Are there elements missing in the Zero Hunger Challenge and this consultation which should be included in the Dutch food security policy?
The consultation on Dutch food security policy was closed on September 15, 2014. The consultation was originally opened by the Food & Business Knowledge Platform on July 01, 2014. The purpose of the consultation was to ensure that the newest topics and debates on food security are included in the food security policy paper, which the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Economic Affairs will send to the Dutch Parliament at the end of this year.
On September 30, 2014, the F&BKP has published its final report (PDF), which has been sent to both ministries. All contributions posted during the consultation remain available online and can be downloaded in a document (PDF) with an easy search tool.
Please find below all input concerning the question: Are there elements missing in the Zero Hunger Challenge and this consultation which should be included in the Dutch food security policy? We thank all contributors for their participation and inspirational input.
Gender-inclusive green agriculture business models.There is a need for more attention and support to green agriculture business models. That is: models which enable and encourage farmers and their organisations as small and medium sized enterprises to develop businesses for
a. appropriate inputs and technologies for greening of agriculture, such as no-tillage planting machines, organic fertilisers, biological pesticides, seeds for cover crops, etcetera, and
b. businesses to make nutritious food available in the market for rural, peri-urban and urban consumers.
The innovation agenda to support these local green business models should be based on participatory gender inclusive mechanisms in the identification of bottlenecks and solutions. The new food security policy can get inspiration from the European CAP policy and Horizon 2020 on putting farmers in the driver’s seat to develop such innovation agendas, also for agricultural research and development.
Why a new Dutch Food and Nutrition Security Policy should invest more in improving governance
It is great to see how this consultation brings out a rich array of points of view, priorities and suggested lines of intervention to meet the targets set. It illustrates the firm commitment of national and international nongovernmental, academic and business partners of the Dutch government who take food security at heart. It also shows, as Hans Eenhoorn underlines, that perhaps it is not a lack of knowledge on how to secure food and nutrition for all that holds back global food and nutrition security. Mostly, we know what we have to do; we need to focus on getting it done. And the Netherlands with its strong track record on agriculture, trade, water, food and nutrition and on securing safe access for its people is expected to be a frontrunner. Not only because it is the right thing to do but certainly also because it is in our national political and economic interest to be at the frontline in this global effort.
But in a world where our sense of precariousness is on the rise, where global players test each other’s strengths and both economic and human development growth seems to slow down, what does this mean? If it is not a lack of knowledge on what to do that is hampering global food and nutrition security, what are the reasons it proves so difficult to achieve? I agree with the various other contributors who argue for a much more profound analysis of the root causes of the global lack of food and nutrition security. Are they located in fragility, civil war, as some imply? Or in the faulty implementation of known solutions, as many others seem to underline. Are they embedded in our global financial and economic system that allows for exclusion and speculation? Or is it our limited understanding of the political economy of food production, distribution and consumption, as others argue. Or is it the lack of stability and sustainability of our global food systems? Or the lack of understanding of what food and nutrition security actually means in practice? The answer will be different from one case to the other; the causes of food and nutrition insecurity will differ from community to community, from country to country, from region to region. Clearly, a new policy needs a clear understanding of what are the dominant causes of food and nutrition security at each level and needs to provide space for in-depth analysis and adaptation to specific local, national, regional and international demands and circumstances; based on a thorough analysis of the drivers of change, that is, the political economy that drives food and nutrition security in each case.
Another reminder that stands out from the contributions is that food and nutrition security is a complex problem, crossing many sectors, disciplines and policy areas and, intrinsically linked with the big challenges our industrial and developing societies face today. It prompts many contributors to suggest a more holistic, integrated approach based on well-specified targets. Many agree that ‘business as usual will not do’ and call for systemic change and transformation. As a result much attention is paid to the institutions that can make or break the effectiveness or sustainability of the system: Sidi Sanyang from the Africa Rice Centre, points out that technological change alone has not led to the necessary breakthrough; Jolanda Buter underlines traditional institutions, i.e. a strongly embedded endogenous business logic and ancient trade dynamics in Africa, that needs to be valued. Clear messages include the importance of transforming land and water governance and building effective, accountable agricultural and market institutions and a supportive institutional environment for farmers and other entrepreneurs to invest in technically and environmentally sound ways of production, transport and storage; not to mention the need for water, energy and nutrient efficient (smart) farming systems. An important innovation in the approach suggested by various authors is ‘nexus-thinking’, to stop thinking and working in silos and to connect the dots between nutrition and food, between the city’s demands and rural production potential, between agricultural, economic, environmental and social policies and practice, etc.
Clearly a new Food and Nutrition policy needs to invest in the governance and the transformation of key institutions, to help create en enabling institutional environment for diverse stakeholders to be able to improve food and nutrition security. We all know that an enabling business environment is crucial to help local small and medium businesses to flourish; the new policy should address that. We also know that lack of access to credit, knowledge and other essential inputs make it impossible for family farmers, mostly women, to modernize their farms, the new policy should be able to respond to that. And we know how excessive payments and waste of time at border posts hampers regional trade; the policy should support governments to do something about it. And the policy needs to set specific targets with regard to their joint impact on food and nutrition security to induce coherence between the policies and approaches pursued by different actors and sectors.
Many contributors also highlight the political dimensions of food and nutrition security. Clear links are made with growing inequalities and exclusion, i.e. Claudio Schuftan. Evelijne Bruning underlines the fact that the majority of the world’s hungry and extremely poor are women food farmers. They structurally lack fair access to resources, mobility and voice in decision-making, which they would need to be able to transform their businesses. David Sogger cites Olivier de Schutter, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, to call attention to the political economy of hunger and malnutrition. David Connolly and Agnese Macaluso underscore the relationship between hunger and violent conflict, pointing at the long term impact of deliberate starvation on food security and post-conflict transitions and, the lack of political will on the part of key actors to do something about it. Like the 2008 food riots in several African cities, the above observations help us understand that achieving global food and nutrition security is not just a technical, economic or environmental problem; it is certainly political problem too: almost every single recommendation contributed to this consultation requires systemic change, whether it is to include women and youth, to build sustainable value chains, to support small-holder farmers, to reduce food waste, or to change consumption patterns. And such a change touches the way our institutions, our nations, our regions and our globe are governed. In the ultimate instance, achieving global food and nutrition security depends on profound changes in our national, regional and global governance, both public and corporate.
A new Dutch policy on food and nutrition security therefore needs to propose an even more intense involvement of Dutch stakeholders in the final round of negotiations regarding the Post 2015 Sustainable Development Goals. Much has been accomplished but it’s not done yet. And this energy needs to focus not just on proposed Goal 2 to “End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture”, but also on Goal 16 to “Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, providing access to justice for all an build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels”. The Netherlands, home to the “Capital of Global Justice”, is in a good position but to do so, the realms of Justice, Governance and Food and Nutrition Security need to be more explicitly connected. In the meantime, Dutch stakeholders and their partners need to continue to address the political dimensions food and nutrition security and think of ways to help nudge national policymakers into adopting more inclusive and sustainable policies, at the very least in areas that affect food and nutrition security.
