UNSG Antonio Guterres convened the first-ever UN Food Systems Summit which took place on 23-24 September. The Summit preparation had a well-designed structure with remarkable and appreciated leadership of Amina Mohammed, UN DSG. Due to the hard work of the UN Special Envoy, Agnes Kalibata, and her whole Team, the organisation and logistics of the Summit was excellent.

The Summit’s main outcome is the Secretary-General’s Chair Summary and Statement of Action, “calling on the world to keep its promises for a better future through food systems that work for people, planet and prosperity”. This Statement was not negotiated in an inter-governmental process and it is not legally binding. Still, it has a series of powerful messages trying to orient stakeholders in their policy decisions.

In order to involve the broader public and to bring together a diversity of stakeholders, Food Systems Summit Dialogues were proposed. National Dialogues were organized by governments, but also regional and global dialogues were held in order to align with global events on major issues like climate, environment, health, economies and jobs, humanitarian aid and water. The Synthesis Reports analyse the outcomes of 850+ Dialogues, in which 100,000 people from around the world participated.

In spite of its virtual setting, the Summit gathered 37,000 registered delegates and was viewed by more than 50,000 people from 193 countries. 165 Member States delivered statements, 78 of which were delivered by Heads of State or Government, clearly confirming that the Summit was very much timely and relevant. To share an overview of the engagement process and the richness of findings, knowledge generated in the lead up to the Summit, a Food Systems Summit Compendium was posted online.

Considering these impressive figures, the Summit seems to be a huge success. In fact, it had a number of positive outcomes, but the most important achievement is that the Summit took place and generated a lot of insightful discussions at local, national and global level.

Was the Summit a real success? Was it a Breakthrough or a Missed Opportunity? It was undoubtedly a success from the above perspective, but looking at some details below, the picture is more complex and nuanced.

1. The Summit was not sufficiently inclusive, important stakeholders were not around the table, such as organisations representing hundreds of millions of the rural poor, including smallholders, family farmers, indigenous peoples’ groups and many others. The Summit had a “Top-down” start and the whole process remained influenced by powerful groups’ interests.

2. A Scientific Group was created with a number of outstanding professionals to provide inputs and advice to the Summit process by channelling in a wide range of relevant scientific knowledge. It was unfortunate that the composition of the Scientific Group was unbalanced with mainly natural/technological scientists and economists and almost completely missing social scientists.

3. The Summit has not clearly identified and adequately addressed the root causes. For example poverty and inequalities, along with the rights-based approach, have not received sufficient attention during the Summit process.

4. As a matter of fact, corporations control an increasing share of resources and use their power to influence policy decisions. (Although Jeffrey Sachs eloquently said at the Pre-Summit: “…behave, pay your taxes, and follow the rules. That’s what businesses should do.”…). This conflict of interest, and the existing power imbalances in favour of multinationals, are major obstacles to transformation. Still, this has not been addressed at all at the Summit.

5. The most important missing element is the absence of a call for an overall sustainability assessment, based on evidence and neutral science. These assessments, following the principle of True Costs Accounting, could cover all positive and negative externalities of all food systems and quantify them. Results of these assessments should be given due considerations by policy makers while preparing appropriate incentives for sustainable solutions and for repurposing subsidies (currently provided mainly to unsustainable models).

6. As a great achievement, a series of local and national commitments and various coalitions of action have been launched, but the Summit has eventually failed to provide global guidance. Even if a single corporation wished to transform its food systems to become sustainable, it will not put at the risk its competitiveness.

7. In the follow-up FAO, IFAD and WFP should have a prominent role, but food systems transformation is a much broader issue than their areas of competence. The UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS) was created exactly for that kind of purpose. It is the foremost inclusive, multistakeholder body, providing possibilities also for UNEP, WHO, ILO along with the private sector, civil society and academia to discuss the way forward and to report to FAO and to ECOSOC. Furthermore, the CFS HLPE is there to provide neutral, science-based analysis, assessments and reporting. Instead of creating new science-policy interface.

All in all, the Summit was a success, but definitely not the desired breakthrough. Rather, this Summit proved to be a Missed Opportunity, due to the lack of global policy guidance and due to ignoring some key issues. It can only be hoped that a more inclusive follow-up will help bring the process back to the right track.

