Sustainable Development Goals and Targets on Food and Nutrition Security through Sustainable

Agriculture and Food Systems in the Post-2015 Agenda

Background Paper

Birgit Kopainsky, System Dynamics Group, Department of Geography, University of Bergen, Post-

box 7800, 5020 Bergen, Norway

With input from: IDDRI, ESPA, Biovision Foundation, Millennium Institute

Financial support for work on this paper was provided by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation SDC and Mercator Foundation Switzerland. The views and conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agencies. We would like to thank the reviewers from WSPA, German Federal Environment Agency,

College of the Atlantic as well as the participants of the “Food Security in the Post-2015 Develop-ment Agenda: What Objectives for What Outcomes?” workshop in Paris and of the “Informal Con-sultative Meeting: National Targets and Indicators for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) on Food and Nutrition Security through Sustainable Agriculture” in Addis Ababa for their comments, contributions and feedbacks.

Last update: March 17th, 2014

Content

Executive summary ..................................................................................................................... i

1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3

2 Conceptual framework ......................................................................................................... 4

3 Target & indicator system – global level ................................................................................ 6

Food system outcomes ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 Target 1.1: End malnutrition and hunger in each of their forms........................................................................... 7 Target 1.2: Improve the well-being of small-scale farmers and other rural communities .................................... 8

Target 1.3: Ensure maintenance of agriculture’s natural resource base .............................................................. 9 Food system activities ...................................................................................................................................................... 10

Target 2.1: Implement productive and resilient farming systems that enhance and maintain the

provision of ecosystem services ................................................................................................................... 10 Target 2.2: Minimize post-harvest and other food losses and waste ................................................................. 11

Enabling conditions........................................................................................................................................................... 12 Target 3.1: Ensure stable and accessible international and national markets .................................................... 12 Target 3.2: Ensure access by all to productive resources and assets through the progressive realization

of the right to food ........................................................................................................................................ 13 Target 3.3: Establish inclusive, transparent, and equitable decision-making processes on food, nutrition

and agriculture .............................................................................................................................................. 14 Target 3.4: Research and technology transfer support the transformation to sustainable food system

activities ........................................................................................................................................................ 15

4 Target and indicator system – reflections on use at national level ....................................... 17

Food system outcomes ..................................................................................................................................................... 18 Target 1.1: End malnutrition and hunger in each of their forms......................................................................... 18 Target 1.2: Improve the wellbeing of small-scale farmers and other rural communities ................................... 19 Target 1.3: Ensure maintenance of agriculture’s natural resource base ............................................................ 20

Food system activities ...................................................................................................................................................... 20 Target 2.1: Implement productive and resilient farming systems that enhance and maintain the

provision of ecosystem services ................................................................................................................... 20 Target 2.2: Minimize post-harvest and other food losses and waste ................................................................. 20

Enabling conditions........................................................................................................................................................... 21

Target 3.1: Ensure stable and accessible international and national markets .................................................... 21 Target 3.2: Ensure access by all to productive resources and assets through the progressive realization

of the right to food ........................................................................................................................................ 21 Target 3.3: Establish inclusive, transparent, and equitable decision-making processes on food, nutrition

and agriculture .............................................................................................................................................. 21 Target 3.4: Research and technology transfer support the transformation to sustainable food system

activities ........................................................................................................................................................ 22

5 Interlinkages with other issue areas .................................................................................... 23

6 References ......................................................................................................................... 25

i

Executive summary

The world is facing the challenge of providing sufficient high quality food to nourish a global popu-lation that will peak at more than 9 billion by 2050. Meeting the challenges associated with reach-ing food and nutrition security for all while ensuring social and environmental welfare requires a shift to sustainable, diverse and resilient agricultural and food systems.

This technical report provides background information on a Post-2015 Goal that might read as follows:

Achieve food and nutrition security through sustainable agriculture and food systems

The report develops a conceptual framework for the formulation of targets and indicators underly-

ing such goal. This framework is based on the food system approach. A food system approach connects the activities of food producers, processors, distributors, retailers and consumers to the food security, social, and environmental outcomes, framing these activities as dynamic and inter-acting processes embedded in social, political, economic, historical and environmental contexts (Ingram et al., 2010: 63). By doing so, it can help improve our understanding of the range of policy and management actions available to address environmental change as well as food and nutrition security. Distinguishing between food system outcomes, food system activities and enabling con-ditions enhances accountability because it provides a narrative for monitoring goal achievement at global, regional and national level, as well as for designing means of implementation.

This conceptual framework allows for flexible local interpretations, which is important as the de-gree of interactions within and between enabling conditions, food system activities and food sys-

tem outcomes will vary widely depending on the local context. In a first step, we apply the pro-posed target system to the global level. For this purpose, we formulate targets for food system outcomes, activities and enabling conditions in the conceptual framework. We also reflect on indi-cators that might measure progress towards those targets at a global level (see figure and table below). In a second step, we discuss implications of an application and measurement of the pro-posed targets at national level. Due to the diversity of local conditions, this step is necessarily in-

complete. A brief discussion is nevertheless important as crucial concepts such as resilience can mainly be incorporated at national or sub-national level only.

ii

Targets Potential indicators and relevant dimensions for indicators

Target 1.1: End malnutrition and

hunger in each of their forms

Measurements over time (to represent stability) of:

- Number and percent of undernourished people

- Number and percent of people suffering from hidden hunger

- Number and percent of obese people

Target 1.2: Improve the livelihood

of small-scale farmers and other

rural communities

- Rural – urban decomposition of the Global Multidimensional Poverty

Index

- Labor productivity of farmers and agricultural workers and job availa-

bility

Target 1.3: Ensure maintenance of

agriculture’s natural resource base

- Restored amount of land relative to amount of degraded land

- Nitrogen uptake from the atmosphere (relative to safe operating

space value)

- Carbon footprint of food consumption (mean value of all value chains;

relative to sustainable value)

- Water footprint of food consumption (mean value of all value chains;

relative to sustainable value)

Target 2.1: Implement productive

and resilient farming systems that

enhance and maintain the provi-

sion of ecosystem services

- Percent of farmland under resource-conserving standards.

- Resource use efficiency (mean value for crop and livestock produc-

tion)

Target 2.2: Minimize post-harvest

and other food losses and waste

- Post harvest losses

- Losses in food processing and retailing industries

- Waste in the food chain

- Percentage of crops/fish used/produced for animal feed

Target 3.1: Ensure stable and ac-

cessible international and national

markets

- Food price index

- Diffusion of the AMIS system

Target 3.2: Ensure access by all to

productive resources and assets

through the progressive realization

of the right to food

- Right to food included in country legislation. Data source: FAO Legisla-

tive Database on the Right to Food

Target 3.3: Establish inclusive,

transparent, and equitable deci-

sion-making processes on food,

nutrition and agriculture

- Diffusion of implemented national multi-stakeholder assessments

Target 3.4: Research and technolo-

gy transfer support the transfor-

mation to sustainable food system

activities

- Amount of investment into research on different types of farming

systems and food system activities

3

1 Introduction

The world is facing the challenge of providing sufficient high quality food to nourish a global popu-lation that will peak at more than 9 billion by 2050. Meeting the challenges associated with reach-ing food and nutrition security for all while ensuring social and environmental welfare requires a shift to sustainable, diverse and resilient agricultural and food systems.