Let me close with some remarks on Europe. Valuable contributions have been made on the need to build support for global food and nutrition security into mainstream European policies. According to the Lisbon Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, such policies, like the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Agricultural Policy (CAP), Trade Policy, and Research and Innovation Policy, are held to contribute to the achievement of development objectives, such as poverty reduction and food and nutrition security, and to avoid working against these. But within Europe there is a long way to go before this will be fully implemented. During the latest CAP reform, despite repeated efforts, also by the Netherlands, to include it, not even the proposal to regularly monitor CAP effects on developing countries made it into the final text. So clearly, a new policy should include a continued, strong effort on the part of the Dutch government and other stakeholders to convince their European partners to implement the Lisbon Treaty to the letter in terms of food and nutrition security. But there is something else. Europe has successfully achieved its own food and nutrition security as a region. Are we drawing the lessons from that to inspire our international policies and strategies? For example, in Europe we have learned how to invest in market orientation and business innovation by family farmers and small and medium size enterprises in marginalized European areas to reinvigorate their local economies and provide job opportunities. Also, we have learned that to make agriculture more sustainable (green), even when all other dimensions for achieving food security are basically in place, is not just a need from an environmental perspective but also an opportunity for increasing the competitiveness of European agriculture. Therefore, during the last reform leading to the Common Agricultural Policy 2014-2020 it was decided to place “the joint provision of public and private goods at the core of the policy. Farmers should be rewarded for the services they deliver to the wider public, such as landscapes, farmland biodiversity, climate stability even though they have no market value. Therefore, a new policy instrument (…) (greening) is directed to the provision of environmental public goods, which constitutes a major change in the policy framework.” In fact the reform of the CAP seems to echo Jose Luis Vivero’s argument to treat “food as a commons”. Why, if we have learned these lessons in Europe, in development policy the overriding emphasis seems yet to be on treating food as a commodity?
So my last point addresses development studies. In Latin America, since many years local development programmes have reviewed and, where possible, have learned lessons from the implementation of the European CAP, Pillar II, Rural Development Programme in order to promote culturally inspired economic and social development in Latin America . Wouldn’t it be wise for development studies to invest more in the reflection and critical analysis of Europe’s own experience in securing food and nutrition for all? Not to transfer such experiences “lock, stock and barrel” to developing countries, of course not, and also not without a thorough understanding of the obvious differences in resources and context between Europe and developing regions. But wouldn’t it be worth trying to understand what made European national, regional and local governments, private sector entrepreneurs, farmers’ organizations, non-governmental organizations move to make this policy into a success? We have seen the importance of comparative policy analysis , may be some critical self-reflection might help as well?
Paul Engel
Director ECDPM
Chair Steering Committee Food and Business Knowledge Agenda
Respect for land rights, and promotion of responsible land governance is vital to global food security. The ILC estimated that almost 36 million hectares of land have been acquired by foreign investors between 2000-13. The potential benefits for rural populations of these investments are dubious, since the land deals are very often intended to produce for foreign food and biofuel markets, and moreover, it has been virtually impossible to identify acquisitions which were not subject to some kind of “land grabbing”, or unethical practices used in acquiring land. Rural populations (especially women and communities living under insecure tenure arrangements) are regularly losing out, often facing human rights violations in the process. As a result, they often end up losing access to the land they owned or used, which undermines their food security and livelihoods.
The Dutch government has been taking a pro-active stand on the issue. It has positively contributed to the development of the Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries, and Forests in the context of National Food Security (VGGTs), and the Dutch government is already on the forefront of their implementation. It is the first and so far only OECD country to hold a multi-stakeholder dialogue on the implementation of the VGGTs.
It is very important that the food security policy reflects this active stand. We would welcome a commitment of the Dutch government to a policy of “zero tolerance for land grabbing”. The VGGT’s should explicitly be mentioned as an overarching framework – together with the Voluntary Guidelines on the Right to Food – and food security related interventions should only take place in a way that supports and not undermines the intention of the VGGTs. Notably, it is important that the policy recognises flexible, diverse, periodic and overlapping tenure systems, including the commons. Food-related interventions should build on and strengthen community land rights as a safety net to adverse shocks, and ensure protection of tenure rights of indigenous peoples, pastoralists, fisher folk, and those using common pool resources.
The government also plays a role to ensure the Dutch private sector (including the financial sector) does not directly or indirectly contribute to land grabbing. It is therefore important that the Dutch food security policy recognises that the private sector must be encouraged to meet the following standards:
• When investing in agriculture, ensure credible steps are taken to avoid transfer of land rights away from communities, smallholders and other marginalised groups.
• Investments should empower small-scale food producers and their organizations, particularly women’s, to produce their own food, and participate in local food systems.
• Align with international best practices and standards, including ensuring that all affected communities have provided their FPIC before proceeding with any land-based investments.
Furthermore, the government should apply, as a minimum, the framework of the IFC’s performance standards in its support to the Dutch private sector and see to their implementation, not only for the DGGF, but more widely, as a matter of policy coherence.
Worldwide, most smallholder farmers use their own farm-saved seeds. In Africa this is as much as 80-90%. Smallholders tend to have little access to the formal seed system comprised of public and private research and breeder companies, who largely do not cater to the needs of smallholder farmers. Smallholder farmers engage in a dynamic and flexible “informal” seed system, actively exchanging seeds with each other. However, they often face problems regarding seed purity, health and degeneration, and unstable yields. They lack the continuous access to breeding materials, good quality seeds and markets which is necessary to adapt to ever changing agro-ecological and market conditions.
The seeds developed by formal systems tend to be geared to wide-scale adaptation for mono-cropping, often requiring (costly, unavailable) inputs of fertilizers, pesticides, reliable water (e.g. irrigation), and the seeds themselves (which often cannot be saved and reused). These inputs create dependence and are associated with economic risks (unfavourable markets, crop failure) and/or environmental risks (soil, water, biodiversity, climate). A further risk is loss of farmers’ varieties (genetic diversity) and associated farmers’ skills and knowledge. Thus smallholder farmers find themselves between a rock and a hard place, with a choice between often inadequate farm-saved seeds, or costly, risky, and/or irrelevant commercial seeds – if there is a choice at all.
The Dutch government can help by steering (national and international) public research towards supporting farmers’ seed systems, enabling farmers to access seeds, breeding materials and technologies and working towards integrated (formal/informal) seed systems whereby farmers participate in setting research agenda and implementation. For example, the formal systems should engage farmers in participatory breeding and variety selection programs to come to improved locally adapted varieties. However, funding for public breeding institutes has generally been inadequate and has decreased, and many institutes focus on commercial markets, including through partnerships with private companies.
Another challenge where the Netherlands can play an important role is in promoting the implementation of Farmers Rights. The International treaty on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (ITPGRFA) recognizes the contribution that local and indigenous communities and farmers of all regions of the world have made and will continue to make for the conservation and development of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). It also explicitly recognizes that member governments have the responsibility of realizing farmers’ rights. This includes the right to save, use, exchange and sell farm-saved seed/propagating material; the right to participate in decision making on matters related to the conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA; the right to participate in the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from, the use of plant genetic resources as well as protection of traditional knowledge relevant to PGRFA. It is important that implementation of farmers’ rights is not undermined by overly restrictive seed laws and plant variety protection laws, as may be the consequence of many new countries joining the international Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV).
The concept of food sovereignty or food democracy (Olivier de Schutter) is very appealing when it comes to realizing both food security and food safety worldwide. The concept has been developed by La Via Campesina, the international peasant movement. Food sovereignty implies the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food, produced in sustainable ways, and it also implies their right to define their own food and agriculture systems. It puts the aspirations and needs of those who produce and consume food at the heart of food systems and of food policies rather than the demands of international markets and large corporations.
Food sovereignty offers a system of producing food determined by local producers and users. It aims at empowerment of peasants and promotion of family farm-driven agriculture and pastoralist-led grazing, based on the principles of environmental, social and economic sustainability. Existing food systems are dominated by a relatively small number of major market actors that are very difficult to circumvent. Food sovereignty implies new social relations free of oppression and social inequality. It ensures that the rights to use and manage lands, waters, seeds, livestock and biodiversity are in the hands of those who produce food. It promotes transparent and fair trade, that guarantees just incomes to all producers as well as the rights of consumers to control their nutrition.
Food products and their components should be exempt from WTO trade regulations. Open borders as imposed by the WTO lead to volatile farm prices on the international markets that are often below the production costs. So family farms all over the world are jeopardised and consequently food security is jeopardised as well. Food sovereignty demands trade regulations that protect producers from the large corporations that now dominate the processing and distribution of food. Countries or groups of countries participating in trade agreements should be free, depending on their natural resources, to decide whether they produce certain foodstuffs themselves or import them, and to regulate imports and exports accordingly.
Export-driven agriculture policies in open markets are destructive for the food production capacity of less competitive countries. Not agribusiness and supermarket chains should determine food production policies but governments, producers and consumers. Some people call this protectionism but why shouldn’t we protect what is valuable and often defenseless?
It would be highly commendable for the Netherlands to demand a paradigm-change and to support the countries (mainly the least developed countries) that struggle against the WTO and free trade rules in international negotiations.
Apart from the earlier message about interconnectedness ( and thus coherency between the pillars), I would like to add the importance of coherency of the Dutch policies with Human Rights, particularly the Right to Adequate Food. Several other already referred to De Schutter last report in his capacity as Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food. I very much agree with those. In addition I would like to underline the importance of coherency with policies that are adopted in the Committee on World Food Security, the most inclusive platform to debate food and nutrition security. Netherlands should align its own policies.
It is important to make sure that the five pillars are interconnected and are not addressed in isolation. The idea is that the five pillars together contribute to zero hunger and good nutrition for all. Nutrition has a multi sectoral nature. Malnutrition can hardly be a program, but rather is an “ issue” that needs to be tackled through several areas of intervention supported by good policies- What kind of interventions are needed in the five pillars in order to improve nutrition: It is advisable to specify in each pillar how the proposed intervention or policy will address malnutrition (make them nutrition sensitive).
Still a lot of lessons need to be learned about how (combinations of) several interventions impact on nutrition, especially “nutrition sensitive interventions” . Therefore good monitoring is essential, so it is advisable that extra budget is reserved for rigorous monitoring systems and learning.
The positive effects of empowered women on food security, e.g. more food availability and more healthy children, get wider recognition. The World Bank rightly coined that ‘gender equality is smart economics’ (World Bank 2012). In their report the Bank calls upon the public sector and civil society, but also the Private Sector to contribute to gender equality. And many organizations are joining this call for action by the private sector. However, these insights are not really acted upon in private sector related programs.
I like to share some basic notes about at the nexus between ‘women’ and the ‘private sector’ and how a food security policy could take these insights in its program. Doing so could bring the desired action by the private sector closer.
While referring to ‘women’ and ‘business’, the paradigms and terms used are very different: ‘Women’ feature in a rights based & compliance perspective (’business should respect women’s human rights as workers or community members’). In the case of ‘business’ we hear about ‘business model, market share, FDI, job creation’, etc. and all in a gender-neutral way. Reference to ‘gender’ or ‘women’ only features in labor conditions; e.g. related to equal pay and health & safety.
This may be understandable, as the main driver of business is a commercial approach in which compliance to human rights standards is but one component. The different paradigm however leads to a situation in which appeals to business to pay more attention to women’s needs and interests, is often responded to by starting a ‘social project’.
Food security policies would be more effective if they build on the notion that there is a potential business case for the private sector to integrate the needs and interests of women in relation to food security in their business. In other words: if these try to blend the paradigms of ‘business’ and a ‘rights perspective’.
Some examples:
Policies can and should help to build such business cases in particular by:
• Adapting PSD instruments, from trade missions to development finance, in such a way that innovative products and services can be developed for women. This includes that the parameters of eligible types of businesses or entrepreneurs to receive support, needs to be modified;
• Developing programs for SME promotion take gender differences into account and are multidimensional. Women’s entrepreneurship promotion is often based on the assumption that access to finance automatically contributes to gender equality. A more comprehensive approach includes promotion of tailor-made coaching, supporting women’s business associations, or promoting affordable child care so that women can better manage their work and family-life responsibilities;
• Integrating topics that are key for women workers & staff, but cannot easily be addressed at the level of a single company, into programs for a better business climate & enabling environment. E.g. the need for adequate labor laws to include parental leave, management development or technical training for women so that they can grow to higher positions in a company or apprenticeship programs for young women.
Some prerequisites for policies to support ‘building the business case for women’ in Private Sector Development programs are:
We are trying to reach full food security for 9 billion people in 2050 in a world were trade in agricultural products is not too much regulated, were all citizens should be able to reach a Western consumption style, where natural resources like fossil fuels, water, fertile land and phosphate seem infinite, where we work together in PPP’s with multinationals in stead of establishing binding human rights – and environmental agreements, and where there is optimism that technology can solve a lot of problems including environmental restrictions.
As the Club of Rome predicted, and as was confirmed a few weeks ago, this is a fairy tale.
So I hope the Dutch government will also will recognize that business as usual is not option. However I am not optimistic, for example if I see how minister Ploumen and PvdA are supporting the current TTIP negotiations.
