as countries go through their demographic transition, world population continues to increase and by 2050 there will be two additional billion people, mainly in Africa, bringing the total world population to an estimated 9.7 billion (UNDESA 2019). In this context, food demand is projected to continue to increase, though by how much will depend on consumer food choices and the ability to reduce food losses and waste (FAO 2018b). These effects will influence the need for food production levels to meet this demand.

Urbanization patterns also have important implications for food systems (HLPE 6). While in 2018 global growth of urban populations was 1.9 percent, in most countries in Africa this percentage was between 3.5 percent and 4.5 percent (with peaks at 6 percent) (World Bank open data), in part due to rural to urban migration. Rural depopulation is a major trend impacting farming systems across the global North and the global South alike (albeit driven by different factors), with profound implications for agriculture, such as accentuating labour constraints, shifting gender divisions of labour, and favouring labour-saving practices (including potentially hazardous herbicide use) (Haggblade et al. 2017)).


19

Urbanization also contributes to changing diets (HLPE 12). Urban lifestyles go hand in hand with increased demand for easier to prepare and processed food, especially as women, who are often the primary cooks in many households, enter the labour market and have more demands on their time (e.g., Moseley, Carney and Becker 2010). This increased demand for prepackaged and processed foods has important implications for health and for food systems, especially as imported staple food may be more available and demanded than traditional ones in urban areas. While urban populations suffer less undernutrition than rural populations, they are typically more affected by obesity. Rural to urban migration patterns also affect diets and nutrition in complex ways. On one hand, rural outmigration weakens the capacity of rural communities to produce food, because of the loss of labour force. On the other hand, remittances sent from urban to rural areas can be utilized for productive farming investments and to access more diverse foods (HLPE 12; Thow et al., 2016).

3.2 Climate change

Agriculture is one of the sectors most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change due to its dependence on natural resources and weather conditions (OECD, 2015), with estimates for the loss of wheat yields due to climate change ranging between 3.9 percent and 15 percent (Porter et al., 2014, in SOFA 2016) . Climate change can affect agricultural production, including through decreases in yields, changes in abundance and distribution of aquatic species, droughts and water scarcity, extreme temperature stresses, changes in forest productivity, increases in the presence of weeds and emergence of new pests and diseases, with resulting increases in food prices and negative impacts on nutrition (HLPE 3). According to IPPCS (2019) ‘Climate change has already affected food security due to warming, changing precipitation patterns, and greater frequency of some extreme events’. Increasing weather variability and natural disasters associated with climate change are affecting agricultural productivity, food production and natural resources, which has ripple effects that impact food trade and consumption (FAO et al. 2019).

The impact of a changing climate on food systems varies by region, with the bulk of negative impact being concentrated in tropical developing regions and temperate dry areas, which already have high rates of hunger and poverty (SOFA 2016). In sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, for example, drought is one of the major factors behind the increase in undernourishment. In addition, impacts on agricultural yields and livelihoods are predicted to worsen with time (SOFA 2016). There is also some evidence that climate change is reducing the nutritional content of food crops (Smith and Myers 2018). Although climate change is likely to also bring some positive impact on production in the short-term up to 2030 in colder areas (such as closer to the poles, or at high altitude), a focus on adaptation to climate change is essential to food security in the worst affected areas and in the longer-term (SOFA 2016).

Given this diversity in impacts, agriculture and food systems must place a higher emphasis than other sectors on adaptation to climate change to increase their resilience (HLPE 3). These efforts will need to include deep transformations at all stages of food supply chains and consumption to

20

maximize the co-benefits of adaptation and mitigation efforts, including agriculture that is better adapted to new climate realties (SOFA 2016) and agroecological practices (HLPE 14).

At the same time that food systems are impacted by climate change, agriculture is the second largest economic sector contributing to GHG emissions after energy (IPCC 2019). SOFA 2016 estimates that agriculture, forestry and land-use change generates one fifth of greenhouse gas emissions. The contribution of food systems to global GHG emissions is even greater due to the impact of agrochemicals production, transport and storage, and agro-processing and retailing (SOFA 2016). Because the sector has a high impact in terms of climate effects, the agriculture and food system sector have a crucial role to play in efforts to mitigate the impact of climate change through the adoption of environmentally sensitive practices and technologies, including, as noted above, agroecology (HLPE 14).

3.3 Accelerated pace of natural resource degradation

Agriculture and food systems increasingly face other environmental stresses that interact with climate change and affect food security and nutrition outcomes in complex ways. These stresses include biodiversity loss, land degradation, water scarcity, and pollution that arise from land-use changes, a great proportion of which are related to the expansion of agriculture and food production activities (HLPE 11; HLPE 14). Over one third of the terrestrial land surface is now under agricultural cultivation or used for animal husbandry. Although this expansion of land under cultivation for agriculture is associated with increases in food production, the degradation of the natural resource base associated with these activities threatens the resilience of the sector, and ultimately food security, in the longer term (IPBES 2019). In particular, resource degradation undermines ecosystem services such as water filtration, carbon absorption, and pollinator diversity, all of which are essential to healthy agricultural systems (HLPE 14). Over three quarters of global food and agriculture crops, for example, rely on insect and/or animal pollination that is increasingly under threat from land and resource degradation (IPBES 2019)

This threat to biodiversity has been ongoing for decades, but has reached crisis levels in recent years. The FAO estimates that some 75 percent of the world’s crop diversity was lost between 1900 and 2000 with the most rapid decline occurring after 1950 (FAO 2010). This loss of crop diversity occurred alongside the growing practice of monoculture cultivation. There is a declining number of varieties of plants being cultivated and a dwindling number of species of animals being reared around the world. We have seen growing incidence of extinctions of food and agriculture related domestic breeds of mammals while at least 1000 animal species used for food and agriculture are at risk of extinction. There are a few conservation efforts for crop wild relatives, which are essential for ensuring food security. As the diversity of cultivated crops, their wild relatives, and domestic breeds of animals declines, agroecosystems become less resilient to stresses such as climate change, pathogens and other pests (IPBES 2019).

As agroecosystems become less resilient, agrochemicals are frequently turned to in an attempt to bolster production in the face of stresses on natural resources. However, growing use of agrochemicals, such as herbicides to control weeds and monocropping situations, can lead to


21

growing weed resistance to those chemicals (Bonny 2016). This tendency has led to growing use of more toxic herbicides, which contribute to pollution of soils and waterways that can threaten aquatic life, (HLPE 7) and affect human health. In the face of these environmental stresses, there is growing interest in low external input farming methods such as agroecology that seek to strengthen agricultural ecosystems (HLPE 14).

3.4 Smallholder farms play important roles

Small farms constitute the majority of farms worldwide (HLPE 14, HLPE 6). Small farms of less than 2 hectares in size account for an estimated 84 percent of all farms, which collectively account for only 12 percent of global available farmland (Lowder et al. 2016). According to some recent estimates, small and medium sized farms (below 50 ha) produce between 51 and 77 percent of nearly all commodities examined (Herrero et al., 2017). Other estimates indicate that farms of less than 2ha in size collectively produce approximately 28-31 percent of global crop production and 30-34 percent of food supply on 24 percent of gross agricultural area (Ricciardi et al. 2018). Although the precise estimates vary due to differences in methodology and data limitations, these findings are consistent with previous estimates of production arising from small-scale farms (HLPE 6), although with marked regional differences. In Sub-Saharan Africa, South-East Asia and South Asia, small farms dominate agricultural production systems (HLPE 6).

In some areas of the Global North, medium sized farms have consistently been the losers in a slow moving farm crisis. In the United States, for example, the most recent agricultural survey revealed that numbers of medium sized farms were declining, while the number of small farms were increasing, and the land area controlled by large farms was on the rise (USDA 2019). While the rise of mega farms is the result of consolidation, the small farm category is more complicated. Here we have medium-sized farmers that have downshifted, sold or rented off part of their land, and are now working off the farm to make ends meet. In this category, we also have new farmers and niche farmers that are growing relatively high value crops, or raising high-end animals, for organic and ‘foodie’ markets. Nonetheless, the plight of medium sized farmers, the historic bedrock of the middle class farming community in the US, has led to an alarming rate of bankruptcies and suicides not seen since the 1980s (Herman 2019).

Farm size matters for food security and nutrition outcomes, especially in the context of the world’s poorest countries, where small farms provide a significant proportion of the food consumed locally. There is evidence of an inverse relationship between farm size and diversity of agricultural and nutrient production (Herrero et al 2017 in HLPE 14). This difference is attributable to the fact that monoculture production systems dominate in large farms and diverse mixed cropping production system prevail in small farms. Some studies indicate that yields per hectare on small-scale farms can be high (Pretty et al. 2006; Badgley et al. 2007), but at the same time farms in less industrialized countries tend to have lower yields per hectare than in more industrialized countries (FAO 2014a). These yield gaps are particularly pronounced in sub Saharan Africa. Yield potential and nutritional implications of farm size are important questions that require further research.