Zoltán Kálmán
Retired Ambassador, Former Permanent Representative of Hungary to FAO, IFAD, WFP. Member of the UNFSS Advisory Committee (2020-2021)

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By Zoltán Kálmán
ROME, Jun 9 2021 (IPS)

In three cycles I spent all together more than 15 years in Rome, at the Permanent Representation of Hungary to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) and between my last two assignments in Rome my responsibilities in Budapest included FAO related issues. This made it possible for me to witness the development of this organization under the leadership of four Directors-General. Edouard Saouma, Jacques Diouf, Jose Graziano da Silva and Qu Dongyu. This long association and “historic” view of FAO would definitely help me in fulfilling the role of the Independent Chairperson of the Council of FAO (ICC). As conventional wisdom suggests, in order to make good decisions for the future we need to know, understand and learn from the past. The Independent External Evaluation, commissioned by the FAO Council in 2004, was an important milestone in this regard. It was followed by inclusive discussions among FAO Members about the recommendations and finally an Immediate Plan of Action was adopted by the FAO Conference. It was the most significant reform in FAO and I had the privilege to contribute to this process.

Inclusivity is the key for successful accomplishment of the tasks of ICC. This requires real, meaningful consultations both among the Membership and with the Management. I believe the practice of inclusive consultations and dialogues taking place at the World Food Programme could be considered as a good example. I had the honour to be Member of the WFP Executive Board between 2015-2020; served as Vice-President in 2017 and elected President of the Board in 2018. The inclusive, transparent and efficient working methods of the WFP EB are greatly appreciated generally by the Membership. No need to simply “copy and paste” the WFP model, but some of these working methods could be successfully applied at FAO as well, including the disciplined time-management, which could be achieved through inclusive preparatory consultations and jointly established rules.

According to my vision the position of Independent Chair implies certain authority and power, and I think this should be used for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the FAO Council. But in my interpretation the role of ICC is first and foremost a SERVICE. This service includes representing Members’ interests and assisting Membership to better exercise their functions, guiding discussions and building consensus. I have no hidden agenda to push for any particular interests of countries, regions or lobby groups. I cannot claim that I am a candidate of the EU, although many EU countries support my candidacy. Similarly, I am not a candidate of the European Region or the OECD, although I count on significant support from these groups of countries. I am simply a candidate from Hungary, but I would be Independent Chair of all FAO Members, representing the interests of all of them, independently, irrespective of the size, geographic location, political orientation, economic model or level of development of the countries. Transparency, independence, neutrality and impartiality are not just nice sounding words to me. I take these principles seriously as I did when I was President of the WFP EB. As a retiree, I would be qualified to accomplish the duties and tasks of ICC in a fully independent manner, in line with the spirit of the recommendations of the Independent External Evaluation (IEE).

Inclusivity means that I listen to all Members both at official meetings and informal discussions, with my door always open. Inclusivity would require efforts for a more active involvement of all countries while better engaging even those with small missions and limited capacities. Inclusivity also means full respect for multilingualism and due attention to the specificities of countries and regions.

In the past few decades I participated in many meetings, sometimes making tough discussions and I always have been constructive, finding solutions and reaching consensus through dialogues. I am grateful for the opportunity to learn a lot during my assignments in Rome and I am strongly motivated to make the best possible use of my past experience, for the benefit of FAO. Originally it was not my personal career ambition to become ICC. Rather, the most important motivating factor for me was the inspiration and encouragement of Permanent Representative colleagues from all regions, particularly from developing countries. In fact, a number of colleagues and friends from various regions approached me and encouraged me to consider applying, based on my background and experience, including as successful President of the WFP EB. This inspired me immensely and I am grateful for all the encouragement and also for the significant support to my election bid already received from many countries from all regions.

The priority areas to be discussed at FAO Council are included in FAOs Programme of Work and Budget, Medium Term Plan or Strategic Framework. I only wish to highlight 2 very important challenges ahead of us. First, food security for all, particularly in countries seriously affected by the COVID pandemic. Second, sustainable agriculture and food systems, with due attention to all 3 dimensions of sustainability. Naturally, the Independent Chair can have his own programme priorities, but these are discussed among the Memberships of all FAO governing bodies and a decision is taken by consensus. All these issues are also discussed with the FAO DG and the Management, with clear and distinct roles and responsibilities. FAO Members, through the governing bodies, can provide strategic policy guidance to the Management regarding the principles and priority areas to be followed, in line with the SDGs. The technical details on HOW to implement the programmes, remains to the highly professional Management and Staff of FAO. The overall management of FAO is the responsibility of the Director General of FAO. With the new leadership style of DG Qu Dongyu we are confident that he will continue to introduce positive changes, appreciating and motivating the staff, who are the greatest assets of this important Organization. He will definitely continue the tradition of listening to the views of the FAO Membership and respecting the guidance provided by the governing bodies. This will help him in his efforts to make FAO more efficient and effective, contributing to achieving Zero Hunger.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