This technical report provides background information on a Post-2015 Goal that might read as follows:

Achieve food and nutrition security through sustainable agriculture and food systems

The majority of current agricultural and food systems (agri-food systems) are not sustainable, since they are over reliant on non-renewable external inputs, produce high levels of greenhouse

gas emissions, and have negative impacts on soils and biodiversity, farm animal welfare, nutrition and public health outcomes, cause high levels of waste, and exhibit a low level of resilience against external shocks. A transformation in agricultural and food policies and practices is needed, which ensures food and nutrition security as well as resilience, protects natural resources and supports equitable development for all. Although sustainable and resilient agri-food systems exist, current economic and policy conditions are restricting their potential to become mainstream.

To ensure that the transformation results in food and nutrition security as well as in truly sustain-able, diverse and resilient agri-food systems it is essential to have rigorous definition of terms, clear targets, and performance indicators against which the outcomes should be monitored. The objective of this paper is to construct a framework for the formulation of targets and indicators that support the required transformation. These targets and indicators need to cover the multiple dimensions of the transformation process towards food and nutrition security as well as sustaina-

ble and resilient agri-food systems and they need to allow for a simultaneous assessment of pro-gress on a global as well as country level. Finally, the targets and indicators need to be linked to potential food system interventions to foster implementation of sustainable agri-food systems.

Section 2 describes the conceptual framework for monitoring and evaluating transformation in

agri-food systems. Based on this framework, section 0 summarizes the elements of agri-food sys-tems that need to be transformed as well as monitored and evaluated with targets and indicators for the global level. Section 3 reflects on the application of the target and indicator system at na-tional level. Section 4 displays the possible linkages, especially on the target level, to other issue areas within the Post-2015 development agenda.

4

2 Conceptual framework

Food systems, at a minimum, comprise the sets of activities involved in food production; pro-cessing and packaging; distribution and retail; and consumption (Ericksen, 2008). All these activi-ties encompass social, economic, political and environmental processes and dimensions. Such di-mensions are referred to as scales. The processes play out at different levels, that is, at different positions on a scale (Cash et al., 2006). To analyze the interactions of food system activities across scales and levels, a food system can more broadly be conceived as including the determinants and outcomes of its activities. The determinants describe the bio-geophysical as well as the social, economic and political environments that determine how food system activities are performed (food system drivers). These activities lead to a number of social, environmental and food security outcomes. Food system activities and outcomes eventually result in processes that feed back to environmental and socioeconomic drivers (Ericksen, 2008; FAO, 2008; cf. Figure 1).

Figure 1: Food systems, their drivers and feedback (a); components of food systems (b) (Ingram, et al., 2010: 28)

Implications for target and indicator systems

Agri-food systems with their respective food system activities are the manifestations of political, biophysical, socioeconomic and other drivers that lead to sustainable or unsustainable outcomes, depending on the perspectives, scales, valuations of trade-offs and time frames considered

5

(Neufeldt et al., 2013). In addition to targets and indicators for food system outcomes, targets and indicators are also necessary for characterizing food system activities. In addition, policy indicators

should describe the enabling conditions for sustainable food system activities such as public and private sector interventions in food system activities. Of all the food system drivers, the target and indicator framework only covers those that are policy drivers (as opposed to those that describe global environmental change or wider socioeconomic development trends such as demographic and overall economic development) and calls them enabling conditions (Figure 2).

A rigorous distinction between outcomes, activities and enabling conditions provides some opera-tional description of how agri-food systems can be transformed towards sustainability as well as food and nutrition security. Such distinction, for example, implies a separation of terms that are currently used to describe a single goal or target such as the zero hunger challenge. This challenge encompasses elements of food system outcomes (access to food, zero stunted children) and food system activities (increased small-scale farmers’ productivity, zero waste and losses).

Figure 2: Conceptual framework for the formulation of targets and indicators

The notion of stability over time for food security outcomes implicitly contains the notion of resili-ence. Resilience thinking is a generic approach to understanding social-ecological systems such as food systems (Folke et al., 2010). It has its origin in ecology (Holling, 1973) but has since been ex-panded to social-ecological systems (Adger, 2000; Adger et al., 2005; Carpenter et al., 2001; Folke, 2006). Resilience can be defined as the ‘capacity of a system to experience shocks while retaining

essentially the same function, structure, feedbacks, and therefore identity’ (Walker et al., 2006). Resilience is alternatively used to describe the disturbance that can be absorbed before a change in state (e.g., Holling, 1996) or the rate of recovery from perturbation (e.g., Adger, 2000).

Resilience is not only an end in itself but also a means towards achieving and maintaining food security outcomes over time. It is thus a characteristic of food system outcomes, sustainable agri-food system activities and of appropriate enabling conditions. Resilience is not a fixed property of a food system but depends both on the perception of relevant issues by affected stakeholders (resilience of what) and on the shocks to which the system should be resilient (resilience to what) (Walker et al., 2002). It is therefore more difficult to include aspects of resilience in global targets and indicators than in national and sub-national targets and indicators. In the subsequent descrip-tion of targets and indicators, we refer to their relationship with resilience where appropriate.

6

Target & indicator system – global level

In this section, we formulate targets for the food system outcomes, activities and enabling condi-tions in the conceptual framework and reflect on indicators that might measure progress towards those targets at a global level. Figure 3 provides an overview of the targets and their position with-in the conceptual framework.

Figure 3: Targets positioned in the conceptual framework

Food system outcomes Target 1.1: End malnutrition and hunger in each of their forms

Target 1.2: Improve the livelihood of small-scale farmers and other rural communities

Target 1.3: Ensure maintenance of agriculture’s natural resource base

Food system activities Target 2.1: Implement productive and resilient farming systems that enhance and main-

tain the provision of ecosystem services

Target 2.2: Minimize post-harvest and other food losses and waste

Enabling conditions Target 3.1: Ensure stable and accessible international and national markets

Target 3.2: Ensure access by all to productive resources and assets through the progres-

sive realization of the right to food

Target 3.3: Establish inclusive, transparent, and equitable decision-making processes on

food, nutrition and agriculture

Target 3.4: Research and technology transfer support the transformation to sustainable

food system activities

7

Food system outcomes

Target 1.1: End malnutrition and hunger in each of their forms

Narrative

Food and nutrition security encompass the availability of, access to and utilization of sufficient, healthy and culturally appropriate food for all, all year long and over time.

Achieving food security is tightly linked to the right to food, a human right recognized under inter-national law that protects the right of all human beings to feed themselves in dignity, either by producing their food or by purchasing it. The right to adequate food is realized when every man, woman and child, alone or in community with others, has physical and economic access at all times to adequate food or means for its procurement (Committee on Economic, Social and Cultur-al Rights, General Comment 12.

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/3d02758c707031d58025677f003b73b9).

The core content of the right to adequate food implies the availability of food in a quantity and quality sufficient to satisfy the dietary needs of individuals, free from adverse substances, and ac-ceptable within a given culture. It further encompasses the accessibility of such food in ways that are sustainable and that do not interfere with the enjoyment of other human rights and stability of access over time.

In addition to realizing the right of food, this target also concerns malnutrition in each of its forms with its adverse impacts on health. Malnutrition can manifest itself either in hidden hunger, that is, in the lack of essential vitamins and minerals, or in overweight and obesity.

The literature documents a great variety especially of food security indicators and indices (e.g., Ericksen et al., 2011; FAO/IFAD/WFP food security indicators (FAO et al., 2013); the Global Food

Security Index (The Economist, 2013); the Global Hunger Index (von Grebmer et al., 2013) etc.). Different proxy indicators for measuring food security can paint different pictures of the food se-curity situation e.g. in a country (Barrett, 2010; Coates, 2013). The choice of specific food security indicators thus depends on the objective of measuring food security and on the available re-sources for doing so (Jones et al., 2013).