22

Despite their role as primary contributors to food security, particularly in developing countries, smallholders are most affected by development challenges, as addressed by the recently adopted “UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas” (UNGA, 2018). Smallholders, especially women, face a number of barriers to adopt innovative and sustainable agriculture. These barriers include limited access to land, water, agricultural inputs, to markets and price information, credit, access to improved technologies and extension services, weather information, risk management tools and social protection; low negotiating power in economic and political relations (SOFA 2016, HLPE 6). Intellectual property rights legislation continues to weaken farmers’ seed systems - which are the basis of diverse, nutritious and healthy diets, and of farmers’ resilience to climate change - undermining social justice and good governance. Smallholders also face barriers to accessing markets, as weak market infrastructure and local market concentration can hinder their participation in these markets.

3.5 Changing demand balance between food/feed/fuel

Recent decades have seen the shift of a significant proportion of agricultural production and land use away from human food-related activities and towards animal feed, timber and biofuels. These shifts have important implications for food security, deforestation and land use, and the environment. In 2018, the global production of biofuels continued to increase, but less markedly than in previous years,1 as their real prices are projected to continue decreasing (OECD/FAO 2019), although recent increases in oil prices in response to renewed tensions in the Middle East may affect these dynamics.

The HLPE Report 5 explored in detail the trade-offs between biofuel and food production, which can be direct (biofuel vs food) and indirect (biofuel vs animal feed). Future developments in biofuel production are likely to focus on more advanced technologies based on crop residues, wood and waste, and causing less competition with food and causing fewer emissions. Further research is needed, however, to bring this production to scale (OECD/FAO 2019). International biofuel production will be influenced by national policies and incentives to farmers, including regulations on fuel blending (OECD/FAO 2019).

The “livestock revolution” has brought increased consumption of meat products and a rapid rise in the use of cereal-based feeds (Delgado et al., 1999; HLPE 10), thus shifting the use of cereals from direct human consumption of food to indirect consumption via animal feed. The increase in larger scale industrial livestock systems have driven higher demand for crop product feed (HLPE 10). In 2010, about 34 percent of global cereal production went to feed, and this percentage is projected to increase to almost 50 percent by 2050 (FAO 2012a: World Agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision, in HLPE 10).

We are also witnessing a convergence of food and bioenergy markets that has led to a concentration of production of common feedstocks, such as maize, soy, oil palm, and sugar cane.

1 Global biofuel production increased by a factor of 5 from 2001 to 2011, from 20 billion litres/ year to 100 billion)

(HLPE 5).


23

These multiple-use crops are sometimes referred to as “flex crops” (Borras et al. 2016), which can be marketed either as food, feed or fuel depending on relative prices (HLPE 5).

3.6 Expansion and disruption in food and agriculture markets

Food systems are changing rapidly, with food supply chains generally becoming longer and increasing the “distance” between producers and consumers as food systems and agricultural supply chains become more globalized (Clapp 2014). Around 25 percent of world food production is traded on international markets (D’Odorico 2014), up from around 10 percent several decades ago (Weis 2007). The value of global food trade has increased from approximately US$315 billion in 1990-91 to approximately US$1.5 trillion in 2017 (WTO 2018).

While global food trade has expanded enormously in recent decades, the impact on food security is not always straightforward and is a subject of debate (FAO 2015a; Clapp 2015). While some see trade as enhancing opportunities for income generation and thus increasing access to food (Lamy 2013), others critique the process of liberalization which they see as being less advantageous for smallholders in developing countries (de Schutter 2009). Many countries in sub-Saharan Africa have become net food importers in recent decades, raising concerns about vulnerability arising from reliance on global markets for foodstuffs (Rakotoarisoa et al. 2011).

The globalization of food and agriculture markets in recent decades has resulted in a globalization of diets, which are influenced by patterns of global food trade. As global food trade has expanded, for example, so has the availability of energy dense foods (that is, foods high in sugar and fat) in both rich and poor countries (An 2019). A growing number of studies have linked these types of food to increasing levels of obesity and overweight, as well as an increase in the incidence of non-communicable diseases, such as heart disease, type II diabetes, and certain cancers (Willet et al. 2019; Swinburn et al. 2019). International trade and industrialisation of food supply chains have increased the importance of a very limited number of commodities, such as maize, soy, palm oil, which are used as processed food ingredients, as animal feed, and as biofuels) (HLPE 12).

These patterns of growing globalization of agrifood markets and supply chains have been disrupted in recent years owing in large part to growing trade tensions between the world’s two largest economies: China and the United States. Global supply chains for soy, for example, have been reconfigured as China, a major importer of soy, has sought to shift its purchases of that crop from the US to suppliers in South America, such as Argentina and Brazil. The expansion of soy production in South America to meet growing demand from Asia has been associated with heightened levels of deforestation, climate change, soil exhaustion, and the heavy use of agricultural chemicals (Fuchs et al. 2019; Ali et al.2017). The spread of the deadly African swine fever has also disrupted global meat supply chains, as the death of nearly one quarter of the world’s pigs in Asia and Europe has increased demand for pork from other regions such as North America and has led to increased prices for meat.

24

3.7 High levels of food losses and waste

Food losses and waste affect food availability in important ways (HLPE 8). The FAO estimated that 13.8 percent of food produced in 2016 was lost in the food chain from the farm up to (but excluding) the retail stage, with marked regional variations (FAO 2019a; SOFA 2019). This figure excludes the substantial food waste at the consumer level, which is especially high in industrialized countries. By contrast, food losses are highest at the point of harvesting, handling and storage. While recent global estimates of food waste are not available, earlier estimates indicate that roughly one third of all food produced is lost or wasted in all production and consumption stages, corresponding to about 1.3 billion tonnes per year (Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, 2011 for FAO, cited in SOFA 2019).

Despite difficulties in estimating the exact percentage of food that is lost or wasted, it is undeniable that reducing food losses and waste can greatly contribute to reducing food insecurity and a more efficient use of resources. From an environmental perspective, reducing food losses and waste contributes to reducing carbon, water and land footprints (HLPE 8). Food loss and waste reductions are not necessarily the most cost-effective way of improving food security and nutrition everywhere, as other interventions such as improving nutrient supply and management, enhanced irrigation efficiency, and shifts in diets, could have better results in specific contexts (SOFA, 2019).

Focusing on reducing food losses at primary production stages in low-income countries with high food insecurity is considered to have the highest positive impact on food security (SOFA 2019). However, most agricultural policies still focus mainly on increasing crop yields (HLPE 12 & 14). It is important that both specific policies are developed, and awareness campaigns are implemented, to reduce the substantial losses in commodity value chains from production to consumption, which would enhance food security and nutrition and reduce the pressure on the degradation of natural resources (HLPE 8).

3.8 Continued coexistence of hunger and obesity

World food production in terms of dietary energy currently exceeds the needs of the population (Willett et al. 2019). After a period of steady progress, the number of people who suffer from hunger has increased for the third year in a row. As a result, more than 820 million people in the world were still hungry in 2018 (FAO et al. 2019). Considering that roughly two billion people are affected by moderate levels of food insecurity, 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).

Recent data show that as progress against undernutrition has slowed, mainly due to conflicts and economic downturn, overweight and obesity continued to increase in all regions and all age groups, with rates of obesity rising faster than overweight (FAO et al. 2019). In 2018, some 2 billion adults were overweight, with about one third of those being obese. There are also high rates of overweight and obesity among children and adolescents (FAO et al. 2019). Food insecurity is a predictor of obesity in richer countries (FAO et al. 2019). At the same time,


25

approximately 1.5 billion people suffer from one or more forms of micronutrient malnutrition, that is poor diet quality that is low in crucial vitamins and minerals necessary for good health, affecting the undernourished and overweight alike. All told, nearly one in three people faces at least one form of malnutrition.

As noted above, multiple forms of malnutrition can be present at the same time at the country, community, household and individual levels, making resolution of the problem especially complex (HLPE 2019; FAO et al. 2019).

3.9 The digital revolution in food and agriculture

The revolution and digital technologies is affecting all sectors, and the food and agriculture sector is no exception. These technologies have important implications for food security and nutrition, although there are ongoing debates about whether those impacts are likely to be overall positive or negative (HLPE 14), and as such, more research on their impact and potential is needed.

There has been a burst of innovation and what is known as “digital farming”, which includes the use of digital technologies to assist in farm decision-making and delivery of inputs. Building on the concept of precision farming, which has been around for decades, the most recent digital technologies applied in the sector include the use of global positioning systems and satellite connected digital sensors on farm equipment, such as tractors and drones (Rose and Chilvers 2018). A growing number of farmers, particularly in industrialized countries, are increasingly using these technologies to improve the efficiency of farm inputs such as energy and agrochemicals (Weersink et al. 2018; Balafoutis et al. 2017). Digital technologies enable farmers to make more fine-grained decisions by utilizing computer assisted analysis of big data that can help determine the most appropriate levels of fertilizer and pesticide use in their fields (Wolfert et al. 2017). At the same time, growing amounts of farm specific data are increasingly being transferred to large corporations that provide these technologies and the services associated with them, raising concerns about questions of data privacy and farmer autonomy (Rotz et al. 2019; Bronson and Knezevic 2016).