In my contributions at target 1, 3 and 4 I already gave some alternatives, with one goal: every enterprise, so also a small holder who produces food, needs a fair and stable price to guarantee sustainable production on the long term.
Further scarce natural resources need first to be used to for feeding the local, regional (eg the EU) and national population.
To make this possible we need structural changes of trade agreements, of World Bank and IMF policy and of European Common Agricultural Policy.
Finally I strongly agree with the following statements:
– WIJNHOUD & VAN PAASSEN (ActionAid)
“Reflections on Zero Hunger Targets approach and pillars of current Dutch Food Security policy”
We judge the WFP / FAO food security pillars are useful for policy-making. In that sense it was remarkable that the current Dutch Food Security Policy (2012-2015) did not use the same pillars. Instead it downplayed some of the more social dimensions such as “Risk coping mechanism as to guarantee stability and sustainability”. This is exactly the pillar that does address vulnerability and risks of food insecure and malnourished people. A pillar on ‘better business climate’ was introduced instead. (…) In addition, a more explicit human rights based approach (in line with FAO and UN initiatives) would strengthen Dutch food security policies and pillars in order to serve the ultimate objectives of food security and the right to food.
The following pertinent issues have not been covered or may easily be overlooked and disappear from the agenda:
• Power relations (imbalances), Political Economy & Political Analysis. The importance of political economy and politics is too much downplayed and if accepted it rarely translates into politically-informed programming (see also comment Herman Brouwer CDI-WUR)
• The roles and added value of respective segments within the private sector requires a realistic assessment (see comment Herman Brouwer, CDI-WUR) We are missing the Theory of Change as whether and how “trade for development” and “private sector development” guarantee food and nutrition security? There is a risk that many initiatives with social and environmental goals are becoming agribusiness promotion initiatives captured by large companies. Mainstream Value Chain Development and PPPs initiatives (see recent “Moral Hazard? OXFAM publication) are no Panacea for food and nutrition security.
• Avoid the “blind people and the elephant syndrome” meaning each stakeholder focusing within their niche, but without understanding the overall system complexity and therefore never being effective in transforming the (overall) system. This also exposes (foreign) investors and the private sector claiming to solve the food security and nutrition crisis without being acquainted with deprivation, local livelihood and food security challenges in a power-imbalanced globalizing world.
• The negative impacts of Structural Adjustment Policies and restrictions on investments in quality of public social and economic service delivery should not be underestimated. Also the shift to promotion of FDI and large-scale agriculture resulted in a near collapse of public agricultural research and extension systems. Moreover, corruption had and has a destructive effect on the quality of basic service delivery.
Gribnau (Hivos) “On youth and lack of representation”
There is much to learn about supporting dynamic traditional markets, and how to balance this support against modernization campaigns and high expectations from big business. What is lacking is the voice of smallholders in the debate, most of them are not formally organized, nor members of cooperatives or other formal economic organizations.
– HOGENHUIS (Oikos):
“No ‘zero hunger’ without addressing core systemic issues”
(..) the issue of landrights that seems to be more or less lacking in the goals and the comments.
However, a more important comment would be that what seems to be missing is the embedding of this food security and zero hunger theme in a broader framework of seriously and thoroughly realizing an equitable and sustainable economy world wide. A framework that addresses structural problems that have their negative impact on other issues than food (in)security as well, like climate change, regional conflicts about resources, low standards of health care in many regions etc. Here we can think of the global obsession with (financial) economic growth, the onesided way of measuring and comparing economic success (in terms of GDP), the imbalances in the global financial system with its fast financial mega transactions, the power imbalances that are sustained on this basis, the obsession with growth of productivity (per hour worked) which time and again renders people without work and income (for buying food!), the international competition for land and resources to secure healthy (?) national economies instead of working together for a truly healthy global economy, the disturbing power of multinationals, that can work for the common good but cannot be democratically controled to do so, etc. Hunger and poverty are the signs or even outcomes of extreme inequality and marginalisation. As long as these structural issues are not tackled head on, new extreme inequalities will develop again and again, resulting in new groups suffering from hunger and poverty. Zero hunger will then remain a permanent, and therefor an illusory, goal.
HIRSCH (BothENDS)
“Some serious concerns”
We have serious concerns about the fulfilment of the ministers’ commitment to talk with Olivier De Schutter (the former Special Rapporteur on the right to food) concerning the recommendations on the right to food he made during his mandate.
VIVERO POL (Universite Catholique de Louvain):
“A different narrative and ethical approach: food as a commons”
Concrete food-related proposals for the public good:
Firstly, a Universal Food Coverage could be engineered to guarantee a minimum amount of food to everyvbody, everywhere, everytime, similar to the Universal Health Coverage and the Universal Primary Education.
Secondly, patenting on living beings should be banned.
Thirdly, food speculation should be banned.
Another proposal is to take international food trade outside the World Trade Organization, as food cannot be considered like other commodities, due to its multiple dimensions for human beings. Along those lines, a different international Food Treaty shall be crafted, whereby countries abide by and respect some minimum standards in food production and trade. It should be a binding treaty.
Public-private partnerships (PPP) in the food sector are decision-making spaces for the private sector to influence policymakers in order to arrange a legal space which is conducive to profit-seeking. Since they are not meant to maximize the health and food security of the citizens but mainly to maximize profit-seeking, these PPPs should be restricted to operational arrangements but never to dealing with policy making or legal frameworks.
SOGGE (Independent researcher):
“Don’t Overlook Political Economy and Public Politics”
A year ago, in his final report to the United Nations General Assembly, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter, devoted a lot of attention to “the political economy questions that play such an important part in explaining the failure to achieve durable success in tackling hunger and malnutrition.” In setting forth his answers to those questions, he barely mentioned technology, science and markets. Using terms like access and entitlements he zeroed in on power and public politics, arguing that food security is achievable where “policies comply with the principles of participation, accountability, non-discrimination, transparency, human dignity, empowerment and the rule of law.”
A cursory look at your food security discussion up to now indicates that issues of political economy are hardly raised. But relative to their relevance and importance, issues of power and governance have been confined to the margins of the discussion thus far. A good example would be the book ‘The Global Land Grab’ by Annelies Zoomers and Mayke Kaag about needs for transparent and fair rules over land access. Could ‘public, democratic processes‘ be taken as Target 6?
Olivier De Schutter’s final report is not the only one underscoring this. A report published this month in Germany by Misereor, Brot für de Welt and Global Policy Forum places large question-marks next to current approaches to African food security based on business-led ‘multi-stakeholder’ models of governance. Those global governance models have been expertly analysed and shown to have very serious deficiencies in respect to “participation, accountability, non-discrimination, transparency, human dignity, empowerment and the rule of law.”
Three elements that we believe are missing and should be included in the new food security policy, are:
– A rights-based approach, putting the most affected people at the centre and addressing power imbalances and other underlying causes of malnutrition together with the unambiguous affirmation of the right to adequate food as the central pillar of policies and its profound interrelation with women’s and children’s rights and empowerment.
