Explore le compte-rendu officiel des Concertations

The Dialogue did not reveal particular divergences; rather, it insisted on a recognition of the diverse realities, experiences, practices and knowledge that are intimately related to particular environments and territorial designations. For example, a strong message from several representatives of indigenous communities was they were requesting no assistance, no technical support, no intervention other than, simply, being left alone. The life systems like theirs -and many others that were depicted- have existed for generations and could do for generations more if they were left to continue, wi... Lire la suiteth an end to encroachment, violence, dislocation and invasion. Their capacity to do so, is of course is dependent on the forest that they protected for centuries. For others where there has been disruption to livelihoods then strategies to recover and revive memory and practices are required. The fate of fishing communities impacted by, for example, dam construction, siltation, pollution has meant that fishing livelihoods must be complemented by new food producing strategies in the territories, a situation complicated by the demise of public policies. Residents of agrarian reform settlements and other agro extractive territories are similarly hampered by unfavourable policy, and the need for progressive, not for profit financial support and technical assistance is articulated. Importantly, the stakeholders of the dialogue represent communities ostensibly protected by conventions to which FAO is signatory, and speak on themes relevant to SDGs for which FAO has responsibility (SDG 2 zero hunger; SDG 5 gender equality; SDG 6 clean water and sanitation; SDG 12 responsible consumption and production; SDG 14 life under water; SDG 15 Life on land. This serves to further highlight the indivisibility of future, sustainable agrifood systems from upholding the rights of farmers. This is enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas ; in the Treaties for Indigenous peoples, and in Brazil specific laws for agrarian reform, agroextractive communities and Quilombolas. From the accounts of stakeholders; however, the trajectory, is a regressive one in relation to the key articles of this commitment (these include equality, women's participation, right to nature, civil and political rights, justice, labour rights, food sovereignty, right to land, right to seeds, right to biodiversity; right to water and clean water systems; right to health and social security; right to housing; right to education; cultural rights, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions). Traditional knowledge and its link to sustainability, food security and climate change Impacts is acknowledged by FAO and its Traditional Knowledge report recognises these “are increasingly endangered by large-scale commercialization of agriculture, population dynamics, land-use/cover changes and the impacts of climate change”. If there is a divergence, it is a broader systemic divergence from the harmful, predatory and wasteful model of commified agroindustrial production. It is an insistence that discourses and misguided attempts to reconcile the interests of sustainable, food producing communities with deep, cultural, spiritual; and practical territorial links with commercialised monocultures and large scale mineral and energy complexes is at best illusory, and at worst genocidal in the view of participants. Amidst a traumatic year of pandemic and, on evidence, yet more missed goals and failed promises in relation to sustainability, human rights and climate change across the globe; the stakeholders invite a formal response from FAO to the violent disruption of agrifood systems in globally important biomes that are articulated here. It is clear that the communities, represented here, will continue to resist further detriment and destruction; but the efforts are costing lives, compromising production, and threatening biodiverse ecosystems. They should no longer be expected to provide 'resilience' to shocks and stresses that are structured, and are predictable in dominant agroindustrialised systems and related environmental changes. These stresses include but are not restricted to climate change. The many immediate problems are articulated above. We modestly ask that this Independent Dialogue begins a critically important dialogue with FAO, that the articulation of violent abuses underlying agroindustrial advance is heightened and addressed through this dialogue and that an ending of the many transgressions can allow us to continue and further the important transformation towards a socially and environmentally committed agrifood system within and beyond the contours of our discussions. Lire moins

"So, for me, today we are here to discuss our children's lives. When we talk about a plant, a healthy food, today we plant it with our own hands, we take care of our children... a baby is born, we have to take care of it, and even so, we plant, right, we plant for our children, but we are careful, right. We always have that care."