Genome editing is another digital technology that is fast gaining traction in the food and agriculture sector (HLPE #14). This technology aims to provide more precise edits to a plant’s genome than previous generations of agricultural biotechnology, and can be utilized without the addition of genes from other species. Although gene edited crops are only in early stages of research and development, debates are emerging with respect to the safety and control of these technologies (Helliwell et al. 2019; Bartkowski et al. 2019).

Digital technologies are also affecting food systems through the growing use of blockchain in the organization of global food supply chains (Bumblauskas et al. 2019). This technology, which cannot easily be tampered with and can assist with traceability and improved transparency in supply chains, has been hailed by some analysts as an important technology for improving food safety as it can assist with the detection and monitoring of potentially harmful substances in supply chains (Creydt and Fischer 2019)

26

3.10 Growing concentration in agrifood supply chains

Progressive concentration of supply chains in the last decades has reshaped agrifood supply chains in ways that enhance the power of large corporations (Howard 2016). There are increasing concerns about growing corporate influence over the governance of food systems and global supply chains, the concentration of market power that can affect prices, and control of natural and genetic resources (HLPE 14). More research is needed to evaluate the potential effects of this growing concentration in the sector.

Recent years have seen growing concentration in the agricultural input sector, in particular following recently announced mergers among the largest agricultural seed and chemical producers that have concentrated the bulk of that market in just four companies (Clapp 2019). There is also a high degree of concentration in the agricultural commodity trading sector, with just four firms controlling a significant proportion of the global grain trade (Murphy et al. 2012). In the food processing sector, a series of mergers and acquisitions has resulted in some giant firms commanding a huge proportion of the market in their respective sectors. Although retail markets tend to be organized along domestic and regional lines, concentration, often in the form of supermarketization, has also been increasing in this sector in recent decades in both rich and poor countries, with just a few companies typically dominating and domestic food retail markets, displacing small local shops and selling less fresh and locally-sourced produce (IPES Food 2017). The food security of the poorest of the urban poor is impacted by the loss of small shops because these outlets often offer small quantities of food items on credit (Peyton et al. 2015).

The high degree of corporate concentration in agrifood supply chains has implications for food security and nutrition. Concentration in the input and commodity trading sectors can influence the intensification of production and the shift from food crops to cash crop production can push smallholders out of agricultural production, while at the same time decreasing diversity and nutrients (HLPE 14). Corporate concentration in the food processing and retail sectors can influence food environments by increasing the proportion of highly processed foods on offer. Concentration in the food system also can affect food safety outcomes by centralizing supply chains. While larger corporations often have the resources to ensure safe food production, storage and processing practices, concentrated markets can also mean that any problems that do arise can quickly spread through those supply chains.

3.11 Fragile and uncertain global economic situation

Since the 2008-2009 global financial crisis, the condition of the global economy has been fragile at best. There has been an uneven pace of economic recovery following the crisis and overall poor economic performance in many countries. The state of the economy in any society has important implications for food security and nutrition. This impact plays out in several ways. At a most basic level, economic trends affect people’s income, employment and livelihood prospects, which has direct implications the ability to access food (FAO et al. 2019).


27

Over the past decade, economic growth has stalled in many countries, including emerging and developing economies. According to the FAO, hunger has increased in those countries experiencing economic slowdown or contraction since the financial crisis. These effects are much more pronounced in situations where economic inequalities are severe, and economic shocks have exacerbated the severity of food crises linked to other causes such as climate change and conflict (FAO et al. 2019). Many of the countries most affected by these dynamics are reliant on commodity exports, which saw price decreases over the 2011 to 2017 period.

Today, these risks remain present due to fragile economic conditions and weak outlook for the global economy and analysts have not ruled out the potential for another economic crisis in the near future. According to the International Monetary Fund, global growth rates fell sharply in 2018 – 2019, affecting not just advanced industrial economies, but also emerging market and developing economies (IMF 2019). Growing global trade tensions have contributed to this gloomy economic outlook, In addition, we have seen weak global wage growth over the past decade. Moreover, women continue to be paid approximately 20 percent less than men (ILO 2018). These trends have important implications for food access for those working in waged employment. Looking forward, the World Bank projects global growth for 2020 to be around 2.5 percent, which is barely above the level in the previous year, which itself was a post crisis low (World Bank 2020). If indeed another global economic crash occurs in the near future, depending on how it affects the value of the US dollar, food price volatility could emerge again as we saw during the 2007-08 food crisis.

The fragile economic situation also influences dietary change in complex ways, as income levels are directly correlated with demand for animal proteins and processed food (SOFA 2017, Willett et al. 2019, HLPE 12). The impact of economic growth on food security and nutrition (for example on decreasing child undernutrition) is generally positive, although this impact is not as strong as previously thought (FAO et al. 2019). In addition, during the “nutrition transition,” economic growth can increase the incidence of obesity and overweight, especially in countries with lower income levels (FAO et al. 2019). At the same time, however, in upper and middle-income countries, food insecurity and complex patterns of inequality are also a predictor of obesity.

3.12 Declining public sector investment in agriculture

Investment in the agricultural sector is important for food security and nutrition outcomes, as such investment can play a role in reducing poverty and hunger. While most investment in agriculture is made by farmers themselves, public sector investment is important as it can catalyze development in the sector by improving infrastructure and setting new directions for research and development that can affect productivity and promote sustainability (FAO 2017; SOFA 2012). The share of public expenditure devoted to agriculture has declined in almost all regions since the 1980s (SOFA 2012). Government spending on agriculture in relation to agriculture’s contribution to GDP fell by 37 percent between 2001 and 2017 (UN 2019b). Sub-Saharan Africa, the region with the highest levels of food insecurity, has seen sharp declines in public investment in the sector (FAO 2019). Decreasing public attention to agriculture is reflected also in development assistance priorities. Aid to agriculture in developing countries fell from

28

nearly 25 percent of all donors’ sector-allocable aid in the mid 1980s to only 5 percent in 2017, representing a decrease of $12.6 billion (UN ECOSOC 2019).

While investment in agriculture has rebounded somewhat since the 2007-2008 global food crisis, and related social unrest, much of this investment has been from the private sector and foundation community (Giller et al. 2017), marking a shift from public to private funds. Between 1990 and 2014, private spending on agricultural research and development (R&D) rose from $5.14 billion to $15.61 billion per year, an increase of more than three-fold (two-fold, in constant PPP$) (Fuglie, 2016). Increasingly, private agricultural R&D focuses on developing countries, which now account for 28 percent of this private expenditure (Fuglie, 2016). Private dominance in agricultural R&D has many implications. For example it is often concentrated on the most traded commodities, and not on those most significant for food security. R&D can also contribute to increasing market power of multinational corporations, further strengthening their influence over national policies while restricting options available to farmers (Fuglie, 2016). More research is needed on the potential implications for FSN outcomes.

The HLPE 13 report recommends developing the contribution of Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships (MSPs) for financing for development, and especially for the promotion of sustainable food systems. It also recommends supporting partnerships and organizations of vulnerable groups through targeted financing, to ensure they can contribute to the transition of sustainable food systems and that any impact of policies and interventions on communities and stakeholders is fully considered (HLPE 13). There is a significant resource gap to achieve the SDGs, which public resources will have difficulty meeting, especially in fragile contexts and in countries with weak governance systems and low income. However, the role of the state as duty bearer in the guarantee of human rights needs to be recognized and supported, as well as increased transparency and accountability, improved data, knowledge and information sharing as key condition to enhance MSPs to better contribute to financing the transition towards sustainable food systems (HLPE 13).

3.13 Civil strife and conflict

According to the 2017 Report on the State of Food and Nutrition Security in the World, “Another increasingly important cause of food insecurity and malnutrition is conflict. People living in countries affected by conflict and violence are more likely to be food insecure and malnourished, particularly in those countries characterized by protracted conflict and fragile institutions” (FAO et al. 2017, p. 27). In 2017, the vast majority of the chronically food insecure and malnourished lived in countries affected by conflict, including an estimated 489 million of 815 million undernourished people, and an estimated 122 million of 155 million stunted children (FAO et al. 2017).

While subsequent state of world food and nutrition security reports have focused on other issues (FAO et al. 2018, 2019), most of the conflicts highlighted the 2017 report have yet to be resolved, while new areas of strife and conflict have emerged. Conflict impacts various dimensions of food security, including availability, access, utilization, stability, agency and sustainability. Farmers in


29

war torn areas may have difficulty getting to, and working in their fields. They may also grow shorter season crops or invest less in soil conservation if the future is more uncertain. The mobility of pastoral livelihoods is also deeply impacted by conflict as herders are often no longer able to range over large areas in search of pastures, instead being forced to congregate in safe zones, leading to range land degradation. With the mobility of grain traders compromised, people’s ability to access food at local markets declines with ruptures in supply and increased local price volatility (CFS 2015; Moseley 2012, 2013, 2017).