SOFI launch event. Credit: FAO

By Zoltán Kálmán
ROME, Sep 3 2020 (IPS)

Five years after the adoption of the 2030 Agenda we are far from achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). According to the recently launched SOFI Report (The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020), we are not on track to eradicate poverty, hunger and malnutrition. On the contrary, with the current trends, the global number of undernourished people in 2030 would exceed 840 million. Moreover, WHO has reported alarming rates of overweight and obesity, globally affecting 39% and 13% of the adult population, respectively.

What are the reasons?

The SOFI Report identifies conflicts and climate-related shocks as main causes, adding that even in peaceful settings, food security has worsened, due to increased inequalities and economic slowdowns affecting access to food for the poor. Unhealthy diets contribute to increasing rates of overweight and obesity, creating serious social, health problems, triggering heavy burden on public health expenditures. Our broken food systems have negative impacts on the environment as well, leading to biodiversity loss, soil degradation, increased GHG emissions, etc. Food losses and waste, as preventable consequences of unsustainable food systems, are also contributing to food insecurity. This year’s SOFI Report makes a clear reference to some of the externalities, the so-called “hidden” costs of our food systems. It quantifies the increased medical costs: Diet-related “health costs are projected to reach an average of USD 1.3 trillion in 2030” and the costs of climate damage: “The diet-related social cost of GHG emissions related to current food consumption patterns are estimated to be around USD 1.7 trillion for 2030 for an emissions-stabilization scenario”. In addition, the costs of inaction on biodiversity loss, described by a recent OECD report, should also be taken into consideration: “The world lost an estimated USD 4-20 trillion per year in ecosystem services from 1997 to 2011, owing to land-cover change and an estimated USD 6-11 trillion per year from land degradation.”

The shocking figures confirm the urgent need for an overall assessment of all positive and negative externalities of our food systems. Results of this assessment, based on neutral science, could be a solid foundation for policy decisions to elaborate and apply appropriate policy incentives aiming at more sustainable food systems. Scientists agree that transforming our food systems is among the most powerful ways to change course and realize the vision of the 2030 Agenda. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that in 2021, UN Secretary-General António Guterres will convene a Food Systems Summit as part of the Decade of Action to achieve the SDGs by 2030. As UNSG said: “Transforming food systems is crucial for delivering all the Sustainable Development Goals.”

According to the concept of the Summit “we are all part of the food systems, so we need to come together to bring about the transformation that the world needs”. Transformation of our food systems should be a bottom-up, inclusive process, where all stakeholder groups are involved: FAO and other UN organizations, governments, local communities, private sector, civil society, academia, famers’ associations. In this regard, the unique, inclusive and multistakeholder model of the UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS) could apply. The reports of the High Level Panel of Experts are valuable, relevant instruments and the CFS policy recommendations and other CFS “products” (adopted by consensus) can also provide proper guidance for governments and all other stakeholders in their policy decisions.

To enhance the role of private sector in the process of transforming our food systems, it is much appreciated that the new management of FAO decided to prepare a revised strategy for the private sector engagement, following the recommendations of FAO governing bodies.

From FAO Members’ perspective, the basic values such as transparency, accountability, inclusivity, neutrality and independence and regular impact assessments could be guiding principles of the new FAO private sector engagement strategy. For the sake of transparency and accountability, it would be desirable to make available some basic information on existing private sector partnerships (main objectives, the financial and non-financial contributions, etc.). Naturally, it requires the (hopefully granted) consent of the private sector partners. What does it mean if they do not agree? It might mean there is something to hide and this lack of transparency would be a matter of serious concern.

FAO has an important role and responsibility to ensure, as honest broker, that private sector partnerships follow the principle of inclusivity, address the real needs of people and contribute to eliminating poverty and hunger. FAO should guarantee the participatory and needs-based approach and make sure that all private sector investment projects and initiatives are developed in consultation and close collaboration with national governments, local communities, civil society organisations and farmers’ associations. This would increase ownership of the rural communities. In addition, FAO could help countries with policy advice to create the enabling economic policy environment where private sector finds its profit interests while the investments are serving the needs of the local communities, contributing to their development.

