A systems perspective for food and nutrition security

Available data show that the Philippines have enough food supply from domestic production and importation, and this can meet the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) of the population. In the aggregate, the country is self-sufficient in food crops, except for rice and vegetables, based on current production and consumption figures. Both rice and vegetable requirements are filled up by importation. However, available nutrition data seem to show that this national food self-sufficiency is not translated into nutrition security. Many Filipinos are nutritionally insecure according to the results of the 2008 Food and Nutrition Research Institute (FNRI) Food and Nutrition Survey. For instance, about 27.7 percent or 3.54 million children aged 0-5 have a height that is less than expected for his/her age (under height-for-age). The proportion of households meeting energy adequacy in 2008 decreased from that in 2003.  Anemia affects mostly children (55.7 percent) and pregnant (42.5 percent) and lactating women (31.4 percent) based on the same survey. While the mean per capita intakes of energy, protein, vitamin A, calcium, thiamine, riboflavin and niacin remained adequate in 2008, intakes for most other nutrients remained inadequate.

A disconnect between food and nutrition security

The evidence above shows that national food security may be a necessary but not a sufficient condition for nutrition security. One of the reasons for such a scenario could be the lack of an integrative program that links food security plans with nutrition security.

A range of policies has been enacted to promote food and nutrition security. These are in the following categories: food availability (policies that ensure the availability of food in sufficient quality and quantity to meet dietary needs of individuals); food accessibility (policies that promote access to food in ways that are sustainable and do not interfere with other rights); and food adequacy and safety (policies that make food adequate and free from adverse substances and culturally acceptable).

However, since food and nutrition security has not been viewed from a holistic and systems perspective, the delivery of services and management of programs to implement various policies on food and nutrition security remains fragmented. Different departments, agencies and local government units are involved but are lacking in harmonization and/or integration. Management and regulation of resources for food security are done by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Department of Agriculture (DA) and the local government units (LGUs), while food production and distribution functions are lodged in the DA, National Food Authority (NFA), LGUs and Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) handles labor and nutrition security jointly with the Department of Health (DOH), National Nutrition Council (NNC) and LGUs. Currently, the NNC, the agency accountable to promote nutrition security, is attached to the DOH. At the level of the LGUs, the structure is not uniform as there are LGUs that placed the Nutrition Action Office under the Office of the Local Chief Executives (LCEs), while others placed it under the Local Health Office. In other LGUs, it is part of the Office of the Agriculturist. Given this setup, the governance and management of food security and nutrition security programs are separated.

The systems approach to food and nutrition security

The systems approach is relevant in analyzing the complexity of the food and nutrition security. The systems framework provides the “basic principles of system thinking and analyses from a holistic perspective, examining the type of services, the actors (service suppliers and users), the functional relationships, the level and scope, and the frame conditions of the service system”(in Helmut, A. 2000. Agricultural Service Systems: A Framework for Orientation. Eschborn). On the other hand, the traditional approach views policies and services on food and nutrition security separately. In the attainment of food and nutrition security, the government’s mix of policies should be characterized as one where there is coherence in the roles of institutions in the market-oriented, income-oriented and nutrition-oriented service delivery mechanisms.

Thus it seems imperative that to plan for food security, the DA should consider working with other agencies toward fulfilling the nutritional requirements of the population. Food and nutrition security is a complex array of interactions of physiological, sociological, cultural and economic dimensions. Some important considerations in projecting scenarios for food and nutrition security are: rate of urbanization, rate of agricultural growth as a percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), rate of income growth by households in both urban and rural areas, and demographic characteristics of population, such as gender-specific and age-specific requirements.

Finally, convergence of institutions delivering services for food and nutrition is of paramount importance. The systems approach emphasizes the interactions and relationships between the different components of the system. The five key elements of the food and nutrition security service delivery system are: (1) type of service (i.e., technical, etc.); (2) actors of the service system (service providers/duty bearer and service users/claim or rights bearer); (3) functional relationships of the service system (governance, components and interaction); (4) level and scope of the service system; and (5) frame condition of the service system.

* * *

This material is excerpted from the report “An Agenda for Food and Nutrition Security in the Philippines,” prepared by selected University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB) faculty members, including the author, under the leadership of former UPLB Chancellor Luis Rey I. Velasco for requirements of the UP Policy Paper Award (2011-2012). The other members of the UPLB team are Flordeliza A. Lantican, Mayo Grace C. Amit, Corazon T. Aragon, Rowena dT. Baconguis, Jose V. Camacho, Jr., Wilfredo B. Carada, Damcelle T. Cortes, Julieta A. de los Reyes, Arnold R. Elepaño, Yolanda T. Garcia, Prudenciano U. Gordoncillo, Jose E. Hernandez, Aser B. Javier, Isabelita M. Pabuayon, Merlyne M. Paunlagui, Artemio Salazar, Cesar C. Sevilla, Pompe C. Sta. Cruz, Ma.Theresa M. Talavera, and Normito R. Zapata, Jr.

The author is a professor of the College of Public Affairs and Development, UPLB, and a member of the Social Sciences Division, National Academy of Science and Technology. Her e-mail address is [email protected].