3.14 Persistent inequalities

There is growing awareness of the problems associated with growing economic inequality, including its threats to social cohesion and political stability (Piketty 2013). High rates of inequality have had a negative impact on poverty reduction. But even in countries where there have been reductions in poverty, inequalities persist and create divides between rural and urban areas, ethnic groups, and between genders (FAO 2017; UN 2019b). Inequality is particularly stark in emerging economies where wealth accumulation by the elite has not been accompanied by the emergence of a middle class.

Unequal access to agricultural resources and unequal distribution of income are linked to food and nutrition insecurity, and are especially problematic for the most marginalized people, who are commonly rural agricultural populations (HLPE 14). High rates of inequality also affect the resilience of communities to withstand shocks such as climate related disasters and food price increases. Rural women in particular face disproportionately high rates of poverty and barriers to access to productive assets for agriculture, such as land, credit, and inputs (FAO 2017).

For these reasons, the sustainable development goals identify inequality as a pressing concern. SDG 10 calls for a reduction in inequality both within and among countries, and SDG2 recognizes that hunger and food insecurity disproportionately affect the poorest and most marginalized people in society. Indeed, as noted above, the title of the 2030 agenda is “no one left behind.” The HLPE has identified inequalities, vulnerability and marginalized groups as an important critical and emerging issue for food security and nutrition (HLPE 2017) and inequality was identified as an important barrier to agency, access and sustainability in food systems in HLPE Report #14. The persistence of inequalities and their relationship to food security and nutrition is an important area that deserves further research. The HLPE is slated to report on this issue in the near future.

30

Box 2: Challenges and Vulnerabilities that Affect the 6 Dimensions of Food Security


31

To sum up this chapter, there is a wide range of trends that are affecting FSN today. It is essential to be aware of these trends, and to appreciate that:

(1) These trends are constantly evolving, and interact with one another in complex ways.

(2) These trends have important implications for each of the six dimensions of food security.

(3) The overview of these trends helps to highlight barriers and opportunities with respect to progress on SDG#2 and give insights into potential policy pathways forward to get the global community back on track in meeting its commitments to end hunger in all its forms.

32

4. POTENTIAL POLICY PATHWAYS FORWARD

This section turns to examine potential policy pathways forward to get the global community back on track with respect to meeting the SDG 2 targets. The most promising policy pathways need to emerge from concrete cases of successful policy innovations. It is important that such policy approaches embrace the shifts outlined in Section 2 of this report. That is, they should: (1) support a major transformative change in food systems that move away from focusing on production at all costs to instead focus on the quality of food production and food environments more broadly; (2) take a wider view of food security and nutrition to address not just undernutrition but also other forms of malnutrition such as obesity and micronutrient deficiencies; (3) take a broader food systems approach that recognizes the interaction between food systems and other domains and systems; and (4) be stylized for their specific context, recognizing that no one solution will work in all situations. These policy innovation should also be grounded in a right to food framework and be mindful of other international norms and obligations agreed to by states that have a bearing on food security and nutrition.

Since its inception 10 years ago, the 14 HLPE reports published date provide detailed research on key themes that take the above policy principles into account. These reports detail numerous policy recommendations, many of which have been adopted by the Committee on World Food Security as policy advice for member governments to implement.

A 2017 evaluation of the CFS (CFS 2017) noted that there has been little systematic monitoring of national level uptake of CFS recommendations. It noted that although such information would be useful, “It is not feasible, nor is it desirable for the Committee to attempt in-depth monitoring of the implementation of the numerous policy recommendations, and policy products at the country level. Periodic stock-takes and evaluation may be more appropriate” (CFS 2017, p.71). The evaluation further noted that, “Detailed monitoring of policies, programmes and plans are the responsibility of national governments. CFS should consider conducting a voluntary survey every two years to obtain information on use and application of CFS products and policy recommendations” (CFS 2017, p.78). Data on policy recommendation uptake and domestic contexts from the CFS is not yet available, and it is outside of the mandate of this report to collect new data along these lines. The review below provides a brief sampling of examples of policy recommendations of the CFS that arose from HLPE reports, along with examples from the scholarly literature that are consistent with those recommendations.

The examples outlined below are illustrative of the kinds of policy initiatives that could potentially break through the barriers that are leading to weak performance with respect to SDG2. The examples are organized around the six dimensions of food security outlined in Section 2 of this report, recognizing the overlaps and interconnectedness between the different dimensions. As noted in the discussion earlier in this report, some of these dimensions are more critical in some contexts than in others, and they all work to support each other.


33

4.1 Availability-focused initiatives

The availability of food is featured in many of the HLPE reports, in particular ways in which food production systems can be transformed to be both productive and sustainable, as well as ways in which food systems can become more efficient. HLPE reports 1, on food price volatility, and 6, on investing in smallholder production, for example, call for increased investment in agriculture, in particular for sustainable production by smallholders in developing countries, to bolster production in regions where hunger is greatest. More recently, HLPE report 14, on agroecology, similarly calls for a transformation of food systems to improve resource efficiency. Based on these reports, CFS39 recommended the strengthening of “participatory research, extension and farming service systems, particularly those that respond to the specific needs of smallholders and women farmers, to increase their productivity, diversify their production, and enhance its nutritional value and build their resilience, including with respect to climate change, according to the tenets of sustainable development” (CFS 2013).

India’s Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) peasant movement in India is an example that is consistent with CFS recommendations regarding the strengthening of participatory research that supports smallholders to improve productivity and to diversify production while building resilience. The ZBNF initiative, promoted by agronomist Subhash Palekar, promotes traditional agricultural practices and agroecological methods such as the use of bio fertilizers, polycultures, and mulch is a low-cost way for farmers to improve yields, conserve soil, promote seed diversity, and improve the quality of food produced. This movement is growing in popularity in India, with some estimates putting the number of farmers participating in the hundreds of thousands if not millions. Field research with some of the farmers participating in the program indicate that they saw production improvements, improved soils and seed diversity as well as increases in income and decreases in farm expenses (Khadse et al. 2018; Cacho et al. 2018). The program initially emerged out of Karnataka state, but has since been expanded to other states in the country. In 2015, the state of Andhra Pradesh launched a program to become the first state in India to commit to 100% natural farming by 2024 (FAO 2018c). Several other state governments in India have supported training activities based on the ZBNF model.

The ZBNF initiative is just one example of initiatives to scale up agroecology. There is a growing number of initiatives and policies to promote agroecological farming practices in diverse regions around the world (as outlined in FAO 2018c).

4.2 Access-focused initiatives

Since the work of Amartya Sen (1981), access has been considered to be a key pillar or dimension of food security. Access has been highlighted in a number of HLPE reports, but especially #1 on Price Volatility and Food Security (2011), #4 on social protection for food security (2012), and #12 on nutrition and food systems (2017). HLPE reports have fed into several Committee on World Food Security (CFS) recommendations that support improvement in food access, for example, CFS 39 recommended that member states “design and put in place, or strengthen,

34

comprehensive, nationally-owned, context-sensitive social protection systems for food security and nutrition” (CFS 2013, 5).

The experience of Belo Horizonte, Brazil is a good example of an integrated policy approach to improving food access and nutrition. Brazil underwent important constitutional reforms in the late 1980s as a military dictatorship came to an end. These reforms allowed for the decentralization of power and responsibilities to municipalities. Grass roots activism led to the creation of national food security councils, which led to the founding of a city department, the food secretariat in Belo Horizonte, Brazil’s sixth largest city. Perhaps the most famous element of secretariat’s program was the revival of an older tradition: the re-creation of popular restaurants. The first such restaurant opened in 1994 and by 2009 they had three main facilities along with several smaller lunchrooms, serving 12,000-14,000 meals every day. They offered meals prepared from fresh ingredients. For the first 17 years of the program, all clients paid one Brazilian real for lunch and less for breakfast or dinner. With everyone paying the same amount, much of the social stigma of going to the restaurants was removed, upholding the idea of food with dignity. All schools also had a kitchen and staff making meals from scratch. Furthermore, these city programs increasingly sourced their food from small local farms. Both the popular restaurants and school meals programs required lots of fresh vegetables. The city would buy vegetables from associations of small farmers in surrounding municipalities, doing so directly in order to avoid intermediaries. Up through the early 2000s, the city also distributed enriched flour to groups at risk of malnutrition. Lastly, the city controlled the prices of about 25 basic foodstuffs at a network of stores throughout the city. The results of this multifaceted food security program were unprecedented, including a 60% decrease in child hospitalization due to malnutrition, dramatic decreases in mortality rates for children under five, a 33% decrease in child hospitalization due to diabetes, and a 25% increase in per capita household consumption of fruits and vegetables. The program was so successful that it became a testing ground and inspiration for Brazil’s national zero hunger program (Chappell 2018).

4.3 Utilization-focused initiatives

Utilization is the food security dimension specific to adequate diets, clean water, sanitation and health care to reach a state of nutritional wellbeing where all physiological needs are met.

Each of the HLPE Reports addresses utilization. Report 12 on Nutrition and Food Systems puts a sharp focus on adequate diet and nutritional wellbeing. The Water Report (#9) highlights the many aspects of clean water, e.g., for preventing diarrhoeal diseases, which are a major cause of malnutrition and the second leading cause of child death around the world; and water for the physiological utilization of nutrients and foods.