– Looking ahead and addressing the double burden of malnutrition; all questions are framed along the goals of the Zero Hunger Challenge. Now already, and more so in the near future, low income groups globally and particularly in LMLICs are suffering from diet-related illnesses such as diabetes, heart disease and certain types of cancers. International regulatory frameworks can help to reduce the availability of unhealthy foods.
– Ensure that focus is placed on tackling underlying causes of food/nutrition insecurity by improving global governance mechanisms and changing (governance and regulatory) structures by way of more attention for well-known Conflicts of Interests. The Dutch government can support the creation of enabling environments and assist national LMLICs governments to ensure that public policy space for nutrition is respected.
We have been wondering as why feedback and input is being collected per Zero Hunger Target and not per food security pillar instead. For instance targets 1 and 3 are very much overarching and appear to be pillars as such whereas target 2 is very specific. We judge the WFP / FAO food security pillars are useful for policy-making. In that sense it was remarkable that the current Dutch Food Security Policy (2012-2015) did not use the same pillars. Instead it downplayed some of the more social dimensions such as “Risk coping mechanism as to guarantee stability and sustainability”. This is exactly the pillar that does address vulnerability and risks of food insecure and malnourished people. A pillar on ‘better business climate’ was introduced instead. It was supposed to create synergy but also created confusion about the convergence of (and tension between) private sector development and food security objectives. We would propose to stick to existing FAO definitions and where business climate is addressed to ensure this favors (women) smallholders and micro and small businesses first. In addition, a more explicit human rights based approach (in line with FAO and UN initiatives) would strengthen Dutch food security policies and pillars in order to serve the ultimate objectives of food security and the right to food.
Additional pertinent issues
The following pertinent issues have not been covered or may easily be overlooked and disappear from the agenda:
• Human rights perspective; right to food (UN resolution 68 /177) and women’s rights. It is essential to implement UN resolutions and CFS guidelines on the Right to Food and to integrate recommendations of former UNSR Right to food. Treating food as a human right brings coherence and accountability. It helps to close the gaps by putting food security of all citizens at the top of the decision-making hierarchy, and making these decision-making processes participatory and accountable.
• Risk coping mechanisms and investments in resilience of vulnerable communities, women in particular.
• Existing policies and initiatives are insufficiently engendered, let alone focused on empowerment of women. There is much to be gained by strengthening policy coherence and integrating more strongly women’s rights and food security (right to food) policies. Each and every policy should be screened on their impact on women’s rights, food & nutrition security and the right to food. See for instance most recent policy analysis and recommendations for Dutch policies.
• As related, solutions should be people-centered and the voices of food insecure and malnourished people are rarely heard, let alone they are represented and consulted as equals and in fact prime stakeholders when dealing with their food and nutrition security (see also comment Carol Gribnao of HIVOS).
• Power relations (imbalances), Political Economy & Political Analysis. The importance of political economy and politics is too much downplayed and if accepted it rarely translates into politically-informed programming (see also comment Herman Brouwer CDI-WUR)
• The roles and added value of respective segments within the private sector requires a realistic assessment (see comment Herman Brouwer, CDI-WUR) We are missing the Theory of Change as whether and how “trade for development” and “private sector development” guarantee food and nutrition security? Would this be through inclusion, participation of and ownership by vulnerable women and men? How to avoid dependency, IPR hurdles? There is a risk that many initiatives with social and environmental goals are becoming agribusiness promotion initiatives captured by large companies. Mainstream Value Chain Development and PPPs initiatives (see recent “Moral Hazard? OXFAM publication) are no Panacea for food and nutrition security. Business models involving smallholders or micro enterprises largely address concerns and risks of the most powerful players rather than covering engendered micro-economic and risk analysis at intra-household, household and community levels assessing opportunity costs and establishing risk coping mechanisms guaranteeing resilience.
• Avoid the “blind people and the elephant syndrome” meaning each stakeholder focusing within their niche, but without understanding the overall system complexity and therefore never being effective in transforming the (overall) system. This also exposes (foreign) investors and the private sector claiming to solve the food security and nutrition crisis without being acquainted with deprivation, local livelihood and food security challenges in a power-imbalanced globalizing world.
• Policy recommendations also should guide institutional development and elaborate roles and responsibilities of respective stakeholders and combat stagnation and decline due to vested interest, unclear or overlapping mandates and avoid competition like between donors, NGOs or often public institutions within one and the same government system. For instance, a lot of thinking and capacity development should go into establishing or rehabilitating and transforming demand driven public support systems for supporting (women) smallholders and micro and small enterprises rural-urban and livelihood transitions.
• The negative impacts of Structural Adjustment Policies and restrictions on investments in quality of public social and economic service delivery should not be underestimated. Also the shift to promotion of FDI and large-scale agriculture resulted in a near collapse of public agricultural research and extension systems. Moreover, corruption had and has a destructive effect on the quality of basic service delivery.
• In many developing countries basic social and economic service delivery is poor. More and better investments in health, literacy, education, vocational and skills training for income generation, gender and political awareness of the poor, in particular women, in combination with sincere attention for combatting corruption and improving governance would give a major boost to food security.
• Instability, conflict and/or war beyond destroying the business environment are causing a large number of crises, including refugee crises, resulting in large groups being affected by malnourishment, hunger, disease and famines. This means that food and nutrition security shall not be achieved if not addressing the root causes of conflict, like land and water grabbing and broader land & water conflicts, extreme poverty, extreme inequality and exclusion, which also may result in radicalization in turn feeding terrorism and conflict.
Youth
Globally, there is a large cohort of rural youth who often aspire to leave agriculture. The next generation is likely to see fewer farmers, and many fewer full-time farmers, as rural youth pass a demographic peak in most regions (with sub-saharan Africa an important exception) and seek jobs off the farm. Among rural laborers aged 16-24, about half worked full-time off-farm jobs. Remaining farmers in the country are renting and consolidating land left unused by urban migrants, combining very small holdings to obtain a sustainable livelihood. In other countries (i.e. South India), youth migration is already driving labor shortages and rising wages, adding pressures on small-scale farms.
Observations on demographic change and trends on rural transformation must inform a rethink in public policy to minimize the risk and take advantage of opportunities. Therefore, rural youth have to be put high on the policy agenda. Governments and development partners have a key role to play in focusing on rural youth through rural and agricultural policy and investment. National employment and and labour policies, including those for youth, should be revisited to give explicit focus to agriculture and the associated agri-food market chains and service industries as a major sector upon which to strengthen opportunities for securing and expanding decent employment.