Neutrality and independence of FAO has been a great value and it should be preserved, in particular when private sector engagement is extended to fields like policy dialogue, norms and standard setting. In this regard, appropriate process for selecting partners should be in place to reduce and manage any potential risks (conflicts of interests, reputational risks, interference in standard setting, etc.).

In addition, compliance with CFS policy recommendations and other CFS “products”, such as the RAI principles and the Voluntary Guidelines on Land Tenure (VGGT), could be a prerequisite for private sector partners wishing to engage in partnership with FAO. Why? Because CFS “products” are relevant instruments, they can guide governments and all other stakeholders in their policy decisions. CFS “products” are adopted by consensus, after inclusive, multistakeholder discussions, including by the Private Sector Mechanism at CFS. Compliance with the CFS VGGT is a rather serious issue, statistical figures clearly show that in many parts of the world land grabbing situation has been worsening also in the past decade.

In order to improve efficiency and effectiveness of private sector partnerships, it is essential to regularly assess their impacts, possibly involving external, independent experts. Appropriate benchmarks should be in place to understand the extent to which the private sector partnerships contribute to the achievement of SDGs, in particular SDG 1 and 2, eliminating poverty and achieve zero hunger. Based on these assessments, private sector partnerships performing well should be scaled up, and those with poor results should be improved or terminated.

All in all, private sector has an essential role to play (engaged with due respect to the above principles) to achieve the common goals. As Agnes Kalibata, UN Special Envoy for the 2021 Food Systems Summit has put it: “We believe in a world where healthy, sustainable and inclusive food systems allow people and planet to thrive. It is a world without poverty or hunger, a world of inclusive growth, environmental sustainability, and social justice. It is a resilient world where no one is left behind.”

Excerpt:

By Zoltán Kálmán
ROME, May 26 2020 (IPS)

Hunger and food insecurity continue to rise. The official 2019 statistics refer to 821 million people suffering from hunger all over the world. According the recently launched Global Report on Food Crises, there are further 135 million people facing crisis levels of hunger or worse. WFP estimates that due to the impacts of COVID19, additional 130 million people could be pushed to the brink of starvation by the end of 2020. This means a total increase of 265 million people. If there will be no appropriate and urgent actions, “we could be facing multiple famines of biblical proportions within a short few months”, said David Beasley, WFP Executive Director, addressing the UN Security Council on 21st April.

The most important drivers are conflicts, weather extremes and economic shocks, and all linked directly to extreme poverty and inequalities. This alarming situation is aggravated by and strongly interlinked with unsustainable practices in agriculture. Land use/cover change, environmental pollution, climate change are important drivers of biodiversity loss and soil degradation. Food losses and waste, diet-related health impacts are further undesired consequences of unsustainable food systems.

Transition to more sustainable food systems could be an adequate response to these challenges. Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals including the zero hunger target is still possible but it would require urgent and coordinated efforts. There is a growing consensus that transition to more sustainable food systems is indispensable and requires innovations.

Transition should start with the sustainability assessment of current food systems, including the economic dimension of sustainability. In this regard, we should bear in mind that economic viability is largely determined by policy incentives. Governments worldwide spend around USD 700 billion (OECD Economic Outlook 2019) every year on farm support, contributing to the profitability of the food systems and the farming methods applied. As a result, in many countries of the world, unsustainable, input intensive industrial, monoculture farming has become profitable. However, science can demonstrate that with a levelled playing field, sustainable approaches and practices would be economically viable and competitive alternatives. This becomes even more obvious if we apply the “true cost accounting” principle and internalise all positive and negative environmental and social externalities. To reverse the negative trends and to make food production more sustainable, appropriate and evidence-based policy incentives are required to promote and favour sustainable and innovative solutions.