Report 8 on Food Losses and Waste positions utilization in terms of nutrient losses. Fruits and vegetables are sources of important micronutrients and other beneficial bioactive components. They are essential for adequate diets and for nutritional wellbeing. Fruits and vegetables also account for the highest quantitative food losses and waste, pointing to the importance of minimizing their loss or waste from a utilization perspective. The report introduced the concept


35

of food quality loss or waste (FQLW), vis-à-vis the more commonly considered aspect of food quantity loss, which refers to the decrease in nutrient content linked to the loss or degradation of the product at any point in a food system. Considering that more than two billion people are estimated to suffer from one or more nutrient deficiencies, combating food loss should be a key initiative for addressing utilization. Taking into account the HLPE report, in 2014 the CFS adopted a recommendation on Food losses and waste (FAO, 2014), and since then a number of countries have developed policy and legislation aimed at reducing food losses and waste, such as Italy (2016), Saudi Arabia (2019), Australia (2017), Egypt (2019) and Tunisia (2019).

With respect to tackling the problem of the different forms of malnutrition, HLPE 12 called for addressing nutritional vulnerabilities of specific groups and improving data collection and knowledge sharing on food systems and nutrition, as well as improving the quality food environment, including the adoption of national guidelines for healthy and sustainable diets. CFS 45 (2017) supported these recommendations. Numerous initiatives seek to address nutritional issues, including the problems of obesity and undernutrition. A number of countries have adopted initiatives to address overweight and obesity, including measures to improve information and awareness on the causes of this complex problem as well as other more regulatory approaches such as taxation of unhealthy foods (FAO 2016b). These measures have met with mixed success, and more research is needed on the most effective ways to tackle this vexing problem. At the same time, several countries have moved to incorporate sustainability into their national dietary guidelines, including Canada, Switzerland, Sweden, Qatar, Norway, Brazil, and Germany.

4.4 Stability-focused initiatives

The importance of stability as a dimension of food security was made evident during the 2007 – 2008 food crisis, a period of volatile food prices and unstable markets. HLPE report #1, on the theme of food price volatility, explored the various causes behind volatility in food prices and advanced recommendations for policies to calm those markets. Among its recommendations were “better and transparent information systems are essential for policy decisions and management of stocks.” The relatively new agricultural market information system (AMIS) being developed at the time was noted as a welcome development. CFS 37 took note of this report and adopted the recommendation to “Support the Agricultural Market Information System (AMIS) to enhance food market information and transparency, and urge the participating international organizations, private sector actors and governments to ensure the public dissemination of timely and quality food market information products.”

The AMIS is an interagency platform that seeks to improve transparency in food markets in order to reduce volatility and uncertainty. Launched in 2011 by the G20 agriculture ministers, the AMIS gathers and evaluates information on global food supply and provides a platform for policy coordination to address instability in global markets. The idea is for major players in grain markets to share data on food stock availability and prices and to coordinate on policy in instances of tight supplies and volatile prices. To work effectively, however, such a system would need full participation of the private sector as well as governments. The participation of private sector

36

firms is only encouraged, however, and is not mandatory, which weakens the effectiveness of this initiative in serving its purpose of reducing price volatility (Torero 2016). The largest grain trading companies, for example, may be reluctant to share their private market data, which is the basis of their business decisions.

Other types of initiatives are also being undertaken. HLPE 4 recommends that social protection programs should be underpinned by the human rights to food and social protection at every level. India’s national food policy, as discussed above, is a good example of this type of approach. HLPE 1 recommended consideration of strategic regional food reserves in times of emergencies. CFS 39 (FAO 2012) reinforced this recommendation. A pilot project in the ECOWAS region of West Africa on strategic grain reserves has seen positive results (Galtier 2019). HLPE 4 also recommended consideration of cash transfer initiatives, specifically including smallholders as vulnerable populations. This recommendation was reinforced at CFS 39 (2012). The FAO Cash + initiative is an example of this type of initiative. This program combines cash transfers with improved access to productive assets, such as agricultural inputs and technical training. Piloted in a number of countries in sub-Saharan Africa – including Mauritania, Malawi, Lesotho, Somalia, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger – this program has seen initial positive results (FAO 2018e). More research is needed on operationalizing these types of initiatives on a wider scale.

4.5 Agency-focused initiatives

Improving individuals or groups’ capacity to act independently and make free choices about what they eat and how their food is produced is critical for enhancing food and nutrition security. The adoption by the FAO Council in 2004 of the Voluntary Guidelines to support the Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security (Right to Food Guidelines) recognized the importance of participation of the food-insecure in policy processes (FAO, 2005). HLPE Report #14 on agroecology (2019) highlighted the importance of strengthening agency. The report recommended that the CFS should “consider the emerging importance of the concept of ‘agency’ and the opportunity to add it as a fifth pillar of FSN with the view to progress towards the realization of the right to adequate food” (HLPE 2019, 21). The report goes on to say that member states should “strengthen agency and stakeholder engagement, empower vulnerable and marginalized groups and address power inequalities in food systems” (HLPE 2019, 23). While if is still too early to tell if the CFS will adopt formal recommendations based on HLPE reports, there are positive examples from initiatives around the world that work to empower marginalized actors and enhance agency in order to improve FSN.

Malawi’s experimentation with different approaches to address food insecurity is a good example of a country that had a more traditional, production-focused approach, and then switched to one that acknowledged the importance of agency (Graeub et al. 2016). While still experimental and small in scope, this approach to strengthening the agency of women has led to dramatic improvements household nutritional outcomes (Bezner Kerr, Berti and Shumba 2011). This participatory agriculture and nutrition project (the Soils, Food and Healthy Communities project), initiated by Ekwendeni Hospital in northern Malawi, was aimed at improving child nutritional status with smallholder farmers in a nearby rural area. This project has shown


37

demonstrated success in combating malnutrition through a combination of agroecological farming practices, community mobilization, women’s empowerment and changes in intra-household gender dynamics (Patel et al. 2015).

India’s National Food Security Act (NFSA), adopted in 2013, is another example of the importance of agency. This legislation was the result of collective action through a domestic right to food campaign in the country. The NFSA expands coverage of subsidized food grains for a larger share of the population. This law effectively made the ‘right to food’ a legal entitlement for approximately three-fourths of the rural population and half of the urban population of India. The law also made maternity benefits and nutrition for children aged six months to 14 years a legal entitlement. Preliminary studies of the law’s implementation show an increase in coverage of eligible beneficiaries, a decline in exclusion error, a rise in the purchase-entitlement ratio, and improvements in the transportation of foodgrains (Puri 2017; Chakraborty and Sarmah 2019).

4.6 Sustainability-focused initiatives

HLPE reports have consistently featured sustainability, although this theme has become more prominent in more recent reports. In Report 3 on climate change, the only issue receiving attention was that the lack of sustainability in food production was a key threat to resilience, and the need for national and international food system governance to address the way food is produced and to moderate demand for environmental harmful food types. Report 7 marked a dramatic shift in thinking, and sustainability became a major focus of all subsequent reports, with five of the next eight having the word sustainable in their titles. Sustainable food systems and sustainable diets are specifically addressed in Reports 12 and 14.

Report 14 illustrates sustainability with the rice–fish–duck system in China. This important traditional agroecosystem in Hani terraces in Yunnan Province, involves integration of crops and animals in a circular economy. Fish and ducks eat weeds and pests and loosen the soil to improve the growing environment for rice, while rice provides food, shade and shelter for fish and ducks. Pesticides and herbicides cannot be used in this system because of their toxicity to fish and ducks. Therefore, products from rice–fish–duck systems are very popular in consumer markets. An innovative improvement has been designed that efficiently exploits the three-dimensional space (and seasonality) of paddies for developing rice–fish co-culture during the crop growing season while ducks are reared in winter during the fallow period. Its economic value is estimated to be 7.8 times that of the current conventional model that only grows the hybrid rice monoculture in summer for half the year and fallows the field in winter. As a Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System (GIAHS) it combines agricultural biodiversity, resilient ecosystems, local communities and a valuable cultural heritage.

38

To sum up this chapter, HLPE reports have contributed to advancing understandings of policy and practice in ways that have fed into CFS recommendations.

There are a number of concrete examples of initiatives for policy and practice - undertaken by a range of stakeholders - that are consistent with CFS recommendations.

These examples can be a starting point for further conversations on potential pathways to better performance on SDG 2 goals.


39

5. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Key summary points:

i. It is important to take multiple dimensions of FSN into account. This report suggests we need to expand our conceptual thinking on food security to six overlapping dimensions, to include not just the standard four that have evolved since the 1970s (availability, access, utilization and stability) but also agency and sustainability.

ii. It is also vital to consolidate the shifts that have occurred thinking on FSN policy in recent years. Although these shifts have been underway for some time, it is important to acknowledge and consolidate them into a single policy framework. This includes: shifting from a focus on quantity of food produced to quality of food production methods and food environments; shifting from a focus primarily on hunger and undernutrition to malnutrition in all its forms, including obesity, overweight, and micronutrient deficiencies; a shift from tackling FSN issues in discrete food centric policy domains to see problems as occurring within a broader food system and as it interacts with other domains and systems; and a shift from seeking universal solutions to pursuing multiple solutions tailored to specific contexts. A consolidated approach should incorporate all of these shifts.

iii. It is imperative that governments and other food policy actors recognize and abide by prior international obligations, such as upholding the right to food and other guidance/principles agreed to in international forums.

iv. There are a wide range of trends that are affecting FSN today. These trends are constantly evolving, interact with one another in complex ways, and influence the six dimensions of food security in diverse and overlapping ways. It is important to be aware of these dynamics, which help to highlight barriers and opportunities with respect to progress on SDG#2 and give insights into potential policy pathways forward to get the global community back on track.

5.2 Recommendations:

Recommendations to be completed in the final version of the report

40

REFERENCES

Ali, T., Huang, J., Wang, J & Xie, W. 2017. Global footprints of water and land resources through China’s food trade.” Global Food Security 12: 139–45.

An, R. et al. 2019. A scoping review on economic globalization in relation to the obesity epidemic. Obesity Reviews, 1-11

Badgley, C., Moghtader, J., Quintero, E., Zakem, E., Chappell, M.J., Aviles-Vazquez, K., Samulon, A. & Perfecto, I. 2007. Organic agriculture and the global food supply. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 22: 86–108.

Balafoutis, A., Bert, B., Fountas, S., Vangeyte, J., van der Wal, T., Soto Embodas, I., Gómez-Barbero, M., Barnes, A. & Eory, V. 2017. Precision agriculture technologies positively contributing to GHG emissions mitigation, farm productivity and economics. Sustainability, 9(8): 1339–1367.

Barrett, C. 2010. Measuring food insecurity. Science 327 (5967): 825-828.

Bartkowski, B., Theesfeld, I., Pirscher, F. & Timaeus, J. 2018. Snipping around for food: economic, ethical and policy implications of CRISPR/Cas genome editing. Geoforum, 96: 172–180.

Berry, E.M., Dernini, S., Burlingame, B., Meybeck A. & Conforti, P. 2015. Food security and sustainability: can one exist without the other? Public Health Nutrition, 18(13): 2293–2302

Bezner Kerr, R., Berti, P. & Shumba, L. 2011. Effects of a participatory agriculture and nutrition education project on child growth in northern Malawi. Public Health Nutrition, 14(8), 1466–1472.

Bonny, S. 2016. Genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops, weeds, and herbicides: Overview and impact.” Environmental Management 57(1): 31–48.

Bumblauskas, D., Mann, A., Dugan, B. & Rittmer, J. 2019. A blockchain use case in food distribution: Do you know where your food has been?” International Journal of Information Management, 102008.

Bronson, K. & Knezevic, I. 2016. Big data in food and agriculture. Big Data & Society, 3(1): 1–5. Cacho, M., Giraldo, O., Aldasoro, M., Morales, H. Ferguson, B., Rosset, P., Khadse, A & Campos, C. 2018. Bringing agroecology to scale: Key drivers and emblematic cases.” Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 42(6): 637–65.

Candel, J. 2014. Food security governance: A systematic literature review.” Food Security, 6 (4): 585–601.

CFS (Committee on World Food Security). 2013. Report of the 39th Session of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS)(Rome, 15-20 October 2012). Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/mf120e/mf120e.pdf

CFS (Committee on World Food Security). 2014. Report of the 40th Session of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS). Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/a-mm187e.pdf

CFS (Committee on World Food Security). 2015. Framework for Action for Food Security and Nutrition in Protracted Crisis. Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/a-bc852e.pdf

CFS (Committee on World Food Security). 2017. Evaluation of the Committee on World Food Security: Final Report. Rome. www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/cfs/Docs1617/Evaluation/CFS_Evaluation_Final_Report__14_April_2017.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0589-7

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.09.004

https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2018.1443313

http://www.fao.org/3/mf120e/mf120e.pdf

http://www.fao.org/3/a-mm187e.pdf

http://www.fao.org/3/a-bc852e.pdf

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/cfs/Docs1617/Evaluation/CFS_Evaluation_Final_Report__14_April_2017.pdf

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/cfs/Docs1617/Evaluation/CFS_Evaluation_Final_Report__14_April_2017.pdf


41

CFS (Committee on World Food Security). 2018. Experiences and Good Practices in the Use and Application of the Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security - Summary and Key Elements. Rome. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/bodies/CFS_sessions/CFS_45/CFS45_INF/MX518_INF_19/MX518_CFS_2018_45_INF_19_en.pdf

Chakraborty, S. & S. P. Sarmah. 2019. India 2025: the public distribution system and National Food Security Act 2013, Development in Practice, 29:2, 230-249, DOI: 10.1080/09614524.2018.1527290

Chappell, M.J. 2018. Beginning to End Hunger: Food and the Environment in Belo Horizonte, Brazil, and Beyond. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.

Clapp, J. 2014. Financialization, distance and global food politics. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 41(5): 797–814.

Clapp, J. 2015. Food security and international trade. Unpacking disputed narratives. Background paper prepared for The State of Agricultural Commodity Markets 2015–16. Rome, FAO. 50 pp. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5160e.pdf

Clapp, J. 2019. The rise of financial investment and common ownership in global agrifood firms. Review of International Political Economy, 26(4): 604–629.

Creydt, M., & Fischer, M. 2019. Blockchain and more - algorithm driven food traceability.” Food Control 105: 45–51.

Delgado, C., Rosengrant, M., Steinfeld, H., Ehui, S. & Courbois, C. 1999. Livestock to 2020: the next food revolution. 2020 Brief 61. Washington, DC, International Food Policy Research Institute. 2 pp. http://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6337610.pdf

De Schutter, O. 2009. International trade in agriculture and the right to food. Dialogue on globalization. Occasional Paper No.46. Geneva, CH: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.

D’Odorico, P., Carr, J.A., Laio, F., Ridolfi, L. & Vandoni, S. 2014. Feeding humanity through global food trade. Earth’s Future, 2(9): 458–469.

El Bilali, H., Callenius, C., Strassner, C. & Probst, L. 2018. Food and nutrition security and sustainability transitions in food systems. Food and Energy Security, 8(2): 1–20.

FAO. 1974. World Food and Agriculture Situation. Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/F5340E/F5340E03.htm#ref13

FAO. 1983. World Food Security: A Reappraisal of the Concepts and Approaches. Director General’s Report. Rome, FAO.

FAO. 1996. Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action. Rome, FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/w3613e/w3613e00.htm

FAO. 2001. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2001. Rome, FAO. http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/y1500e/y1500e00.htm

FAO. 2005. Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security. Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/y7937e/Y7937E00.htm#TOC

FAO. 2006. Food Security. Policy Brief Issue 2. http://www.fao.org/forestry/13128-0e6f36f27e0091055bec28ebe830f46b3.pdf

FAO. 2010. The State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Rome. http://www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/thematic-sitemap/theme/seeds-pgr/sow/en/

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/bodies/CFS_sessions/CFS_45/CFS45_INF/MX518_INF_19/MX518_CFS_2018_45_INF_19_en.pdf

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/bodies/CFS_sessions/CFS_45/CFS45_INF/MX518_INF_19/MX518_CFS_2018_45_INF_19_en.pdf

http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5160e.pdf


https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2019.05.019

http://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6337610.pdf

http://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6337610.pdf

http://www.fao.org/3/F5340E/F5340E03.htm#ref13

http://www.fao.org/3/w3613e/w3613e00.htm


http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/y1500e/y1500e00.htm



http://www.fao.org/3/y7937e/Y7937E00.htm#TOC

http://www.fao.org/forestry/13128-0e6f36f27e0091055bec28ebe830f46b3.pdf



http://www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/thematic-sitemap/theme/seeds-pgr/sow/en/

42

FAO. 2012a. World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision, by N. Alexandratos & J. Bruinsma. ESA Working Paper No. 12-03. Rome, FAO. 154 pp. http://www.fao.org/economic/esa/esag/en/

FAO. 2012b. Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security. Rome. http://www.fao.org/cfs/home/activities/vggt/en/

FAO. 2014a. The State of Food and Agriculture 2014. Innovation in family farming. Rome, FAO. 161 pp. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4040e.pdf

FAO. 2014b. Principles for Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food Systems. Rome. http://www.fao.org/cfs/home/activities/rai/en/

FAO. 2015a. The State of Agricultural Commodity Markets 2015-16. Trade and food security: achieving a better balance between national priorities and the collective good. Rome, FAO. 89 pp. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5090e.pdf

FAO. 2015b. Framework for Action for Food Security and Nutrition in Protracted Crises. Rome. http://www.fao.org/cfs/home/activities/ffa/en/

FAO. 2016a. The State of Food and Agriculture 2016. Climate change, agriculture and food security. Rome, FAO. 194 pp. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6030e.pdf (Referred to in the document as SOFA 2016)

FAO. 2016b. Are there any successful policies and programs to fight overweight and obesity? Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition, Summary of the Online Discussion, NO. 129. Rome.

FAO. 2017. The Future of Food and Agriculture – Trends and Challenges. Rome: FAO.

FAO. 2018a. Sustainable Food Systems: Concept and Framework. H. Nguyen. Rome, FAO. 8 pp. http://www.fao.org/3/ca2079en/CA2079EN.pdf

FAO. 2018b. The Future of Food and Agriculture – Alternative Pathways to 2050. Rome: FAO.

FAO. 2018c. Scaling up Agroecology to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Proceedings of the second FAO international symposium. Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/ca3666en/ca3666en.pdf

FAO. 2018d. FAO and Cash +: How to Maximize the Impacts of Cash Transfers. Rome.

FAO. 2019a. Food Loss and Waste Database. http://www.fao.org/food-loss-and-food-waste/flw-data

FAO. 2019b. The State of Food and Agriculture 2019. Moving forward on food loss and waste reduction. Rome, FAO. 182 pp. http://www.fao.org/3/ca6030en/ca6030en.pdf (Referred to in the document as SOFA 2019)

FAO. 2019c. Fifteen years implementing the Right to Food Guidelines. Reviewing progress to achieve the 2030 Agenda. Rome. http://www.fao.org/right-to-food/resources/resources-detail/en/c/1238122/

FAO. 2019d. Government Expenditure on Agriculture (website): http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/investment/expenditure/ar/ (accessed on 16/01/20).

FAO and WHO. 2019. Sustainable healthy diets – Guiding principles. Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/ca6640en/ca6640en.pdf

FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP & WHO. 2017. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2017. Building Resilience for Peace and Food Security. Rome, FAO. 132 pp. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7695e.pdf

http://www.fao.org/economic/esa/esag/en/



http://www.fao.org/cfs/home/activities/vggt/en/



http://www.fao.org/cfs/home/activities/rai/en/



http://www.fao.org/cfs/home/activities/ffa/en/



http://www.fao.org/3/ca2079en/CA2079EN.pdf

http://www.fao.org/3/ca3666en/ca3666en.pdf

http://www.fao.org/food-loss-and-food-waste/flw-data





http://www.fao.org/right-to-food/resources/resources-detail/en/c/1238122/

http://www.fao.org/right-to-food/resources/resources-detail/en/c/1238122/






43

FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP & WHO. 2018. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2018. Building climate resilience for food security and nutrition. Rome, FAO. 202 pp. http://www.fao.org/3/I9553EN/i9553en.pdf

FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP & WHO. 2019. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2019. Safeguarding against economic slowdowns and downturns. Rome, FAO. 239 pp. http://www.fao.org/3/ca5162en/ca5162en.pdf

Fuchs, R. et al. 2019. US–China trade war imperils Amazon rainforest,” Nature 567 (28 March): 451–4.

Fuglie, K. 2016. The growing role of the private sector in agricultural research and development world-wide. Global Food Security 10, 29-38.

Galtier, F. 2019. Can the ECOWAS Regional Reserve Project Improve the Management of Food Crises in West Africa? European Commission.

Garnett, T. 2013. Food sustainability: Problems, perspectives and solutions. The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 72, no. 1: 29–39.

Giller, K., Andersson, J.A., Sumberg, J. & Thompson, J. 2017. A golden age for agronomy? In: J. Sumberg, ed. Agronomy for development. The politics of knowledge in agricultural research, pp. 150–160. London, Earthscan.

Graeub, B.E. M.J. Chappell, H. Wittman, S. Ledermann, R. Bezner Kerr, B. Gemmill-Herren. 2016. The State of Family Farms in the World. World Development. 87: 1-15.

Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U. & Emanuelsson, A. 2013. The methodology of the FAO study: “Global food losses and food waste – extent, causes and prevention”. FAO, 2011. SIK report No. 857. Lund, Sweden, Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology (SIK).

Haggblade, S., Smale, M., Kergna, A., Theriault, V. & Assima, A. 2017. Causes and consequences of increasing herbicide use in Mali. European Journal of Development Research, 29, 648–674.

Helliwell, R., Hartley, S. & Pearce, W. 2019. NGO perspectives on the social and ethical dimensions of plant genome-editing. Agriculture and Human Values, 36(4): 779–791.

Herman, D.J. 2019. Let’s talk... about farmers: Trump’s Trade War and a looming mental health crisis. University of Toronto Medical Journal, 96(2): 55–57.

Herrero, M., Thornton, P.K., Power, B., Bogard, J.R., Remans, R., Fritz, S., Gerber, J.S. et al. 2017. Farming and the geography of nutrient production for human use: a transdisciplinary analysis. The Lancet Planetary Health, 1(1): e33–e42.

HLPE. 2011a. Price volatility and food security. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. HLPE Report 1. Rome. 83 pp. http://www.fao.org/3/a-mb737e.pdf (Referred to in the document as HLPE 1)

HLPE. 2011b. Land tenure and international investments in agriculture. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. HLPE Report 2. Rome. 60 pp. http://www.fao.org/3/a-mb766e.pdf (Referred to in the document as HLPE 2)

HLPE. 2012. Social protection for food security. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. HLPE Report 4. Rome. 100 pp. http://www.fao.org/3/a-me422e.pdf (Referred to in the document as HLPE 3)

HLPE. 2013a. Investing in smallholder agriculture for food security. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. HLPE Report 6. Rome. 112 pp. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i2953e.pdf (Referred to in the document as HLPE 4)

http://www.fao.org/3/I9553EN/i9553en.pdf






https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665112002947

http://www.fao.org/3/a-mb737e.pdf




http://www.fao.org/3/a-me422e.pdf




44

HLPE 2012. Food security and climate change. High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. HLPE Report 3. Rome. 100 pp. http://www.fao.org/3/a-me421e.pdf (Referred to in the document as HLPE 3)

HLPE. 2013. Biofuels and food security. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. HLPE Report 5. Rome. 132 pp. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i2952e.pdf (Referred to in the document as HLPE 5)

HLPE. 2014a. Food losses and waste in the context of sustainable food systems. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. HLPE Report 8. Rome. 117 pp. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3901e.pdf (Referred to in the document as HLPE 6)

HLPE. 2014b. Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture for Food Security and Nutrition. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. HLPE Report 5. Rome. 119 pp. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3844e.pdf (Referred to in the document as HLPE 7)

HLPE. 2015. Water for food security and nutrition. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. HLPE Report 9. Rome. 129 pp. http://www.fao.org/3/a-av045e.pdf (Referred to in the document as HLPE 7)

HLPE. 2016. Sustainable agricultural development for food security and nutrition: what roles for livestock? A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. HLPE Report 10. Rome. 140 pp. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5795e.pdf (Referred to in the document as HLPE 10)

HLPE. 2017a. 2nd Note on critical and emerging issues for food security and nutrition. A note by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. Rome. 23 pp. http://www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe/critical-and-emerging-issues/en/

HLPE. 2017b. Nutrition and food systems. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. HLPE Report 12. Rome. 152 pp. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7846e.pdf (Referred to in the document as HLPE 12)

HLPE. 2017c. Sustainable forestry for food security and nutrition. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. HLPE Report 11. Rome. 137 pp. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7395e.pdf (Referred to in the document as HLPE 11)

HLPE. 2017d. HLPE contribution to CFS for SDG 2 review by the HLPF. Rome. 4 pp. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/hlpe/hlpe_documents/CFS-Work/HLPE_contribution_to_CFS_for_SDG-2_2017.pdf

HLPE. 2018. Multi-stakeholder partnerships to finance and improve food security and nutrition in the framework of the 2030 Agenda. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. HLPE Report 13. Rome. 144 pp. http://www.fao.org/3/CA0156EN/CA0156en.pdf (Referred to in the document as HLPE 13)

HLPE. 2019. Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. HLPE Report 14. Rome. 163 pp. http://www.fao.org/3/ca5602en/ca5602en.pdf (Referred to in the document as HLPE 14)

Howard, P. 2016. Concentration and Power in the Food System (London, Bloomsbury).








http://www.fao.org/3/a-av045e.pdf

http://www.fao.org/3/a-av045e.pdf




http://www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe/critical-and-emerging-issues/en/

http://www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe/critical-and-emerging-issues/en/





http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/hlpe/hlpe_documents/CFS-Work/HLPE_contribution_to_CFS_for_SDG-2_2017.pdf




http://www.fao.org/3/CA0156EN/CA0156en.pdf

http://www.fao.org/3/CA0156EN/CA0156en.pdf




45

ILO (International Labour Organization). 2018. Global Wage Report 2018/19. Geneva: ILO.https://www.ilo.org/global/publications/books/WCMS_650553/lang--en/index.htm

IMF (International Monetary Fund). 2019. World economic outlook October 2019. Washington, D.C.: IMF. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2019/10/01/world-economic-outlook-october-2019

Ingram, J. 2011. A food systems approach to researching food security and its interactions with global environmental change. Food Security, 3(4): 417–431.