Lack of representation
There is much to learn about supporting dynamic traditional markets, and how to balance this support against modernization campaigns and high expectations from big business. What is lacking is the voice of smallholders in the debate, most of them are not formally organized, nor members of cooperatives or other formal economic organizations. Without formal representation they lack influence in designing policies, which would appreciate the benefits of informal trade systems and at the same time mitigate the dark sides of informality. To design more appropriate policies and interventions, we need to perceive the complexity of markets of the poor — the ways that informality and formality coexist, interact and sometimes clash — and understand how small producer agency negotiates the mix in global, national and local markets.
In Dutch policy on food security and agriculture much attention is being paid to the role of the private sector. The presence of Dutch private sector is positive by showing and giving inputs in innovation & technology. Their knowledge is useful and need to be linked to local companies. Much more can be done in increasing support in the form of technology and knowledge though B2B with local SMEs in similar sectors. The cooperation of Dutch private sector with local SMEs should be strengthened more.
I have had the privilege to work with Dutch embassies over the last 5 years to support their food security programmes, together with my team at CDI, Wageningen UR. Let me contribute some thoughts from this experience.
The apples were ripening before my eyes, in my garden. My tree was ready for harvesting and what a pleasure it was to pick them. Of course I started at the bottom. I couldn’t get to the apples at the top, but I resolved to bring a ladder a next day. However, all those apples from the lower branches added up to a huge pile already. I ended up spending the next week dealing with these apples. I had no time left for the bigger, juicier apples from the high branches. The birds got the better of it.
Low-hanging fruits are the bread and butter of food security interventions. We want quick impact and high return on investment. This often translates in applying off-the-shelf approaches in low-risk countries and sectors. Approaches that are ‘tried and tested’ and that, we tell ourselves, can be upscaled easily.
The truth is that many of these interventions can and do harvest low-hanging fruits, but are unable to collect the higher-hanging ones. In other words, we are able to deliver some results but haven’t found the mechanisms to affect systemic change in the complex food systems we intervene in. Without ladders to pick high-hanging fruits, it just will not happen. Are we satisfied with that?
Many embassies struggle in their implementation because ‘the enabling environment is not conducive’. This has been analysed in extenso. It is usually because of a cocktail of stagnant bureaucratic institutions, corruption, lack of incentives to perform, low capacity to implement, and absence of checks and balances. Hard to tackle, but critical. A typical high-hanging fruit.
There is no silver bullet for this. I am suggesting investments in contextualized approaches to improve the enabling environment in which Dutch food security programmes thrive and deliver results. Here are three ingredients to start with:
• Political savviness: understanding the local context, and continuously adapt strategies. These tactical actions are where embassies naturally excel in.
• Realism about the role of Dutch private sector: even in transition countries Dutch companies are often considering the investment risks too high. This calls for customized private sector instruments, and parallel policies stimulating public- or civil society-led efforts.
• More recognition of the role of power dynamics in programme implementation. Just having a PPP with farmers’ organisations does not mean that farmers gain or are empowered. Managing partnership dynamics is a skill that needs nurturing.
Eventually, the impact of Dutch interventions depends on the ability to help our partners remove crippling impediments that prevent societies to take charge of their own food security. It is a tall order, with no guarantees. But wouldn’t it be a great if the Netherlands were known for its ladders, that enable us to get those apples at the top of the tree?
‘Food security’ cannot be discussed in isolation from ‘nutrition’. FAO recognized this years ago and changed their terminology from ‘food security’ to’food and nutrition security’. Beyond terminology this is a fundamental shift in seeing the role of food as not only to provide energy (quantity) but also to nourish (quality). The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), drivers of the green revolution, also recognized this and for years have been promoting biofortification: the breeding of staple crops (that, by definition, are important sources of energy) with higher nutritional value. At the Food Fortification Initiative, for a decade we have worked with partners to add vitamins and mineral to wheat flour: to essentially turn an ‘energy-filled’ food into an ‘energy- and nutrient-filled’ food. In the process, there have been demonstrable reductions in neural tube defects in all countries that have evaluated the impact of adding folic acid to flour through fortification. In a world with a growing obesity problem, we cannot focus on food security and energy alone. We must ensure that the food we provide meets nutritional requirements, as well. Therefore, we propose to add a Target 6: Ensuring that food is providing nutrition security, for example, by being fortified with essential vitamins and minerals.
Monitoring
As a complement to the expert opinions on the subject domains of the different SUN Targets 1-5, I propose that the food and nutrition security policy also contains an element at meta-level, i.e. the question how the attainment of the targets will be monitored and assessed, the results of which will be useful to feed back into the integrated stakeholder processes, be they at international, national or landscape level. This can include the role of information along the food supply chain (see Nehemiah Gitonga’s contribution under Target 1).
Targets 1-5 call for measurement of (1) 100% access to adequate food all year round, (2) zero stunted children, (3) all food systems sustainable, (4) 100% increase in smallholder productivity and income and (5) zero loss or waste of food.
FAO proposes a “suite” of indicators to monitor and assess food (and nutrition) security (see website). A number of indicators are derived from Food Balance Sheets, while data on nutritional status are borrowed from the World Health Organization (inter alia drawn from the DHS Demographic and Health Surveys). Wider issues such as the fulfillment of human rights or the use of child labour and environmental damage are not yet included. Yet, the “suite” is a start that can be used to portray the current state of affairs and the trends since the early 1960’s. See a forthcoming publication of the African Studies Centre (September 2014) entitled “Digging Deeper: Inside Africa’s Agricultural, Food and Nutrition Dynamics“. The book includes an analysis of the trends of the prevalence of undernourishment (PoU) and those of stunting, wasting and underweight for four countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. A strong disparity is seen between on the one hand the improving food availability and dietary diversification statistics and on the other hand the stagnating and alarming underfives undernutrition statistics. When it comes to the trends in the time series, data from Kenya can be interpreted to show a time lag between the PoU and young child stunting: as stunting among underfives is a cumulative indicator reflecting experiences in the past 0-5 years, its fluctuations may mirror fluctuations in the food base that occurred several years earlier.
Apart from historical study, the use of scenario studies for the coming decades is important. The Netherlands has a very strong capacity here (Center for World Food Studies SOW-VU, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency PBL, and LEI Wageningen UR).
A target at information system(s) level?
This missing element may give rise to a target of its own, which would express the effective use of the information for decision making at all relevant levels.
The number of expert contributions on the different targets is overwhelming already. I could not imagine to be able to contribute anything new on a specialist level. Only one more or less specialist issue came to my mind and that is the issue of landrights that seems to be more or less lacking in the goals and the comments. My – non-expert – opinion is that securing of landrights is crucial for the goals 1, 2 and 4.