The right to, and necessity of, water "They have no scruples and no sense of dignity. They said nothing would happen and now the river is dry, fish sick, we got sick. An analysis was done and our river was drinking water, healthy, sculpted by nature. Now the oxygen is weak, the iodine... everything changed. They point to [bame] the fisherman, but it is not. They don't like us or the indigenous people because we defend our river, winning or losing, we don't give up. They have a reservoir in which the fish reproduce at the head of the river, there is a dam that does not allow them to return to t... Lire la suitehe river, they stay and die in their dam. We ask to fish there and they forbid it and the fish dies, but they don't let the fisherman fish there, they beat him, take the fish and break his things. There are judges, prosecutors who are for us, but there are others against. Belo Monte did not bring anything good, only the destruction of our rivers. The only thing they bring is money, but we don't take that. God left it for us to take care of, but the human being is destroying it. The Covid virus came because of this greed. I witness fish mortality, I see fish with malformations, greenish water... Belo Monte, like any other enterprise that destroys nature, is rotten". 1. Regulation - Policies for the effective protection of water, and forests. - Combating water contamination by any activity, especially mining, with monitoring, inspection and punishment of polluters, by repairing environmental impacts It ranges from river protection to public policy and labour. It cannot be degrading to working people, it has to be dignified and fair 2.As FAO states there is a need for, “Increased support for small-scale fishers will be critical in light of the coronavirus pandemic to allow them to continue earning a livelihood and nourishing local communities”. This is echoed in the calls for action by fishing communities whose rights and access to rivers and fish have been curtailed. 3. Human rights as environmental rights "They talk about having to the 'Indigenous component' when considering projects. How do you talk about indigenous rights, with the rights of nature, of the forest? They have rights. You can not separate our rights, our life or survival from that of the river, of the trees[..] conservation areas, ecological corridors, these are something, but they are not sufficient" Agrarian reform settlements, quilombolas; even if surrounded by monocultures, their waters still need to be protected, the superficial water, the rivers, the lakes, the groundwater. The territories, of they are going to be surrounded, at the very least must have clean water, potable water, water for farming within the territories. 4. Water sources must be clean and protected Communities must have access to clean, potable, usable water to maintain and healthy, agrifood systems. The pattern, unfortunately, is away from this right, and the aspirations of clean water and sanitation that underpin SDG 6: "ensuring availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all); water stress (6.4)" “Water scarcity, water pollution, degraded water-related ecosystems and cooperation over transboundary water basins”, disproportionately affect the most vulnerable people, and according to FAO, “COULD lead to widespread socio-economic disruptions unless urgent measures are taken”. Our dialogue points out that, like climate change, these feared disruption are a present and NOT a possible future event. Mitigation for 'future' problems requires urgent action to confront 'today's' challenges and abuses. Lire moins

Towards health and security, and away from harm in agrifood systems " In the community, which is directly bordering the crop, there was aeiral spraying less than 10 meters from homes of often elderly residents, making it impossible to produce food, because the plants dry and die every time the spraying occurs". " We were always healthy. Nothing bad happened to us. Before, we didn't even use medication" 1. a) Join calls and actions towards the prohibition of harmful and hazardous agrotoxins (pesticides, herbicide, fungicides, maturing agents, drying agents) in agriculture; b) The construction o... Lire la suitef an alternative agrifood system involves sanitary and food surveillance with stronger mechanisms for punishing actions of harmful food providers; demand inspection follows from denouncements c) Defend and promote agroecological production, free of pesticides, fossil fuel based inputs, and heavy metals (see outcome 3) d) Committed to reducing pandemic and syndemics through productive strategies that avoid further habitat and forest loss and monocultural encroachment in biodiverse, complex ecosystem. e) Avail of training and promotion of agroecology (eg Agroecology and Citizenship, Para) Insist on protection of our food, our water, our crops, our animals, our well-being. "Even our bees are being impacted". "Recently, a Quilombola community in the Pantanal region of Mato Grosso suffered from chemical dust arising from the surrounding soy plantations, leading about 15 people, including children, adolescents and adults to seek assistance at the Health Unit after presenting signs and symptoms of intoxication acute, such as headaches, difficulty breathing, nausea, vomiting and dizziness ". 