IPBES. 2019. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Bonn, Germany, IPBES Secretariat. 56 pp. https://ipbes.net/global-assessment-report-biodiversity-ecosystem-services

IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. Geneva, Switzerland, IPCC. 151 pp. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf

IPCC. 2019. Summary for Policymakers. In: P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.- O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi & J. Malley, eds. Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. 34 pp. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/4/2019/12/02_Summary-for-Policymakers_SPM.pdf

IPES-Food (International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems). 2016. From uniformity to diversity. A paradigm shift from industrial agriculture to diversified agroecological systems. E.A. Frison. Belgium, Louvain-la-Neuve. 96 pp. http://www.ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/UniformityToDiversity_FULL.pdf

IPES-Food (International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems). 2017. Too big to feed. Exploring the impacts of mega-mergers, consolidation and concentration of power in the agri-food sector. Report 03. 108 pp. http://www.ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/Concentration_FullReport.pdf

Khadse, A., Rosset, P., Morales, H. & Ferguson, G. 2018. Taking agroecology to scale: The Zero Budget Natural Farming peasant movement in Karnataka, India. The Journal of Peasant Studies 45(1): 192–219.

Lang, T. & D. Barling. 2012. Food security and food sustainability: reformulating the debate. The Geographical Journal 178, no. 4 : 313–326.

Lowder, S.K., Skoet, J. & Raney, T. 2016. The number, size, and distribution of farms, smallholder farms, and family farms worldwide. World Development, 87: 16–29.

Maxwell, S. 1996. Food security: A post-modern perspective. Food Policy 21(2): 155-170

Moseley, W.G. 2012. Famine myths: five misunderstandings related to the 2011 hunger crisis in the Horn of Africa. Special Issue on “Reclaiming Food Sovereignty in Africa.” Guest-Edited by N. Zerbe & B. Dowd-Uribe. Association of Concerned Africa Scholars Bulletin, 88: 26–32.

Moseley, W.G. 2013. Recovering from livelihood insecurity and political instability in Northern Mali: bouncing back. Special Issue on the causes, effects and significance of the crisis in Mali. International Journal: Canada’s Journal of Global Policy Analysis, 63(3): 435–443.

https://www.ilo.org/global/publications/books/WCMS_650553/lang--en/index.htm

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2019/10/01/world-economic-outlook-october-2019

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2019/10/01/world-economic-outlook-october-2019

https://ipbes.net/global-assessment-report-biodiversity-ecosystem-services



https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf



https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/4/2019/12/02_Summary-for-Policymakers_SPM.pdf




http://www.ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/UniformityToDiversity_FULL.pdf



http://www.ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/Concentration_FullReport.pdf



https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2016.1276450

46

Moseley, W.G. 2017. The minimalist state and donor landscapes: livelihood security in Mali during and after the 2012-2013 coup and rebellion. African Studies Review, 60(1): 37–51.

Moseley, W.G., Carney, J. & Becker, L. 2010. Neoliberal policy, rural livelihoods and urban food security in West Africa: a comparative study of The Gambia, Côte d'Ivoire and Mali. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(13): 5774–5779.

OECD. 2015. The economic consequences of climate change. Paris, OECD Publishing. 141 pp. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264235410-en

OECD & FAO. 2019. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2019-2028, Chapter 9: Biofuels. Paris, OECD Publishing & Rome, FAO, pp 204–216. http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ca4076en

Patel, R. R. Bezner Kerr, L. Shumba & L. Dakishoni 2015. Cook, eat, man, woman: understanding the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, nutritionism and its alternatives from Malawi. The Journal of Peasant Studies. 42:1, 21-44, DOI: 10.1080/03066150.2014.971767

Peter, F. 2003. Gender and the foundations of social choice: the role of situated agency. Feminist Economics, 9(2-3): 13–32.

Peyton, S., Moseley, W.G. & Battersby, J. 2015. Implications of supermarket expansion on urban food security in Cape Town, South Africa. African Geographical Review, 34(1): 36–54.

Piketty, T. 2013. Capital in the 21st Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Pretty, J.N., Noble, A.D., Bossio, D., Dixon, J., Hine, R.E., Penning de Vries, F.W.T. & Morison, J.I.L. 2006. Resource-conserving agriculture increases yields in developing countries. Environmental Science & Technology, 40(4): 1114–1119.

Porter, J.R., Xie, L., Challinor, A.J., Cochrane, K., Howden, S.M., Iqbal, M.M., Lobell, D.B. & Travasso, M.I. 2014. Food security and food production systems. In: C.B. Field, V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea & L.L. White, eds. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK & New York, USA, Cambridge University Press.

Puri, R. 2017. India’s National Food Security Act (NFSA): Early Experiences, LANSA Working Paper Series 14. Brighton: LANSA.

Rakotoarisoa, M.A., Iafrate, M. & Paschali, M. 2011. Why has Africa become a net food importer? Explaining Africa agricultural and food trade deficits. Rome, FAO. 89 pp. http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2497e/i2497e00.pdf

Ricciardi, V., Ramankutty, N., Mehrabi, Z., Jarvis, L. & Chookolingo, B. 2018. How much of the world’s food do smallholders produce? Global Food Security, 17: 64–72.

Rose, D.C. & Chilvers, J. 2018. Agriculture 4.0: broadening responsible innovation in an era of smart farming. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 2: 1–7.

Rotz, S., Duncan, E., Small, M., Botschner, J., Dara, R., Mosby, I., Reed, M. & Fraser, E.D.G. 2019. The politics of digital agricultural technologies: a preliminary review. Sociologia Ruralis, 59(2): 203–229.

Schurman, R. 2017. Building an alliance for biotechnology in Africa. Journal of Agrarian Change, 17(3): 441–458.

Sen, A. 1981. Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264235410-en

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264235410-en

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264235410-en

http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ca4076en

http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ca4076en

http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2497e/i2497e00.pdf




47

Shaw, J. 2007. World Food Security. A History since 1945. Springer.

Smith, M.R. & Myers, S.S. 2018. Impact of anthropogenic CO2 emissions on global human nutrition. Nature Climate Change, 8: 834–839.

Swinburn, B. et al. 2019. The global syndemic of obesity, undernutrition and climate change: The Lancet Commission report”, The Lancet. 393(10173): 791–846.

Thow A.M., Fanzo, J. & Negin, J. 2016. A systematic review of the effect of remittances on diet and nutrition. Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 37(1): 42–64.

Torero, M. 2016. Alternative mechanisms to reduce food price volatility and price spikes: Policy responses at the global level.” In Food Price Volatility and Its Implications for Food Security and Policy, edited by M. Kalkuhl, J. von Braun, and M. Torero, 115–38. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

UNDESA. 2019. World Population Prospects. Total population by sex. https://population.un.org/wpp/DataQuery/ (accessed on 21/01/20)

UNGA (United Nations General Assembly).1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 10 December 1948, General Assembly resolution 217 A. Paris. https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

UNGA (United Nations General Assembly). 2018. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 17 December 2018, A/RES/73/165. New York, USA. https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/73/165

UN (United Nations).1966. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx

UN (United Nations). 1996. Rome Declaration on World Food Security. Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/w3613e/w3613e00.htm

UN (United Nations). 2019a. Sustainable Development Goals. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300

UN (United Nations). 2019b. Special edition: progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals: Report of the Secretary-General https://undocs.org/E/2019/68

USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 2019. 2017 Census of Agriculture. AC-17-A-51. Washington, DC, USDA. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/usv1.pdf

Webb, P., Coates, J., Frongillo, E, Rogers, B., Swindale, A, & Bilinsky, P. 2006. Measuring household food insecurity: Why it’s so important and yet so difficult to do. The Journal of Nutrition 136 (5): 1404S-1408S.

Weersink, A., Fraser, E., Pannell, D., Duncan, E. & Rotz, S. 2018. Opportunities and challenges for big data in agricultural and environmental analysis. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 10(1): 19–37.

Weis, T. 2007. The global food economy: the battle for the future of farming. New York, Zed Books.

Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., Garnett, T. et al. 2019. Food in the anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet, 393(10170): 447–492.

Wolfert, S., Ge, L., Verdouw, C. & Bogaardt, M-J. 2017. Big data in smart farming - a review. Agricultural Systems, 153: 69–80.

https://population.un.org/wpp/DataQuery/

https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/73/165



http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx




https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300



https://undocs.org/E/2019/68

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/usv1.pdf




48

World Bank. 1986. Poverty and hunger: issues and options for food security in developing countries. A World Bank Policy Study. Washington, DC, World Bank.

World Bank. 2020. Global Growth Prospects: Slow Growth, Policy Challenges. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/global-economic-prospects

World Bank. 2019. World Development Indicators. Retrieved from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator

WTO (World Trade Organization). 2018. World trade statistical review 2018. Geneva, WTO. 213 pp. https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/wts2018_e/wts2018_e.pdf

https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/global-economic-prospects

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator

https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/wts2018_e/wts2018_e.pdf

Documents

Food security and nutrition: building a global narrative ...assets.fsnforumhlpe.fao.org.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/... · 2/23/2020 · V0 DRAFT REPORT # 15 – GLOBAL NARRATIVE