However, a more important comment would be that what seems to be missing is the embedding of this food security and zero hunger theme in a broader framework of seriously and thoroughly realizing an equitable and sustainable economy world wide. A framework that addresses structural problems that have their negative impact on other issues than food (in)security as well, like climate change, regional conflicts about resources, low standards of health care in many regions etc. Here we can think of the global obsession with (financial) economic growth, the onesided way of measuring and comparing economic success (in terms of GDP), the imbalances in the global financial system with its fast financial mega transactions, the power imbalances that are sustained on this basis, the obsession with growth of productivity (per hour worked) which time and again renders people without work and income (for buying food!), the international competition for land and resources to secure healthy (?) national economies instead of working together for a truly healthy global economy, the disturbing power of multinationals, that can work for the common good but cannot be democratically controled to do so, etc. Hunger and poverty are the signs or even outcomes of extreme inequality and marginalisation. As long as these structural issues are not tackled head on, new extreme inequalities will develop again and again, resulting in new groups suffering from hunger and poverty. Zero hunger will then remain a permanent, and therefor an illusory, goal.
An approach like this obviously has to be global, international. The Netherlands can be a serious and dedicated stimulus in that process and approach. We would recommend that a Food Security program clearly states that it will be embedded in such a broader structural approach and that the Dutch government will be dedicated to making this work. This relates, as will be clear, to the issue of developing new global (sustainable) development goals post 2015. But on top of or as a complement to sustainable development goals and targets we also need a well grounded framework of actions and strategies – not only nationally but also internationally – that address these structural issues in order to be able to reach these goals and targets.
This is not meant to move away from ‘zero hunger’ or food security as goals, but as a contribution to a strategy to effectively deliver these goals. And some other as well.
Not so much missing elements, but rather an avoidance that the 5 targets become separate pillars. What is much more needed is a holistic, integrated, multi-sector approach to achieve the 5 targets simultaneously.
The Dutch strength has always been in the multi-stakeholder approach to solving complex issues where public sector, private sector, civil society and research interact to find innovative solutions that can work at scale.
Because of the expanding demand from Africa’s cities, and particularly its rising metropoles (a result of demographic growth, urbanization, concentrated wealth in cities, and growing prosperity) there has been a rapid growth in agricultural production in many African countries. The large majority of Africa’s agricultural production feeds African consumers; only a limited part of Africa’s agricultural land and labor is devoted to exports.
In Africa’s cities there is a wide gap between rich-end consumers (for which the expanding supermarkets and specialized shops cater) and the mass of poor consumers (who get their agro-products mostly through informal channels and open markets). However, the food web in cities should not be seen as compartmentalized, as there are many linkages between the agencies active in the food industry. Innovations (e.g. standardization; better quality control), which are a result in one segment or in one product, do have their repercussions in other segments and in the food chain as a whole.
We have serious concerns about the fulfilment of the ministers’ commitment to talk with Olivier De Schutter (the former Special Rapporteur on the right to food) concerning the recommendations on the right to food he made during his mandate.
We have a procedural question: How does this consultation which is based on the Zero Hunger Challenge relate to the Sustainable Development Goals as proposed by the UN Open Working Group for the UN General Assembly in September 2014?
Combining SUN & WEF: New vision for Agriculture Transformation
Strong examples of partnership with local presence such as the WEF: New vision for Agriculture Transformation.
The New vision for Agriculture Transformation is led by 33 global partner companies of the World Economic Forum who provide strategic leadership and championship of the initiative. The collaborative approach and commitment of both public and private of organisations.
Additionally the ‘Scaling Up Nutrition’ initiative, where countries are stimulated to build a collaborative approach and actively supporting national programmes, has a significant potential impact.
Ideally an approach combining the approach of both the WEF & SUN initiatives will result in long term national programmes, as continues support is essential to ensure knowledge on the ground is improved and impact and the ability to report on progress is embedded.
Investing in knowledge and expertise through the Dutch government and partner countries will increase the level expertise and effectively implement national food security programmes. In case there is a lack of knowledge and expertise among local stakeholders, the Netherlands can offer this with expertise from the private sector, knowledge institutes and civil society.
More details on Scaling Up Nutrition
More background info the WEF – New Vision for Agriculture Transformation
Read more about Unilever’s input for the policy paper in the contribution on Target 1.
What would the world look like if we were to treat food as a commons and not merely a commodity? So far, each and every solution proposed by international conferences, donors, UN institutions and most knowledgeable scholar is based on food, an essential resource for human beings, as a fully privatized good, in most cases treated as a pure commodity. I defend a different idea of considering food as a commons, essential for every human on this planet. Therefore, the purchasing power could not be the only means to get access to such natural and man-made resource. We should transit towards a different food system that values food based on its multiple and essential dimensions to humans and not just as a priced commodity. This transition will be steered by a tricentric governance of food as a commons compounded of state-driven initiatives, policies and regulations; market-driven allocations based on supply-demand and self-regulated collective actions for food producers and consumers with different forms of food sharing finding a place in a more sustainable and fairer food system.
The industrial food system only considers one dimension of food, seeing its tradable dimension and viewing it as a commodity. The main goal of agri-business corporations is not to sustainably produce healthy food for everyone but to earn more money. We are fed by a ‘low cost” food system where price is the main driver of food production, processing and consumption, rather than aiming at delivering nutritious food for all. If we want to achieve a food-secure world we need to have more space for self-regulated collective actions for food and to re-claim more space for state-led initiatives, whose primary goal is their citizens’ wellbeing. Because food security is within the mandate of every state but surely not within the mandate of every food and agriculture company.
Concrete food-related proposals for the public good
Firstly, a Universal Food Coverage could be engineered to guarantee a minimum amount of food to everyvbody, everywhere, everytime, similar to the Universal Health Coverage and the Universal Primary Education. Why what we see acceptable for health and education is so unthinkable for food? Is education more important to human development than eating? For instance, the state could guarantee tortillas, bread, maize or rice to everybody, every day.
Secondly, patenting on living beings should be banned. We can patent computers, iPods, cars, and other human-made technologies but we cannot patent living organisms such as seeds, bacteria or genetic codes. That should be an ethical minimum standard and a fundamental part of our new moral economy of sustainability.
Thirdly, food speculation should be banned, because it does not contribute to improve the food system, neither food production, nor consumption, and it has many damaging collateral effects. Food can be traded, insured and exchanged, but not speculated on.
Another proposal is to take international food trade outside the World Trade Organization, as food cannot be considered like other commodities, due to its multiple dimensions for human beings. Along those lines, a different international Food Treaty shall be crafted, whereby countries abide by and respect some minimum standards in food production and trade. It should be a binding treaty.
Firstly, Public-private partnerships (PPP) in the food sector are decision-making spaces for the private sector to influence policymakers in order to arrange a legal space which is conducive to profit-seeking. Since they are not meant to maximize the health and food security of the citizens but mainly to maximize profit-seeking, these PPPs should be restricted to operational arrangements but never to dealing with policy making or legal frameworks.
Further reading:
Vivero Pol, J.L. (2014). The Food Commons transition. Collective actions for food security. The Broker Magazine.
Proposal on Universal Food Coverage in Ecuador.