2. a)Advocate for toxin free territories b) Greater transparency about how our food is produced, and know the traceability of its production chain; c) An agri-food system where reroducing life is the priority, not profit. For this, it will be necessary to build a new way of existing as a society. "It is cruel to know that the current food system prevents the reproduction of traditional peoples' food without pesticides is very good, even for our health. We often get sick from eating food with pesticides. It's good to preserve what we already have and use what is good to produce. That way it is not necessary to deforest, we already have the lake and we can use it to raise the fish, without having to use pesticides that are harmful to health". 3. The need for a different pathway to food security and food sovereignty is demonstrated in the worrying statistics. There was a drop of 82% in the number of Brazilians in a situation of malnutrition in the period between 2002 and 2013, the State's actions were paramount in the development of policies aimed at food and nutrition security, with emphasis on the Zero Hunger Program and the creation of the Food Acquisition Program (PAA). These were in addition to the National School Feeding Program (PNAE), which was responsible for providing meals to 43 million children in 2012. (FAO, 2014). In fact, if in 2004 food security (SA) was 65.1% after ten years of the PAA's operationalization, it reached 77.4% with a significant decrease in severe food insecurity (FA) (read hunger) of 6 .9% to 3.2%, and that is why Brazil had left the hunger map in 2014. Data from the Household Budget Survey (POF) in 2018 is worrying. The dismantling of social policies is evident, showing that the food security has dramatically decreased and that by December 2020 the Human Right to adequate nutrition was afforded to only 44.8% of Brazilian households. This contravention of the SDG 2 for zero hunger and food security (2.1.2). Lire moins

Agrifood and agroecological production "In total there are 150 farming families. They agroecologically plant fruits, cassava, short-cycle and perennial plants. Families in agroecological transition. They suffer a lot of harassment from the mills. They offer, or rather, rent the poison, seeds, machinery, and buy all the production from the small ones who are willing to produce sugarcane – and then deduct all the expenses. Families are sometimes unable to sell their food production, and as the mill buys all the sugarcane that is planted, some families surrender to the monoculture of sugarcane.... Lire la suite" There is a need to create new -and reinvigorate existing - productive, solidarity arrangements for the circulation of healthy food between rural and urban locales, and that omit exploitative intermediaries. These connections should be articulated at national and international level to confront massive scale, wasteful industrialised chains of production. This network should also help challenge the 'modernity' of agroindustry where 10 to 20 liters of pesticides are used for each hectare of monoculture. We recognize that there is ongoing destruction with a complicit legal apparatus. Who or what gives power to a person to build a business to destroy others? We must strengthen ecological -based agriculture in place of harmful practices . We must, therefore, -create new, and build upon existing, local productive arrangements and networks of solidarity between communities. These should share knowledge, co-ordinate activities, agroecological experience that organize national events and connected with global processes, -build and share education and technical assistance focused on agroecological roots and innovations. -find progressive financing and partnerships to build collective spaces to encourage the production and sale of healthy food; Such an agrifood system values the knowledge of traditional peoples, their production techniques, and includes women and youth. It enhances knowledge and practice at local and regional level, anchored in the particularities of place and diversity The replacement of harmful systems requires a constitution of circuits that safeguard a socially committed market for food and ensures access to food; the countryside and the city Share the best practice of seed banks for safeguarding and reproduction of creole seeds (see MCP), free from contamination from agribusiness or exploitation from corporations. (see International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture). It is necessary to encourage the agroecological transition so that more farmers can produce with quality; there must be public markets so that peasants can have their food sold. It is also necessary to invest in the education of young people. More universities and technical schools focused on genuine sustainability and experiments are needed so that future generations can learn what is best and exchange learning with communities. - Public policies that value sustainable, healthy family farming and agroecology as a food production model are necessary. Despite arguments to the contrary, this model is capable of producing food in the quantity necessary for human demands for food, especially considering innovate techniques, for example, poly-cultural production that feeds producers and allows for the sale of surplus. Agroecology is a very important tool in the dispute of agricultural model for the countryside, only in this way can we guarantee respect for Mother Earth, for ancestral knowledge, and for all beings that inhabit this common home . Its growth requires strengthening socio-political networks and joint efforts with partnerships between associations, unions, social movements, universities, churches, public authorities to continue the production of healthy food. Strengthening of production networks (production, management, marketing) of agroecological and organic production. Establishing, expanding and strengthening partnership between universities, research institutes and other organizations of research and make available equipment, machinery, and inputs suitable and affordable for family farming. Lire moins

(Re)constructing Public policies for agrifood production " Today there is no support or funding for anything. The açaí harvest is over, the farmer has no other possibility: he has to go to [the city of] Belem to be a bricklayer's assistant. If he had incentive, he would stay on his land and produce". 1.The sharing of experiences and connections at the event should refocus energy and activity to: a) Create and strengthen rural public policies (health, education, culture) b) Create and strengthen public policies for rural youth that encourage them to remain in rural territories and avoid explo... Lire la suiteitative work in agribusiness, often synonymous with slave-like labour c)Advocate that existing law complied with and not dismantled; with Agrarian Reform as a central concern and demand d) improve popular education to build a broad understanding of state decision making, and help put pressure on local and state authorities (city councilors and deputies) to honour commitments to food producing communities; and to enhance the many inspiring community initiatives that have built before and during the pandemic. This relates to a need to inform policy agendas, demonstrate and lobby for policy changes in advance of elections. e) the naming and condemnation of those who overexploit fish stocks and seafood that includes smuggling and overfishing of regionally distinct species, or decimation of species through massive projects (e.g. Belo Monte) f) strengthen/ensure emancipatory public policies (e.g. Technical assistance and rural extension -ATER) to facilitate food sovereignty 2.Technical support Interest (or not) and demands in relation to technical support are specific to particular areas, histories and realities. Stakeholders propose the following: a) Non-interest finance for Traditional Peoples, Communities and small farmers for land and food sovereignty, not indebtedness b) Specially designated public financing for family farming and sustainable food programmes; with agroecological technical support; rather than promotion of imposed and polluting technologies c) For families and young people to remain on the land, technology and financing are needed, creating conditions to plant: irrigation systems where appropriate, adequate machinery; that the agriculture of the ancestors can incorporate technologies and continue to be modernized and encouraged, with the support of universities, federal institutes and the government. d) In agro-extractivist areas, strategies that are supported by favourable public policy must help generate sustainable income for the families who live there. e) Effective health, education, social assistance and technical policies, that respect diverse cultures, towards sustaining life and food sovereignty 3.Recognition of crime Although the extent of cultural and environmental harm is incalculable, engagement with FAO in the first instance towards an effective regulatory framework that prosecutes, rather than imposes fines, on harmful corporations who easily absorb these costs Engage with the individuals and organisations that are putting Ecoside, the systematic destruction of the environment, on national and international policy agendas 4. SDG targets FAO states that by 2030 SDG 2 would, “double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, in particular women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers, including through secure and equal access to land, other productive resources and inputs, knowledge, financial services, markets and opportunities for value addition and non-farm employment”. Concerted, co-ordinated action, in tandem with affected communities, is required at a range of local, regional and international scales to reverse to current dismantling of agrifood systems and we seek to open the dialogue with FAO in this regard. This includes a call for an end to the dismantling of public organs with social and environmental responsibility. Lire moins

a) Territorial sovereignty and food production "They took over our territory and we no longer have the right to come and go. We are increasingly surrounded by agribusiness. We don't want our communities to depend on manufactured products for a living." It is necessary to defend the territory so that there is space for families to continue producing on the land. The territorial integrity of the communities is fundamental. This means recognition of the boundaries of these collectively occupied lands, and upholding the protective Federal laws: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007-2010/20... Lire la suite07/decreto/d6040.htm; http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto/2003/d4887.htm that are not respected in practice. It also means that the water, seeds and soils should not be taken, extracted modified, or contaminated by unwelcome activities within or in the vicinity of the territories. The network should share experience and legal expertise to assist those communities who are still awaiting final demarcation of their lands-often for decade or more. For this, the role of supportive organisations, lawyer associations (e.g. AATR) are important in sharing best practice and pathways to successful demarcation. Consultation. Communities have rights to be fully informed and consulted on