Anthropometric measurements, i.e., measurements of body dimensions, are a widely used stand-ard measure of nutritional status and thus of food utilization, and they also serve as broad indica-tors of health and socio-economic well-being. An additional advantage of such measurements is that they cover all forms of under- and malnutrition including obesity. Anthropometric measures,

however, not only measure food intake. Instead, they also capture an individual’s health status, influenced by one’s hygiene and sanitation environment and access to caregiving and health ser-

vices (Jones, et al., 2013: 499). Nevertheless, indicators reflecting food utilization in terms of un-dernutrition, hidden hunger and overnutrition, are useful indicators at the highest level of aggre-gation to measure various dimensions of malnutrition and hunger.

Repeating such measurements over time will provide information about the stability of food secu-rity and of the degree to which households are resilient to various shocks that might potentially affect their food security adversely.

Potential indicators

The following indicators might be able to capture some of these considerations. Measured repeat-edly over time, they also capture the stability dimension of food security:

8

Number and percent of undernourished people. Data source: FAO Food Security Indicators

(Prevalence of underweight children under five years of age; comparability with MDG monitor-ing data series).

Number and percent of people suffering from hidden hunger. Data source: WHO Micronutri-ents Database (Anemia, Iodine Deficiency Disorders, Vitamin A Deficiency).

Number and percent of obese people. Data source: WHO Global Database on Body Mass In-

dex.

Target 1.2: Improve the well-being of small-scale farmers and other rural communities

Narrative

Social welfare covers domains as varied as income and wealth, employment, as well as human, social and political capital.

The livelihoods and well-being of small-scale farmers and other rural communities depend crucial-ly on poverty alleviation. Poverty is a multidimensional issue spanning health, education, and living standard (UNDP, 2013). It thus needs to be shared with other post-2015 Goals. In the realm of agriculture, the role of small-scale farmers and other rural communities is of particular importance for the following reasons (The World Bank, 2007):

Most undernourished people in the world live in developing countries, in rural areas, and de-pend on agriculture directly or indirectly for their livelihoods.

Fifty percent of the world’s undernourished people are small-scale farmers. Twenty percent

are landless laborers. Ten percent are pastoralists, fisher folk, and forest users.

While the share of urban population is growing, rural areas will continue to be home to the

majority of the world’s poor and undernourished (de Janvry & Sadoulet, 2010).

Sustainable agriculture and food systems provide opportunities to create jobs in rural regions al-lowing the rural population to generate income in their region and to stay there. Hereby, rural depopulation and pressure on urban regions/cities can be reduced.

Similar to food security, the literature documents a great variety of poverty-related indicators. As poverty is multidimensional and a poverty-related target will likely have to be shared with other post-2015 Goals, indicators to monitor and evaluate progress in this area will have to be multidi-mensional, too (e.g., Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (2013), Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) Data Bank. OPHI, University of Oxford. Available at

www.ophi.org.uk/multidimensional-poverty-index).

Labor productivity is an important aspect of poverty alleviation because it provides information about the access of farmers, especially small-scale and women farmers, to productive resources (FAO, 2011a). This, in turn, and together with access to health and education, makes them more resilient to a variety of shocks.

Related to the above is that farm animals are a vital part of rural communities. They not only pro-duce food, but also manure and they provide means of transport and draught traction. Moreover, livestock often functions as a social safety net and represents important cultural values. It also contributes to gender equality because in small-scale agriculture women are most often livestock’s

9

caretakers. Improving animal health and welfare is therefore key to improve the well-being of small-scale farmers and rural communities.

Potential indicators

The following indicators might be able to capture some of these considerations:

Rural – urban decomposition of the Global Multidimensional Poverty Index. Data source: Ox-

ford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (2013), Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) Data Bank. OPHI, University of Oxford. Available at www.ophi.org.uk/multidimensional-poverty-index.

Labor productivity of farmers and agricultural workers and job availability.

Target 1.3: Ensure maintenance of agriculture’s natural resource base

Narrative

Environmental welfare is achieved when human activities maintain safe levels of natural resources without dangerous interference with life supporting systems (atmosphere, hydrosphere, pe-

dosphere). Safe absolute levels of natural resource stocks such as land, water, nutrients, soil fertil-ity, biodiversity etc. are almost impossible to define. The literature about planetary boundaries and safe operating spaces, for example, focuses entirely on human interferences with life support-ing systems such as the emission of greenhouse gases, the use and pollution of freshwater, chang-es in land use and degradation of soils, biodiversity loss and the consumption of energy, mineral resources and agrochemicals (e.g., Rockström et al., 2009), which are transversal to several post-2015 Goals. Agriculture and food systems contribute particularly to:

Land use change and degradation.

Energy consumption and climate change.

Nutrient cycles.

Water consumption and pollution.

Biodiversity loss and animal welfare.

This results in threatening the very basics of food system outcomes such as producing sufficient and nutritious food for all and providing livelihoods for farmers. This target should monitor the degree to which agriculture and food systems are in line with environmental welfare. Targets 2.1 and 2.2 analyze ways in which agriculture and food systems can contribute to moving towards safe operating spaces (Rockström, et al., 2009; Neufeldt, et al., 2013).

Potential indicators

The following indicators might be able to capture some of these considerations:

Restored amount of land relative to amount of degraded land (http://globalsoilweek.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Soils-and-Land-in-the-SDGs-and-the-Post-2015-Development-Agenda-A-proposal-for-a-Land-Degradation-Neutral-World-goal-and-targets.pdf).

Annual nitrogen uptake from the atmosphere to produce fossil fuel-based nitrogen fertilizers (relative to safe operating space level; Griggs et al., 2013).

Carbon footprint of food consumption (mean value of all value chains; relative to sustainable

value). Data source: FAOSTAT Emissions Land Use database.

10

Water footprint of food consumption (mean value of all value chains; relative to sustainable

value). Data source: FAOSTAT, AQUASTAT.

Food system activities

Food system activities cover (Ingram, et al., 2010): Food production; food processing and packag-ing; food distribution and retailing; food consumption. Target number 2.1 addresses food produc-tion and describes the two conditions for sustainable production: sustainability of resource use and productivity/efficiency of resource use. Target number 2.2 addresses the remaining food sys-tem activities, which might be driving the evolution of primary production systems, and therefore should also be integrated into the framework.

Target 2.1: Implement productive and resilient farming systems that enhance and maintain the provision of ecosystem services

Narrative

Increasing food production and accessibility in a resilient and humane way while at the same time protecting the environment requires widespread adoption of resource-conserving low external input farming systems by both small- and large-scale farmers (Wegner & Zwart, 2011). The generic characteristics of such diversified farming systems are (Kremen & Miles, 2012):

They restore and maintain the natural resource base of agriculture and its ecosystem services

such as land, soil fertility, water, nutrients in top soil, and genetic diversity. Restoring resource levels implies the implementation of food system activities that add to resource levels, e.g., through rebuilding soil organic matter and sequestering greenhouse gas emissions. Maintain-

ing resource levels implies regenerative resource management that fully replaces outflows, e.g., through reforestation. A direct consequence of the maintenance of resource levels is a land degradation neutral world and increased resilience of farming systems.

They use the natural resource base and other inputs more efficiently and thus increase productivity at the farm level.

The conservation of natural resources and ecosystems is a multidimensional issue that needs to be shared with other post-2015 Goals. For target number 2.1, we focus on agriculture-specific indica-tors and distinguish between indicators for assessing progress towards more sustainable and resil-ient management of the natural resource base of agriculture and its ecosystem services as well as indicators assessing progress towards increasing productivity sustainably.

Indicators need to represent regenerative soil management to restore soil fertility and soil

functions. While the availability of direct measures of soil fertility is very low, it can be approx-imated by the diffusion of agricultural practices that enhance soil fertility. Such agro-ecological practices also reduce leaching, volatilization and erosional losses of nutrients, increase nutri-ent- and water-use efficiency and improve the water-holding capacity of soil (Tilman et al., 2002).

Measuring productivity at farm level is important to assess the overall performance of differ-ent agricultural production systems as diversified farming systems can achieve considerably higher overall productivity per hectare or farm (Kremen & Miles, 2012; Pretty et al., 2006). Currently, the discourse around total factor productivity, however, evolves around closing

11

yield gaps (BMGF, 2013). Calculations from Fuglie, (2010) draw on annual FAO data and ex-pand the scope of the productivity measure away from yield gaps.

If indicators monitor and evaluate regenerative soil management and the use of non-renewable inputs, they also approximate at least some dimensions of resilience to economic shocks as well as climate variability and change. Agro-ecological practices increase the diversity of crops cultivated at the farm level and the use of diverse, local, and robust livestock species. Keeping the latter in high welfare conditions boosts resilience against disease and lessens the need for antimicrobial treatment. Moreover, agro-ecological practices increase available natural resource levels such as water. Strong reliance on renewable inputs reduces the vulnerability of farms to changes in the availability and accessibility of external inputs.

Potential indicators

The following indicators might be able to capture some of these considerations:

Percent of farmland under crop rotation, mulching, agro-forestry, free-range livestock systems,

and other agro-ecological standards. Data availability on the global level currently limited to certified organic agriculture and partially, to conservation agriculture.

Resource use efficiency. The classical inputs/factors from which total factor productivity is cal-culated include farm labor, agricultural land, livestock, inorganic fertilizer, and farm machinery. This measure should be revised to include inputs such as water, nutrients and energy. Such re-vision could start by building on calculations from (Fuglie, 2010) using annual FAO data.

Target 2.2: Minimize post-harvest and other food losses and waste

Narrative

Roughly one-third of the food produced in the world for human consumption every year is lost or wasted. If one-fourth of the food currently lost or wasted globally was saved, it would feed 848 million hungry people in the world (Gustavsson et al., 2011).

Every year, consumers in developed countries waste almost as much food (222 million tons) as the entire net food production of Sub-Saharan Africa (230 million tons). Therefore, these countries have a specific responsibility to lead efforts to quickly and significantly reduce food waste (Gustavsson, et al., 2011).

In developing countries, losses predominantly occur in agricultural production, post-harvest and processing stages with over 40% in the latter two stages. In medium- and high-income countries, losses (over 40%) occur mostly at the end of the food chain, that is, in retail and final consump-

tion, where they are termed “waste” (Parfitt et al., 2010). Reducing post-harvest losses through improved storage conditions and logistics in developing countries could both ensure more income and added value to primary producers, and improve national food availability.

In addition, much food is lost for human consumption by using crops and fish for animal feed. 53% of oil crops, 38% of cereals, 25% of roots, 24% of pulses and 20% of fish is used to feed livestock (Erb et al., 2012). The nutritional value consumed by animals in eating a given quantity of crops/fish is much greater than that delivered for humans by the resultant animal products (FAO, 2011b).

Reducing food losses and waste during food system activities can thus considerably contribute to achieving desired food system outcomes. The impact on food system outcomes, however, needs

12

to be carefully monitored and evaluated as recent studies suggest that the impacts of reductions in waste and losses on food security and welfare are ambiguous (Rutten, 2013).

Potential indicators

The following indicators might be able to capture some of these considerations:

Post harvest losses

Losses in food processing and retailing industries

Waste in the food chain

Percentage of crops/fish used/produced for animal feed

Enabling conditions

The transformation towards sustainable and resilient agri-food systems must be implemented by actors along the entire food value chain, including farmers, the input and processing industries, traders, retailers, and consumers. Changes to sustainable food system activities that generate the desired food system outcomes requires transformational changes in governance, management and use of natural resources that are facilitated by enabling socio-economic and socio-political

conditions as well as by agricultural research and technology dissemination (FAO, 2013; Neufeldt, et al., 2013).

To produce his or her own food, a person needs land, seeds, water, knowledge and other re-sources, and to buy it, one needs money and access to the market. The right to food therefore requires States to provide enabling conditions that allow people to use their full potential to pro-duce or procure adequate food for themselves and their families. To purchase food, a person needs adequate incomes: the right to food consequently requires States to ensure that wage poli-

cies or social safety nets enable citizens to realize their right to adequate food.

Rights and entitlements, inclusive decision-making processes as well as technology development and transfer not only facilitate the transformation towards sustainable agriculture and food sys-tems. Instead, they also reduce the vulnerability of agriculture and food systems to a variety of climatic and economic shocks and thus make them more resilient.

Target 3.1: Ensure stable and accessible international and national markets

Narrative

People’s access to the food they need depends on food markets functioning properly at local, na-tional, regional and global levels, including through widely available market information for all. Access also depends on the ability to pay for food. Fair and localized markets, together with rules

and regulations that foster fair trade and respect human rights all contribute to more equitable access. Sustainable food value chains – from production, through processing, transport and trade, to consumers – increase the availability of food, generate income and help create and maintain decent jobs. Stable access to markets depends, among others, on the following mechanisms:

Incentives for food system actors to shift to sustainable food system activities: A major reason

for the decline in ecosystems worldwide is that ecosystem services are not priced or assigned value as they are either positive or negative externalities of food system activities (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Various incentives determine what farmers produce and how they produce it. If incentives are more geared towards positive externalities as opposed to negative externalities, a transition to sustainable food systems can be fostered. This can be

13

done e.g. through payment for ecosystem services (FAO, 2007). However, there are also nega-tive externalities associated with food system activities such as the significant environmental

costs. Therefore, food system actors would need to consider the full environmental costs and benefits from the environmental services of their activities. This can be done by internalizing environmental costs and benefits of food system activities, e.g. through payment of environ-mental services or taxation.

Trade policies: International trade and economic policies can have both positive and negative

effects on different development and sustainability goals (IAASTD, 2008). The organization of the trade system and access to domestic and international markets influence how soft com-modities and processed goods are produced, distributed and consumed, and they have im-portant consequences for the redistribution of goods and benefits. An equitable multilateral trade system that promotes rural development and food security, including by eliminating ex-port subsidies, price dumping and other forms of asymmetric trade practices, as well as miti-

gating excessive food price volatility, needs to be ensured. In so doing, farmers in developing countries wouldn’t be exposed to unfair competition while developed countries can still im-plement policy measures to support rural development and incomes.

Food price volatility: Food price volatility can exacerbate poverty and hunger and may even be a source of riots or intra-state conflicts. As there is growing evidence that speculation in the commodity markets is one of the causes of food price volatility, international restraints should be implemented (FAO, 2012). Furthermore, regulatory measures such as position limits for fi-nancial investors and market-based measures including greater market transparency can help. Sharing information about levels of national and international stocks and levels of production is also a critical dimension to ensure more price stability, but it is also politically very sensible. Another, albeit contended, dimension is the existence and size of food reserves at different

geographical levels to buffer economic and climatic fluctuations.

Potential indicators

The following indicators might be able to capture some of these considerations:

Food price index. Data source: FAO Food Security Indicators.

Diffusion and use of the AMIS system (http://www.amis-outlook.org/). AMIS is an agricultural market information system called for by G20 agriculture ministers with the aim of addressing food price volatility through more timely, accurate and transparent information on global food markets.

Target 3.2: Ensure access by all to productive resources and assets through the progressive realization of the right to food

Narrative

Socio-political factors have an influence on food systems through policy, legal and institutional frameworks of relevance for different food system activities. Important examples are land tenure laws and policies, which can have an influence on the size or the distribution of farms and hence influence agricultural production.

To enshrine the right to adequate food in appropriate legal, policy and institutional frameworks at national level is a critical factor to influence food system activities and outcomes. The contribution of the right to adequate food to ensure food security and nutrition for all is threefold. First,

14

through the recognition in international law and in some domestic constitutions, it imposes on states obligations to respect, protect and fulfill the right to food. Second, the right to food implies

legal entitlements to social welfare benefits that individuals or households can receive under gov-ernmental food security schemes. This fosters monitoring of implementation and broader ac-countability. Third, states adopt national strategies to progressively realize the components of the right to food that cannot immediately be guaranteed. Hence, governments should a) endorse right to food framework laws and include the right to food in national constitutions and b) design multi-year, integrated and coherent national strategies for the realization of the right to food in a partic-ipatory process (UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, 2013).

In addition, ensured access to productive resources and assets to conduct food system activities is critical. Access to and control over productive resources means that people have secured owner-ship or rights to use resources. Productive resources include land, water, seeds, forests, biodiversi-ty and fisheries. This includes strengthening land tenure rights. Access to assets comprises finan-

cial and non-financial services. These include access to micro credit and micro insurance to protect against crop failure, information along the entire value added chain, drawn from public domain knowledge and environmentally sound technologies.

Potential indicators

The following indicator might be able to capture some of these considerations:

Right to food included in country legislation. Data source: FAO Legislative Database on the

Right to Food.

Target 3.3: Establish inclusive, transparent, and equitable decision-making processes on food, nutrition and agriculture

Narrative

Accountability refers to the question of who is responsible for monitoring and evaluating progress towards the achievement of the formulated targets and in which debates these results will be used. Accountability is relevant on each level, ranging from global to local.

The existence of a food security policy and the coherence of other policies with food security ob-jectives is one of the key questions that influence the transformation of the food systems and its capacity to progress towards food security and sustainability.

The establishment of well-functioning information, monitoring and accountability systems aims to ensure that decision-makers’ responses accelerate progress towards better food security and nu-

trition (High Level Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis, 2010) and the shift to sustainable agriculture and food systems. In this respect, the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) is cur-rently looking into options on how to facilitate country-initiated, multi-stakeholder assessments to foster food security through sustainable agriculture, and to work towards rural development / poverty reduction.

Good governance at all levels is key to reducing food insecurity, hunger and malnutrition, and to achieve the needed transformation to attain the Post-2015 Goals. This can be fostered through enhanced national ownership and democratic decision making at all levels, more explicit rights-based approaches, strengthened accountability, as well as more inclusive legislative and multi-stakeholder decision-making processes. Such processes need to give particular attention to wom-en, smallholder farmers, and other disadvantaged groups.

15

Potential indicators

The establishment of inclusive, transparent, and equitable decision-making processes on food, nutrition and agriculture is predominantly relevant on the national level. Global indicators can track the number of countries implementing this target, which in turn can increase the accounta-bility of nations.

Diffusion of implemented national multi-stakeholder assessments.

Target 3.4: Research and technology transfer support the transformation to sustainable food system activities

Narrative

The available and accessible scientific and technological means influence food system activities. Scientific and technological innovations, together with appropriate financial resources for their diffusion, can support the shift to sustainable food system activities.

The transformation to sustainable food system activities needs to be accompanied by substantial increases in knowledge-intensive technologies that enhance decision making at the field level. This requires redirecting and increasing investments into sustainable farming systems and into tech-nologies that are environmentally sound, accessible and affordable for small-scale farmers (IAASTD, 2009; Vanloqueren & Baret, 2009).

Having sustainable farming systems available and sound analysis on their effectiveness is a pre-condition for the adoption and spread of sustainable agricultural practices and technologies. Such farming systems include agro-ecological practices, agroforestry, and optimal irrigation and nitro-

gen inputs and timing to enhance the soil’s capacity to sequester carbon (Muller, 2012), organic farming (Gattinger et al., 2012) and no-till farming (Lal, 2011).

The effectiveness of investments in public agricultural R&D is high. Developing countries achieved an estimated return on investment (ROI) from agricultural R&D of over 40 per cent between 1953-1997 (Alston et al., 2000). These ROI from public investments in agriculture have not declined and are higher than investments in social capital or other public sectors (Beintema & Elliott, 2011).

Public investments and incentives, in particular for small-scale producers in developing countries, should be expanded in order to accelerate the transition to sustainable food system activities (Economic and Social Council, 2009).

Additionally, technological innovations along the entire value chain can benefit addressing issues of post-harvest loss (e.g. through improved storage bags), facilitating accessible and transparent

markets for farmers (e.g. through mobile phone data on market prices of farm produce), or reduc-ing food waste at consumption level.

Potential indicators

The Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators (ASTI) initiative, led by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), compiles, analyses, and publicizes data on institutional develop-ments, investments, and capacity in agricultural R&D. ASTI is limited to developing countries and only covers investment levels.

Indicators for evaluating progress towards a new science and technology scheme should, for ex-ample, also be able to assess the accessibility and the benefits of technological innovations for small-scale farmers and they should extend to medium- and high-income countries.

16

Despite these restrictions, the following indicator might capture some of the above considera-tions:

Amount of investment into research on different farming systems and food system activities.

Data source: Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators (ASTI) initiative, http://www.asti.cgiar.org/.

17

3 Target and indicator system – reflections on use at national level

In this chapter, we reflect on the use of the proposed target and indicator system at national level. This reflection is incomplete in several ways. On the one hand, the national level is not the lowest geographical level at which targets and indicators are relevant. Instead, targets and indicators of-ten need to include community, households or agroecological levels as well. On the other hand, the diversity of social, economic and environmental conditions at national and even more so at subnational level is so big that the reflections offered in this section can only touch on selected issues. The different length of the text describing targets and indicators at national level thus do not imply a value judgment about their relative importance.

This chapter is based on literature analysis and a non-representative national-level consultation in

a developing country. In February 2014, Biovision Foundation and Millennium Institute hosted a one-day workshop in Addis Abbeba, Ethiopia, with the aim of discussing the relevance and ap-plicability of the proposed target and indicator system at national level. Participants of the work-shop were invited to discuss the relevance of the proposed targets for a country like Ethiopia and to suggest indicators to measure progress towards such targets. About 25 representatives from government, academia and the private sector attended the informal consultative meeting. Its out-comes are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Target system with modifications suggested by workshop participants

Target Modifications suggested and comments made by workshop participants

Target 1.1: End malnutrition and

hunger in each of their forms

Target very relevant.

Targets should be realistic. The target should thus read “End hunger and

reduce malnutrition”.

Stability might be the most important issue in an African context.

Good data availability to measure progress.

Target 1.2: Improve the liveli-

hood of small-scale farmers and

other rural communities

Different level of aggregation than target 1.1

Target very relevant, especially in terms of rural poverty. Income should be

mentioned explicitly.

Target should be broader and e.g., include rural-urban linkages, assets and

access to infrastructure and social services.

Good data availability to measure progress

Target 1.3: Ensure maintenance

of agriculture’s natural resource

base

Different level of aggregation than target 1.1

Target relevant but priority is on ending hunger and reducing malnutrition.

Data availability rather poor.

Target 2.1: Implement productive

and resilient farming systems

that enhance and maintain the

provision of ecosystem services

Target relevant and applicable.

National policy is fairly detailed in terms of policy instruments and indica-

tors to measure progress.

Target 2.2: Minimize post-harvest

and other food losses and waste

In an Ethiopian context, the target would have to be reformulated as “min-

imize post-harvest and other food losses and keep waste down”.

Data mainly based on estimations from surveys.

Target 3.1: Ensure stable and

accessible international and na-

tional markets

The target might be difficult to be adapted on national level as its achieve-

ment depends mostly on the international cooperation. Nevertheless, it is

relevant for Ethiopia and applicable.

18

Empowerment of developing countries is needed to achieve this target.

For Ethiopian farmers, market access is very relevant.

In a national context, the improvement of national market-flows might be

more important. Furthermore, regional differences in over- and underpro-

duction have to be considered (first). It was raised that Ethiopia should first

cover its own needs before exporting.

A group preferred the formulation of the Millennium Development Goal

number 8 (develop a global partnership for development).

The target should be split (2 targets): Bi- and multilateral trade; food price

volatility.

The target has not only been seen as positive. Some participants asked for

a timeslot for developing countries within which they are allowed to pro-

tect their markets.

The target was seen to concern developed countries (it’s their turn).

Target 3.2: Ensure access by all to

productive resources and assets

through the progressive realiza-

tion of the right to food

Target 3.3: Establish inclusive,

transparent, and equitable deci-

sion-making processes on food,

nutrition and agriculture

Workshop participants evaluated this target differently. While some did not

see any relevance of it for the national development, others stated that

this target could only be addressed on national level.

The target should focus more on good governance and accountability than

on inclusiveness, transparency and equity.

Target 3.4: Research and tech-

nology transfer support the

transformation to sustainable

food system activities

This target seems to be the most important one within the Ethiopian con-

text. All participants agreed that this is the enabling condition that has to

be given priority.

While research is done, there seems to be a lack of technology transfer

mainly due to a lack of capacity. Capacity building might be a precondition

on national level. The term ‘support’ is too narrow as more than only sup-

port is needed.

Research should also pay attention to indigenous knowledge and the corre-

sponding technologies. These techniques have to be researched, multi-

plied, adapted and transferred.

Research should focus on the development of alternatives to pesticides.

Technology transfer on its own is not sufficient for sustainable develop-

ment. The imported technologies to be transferred have to be tested and

adapted. Ethiopia has had experience with importing fertilizer that eventu-

ally destroyed farmers’ seeds instead of enhancing yields.

Food system outcomes

Target 1.1: End malnutrition and hunger in each of their forms

Indicators measuring food utilization are useful indicators on the global level to provide aggregate information about the state of food security. To inform policy and implementation, however, such

19

measures need to be decomposed. On a national level, the following aspects of food security might thus be of relevance:

Food availability. Data on food supply (i.e., total amount of food produced and imported) and

utilization (i.e., the quantity of food exported, fed to livestock, used for seed, processed for food and non-food uses, and lost during storage and transportation) are used to create FAO’s core food security measure, the prevalence of undernourishment. Such data is useful for esti-mating food shortages and surpluses, developing projections on future food demand, and set-ting targets for agricultural production (FAO, 2001). However, this data is subject to the strong assumption that the mean of the distribution of calorie consumption in the population equals the average dietary energy supply (FAO et al., 2012).

More important than the total availability of food from a resilience perspective is the diversity of nutrition sources and products as well as a balanced mix between local, national and global sourcing of food (IISD, 2013).

Direct, experience-based approaches to measuring household food access attempt to directly

measure families’ behaviors and lived experiences of household food security at different lev-els of severity using questionnaires (Jones, et al., 2013: 497). The Food Insecurity Experience Scale (measure of household food access) is a subjective measure of food security and current-ly under development within the FAO Voices of the Hungry project (http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess-fs/voices/en/). FAO’s Voices of the Hungry project as-sists countries in accessing information on the severity of food insecurity as experienced by in-dividuals in the population.

For all previous indicators: Include gender-specific indicators to reflect the role of gender equality for development (The World Bank, 2011).

Target 1.2: Improve the wellbeing of small-scale farmers and other rural communities

Specifying target 1.2 on a national level allows incorporating the notion of resilience in a more detailed fashion than on the global level. Indicators in this direction might reflect the following aspects of rural livelihoods:

Rural livelihoods in general and food aspect in specific are more resilient if households have diverse ways of accessing food such as self-production, exchange, purchase (financed by liveli-hood income, remittances, safety nets or credit), or food aid (IISD, 2013).

Additional livelihood dimensions that should be taken into account from a resilience perspec-

tive are the diversity of assets owned by rural households and households’ access to infra-structure as well as social services.

Depending on the national context, indicators might also evaluate the number of jobs and la-bor productivity within the agricultural sector. Such indicators would not have a specific goal value but monitor progress and changes.

Depending on the national context, good animal health and welfare practices can be identified and monitored, for example the prevalence of grazing for ruminants.

For all previous indicators: Include gender-specific indicators to reflect the role of gender

equality for development (The World Bank, 2011).

20

Target 1.3: Ensure maintenance of agriculture’s natural resource base

Some of the proposed indicators for global level measurement and monitoring can be decom-posed at national and other levels. Land use per person might be measured for domestic con-sumption and carbon or water footprints could be applied to food value chains at national and multinational levels.

Food system activities

Target 2.1: Implement productive and resilient farming systems that enhance and maintain the provision of ecosystem services

Specifying target 2.1 on a national level allows incorporating the notion of resilience in a more detailed fashion than on the global level. Indicators in this direction might reflect the following aspects of farming systems:

Percent coverage of agriculture land cultivated with packages of resource-conserving technol-ogies and practices such as integrated pest management, integrated nutrient management, conservation tillage, agroforestry, aquaculture, water harvesting in dryland areas or livestock integration into farming systems (Pretty, et al., 2006). Such technologies and practices have a variety of mostly beneficial impacts on the provision of ecosystem services by agriculture (Kremen & Miles, 2012) and they all contribute to the resilience of agricultural production to-wards various climatic and economic external shocks.

Resilience as well as the provision of ecosystem services is not only enhanced through the im-plementation of resource-conserving farming systems, but also through the diversity of such systems on national and sub-national levels.

Additional indicators about resource use efficiency might reflect the following aspects of farming systems:

Dependency on imports of animal feed, fertilizers and chemical inputs.

Target 2.2: Minimize post-harvest and other food losses and waste

Target 2.2 addresses all the food system activities from agricultural production all the way to con-

sumption and the disposal of waste. The minimization of losses and waste is both relevant at glob-al and national levels. An assessment of losses and waste might be particularly relevant at the lev-el of value chains through life cycle analyses.

Sustainable consumption is difficult to operationalize as a consensual target regarding sustainable diets on the global level. However, sustainable consumption might be a national target and, in addition to the minimization of waste, cover criteria such as a responsible combination of plant and animal products in national diets as well as the consideration of off-site effects of products purchased for consumption (e.g., Hoekstra & Chapagain, 2007; Seppelt et al., 2011; Würtenberger et al., 2004; Yu et al., 2013). Even more relevant, at least in some countries, might be the reduc-tion of the absolute level of consumption measured through mean end user availability of calories. This would reduce the overall pressure on ecosystems on the one hand and health systems on the

21

other. The carbon footprint of food consumption is determined by the total amount of calories consumed even more than by the type of diet (Esnouf et al., 2013).

Enabling conditions

Target 3.1: Ensure stable and accessible international and national markets

Physical access to local and national markets: Percentage of paved roads over total roads/roads density. Data source: World Bank World Development Indicators.

Regional and national strategic food reserves.

Effects of trade agreements on the domestic agricultural sector and on food security, estimat-

ed through ex ante evaluation systems such IFPRI’s IMPACT model (http://www.ifpri.org/book-

751/ourwork/program/impact-model). Impact assessment before signing any trade agree-ments.

Domestic food price volatility in staple crops. Data source: FAO Food Security Indicators.

Implementation of the AMIS system (http://www.amis-outlook.org/).

Payments for ecosystem services to internalize positive external effects of food system activi-ties/ tax schemes that internalize costs of negative external effects.

Target 3.2: Ensure access by all to productive resources and assets through the progressive realization of the right to food

National-level indicators concerned with rights and entitlements might cover aspects such as:

Right to food included in national legislation.

Legislation ensuring access to land and water for small-scale farmers.

For all previous indicators: Include gender-specific indicators to reflect the role of gender equality for development (The World Bank, 2011).

Target 3.3: Establish inclusive, transparent, and equitable decision-making processes on food, nutrition and agriculture

Conducting multi-stakeholder assessments at the country level helps to identify the most vulnera-ble populations, develop national food security and nutrition strategies and choose actions that are most appropriate to achieve development goals and targets in a coherent way. The result of such assessments should be a well-functioning information, monitoring and accountability frame-work.

Global food security and sustainable agriculture targets are mainly the aggregation of national targets, and they are mainly to be reached through national strategies and policies. Through ap-proaches like the right to food, it is primarily the national government that can be held accounta-ble for achieving the food security of its citizens and the transformation of its agri-food systems. In that regard, the main process of accountability for food security would be an evaluation process of national food security policies.

22

National indicators are therefore crucial, both for food security as well as for the transformation of the agri-food system. National mean values are essential to evaluate the government’s achieve-

ments through its policies. In addition to the government, a series of other national actors (farm-ers, private sector, research, civil society) should be involved in such an evaluation process. The involvement of these actors is important as food security and sustainability targets are the result of combined actions of a variety of national actors.

A series of international factors might impede a country from reaching its food security and food system transformation objectives, or on the contrary help the country do so. These factors con-cern price volatility, international trade competition regulation, official development aid and other international financial flows, as well as transnational actors like some private sector companies and international NGOs. Formulating indicators for monitoring and evaluating these factors takes into account the major risks for nations to reach their food security and sustainability targets and it allows holding international coordination mechanisms (e.g., G8/G20, AMIS mechanisms) more

accountable.

National-level indicators for targets concerned with decision-making processes and accountability might cover aspects such as:

Functioning national data collection in place.

Coherence of policies with food security is evaluated.

For all previous indicators: Include gender-specific indicators to reflect the role of gender

equality for development (The World Bank, 2011).

Target 3.4: Research and technology transfer support the transformation to sustainable food system activities

National agricultural research institutes’ research agenda based on the country’s development agenda.

Types of imported technologies.

Types of released technologies.

Utilization of technologies by farmers.

Capacity of farmers to use technologies.

Procedures for integrating science-based with local knowledge.

Share of public and private sector investments.

Legal and biological dependencies of investors and licenses.

23

4 Interlinkages with other issue areas

A key challenge in achieving poverty eradication and sustainable development is overcoming the fact that economies, governments and societies in general operate largely in silos. The limited in-teraction between sectors and thematic issues fails to maximize potential synergies, and minimize potential trade-offs.

In this respect, the Integrating Approach put forward by the government of Colombia (2013), can be a useful approach in addressing these challenges. It focuses policy and action on the interlink-ages between the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development, and thus on the interlinkages between the different issue areas of the post-2015 development agenda.

With regard to the proposed targets on food and nutrition security, sustainable agriculture and

food systems, all of them are inter-related with other issue areas and can therefore be connected to and shared with possible goals in other areas (Table 2). This is of key importance if the proposed goal of food and nutrition security through sustainable agriculture and food systems is to contrib-ute to sustainable development in all its three dimensions and across all the issue areas of sustain-able development.

Table 2: Interlinkages between proposed target system and other issue areas

Targets Links to other issue areas

Target 1.1: End malnutrition and hunger in each of their

forms

- Health and population dynamics

Target 1.2: Improve the livelihood of small-scale farmers

and other rural communities

- Poverty eradication

- Employment and decent work for all

Target 1.3: Align food systems with environmental wel-

fare

- Water and sanitation

- Climate

- Ecosystems and biodiversity

- Sustainable production and consumption

Target 2.1: Implement productive and resilient farming

systems that enhance and maintain ecosystem services

- Health and population dynamics

- Water and sanitation

- Climate

- Ecosystems and biodiversity

- Oceans

- Energy

Target 2.2: Minimize post-harvest and other food losses

and waste

- Sustainable transport/ Infrastructure

- Sustainable production and consumption

- Sustainable cities and human settlements

Target 3.1: Ensure stable and accessible international

and national markets

- Economic growth /Trade in general

- Means of implementation

Target 3.2: Ensure access by all to productive resources

and assets through the progressive realization of the

right to food

- Promoting equality

- Infrastructure

- Education

Target 3.3: Establish inclusive, transparent, and equita-

ble decision-making processes on food, nutrition and

agriculture

- Gender equality and women’s empowerment

- Promoting equality

24

Target 3.4: Research and technology transfer support

the transformation to sustainable food system activities

- Means of implementation

- Education

Links to other issue areas are also presented in the OWG Co-Chairs’ Focus Areas Document of 21. February 2014

25

References

Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: Are they related? Progress in Human Geography, 24(3), 347–364.

Adger, W. N., Arnell, N. W., & Tompkins, E. L. (2005). Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Global Environmental Change, 15(2), 77–86.

Alston, J., Chan-Kang, C., Marra, M., Pardey, P., & Wyatt, T. (2000). A Meta-Analysis of Rates of Return to Agricultural R&D: Ex Pede Herculem? IFPRI Research Reports (Vol. 113, pp. 148). Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

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

Beintema, N., & Elliott, H. (2011). Setting Meaningful Investment Targets in Agricultural Research and Development: Challenges, Opportunities and Fiscal Realities. In P. Conforti (Ed.), Looking Ahead in World Food and Agriculture Perspectives to 2050 (pp. 347-387). Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

BMGF. (2013). Discussion Brief: Sustainable Agricultural Productivity Target. Seattle, W.A.: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B. H., Anderies, J. M., & Abel, N. (2001). From metaphor to measurement: Resilience of what to what? Ecosystems, 4(8), 765-781. doi: 10.2307/3659056

Cash, D. W., Adger, W. N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., . . . Young, O. (2006). Scale and cross-scale dynamics: Governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and Society, 11(2 C7 - 8).

Coates, J. (2013). Build it back better: Deconstructing food security for improved measurement and action. Global Food Security, 2(3), 188-194. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2013.05.002

de Janvry, A., & Sadoulet, E. (2010). Agriculture for development in Africa: Business-as-usual or new departures? Journal of African Economies, 19(suppl 2), ii7-ii39. doi: 10.1093/jae/ejp028

Economic and Social Council. (2009). Commission on Sustainable Development. Report on the seventeenth session (16 May 2008 and 4-15 May 2009). New York: United Nations.

Erb, K.-H., Mayer, A., Kastner, T., Sallet, K.-E., & Haberl, H. (2012). The Impact of Industrial Grain Fed Livestock Production on Food Security: An Extended Literature Review. Vienna, Austria: Universität Klagenfurt.