Vivero Pol, J.L (2013). A binding food treaty to end hunger: anathema or post-2015 solution?
A year ago, in his final report to the United Nations General Assembly, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter, devoted a lot of attention to “the political economy questions that play such an important part in explaining the failure to achieve durable success in tackling hunger and malnutrition.” In setting forth his answers to those questions, he barely mentioned technology, science and markets. Using terms like access and entitlements he zeroed in on power and public politics, arguing that food security is achievable where “policies comply with the principles of participation, accountability, non-discrimination, transparency, human dignity, empowerment and the rule of law.”
A cursory look at your food security discussion up to now indicates that issues of political economy are hardly raised. Claudio Schuftan does point to the needs to confront the politics of exclusion. But relative to their relevance and importance, issues of power and governance have been confined to the margins of the discussion thus far. A good example would be the book ‘The Global Land Grab’ by Annelies Zoomers and Mayke Kaag about needs for transparent and fair rules over land access. Could ‘public, democratic processes‘ be taken as Target 6?
Olivier De Schutter’s final report is not the only one underscoring this. A report published this month in Germany by Misereor, Brot für de Welt and Global Policy Forum places large question-marks next to current approaches to African food security based on business-led ‘multi-stakeholder’ models of governance. Those global governance models have been expertly analysed and shown to have very serious deficiencies in respect to “participation, accountability, non-discrimination, transparency, human dignity, empowerment and the rule of law.”
In short, there are lively and important debates about the political economy and politics of food security. These matters are hugely relevant to your discussion. Why not put them in the foreground?
Given that The Hunger Project as a key member of the Zero Hunger coalition actually co-authored its targets, it would be somewhat odd to disagree with them. However, it would also seem crucial to add two strong emphases in our recommendations to the Dutch policy authors: on women, and on integrated approaches.
Gender is the fundamental root cause of most of the remaining hunger in our world. The majority of the world’s hungry and extremely poor are women food farmers. They are the largest marginalized group in the world. They must never be considered “weak” – they are doing most of the work to meet the needs of their families. Deeply entrenched patriarchal social, legal, political and economic structures give rise to hunger and extreme poverty. In most societies where hunger persists, women bear most of the responsibility for meeting family needs, yet lack the resources, education, information and freedom of action to fulfill those responsibilities. Yet lack fair access to the resources, mobility and voice in decision-making which they need to thrive. This therefore deserves ample attention in the Dutch policy framework.
Key interventions:
Multisectoral, integrated approach
Women rarely escape extreme poverty through single, one-off interventions; they must have access to a comprehensive package of services (one example is described here below).
Dutch policies should therefore (continue to) create funding windows for integrated rural development. Most donors are now starting to get the message that co-location of basic services and multisectoral, holistic approaches make huge sense. Yet nearly all funding focuses on single sectors. Now is the time to change this. The new Dutch policy could lead the way.
The Hunger Project empowers women to take charge of their lives by:
Food security for 10 billion people (approx. world population by 2050) is too important to leave that to politicians. The initiative for a sector wide consultation in order to come forward on a Dutch contribution to food security is therefore welcome. However, asking for contributions from the Dutch society requires beaurocraty and a time consuming exercise to shift through the posted recommendations and observations and easily leads to conclusions that the wheel is reinvented.
I therefore strongly recommend to have a close look at 3 major reports on food security from the past:
Furthermore the Worldconnectors prepared a report for the Government in 2012 with clear recommendations for the Government based on a solid analysis and solid consultancy with international food security experts. Lastly I humbly recommend to have a look at the recommendations in the publications I produced during my tenure at Wageningen University; Food security and Entrepreneurship in 2007 and Constrain Constraints from 2009.
We know pretty well what should be done to achieve food security. The USAID programme “Feed the Future” is successfully implementing what is recommended in the studies under 1, 2, and 3 above. Many other organisations and institutions (e.g. AGRA, IFDC) are doing the same. The Dutch initiative Agri Pro-focus is supporting agricultural development quite successfully. Let us look very carefully at what is available on sensible recommendations and avoid that we must conclude after the consultation the we have “reinvented the wheel again”.
I definitely think a 6th theme is indispensable. One that decisively centers the policy on the right to food framework and parameters. People who file claims to secure their right to adequate nutrition cannot wait for a whole generation. The disturbing news is that we have evidence of widening gaps in health and nutrition worldwide (in terms of numbers of those affected by many types of preventable ill-health and malnutrition). This, most likely because health and nutrition are more about power imbalances than about morbidity and mortality; they are more about control over the basic determinants of ill-health and malnutrition than about the treatment of diseases and the rehabilitation of the malnourished. We need to view and act upon both in a way that addresses power relationships and related rights issues.
It is not enough for human rights activists to make information on these risks available to public authorities. It is organized claim holders who have to ensure these risks are indeed recognized-and-acted-upon. Western approaches, like the Dutch approach, to fight malnutrition are at the individual level rather than promoting community nutrition from a holistic, human rights-based perspective. More efforts have been devoted to denouncing this fact than to do something to mitigate its effects.
The respect of the right to nutrition is a reflection of a society’s commitment to equity and justice. The Human Rights Framework does not demand a ‘right to be well nourished’; it does not ask governments to commit resources they do not have to the provision of good nutrition. But it does call for the right to the enjoyment of and access to a variety of facilities, services and conditions that are necessary for good nutrition.
A Right to nutrition approach means that the necessary resources are given to those who have the greatest needs. It exposes situations where public funds are being used for interventions in large cities, where benefits accrue not to the most needy in rural populations who are denied even the minimum standards of health care.
A human rights approach to nutrition poses specific challenges for health and nutrition professionals as well; they usually have access to information about the conduct of public authorities. And, if these professionals have evidence of practices that violate the right to nutrition, for example evidence of discrimination against women or against minorities, this information should be documented and reported to the appropriate authorities and to human rights (HR) activist organizations.
But, most of all, be reminded that good nutrition can only be achieved if the affected people participate in the design and delivery of interventions. So, concrete steps are needed to make this happen, i.e., claim holders have to organize and demand this right of theirs. Never forget that social movements are such, as long as there are people who actually ‘move’ them.
The bottom line is that nutrition interventions will promote health equity and justice only when their design and management specifically considers:
Furthermore the resolutely standing for the right to nutrition means confronting the politics of exclusion and the economics of inequality.
Perhaps the major challenge in translating the many local successes of nutrition activism into concrete health systems change is to increase the awareness and active involvement of those who stand to benefit the most from such changes, i.e., the most marginalized people.
Effective delivery systems without explicit human rights protections (for example, legislative guarantees or easier access to working redress mechanisms) will fail to deliver to those most marginalized. The point to be made here is that it is not the task of the private sector –whether for-profit or not-for-profit– to guarantee access to good nutrition for the marginalized. It is the task of the latter themselves.