matters that affect their lives (e.g. ILO Convention 169, the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples). Communities can articulate their own consultation protocols, with support from the Federal Public Ministry, to outline their own visions and plans for the community. We need respect for ancestry, traditions of peoples and communities, and support the recovery of cultures that are being undermined and attacked. It is evident that organisation and resistance by these communities allows us to have this dialogue. For this, the residents of the communities are articulating and organizing themselves, so that they can achieve benefits and improvements for the community to be able to produce and live. The violence against peasant and traditional communities is reducing the area to plant and diverting time and energy from the production of healthy food. Ensure that we take care of the memory. The immense damage means that we often can't even keep track of.events. The learning from Belo Monte (Xingu Vivo, 2021), for example, must be shared so that it cannot happen again. We must show the effects also to those investors and companies involved in the massive scale projects, infrastructure, ports that have created harm and currently face charges of genocide (appendix) so that minds can be changed. Research teams can assist in understanding and publicise these hidden parts of production (Rede Social, 2020). Outsourcing oppressive security teams or land grabbing does not absolve corporations of responsibility. The agrifood system we want requires us to be able to use our entire territory, we need more space, not least because we don't have productivity in 100% of our areas. With smaller and smaller spaces, there is a lack of food and, therefore, it is difficult to guarantee a livelihood. We want to be sure that our children and grandchildren will also be able to stay in our territories. We want the environment to be protected. Community leaders cannot produce food sustainably when they are seeking refuge in exile, and when their houses or plantations have been burnt. Lire moins

The Dialogue finds that: a) territorial respect, protection and sovereignty are paramount. The arguably unprecedented scale and pace of attack on food producing communities, whose food sovereignty has been undermined, compromised and in many cases ended, demands immediate action across our networks, in dialogue with international organisations, including FAO (see outcome 1). Participants vocalised the loss, and painful consequences of a 74% increase in deforestation in indigenous territories in the last year; and the 1,576 land-related conflicts, violent threats and assassinations in 2020, the... Lire la suite highest number recorded since 1985, 25% higher than 2019 and 57.6% in 2018 (CPT 2020) . b)the presence of internationally renown companies and financial institutions in the land grabs, and encroachment from speculation and agroindustry (see outcome 4), highlights the disingenuous character of attempts to tie agrifood, community-based systems to commodified trades. Mato Grosso state, Brazil's 'granary' exemplifies this, with 76% of all agricultural devoted to commodities for export, rising to 98% in some fertile regions such as Basin of Rio Juruena (leaving just 2% of available land to food production). c)ecologically-sensitive, food sovereignty can not be separated from territorial and human rights. These rights, many encompassed in the SDGs for 2030, are being systematically contravened. In Brazil, the instrumentalisation of the Rural land Registraton (CAR), and the use of third companies by transnational speculators is providing a veneer of legality for land that has been illegally appropriated for cattle and soy production. The Dialogue finds that State, and Federal laws are routinely broken in the appropriation of public lands and community territories, and international conventions, such as ILO Convention 169 contravened for large scale industrial advance. d)there is an urgent need for a reconstruction of public policies (see outcome 2) for traditional and familial agriculture. We note: (i) the extinction of the Agrarian Development Ministry (with budget of R$30 billion); (ii) the hollowing out of the Food Acquisition Program-PAA (recognised for good practice by FAO in 2014) that fell from R$586 million for 115,489 food suppliers in 2012 to just R$41 million for 5,585 suppliers of food in only half as many municipalities; (iii) that Legal guidelines (Law 11.326/2006) for the National Policy on Family Agriculture insist that beneficiaries are the following peoples i) forest ii) aquaculturists; iii) extractivist; iv) fishing (artisanal); v) indigenous peoples; vi) remnant communities of rural quilombos and other traditional peoples and communities. (The last two groups of beneficiaries were included in Law No. 12,512 of 2011). e) the above changes are linked to Brazil's return to the global hunger map, with a drastic fall of food security from 77% of the population in 2014 to only 44% in 2020, with 55.2% experiencing food insecurity; and 9% living with hunger. The Dialogue makes the important distinction between food sovereignty and access to food, as the focus is on strengthening food producing systems that guarantee conditions for in situ production; but also making safe food available to rural and urban populations. f) transforming agrifood systems involves the strengthening of counter-hegemonic networks, organising local arrangements to support and promote food production that maintains families, young and old in distinct territories; and links this safe, health food production to rural and urban communities currently facing hunger. Food producing territories are being invaded; where they are not, most are now encircled by agribusiness and commodity plantations, with grave implications for access, contamination and compromised food production. g) quality of life, of food and food systems matter: Brazil remains within the top 3 consumers of agrotoxins in the world, a hazard that we argue is under analysed by FAO to date. Stakeholders draw attention to to the detriment to health, to watercourses, air, food, vegetables from the intensive and extensive use of these chemicals that compromise local efforts of chemical free production. In Mato Gross, there were four deaths from 2007 to 2016. Of the 141 municipalities in Mato Grosso, 83 reported occupational poisoning by agricultural pesticides. The stakeholders urge a considered response from FAO in dialogue with this event. It is recognised that FAO cannot alone resolve the structural impediments to a transformed food system that protects human rights and biodiverse ecosystems. It can, however, help to name the key systemic problems. These are unveiled here by many stakeholders who are symbolically and physically marginalised from decision making, yet whose humid, biodiverse territories, forests and soils are so central to profit seeking by agribusiness. This contradiction is, we argue, untenable: the reproduction and deepening of the consequent injustice leads to charges of genocide and ecoside from various stakeholders. The violence we find is not an abstraction but a daily occurrence. Communities who historically, and more recently, have occupied land in order to live peacefully and productively, ought to be able to do so, free of harassment, eviction and period flights of refuge. The Dialogue finds that defence of their rights and territories, in which roots for healthy and sustainable food systems exist, can lead to reconstructed agrifood systems that promise a socially and ecologically committed future. Lire moins

The Dialogue posed two simple questions, What is the agrifood system you want to build?” and, "How can you construct this food system"? It was immediately evident that complex agrifood systems, organised and practiced in distinct territories and biomes have existed for centuries. Their defence and reproduction, therefore can not be separated out from the human-nature interactions that have produced profound knowledge, sustained diverse cultures and communities, and produced food in cycles that are in tune with the environment and have not required manufactured, fossil fuel-based and harmful ... Lire la suiteinputs. In the current national, international political and economic climate, these food systems are being threatened by the advances of hydroeclectric dams, agribusiness, deforestation, mining and other invasive action by illegal land gabbers and financial corporations at a pace and extent that unprecedented in recent times. While plantations and homes are being torched; while leaders are forced into hiding, while invasions and land grabs or either ignored or encouraged, then communities can not realise their productive potential. As we heard, a mother who must defend attacks on her territory against armed men has less time in the house with the family, less time in the field to plant, less time to pass knowledge. For every life that is lost, indigenous aldeia burnt, or community dismantled, there follows a loss of knowledge, of diversity, of possibilities for transforming inequitable, unjust and dangerous systems of production. This 'defence' of existing agrifood systems is first. Secondly, we open a dialogue with FAO and invite the organisation to recognise that we can not imagine, create, technically support, value and validate sustainable agrifood systems in the absence of resolute protection of the rights of food producing communities (recognised in many FAO documents; see appendix report 1), who through their everyday practice defend and protect some of the globe's most important and complex ecosystems. Without access to land, to clean water, to security and health, or public policies to safeguard long fought for rights, communities cannot progress existing knowledge, safeguard health and family; nor 'boost nature-postive production', or equality. The most immediate 'shocks and stresses' impacting communities are often from the very same agents proclaiming higher yields, clean energy, new trade opportunities, economic growth and development linked to dominant commodity trades. 'Equitable relations' and 'nature-positive' production are possible; indeed the latter has been practiced by stakeholders and can be strengthened via the dialogue outcomes below. The success of this dialogue in unveiling key actors in a dominant inequitable, contemporary food system; in avoiding nostalgic reflections of the past in favour of deep-rooted and determined resistance to further violent, dispossession; and articulating pathways for a future agrifood system merits broader attention. Importantly, the dialogue links the 'pathways' for a food system transformation to the deep 'roots' of communities whose material and spiritual life is embedded in their distinct territories. This advances the discussion and strategy towards sustainable food systems by transferring knowledge and practices of food production, of collective resistance; of legal strategies; of technical support where it is invited (and not imposed) across traditional and more recently settled agrarian communities. The reproduction, restoration, and re-existence of ancestral knowledge, human and plant cultures, and of practices are essential to a future agrifood system. The maintenance of conditions for production (land, soil, air and water), and circulation of foods free of harmful substances are needed. The support of these from innovations in research, technique and policy that respect and build from ancestral, in-situ knowledge underpin the forward looking strategies that are articulated below. Lire moins

• The role of youth One of the representative speakers argued that youth need not only to be at the table but play a central role, and a driving force for change. Youth are often referred to as future leaders, however it was clear that youth need to be given opportunities to share their views and actions in helping to address malnutrition. • COVID-19; a risk or an opportunity? COVID-19 has wreaked havoc across the world, over 4 million people have lost their lives, significant economic downturns leading to disruptions to livelihoods and of course significant impacts on healthcare. Whilst t... Lire la suitehe scale of the challenge to build back better is daunting, it was argued that projections are not destiny and mitigation is possible if immediate action and investment is taken. Whilst COVID-19 presents huge risks to women and children in particular Lire moins

Taking into account all the other forms of malnutrition in adults and children that have been exacerbated by the pandemic, costs to lost productivity will be far higher. Nations are struggling to fund mitigation measures at the same time as needs continue to grow. Domestic financing for health in LMICs, including nutrition-specific financing, is projected to fall by 4.2% in 2021 and 2.2% in 2022, not recovering to pre-crisis levels until the end of the decade, absent a V-shaped economic recoveries in LMICs. Unfortunately, ST4N estimates a 19% reduction in ODA to nutrition-relevant sectors thro... Lire la suiteugh 2030 (compared to pre-COVID levels) accompanied by a similar decrease in domestic health budgets. For a resilient future: invest today for a stronger tomorrow The 2017 Global Nutrition Investment Framework estimated that approximately $7 billion per annum is needed to reach the World Health Assembly targets for stunting, wasting, maternal anemia, and breastfeeding by 2025. ST4N projects additional needs of $1.7 billion per annum to mitigate the impacts of COVID-19. Taking into account all the other forms of malnutrition in adults and children that have been exacerbated by the pandemic, costs to lost productivity will be far higher. Nations are struggling to fund mitigation measures at the same time as needs continue to grow. Domestic financing for health in LMICs, including nutrition-specifc financing, is projected to fall by 4.2% in 2021 and 2.2% in 2022, not recovering to pre-crisis levels until the end of the decade, absent a V-shaped economic recoveries in LMICs. Unfortunately, ST4N estimates a 19% reduction in ODA to nutrition-relevant sectors through 2030 (compared to pre-COVID levels) accompanied by a similar decrease in domestic health budgets. For a resilient future: invest today for a stronger tomorrow The 2017 Global Nutrition Investment Framework estimated that approximately $7 billion per annum is needed to reach the World Health Assembly targets for stunting, wasting, maternal anemia, and breastfeeding WHY WE MUST ACT NOW: We have evidence-based, cost-effective nutrition interventions that are ready to scale. Country-level innovations can offset COVID-19’s gendered impact on nutrition, such as scaling up micronutrient supplements and coverage of breastfeeding interventions. SMART investments to drive COVID-19 recovery can be delivered across health, food and social protection systems.  COVID-19 is a risk and an opportunity: together we can make it an opportunity to build nutrition back better. We stand to lose a decade or more’s worth of progress on nutrition. New projections confirm that hunger will not be eradicated by 2030 unless bold actions are taken to accelerate progress – especially actions to address inequality in access to food. It is projected that around 660 million people may still face hunger in 2030, 30 million more people than in a scenario in which the COVID-19 pandemic had not occurred, due to the lasting effects of COVID-19 on global food security. The ST4N Consortium estimates that an additional 1.7 billion will be required on top of the $7 billion per annum is needed to reach the global targets for stunting, wasting, breastfeeding and anemia articulated by the Nutrition Investment Framework. Given the likely reductions to Official Development Assistance (ODA) and challenging domestic health finance landscaped, we must Stand Together and invest in nutrition, more than ever before. The UN Food Systems Summit 2021 and N4G present an opportunity to bring forward a series of concrete actions that people from all over the world can take to support a transformation of the world's food systems. While 2020 was an immense challenge for the world, it may also be a warning call of unwelcome events to come if the world does not take commitments into bolder actions to change course. Support for the recommendations: • ST4N calls for Member States to improve allocative efficiencies gains in favour of proven nutrition interventions, such as Maternal MMS, Breastfeeding Promotion, Vitamin A Supplementation, Balanced Energy Supplementation, Treatment of Severe Acute Malnutrition and the proportion and provision of Infant and young child feeding practices. • ST4N supports the global nutrition community in advocating that the G7 Leaders Statement includes resolve to take action to advance progress on malnutrition. • ST4N supports the global community in advocating for renewed focus on women’s and maternal nutrition by governments, donors, philanthropy, civil society and multilaterals: - Ensure that food and health systems interventions promote and enable sustainable and equitable access to healthy diverse diets and essential health and nutrition services. - ST4N supports global action to prevent and respond to anemia in women of reproductive age, as part of the U.N. Food Systems Summit Action Track One (Ensure Access to Safe and Nutritious Foods for All). • ST4N calls for nutrition to be integrated into the World Bank’s IDA20 Replenishment Funds and in particular, that wasting is considered a Tier One indicator. Nutrition must receive the appropriate allocation of IDA resources in the Crisis Response Window to safeguard other development priorities. • ST4N recognises the critical importance of integrating nutrition information and data systems into early warning systems and shock responsive safety nets with a focus on women and children. New and targeted investment is required for shock responsive social safety nets to include nutrition specific and sensitive interventions. Lire moins

Our dialogue focused on the opportunities of how COVID-19 recovery policy can prioritize nutrition policy, financial investment in nutrition, and strengthened nutrition services, emphasizing COVID-19’s inequitable impact. Given global turbulence, ST4N, a collective group of nutrition, economic, food, and health system experts, modelled the potential impacts of COVID-19 on nutrition outcomes, compelling decision-makers to act. The potential dramatic effects of this crisis on human life and well-being, alongside the long-term negative consequences on human capital and economic growth, make a r... Lire la suiteenewed investment in delivering effective nutrition interventions an imperative. Investment in nutrition not only improves nutrition outcomes but is a vital contribution to the resilience building of people, communities, and countries. AT1: Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all - THE PROBLEM New research published in Nature Food paper highlights the potential impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on global levels of malnutrition by 2022, with leading global experts projecting as many as 13.6 million additional children wasted, 3.6 million additional children stunted and 283,000 child deaths – equivalent to 258 children dying per day. World hunger increased in 2020 under the shadow of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is projected around 118 million more people were facing hunger in 2020 than in 2019, heightening the challenge of achieving the Zero Hunger target by 2030. The pandemic is three crises rolled into one: an economic crisis with jobs lost, a food crisis with reduced access to healthy food, and a health crisis with decreased access to health services. Together, these combine to create a nutritional crisis amongst millions of vulnerable mothers and children that, based on the third wave of COVID-19 in South Asia, is tragically worse than initial estimates. An economic downturn translates directly into increased unaffordability of food and greater food insecurity and malnutrition – as people have less income to buy food, let alone more expensive nutritious foods required for healthy diets The high cost of healthy diets coupled with persistent high levels of income inequality put healthy diets out of reach for around 3 billion people in 2019 in every region of the world, especially the poor. New research estimates that due to the onset of COVID-19 an extra 141 million individuals could not afford a healthy diet in 2020. In 2021 the estimate is an additional 94.6 million compared to the no-COVID-19 2020 counterfactual. Malnutrition exacerbates gender inequality, impacting the most vulnerable including women and children. Most children with malnutrition live in Africa and Asia. These regions account for more than nine out of ten of all children with stunting, more than nine out of ten children with wasting and more than seven out of ten children who are overweight worldwide. THE CONSEQUENCES Malnutrition reduces the immune response. Together, COVID-19 and malnutrition create a mutually reinforcing vicious cycle. Diet-related illnesses increase the risk of dying from COVID-19, while the pandemic makes it harder for people to access healthy diets, in turn, contributing to a higher risk of malnutrition. The world has the know-how and the resources to reverse this cycle. Invest in nutrition - we need to Stand Together and Act Now. Dire financial landscape for low- and middle-income countries malnutrition reduces human capital and economic productivity. The generation of children affected by stunting will suffer a lifetime of reduced schooling performance and adult productivity losses, which in turn, can be passed on to their children. The estimated pandemic-related increases in child stunting and child mortality may result in future productivity losses of $44.3 billion, enough to impact national economies. Additional cases of anemia during pregnancy would result in $177 million in lost productivity between 2020-2022. Costs associated with the immediate impact of COVID-19 on children as outlined by the above projections are only one part of a much larger, complex picture. Lire moins