In agriculture “innovation is an imperative” but it should not be considered as an objective itself. Innovation should rather serve as means to reach our shared goals: to eliminate poverty and hunger and respond to the challenges listed above. Therefore, we should ensure that innovations are available, accessible and affordable also in the most remote areas, and for the poorest of the poor. In the least developed countries priority should be given to those innovations that are focusing on the basic needs. In any way, innovations should be inclusive and follow the participatory approach. National priorities should be respected and development proposals should be elaborated together with local communities, to improve their livelihood, including through alternative farm- and non-farm employment opportunities (in food processing, services, etc.). Sustainable innovative approaches, such as agroecology, are inclusive, rely on traditional knowledge and apply the most advanced, objective science and most up-to-date innovations and technologies. The Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System (GIAHS) is an evidence of the feasibility and usefulness of combining traditional knowledge and innovation. Artificial intelligence (AI), digitalisation, precision agriculture, drones, satellites, smart phones and many other innovations could be supportive of agroecology and have a role in optimizing food chains, managing water resources, fighting pests and diseases, tackling desert locust upsurge, monitoring forests, increasing preparedness of farmers when disasters strike, etc. Regarding artificial intelligence, it is appreciated that FAO Director-General Qu Dongyu has recently taken an important step by signing the Rome Call for AI Ethics, emphasizing the need to “minimize the new technology’s risks while exploiting its potential benefits”.

Innovations, according to past and present prevailing practice, have been focusing on how to produce more, how to get higher yields, how to increase productivity, etc. These are all important, but we need to bear in mind that we already produce enough food for the whole world. More than one third of the food produced is lost or wasted, provoking unnecessary (and avoidable) environmental impacts of food production.

Departing from the past, innovations should focus on the real problems and offer solutions to current challenges of preserving biodiversity, restoring soil fertility, reduce pollution, modernise rural infrastructure and reduce the digital divide, preserve and create rural jobs, improve education, reduce food losses and waste, etc. All having essential role in achieving the basic objectives: eliminate poverty and hunger.

Innovations, including biotechnological methods, should be sustainable. Great majority of broadly accepted and applied biotechnological methods (fermentation, cheese making, etc.) are considered appropriate from sustainability point of view, while others (such as genetic modification – GM) are contentious. In addition to the human health concerns related to the GM crops, the undesired impacts of monoculture cropping on soils and on biodiversity and the seed- and other input supply dependency for farmers, particularly smallholder family farmers, justify following the precautionary principle. In this regard, independent and neutral scientific research should help all countries and all farmers to understand the potential risks and benefits of GM crops. There is no “one size fits all” solution, therefore, farmers should be in a position to take a free and informed decision and choose to produce them or not. While providing policy advice to countries, FAO, as a knowledge-based UN technical agency should continue to follow this approach and neither promote nor speak against producing GM crops. To maintain its credibility and independence, FAO should continue to generate and disseminate neutral scientific evidence on this complex and contentious issue.

Sustainable innovations, such as agroecology, could contribute to economic viability, provide appropriate solutions to many of the environmental challenges and are socially inclusive, addressing rural employment and livelihood. This is particularly relevant in Africa, where in some countries 60-80% of the population live in rural areas and their livelihood is based on agriculture.

It is important to note, however, that developed countries would also need to transform their food systems, making them more sustainable, applying sustainable innovations. In this regard, it is remarkable that the European Commission has proposed the innovative Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally friendly food system and the EU Biodiversity Strategy to bring nature back into our lives, preserving and restoring ecosystems and biodiversity. The two strategies are at the heart of the European Green Deal and are “mutually reinforcing, bringing together nature, farmers, business and consumers for jointly working towards a competitively sustainable future“.

Excerpt:

By Zoltán Kálmán
ROME, Feb 10 2020 (IPS)

Reducing poverty and inequalities, eliminating hunger and all forms of malnutrition and achieve food security for all – these are some of the most important objectives of the Sustainable Development Goals. Still, the rate of poverty and inequalities is increasing and over 820 million people are going hungry. In addition, 2 billion people in the world are food insecure with great risk of malnutrition and poor health. This alarming situation is further aggravated by current trends such as the rate of population growth, impacts of climate change, loss of biodiversity, soil degradation and many others. Transition to more sustainable food systems can provide adequate solutions to all these challenges. Pulses could play an important role in this transition, having nutritional and health benefits, low environmental footprint, and positive socio-economic impacts as well. What is required to promote and support the production and consumption of more pulses? This question is particularly relevant now, since 10 February is the World Pulses Day.