Ericksen, P. J. (2008). Conceptualizing food systems for global environmental change research. Global Environmental Change, 18(1), 234-245.

Ericksen, P. J., Thornton, P. K., Notenbaert, A., Cramer, L., Jones, P., & Herrero, M. (2011). Mapping hotspots of climate change and food insecurity in the global tropics CCAFS Report (Vol. 5). Copenhagen, Denmark: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).

Esnouf, C., Russel, M., & Bricas, N. (Eds.). (2013). Food System Sustainability. Insights from duALIne. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

FAO. (2001). Food Balance Sheets: A Handbook. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

26

FAO. (2007). The State of Food and Agriculture. Paying Farmers for Environmental Services FAO Agriculture Series. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

FAO. (2008). Climate Change and Food Security: A Framework Document. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

FAO. (2011a). The State of Food and Agriculture 2010-11. Women in Agriculture. Closing the Gender Gap for Development (pp. 147). Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

FAO. (2011b). World Livestock 2011 - Livestock in Food Security. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

FAO. (2012). Price Volatility from a Global Perspective. Paper presented at the High-level event on: “Food price volatility and the role of speculation”, FAO Headquarters, Rome. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/est/meetings/price_volatility/Price_volatility_TechPaper_V3_clean.pdf

FAO. (2013). SAFA. Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture Systems. Indicators. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

FAO, IFAD, & WFP. (2012). The State of Food Security in the World 2012. Economic Growth is Necessary but not Sufficient to Accelerate Reduction of Hunger and Malnutrition. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation.

FAO, IFAD, & WFP. (2013). The State of Food Insecurity in the World. The Multiple Dimensions of Food Security. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation.

Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 253-267. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002

Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., & Rockström, J. (2010). Resilience Thinking: Integrating Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability. Ecology and Society, 15(4 C7 - 20).

Fuglie, K. O. (2010). Total Factor Productivity in the Global Agricultural Economy: Evidence from FAO Data. In J. Alston, B. A. Babcock & P. Pardey (Eds.), The Shifting Patterns of Agricultural Production and Productivity Worldwide (pp. 63-95). Ames, Iowa: The Midwest Agribusiness Trade Research and Information Center, Iowa State University.

Gattinger, A., Muller, A., Haeni, M., Skinner, C., Fliessbach, A., Buchmann, N., . . . Niggli, U. (2012). Enhanced top soil carbon stocks under organic farming. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(44), 18226-18231. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1209429109

Griggs, D., Stafford-Smith, M., Gaffney, O., Rockström, J., Ohman, M. C., Shyamsundar, P., . . . Noble, I. (2013). Policy: Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature, 495(7441), 305-307. doi: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v495/n7441/abs/495305a.html - supplementary-information

Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., van Otterdijk, R., & Meybeck, A. (2011). Global Food Losses and Food Waste. Extent, Causes and Prevention. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

High Level Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis. (2010). Updated Comprehensive Framework for Action: United Nations.

27

Hoekstra, A. Y., & Chapagain, A. K. (2007). Water footprints of nations: Water use by people as a function of their consumption pattern. Water Resources Management, 21(1), 35-48. doi: 10.1007/s11269-006-9039-x

Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4(1), 1-23. doi: doi:10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245

Holling, C. S. (1996). Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience. In P. C. Schulze (Ed.), Engineering within Ecological Constraints (pp. 31-44). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

IAASTD. (2008). Agriculture at a Crossroads. Global Report. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

IAASTD. (2009). Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

IISD. (2013). Climate Resilience and Food Security. A Framework for Planning and Monitoring IISD Report. Manitoba: International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).

Ingram, J. S. I., Ericksen, P. J., & Liverman, D. (Eds.). (2010). Food Security and Global Environmental Change. London & Washington DC: Earthscan.

Jones, A. D., Ngure, F. M., Pelto, G., & Young, S. L. (2013). What are we assessing when we measure food security? A compendium and review of current metrics. Advances in Nutrition: An International Review Journal, 4(5), 481-505. doi: 10.3945/an.113.004119

Kremen, C., & Miles, A. (2012). Ecosystem services in biologically diversified versus conventional farming systems: Benefits, externalities, and trade-offs. Ecology and Society, 17(4 C7 - 40). doi: 10.5751/es-05035-170440

Lal, R. (2011). Sequestering carbon in soils of agro-ecosystems. Food Policy, 36, Supplement 1(0), S33-S39. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.12.001

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Muller, A. (2012). Agricultural land management, carbon reductions and climate policy for agriculture. Carbon Management, 3(6), 641-654. doi: 10.4155/cmt.12.64

Neufeldt, H., Jahn, M., Campbell, B. M., Beddington, J. R., DeClerck, F., De Pinto, A., . . . Zougmoré, R. (2013). Beyond climate-smart agriculture: Toward safe operating spaces for global food systems. Agriculture & Food Security, 2(13). doi: doi:10.1186/2048-7010-2-12

Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., & Macnaughton, S. (2010). Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365(1554), 3065-3081. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0126

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

Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., . . . Foley, J. A. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472-475.

Rutten, M. M. (2013). What economic theory tells us about the impacts of reducing food losses and/or waste: Implications for research, policy and practice. Agriculture & Food Security, 2(13). doi: doi:10.1186/2048-7010-2-13

28

Seppelt, R., Dormann, C. F., Eppink, F. V., Lautenbach, S., & Schmidt, S. (2011). A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48(3), 630-636. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01952.x

The Economist. (2013). Global Food Security Index 2013. An Annual Measure of the State of Global Food Security. London; New York; Hong Kong; Geneva: The Economist, Intelligence Unit.

The World Bank. (2007). World Development Report 2008. Agriculture for Development. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

The World Bank. (2011). World Development Report 2012. Gender Equality and Development. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Tilman, D., Cassman, K. G., Matson, P. A., Naylor, R., & Polasky, S. (2002). Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature, 418(6898), 671-677.

UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food. (2013). Report to the General Assembly: Assessing a decade of progress on the right to food: United Nations, General Assembly.

UNDP. (2013). Human Development Report 2013. The Rise of the South: Human Progress in a Diverse World. New York: United Nations Development Programme.

Vanloqueren, G., & Baret, P. V. (2009). How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations. Research Policy, 38(6), 971-983. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.02.008

von Grebmer, K., Headey, D., Olofinbiyi, T., Wiesmann, D., Fritschel, H., Yin, S., . . . Haddad, L. (2013). 2013 Global Hunger Index. The Challenge of Hunger. Building Resilience to Achieve Food and Nutrition Security IFPRI Issues Brief (pp. 8). Washington DC: IFPRI; Concern Worldwide; Welthungerhilfe; Institute of Development Studies.

Walker, B. H., Anderies, J. M., Kinzig, A. P., & Ryan, P. (2006). Exploring resilience in social-ecological systems through comparative studies and theory development: Introduction to the special issue. Ecology and Society, 11(1).

Walker, B. H., Carpenter, S. R., Anderies, J. M., Abel, N., Cumming, G. S., Janssen, M. A., . . . Pritchard, R. (2002). Resilience management in social-ecological systems: a working hypothesis for a participatory approach. Conservation Ecology, 6(1), 14.

Wegner, L., & Zwart, G. (2011). Who Will Feed the World? The Production Challenge Oxfam Research Reports (pp. 65): Oxfam.

Würtenberger, L., Binder, C. R., & Köllner, T. (2004). Nachhaltige Landwirtschaftspolitik macht an der Grenze nicht halt. GAIA, 13(3), 191-196.

Yu, Y., Feng, K., & Hubacek, K. (2013). Tele-connecting local consumption to global land use. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1178-1186. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.04.006