To Reduce Inequality and Inequity in Food Systems, Involve the Disadvantaged

SDSN Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems, in partnership with Foresight4Food and APRA, are running an e-Dialogue series to explore who is at risk of being left-behind as food systems transform. The first session of the series explored the successes and failures of integrating social inequality considerations into food systems research. It is often assumed that by working with disadvantaged groups inequalities are reduced. Yet, agricultural interventions may perpetuate and exacerbate social inequalities among intended beneficiaries. Panelists shared eye-opening experiences and identified urgent next steps to proactively integrate a social equity perspective into food systems research and development.

Eva Thuijsman , a Ph.D. candidate in the Plant Production Systems Group at Wageningen University, the Netherlands, introduced the session by sharing recent findings from a comprehensive, systematic literature review—which revealed a disquieting paucity of empirical studies that assess the distribution of impacts of farming technology interventions. These selected studies confirmed an expected trend, which is that the poorest likely benefit much less than those better-off, at least in absolute terms. Explanations of impact differences are sought in existing inequalities among households, treating the introduced technology as neutral. Methods are not yet geared towards capturing and understanding changes in inequalities, set in motion through technological intervention.

Ken Giller , Co-Chair of SDSN Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems, moderated the discussion, questioning the panel on what we can learn from successes and failures of integrating social inequality considerations into food systems research.

Nozomi Kawarazuka, a social anthropologist looking at gender and social inclusion issues in the adoption of agricultural technologies at the International Potato Center in Vietnam, drew attention to how “mainstreaming” gender has resulted in a lot of inclusive rhetoric—and a loss of meaning. One recommendation was that projects need to go beyond reporting on numbers of female participants, and look into intra-household relations and power distributions. Among the poorer and the better-off, women are disadvantaged, and this should not be hidden by household-level benefits in productivity and incomes. Methodologies need to be updated to differentiate among the disadvantaged, with openness about the levels of assessment and the limits to who are reached. There is a need to go beyond such standard impacts indicators as well, so that other valuable outcomes can be captured: an increase in confidence can be life-changing.

Brendan Brown , based at CIMMYT in Kathmandu, presented his experiences working across South Asia on agricultural intensification and diversification projects. Brendan stressed the importance of understanding the true context of intended beneficiaries, noting that whole religious groups can be unintentionally excluded by offering a training on a day of prayer. Interventions are intended to be useful for the intended beneficiaries, so it is important to get as granular as possible identifying them and understanding their roles and realities—while also being aware of who is in the rest of that population. Brendan’s experience in southern Africa with packaged technologies such as conservation agriculture revealed that stepwise pathways are required, to build up a cash base incrementally and implement a full set of technologies.

Mine Pabari is a Facilitator and Evaluator at Athari Advisory, working on evaluations in the environmental and agricultural sectors. Lately she has become involved in grassroots women’s groups in Kenya. Mine asked critical questions on who sets the research and development agenda, who defines the research questions, and who defines solutions as we work towards “equitable” interventions. Systemic inequalities are very much linked to voice, influence, and power—so there is great potential in using and building the capabilities of the intended beneficiaries as they set their own research agenda and engage in data collection and evaluation. It is important to hear individual voices, and also come to a shared sense-making throughout this process. This enables capturing unintended and unwanted consequences, because it is the farmers themselves who interpret and make sense of emerging outcomes.

Stefan Beierl, a social protection advisor at GIZ, explained that the linkages between agricultural and (existing) social protection programs are often not recognized, despite this often being low-hanging fruit. The frameworks and instruments of social protection are all about recognizing and reaching those who fall through the cracks, understanding how programs affect people differently, and capturing unintended consequences. Stefan recognized a trade-off between equity and efficiency with interventions, and thought it counterproductive to strive for equity through a single kind of intervention. Agricultural approaches can benefit from linkages with social protection programs, when these take away some of the risks farmers perceive when trying out new farming technologies.

The audience shared their views on through an online, collaborative whiteboard, with contributions available here.

Jim Woodhill , head of the Foresight4Food Initiative, summarized the discussion in six key points:

1) There is a gap between rhetoric and reality around dealing with inequality, where (research) projects stress that they tackle poverty, gender, and inequality; however, this is often only superficially addressed by working with disadvantaged populations and disaggregating data.

2) It is clearly time to engage intended beneficiaries in solving their own problems and have the voices of the disadvantaged heard.

3) Quantitative data need to much more disaggregated if we want to have a deep understanding of different types of inequality and poverty, especially at the inter- and intra-household level.

4) We need to understand what kind of benefits are obtained—beyond looking at productivity and incomes—among whom.

5) Exploring and understanding the linkages between technology and social protection can reduce risk and enable people to try new things.

6) A broader toolbox of methodologies needs to be applied, by a multidisciplinary team with the skills and knowledge to work with and actively engage disadvantaged groups.

About the 2021-2022 e-Dialogue Series

The United Nations Food Systems Summit , held in September 2021, set an agenda for the sustainable transformation of food systems.

Central to this transformation must be progress on reducing the high levels of poverty and inequality that afflict the world’s rural populations, and which have increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In a Chair’s Summary Statement of Action , UN Secretary-General António Guterres called on governments and partners to meet the commitments they made to achieve the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030, observing: “The journey has profoundly affirmed that our food systems hold the power to realize our shared vision for a better world. There is a recognition that we must build on good practices… invest in science and innovation, and engage all people — particularly women and youth, Indigenous Peoples, businesses and producers — in achieving the SDGs”. Now begins the work of turning ideas into action to transform food systems and ensure that no one is left behind.

Starting in October 2021 and run over 12 months, SDSN Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems, in partnership with Foresight4Food and APRA, will organize an e-Dialogue series to explore who is at risk of being left-behind as food systems transform. Drawing on a wide range of perspectives, disciplines, and approaches, we will examine pathways for bringing greater equity and inclusivity to how food is produced and consumed. Foresight thinking will be used to explore the impact of differing scenarios for food systems transformation on local livelihoods and rural economies.

Full details on this series is available on the Foresight4Food website.