Following the successful implementation of the International Year of Pulses (IYP) 2016, the Government of Burkina Faso took the initiative and proposed the establishment of World Pulses Day (WPD). Under Resolution A/RES/73/251, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) designated 10 February as World Pulses Day to reaffirm the contribution of pulses for sustainable agriculture and achieving the 2030 Agenda. WPD is a new opportunity to heighten public awareness of the multiple benefits of pulses. Pulses are more than just nutritious seeds, they contribute to sustainable food systems and a ZeroHunger world. The UNGA has invited FAO, in collaboration with other organizations, to facilitate the observance of WPD.

The topic of this year’s WFD celebration is “Plant proteins for a sustainable future”. According to FAO data, pulses are an important source of plant-based protein, providing on average two to three times more protein than staple cereals such as rice and wheat on a gram-to-gram basis. Additionally, the amino acids found in pulses complement those found in cereals. Protein is crucial for physical and cognitive development during childhood. Pulses are nutrient-dense, providing substantial amounts of micronutrients that are essential for good health. They are a good source of iron and can play an important role in preventing iron deficiency anaemia. They also provide other essential minerals such as zinc, selenium, phosphorous and potassium and are an important source of B vitamins, including folate (B9), thiamine (B1) and niacin (B3). The high B vitamin content of some pulses is of particular benefit during pregnancy as it supports the development of the foetus’ nerve function.

Pulses have a number of well-known agronomic benefits as well. They can fix nitrogen, improving soils’ organic content and reduce fertilizer needs, thus contributing to mitigating climate change impacts. Pulses increase productivity through appropriate crop rotation or intercropping. Producing a wide variety of pulses has an important role in preserving biodiversity. Pulses have very low water footprint, which is an essential feature particularly in dry areas.

These are well-known scientific and empirical evidences and I think we can simply say pulses are good both for the health of people and for the health of the planet.

Pulses are important also from socio-economic point of view, including income diversification, providing employment opportunities, improving livelihood in rural areas, etc.

Having all the nutritional and health benefits, having a numerous positive agronomic impacts, as well as the favourable socio-economic implications, why pulses do not have appropriate place in our production and consumption patterns? I can give you my answer: because of the lack of appropriate policy environment for the production and consumption of pulses.

As we know, farmers, in particular family farmers are the producers of our food and they are the best custodians of our land and other natural resources, including biodiversity, to preserve them for future generations. Family farmers have the traditional knowledge and experience, combined with innovative solutions to do farming sustainably. At the same time, farmers are also very clever and smart: their decisions to follow one or another farming method depends on the profit they can realize. To some extent farmers’ profit is linked to the markets, but their profit is mainly the consequence of governments’ policies, to provide subsidies (or policy incentives) to orient farmers’ choices, to ensure the economic viability of farming.

It is generally accepted that governments provide policy incentives to shape their food systems, including orienting farmers’ and consumers’ choices. The important question is whether the appropriate food systems are promoted and supported by these incentives?

As a current prevailing practice, high percentage of farm subsidies supports unsustainable, input-intensive, monoculture farming, with all the well-known negative consequences (biodiversity loss, soil degradation, etc.).

On the other hand, policy incentives can and should promote sustainable solutions, better reflecting the real interests and priorities of governments to preserve soil health and biodiversity, through crop diversification, including the production of a variety of pulses.

To take the right decisions policy makers should be provided with appropriate information, giving due attention to all the positive and negative impacts (the so-called environmental and human health externalities) of the various food systems. These externalities are translated in dollar terms and there are existing scientific studies showing the real costs of environmental damage and the enormous costs of public health expenditure in national budgets, as a consequence of unsustainable food systems.

This true cost accounting principle, based on solid scientific evidence, provides a good basis for taking appropriate decisions which food systems (including production and consumption patterns) should be promoted by national policy incentives. While providing assistance and policy advice to countries, UN organizations (including FAO) should pay due attention to the real costs of food and suggest national policy makers to support and promote sustainable solutions, including the production and consumption of pulses.

Pulses should also receive appropriate attention during the elaboration of the Voluntary Guidelines on Food Systems and Nutrition. This process is going on now, and the Guidelines will be adopted in October this year by the Committee of World Food Security (CFS).

It would also be desirable if the Food System Summit in 2021 could help promote pulses as important elements for the transition towards more sustainable food systems.

Excerpt:

By Zoltán Kálmán
ROME, Aug 28 2019 (IPS)

The right to food is a universal human right. Yet, over 820 million people are going hungry, according the latest edition of the State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World (SOFI 2019). In addition, 2 billion people in the world are food insecure with great risk of malnutrition and poor health” ¹.

Another report ² describes the situation even more worrying: “At the global level, one person in three is malnourished today and one in two could be malnourished by 2030 in a business-as-usual scenario. While hunger remains a critical concern, malnutrition in all its forms (undernutrition, micronutrient deficiencies, overweight and obesity) now affects all countries, whether low-, middle- or high-income. Those different forms of malnutrition can co-exist within the same country or community, and sometimes within the same household or individual.”

Against this backdrop, the UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS) ³, which is, at the global level, the foremost inclusive and evidence-based international and intergovernmental platform for food security and nutrition (FSN), requested a High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) ⁴ to prepare a report on nutrition and food systems. The comprehensive HLPE report ⁵ is the basis for a series of inclusive, multi-stakeholder discussions at global and regional levels, including e-consultations, to provide inputs for shaping the Voluntary Guidelines (VGs) on Food Systems and Nutrition.

The zero draft ⁶ of the VGs provides a comprehensive overview on the situation of food security and nutrition. However, among the causes of malnutrition, appropriate reference to the root causes is still missing: poverty and inequalities. Due to their extreme poverty, many people do not have access to enough nutritious food, although it should not be a privilege, it is a basic human right. This confirms the need for transformation of our current food systems and make them more sustainable.

One basic problem is the misconception of low food price policy. The impacts of low food prices on the consumers’ behaviour are significant, including their buying preferences. The situation of “low food prices” appears to be the result of competition among retailers and as such, they seem to be positive, favouring the poor people. In reality, all people, including the poor, suffer the consequences of low food prices, which regularly mean low quality of food. Low quality, ultra-processed food (frequently with high fat, sugar and salt content, the so-called junk food) have serious consequences on the nutrition status of the poor populations, leading to obesity, overweight and other non-communicable diseases. Food prices generally do not reflect the real costs of production, ignore the positive and negative impacts (externalities) of food systems on the environment and on human health.

For the right decisions to transform our current food systems, true cost accounting is essential, giving due consideration to all environmental and human health externalities. This could help shape the VGs, recommending appropriate measures, policy incentives in support of sustainable solutions. There are ample scientific evidences related to the true costs of food and there are several studies ⁷ available on this topic.

In addition, artificially distorted, low food prices have a strong impact on the food waste as well. Cheap food conveys the message that it does not represent a real value and consumers will throw away food more easily. Higher food prices (reflecting the true costs of food) would discourage consumers to buy more than they effectively need. Realistic prices of food do not imply generally high food prices. Only the prices of those (ultraprocessed, junk) food would go up which do not internalize the environmental and public health externalities. Studies show that as a result of true cost accounting, locally produced, fresh, healthy, unprocessed (whole) food would become more competitive, for the benefit of those who produce them, and in particular, the consumers and the whole society. The solution for the poor is not cheap food, but decent work and wages, essential to combat extreme poverty. In addition, the costs of decent wages are much lower than the benefits of saving great amounts of public health care expenditure.

For the transformation of our food systems, sustainability should be the driving principle, paying due attention to the (so far ignored) environmental and social dimensions. Obviously, the economic dimension should also be considered, keeping in mind, however, that economic sustainability is nothing else but the result of the financial policy incentives or subsidies, promoting one or another type of food systems. In this regard, national legislators have enormous responsibility in providing the appropriate policy incentives to those food systems, which are sustainable. Sustainability addresses climate change adaptation and mitigation concerns as well, and goes well beyond, it provides adequate responses to a number of other environmental challenges (biodiversity loss, soil degradation) and to social issues as well, like rural employment.

The VGs are expected to provide assistance for the transformation of food systems and to make them more sustainable, in order to eliminate hunger and all forms of malnutrition and to supply fresh, diverse, nutritious food for a healthy diet for all.

¹ http://www.fao.org/publications/sofi/en/
² HLPE. 2017. 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, Rome.
³ http://www.fao.org/cfs/home/en/
⁴ http://www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe/en/
⁵ http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7846e.pdf/
⁶ http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/cfs/Docs1819/Nutrition/CFS_Zero_Draft_Voluntary_Guidelines_Food_Systems_and_Nutrition.pdf
⁷ http://www.fao.org/family-farming/detail/en/c/436356/; or http://teebweb.org/agrifood/measuring-what-matters-in-agriculture-and-food-systems/.

Excerpt: