{"text_format":"3","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":1,"sheets":["Indicators"],"read":"whole","date_system":"1900"}

{"sheet":"Indicators","index":0,"n_rows":88,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":88,"merged":[[4,0,5,0],[4,1,5,1],[4,11,5,11],[4,12,5,12],[4,13,5,13],[4,14,5,14],[4,15,5,15],[4,16,5,16],[6,0,7,0],[13,0,14,0],[13,1,14,1],[13,11,14,11],[13,12,14,12],[13,13,14,13],[13,14,14,14],[13,15,14,15],[13,16,14,16],[18,1,19,1],[18,2,19,2],[18,5,19,5],[28,0,29,0],[28,1,29,1],[28,5,29,5],[28,11,29,11],[28,12,29,12],[28,13,29,13],[28,14,29,14],[28,15,29,15],[28,16,29,16],[40,0,41,0],[40,1,42,1],[40,5,41,5],[40,11,41,11],[40,12,41,12],[40,13,41,13],[40,14,41,14],[40,15,41,15],[40,16,41,16],[41,2,42,2],[43,0,44,0],[43,1,44,1],[43,11,44,11],[43,12,44,12],[43,13,44,13],[43,14,44,14],[43,15,44,15],[43,16,44,16],[50,2,51,2],[57,11,58,11],[57,14,58,14],[73,11,74,11]]}
["Indicators","Summary of feedback received","New proposed indicators","Suggestions","Comments","Discussion points","Double/triple duty potential ","Inequalities and WE","Trade-offs","Jurisdiction level (national, local, both)","Global, LMICs, HICs","Europe","Latin America","East Africa","West Africa","Survey","Additional feedback from experts "]
["FOOD SUPPLY CHAINS",{"$nulls":4},"• Need to make a decision for \"including women and vulnerable populations\" - should it be part of the indicators or should be specified as a general thing at the beginning and avoid including them?",{"$nulls":5},"• Need to define ‘environmental sustainability’ and the aspects that are monitored within this definition\n• Need to create more indicators (disaggregated) that are measurable","• Clear need to define “healthy and sustainable foods/diets” and “unhealthy and unsustainable”. Like a NOVA classification \n• Important to keep in mind that in the “unhealthy foods” definition, food products that substitute healthier products and that therefore those products are unhealthier than the original, they should also be considered as unhealthy (e.g. breastmilk substitutes); and also re definition of sustainable foods: there is a risk to promote plant-based ultra-processed foods.\n• Disagreed with saying \"including women and vulnerable populations\"\n",null,"• It is important to remember to not use food insecurity but focus on malnutrition (so that it includes micronutrient deficiencies too)",null,"• I think might be worth reiterating is the use of the terms 'healthy', 'unhealthy', 'sustainable' and 'unsustainable'.  I think it might be worthwhile having a separate chat with Tim Smits about the use of these terms because he has deep and broad experience on the use of these terms and might be able to provide good guidance on what terms to use.  As mentioned, what he has recommended for FEAST is to use the relative terms of 'healthier' and 'more sustainable'\n\n• I was wondering why all the “Infrastructure support policies” of the Food-EPI were dropped – I found them quite important, and useful to have."]
["FOOD PRODUCTION"]
["GENERAL - Food production indicators",{"$nulls":4},"• To make the indicators measurable, information that was specifically related to outcomes (\"to prevent food insecurity\", \"to preserve biodiversity\") was removed, specifications will be added to the scope document, but that way the indicator is shorter. This was the case for the Food-EPI, that did not mention \"to prevent obesity\", but was giving good practice indicators.\n• Power imbalanced between farmers and the buyers or the intermediaries of the supply chain? Regulations to strengthen the power of agricultural producers in the face of industry. It’s such a bottle-neck for primary producers. Mechanisms to change that. [To discuss with FSAT team: This is a really good point, however, should this be part of production, or trade?]\n• It was suggested to say “small scale production” and not smallholders if possible [Why? To check with FSAT team rationale of this]\n• Transparency is also important, it should be mandatory to inform the consumer on the country of origin of each product (and it should be mandatory), and the way in which products are being produced (so that the consumer knows). [To check with Stefanie/team: I agree with this, as it would not be only beneficial for environmental sustainability, but for NCDs prevention - e.g. cancer - as there are some pesticides forbidden in countries that are still used in other countries for crops, such as soja, then used as animal feed in the initial countries] \n• Bio-fortification should be included back [To check with team/FSAT: technofix?]\n• Clearly delineating the different indicators, and guidance on what counts, and what counts not towards their implementation would be good. [To include in the scope document]",{"$nulls":5},"• Distribution of power, but also 'added value created' over the different chain-actors is indeed important.\n• The indicator of biodiversity loss should be included again as it’s essential, as it’s a leg for sustainable actions so it should be included. Otherwise in the long run it will undermine everything. \n• Clear need to define \"farmer\" and also make sure there is distinction between land and sea. \n• Clear need to define what is monitored in environmental sustainability outcome. (e.g. food miles, biodiversity loss, water used, CO2 emissions…)\n• Power imbalanced between farmers and the buyers or the intermediaries of the supply chain? Regulations to strengthen the power of agricultural producers in the face of industry. It’s such a bottle-neck for primary producers. Mechanisms to change that. \n\nMissing indicators: \n• attracting youth (young farmers) and rural development (this is also part of sustainability), \n• water use, \n• biodiversity loss, \n• food loss at food production level? More in depth. [Already included in WASTE1]\n• And what about refugees and immigrants? [To check with Stefanie: Should we include them as part of vulnerable populations in the definitions, or should there be a specific indicator on this?]","• To make sure that all the indicators are measurable\n• Inclusive language with regards to women: proposed to remove the “including women” [This first part of the suggestion is only applicable for French and Spanish, not for English. But good to keep in mind]\n• Try to avoid the term ‘food production” as much as possible and use agriculture (as food production can be confused with the part of processing and removes the ‘natural’ aspect of it) [Decided to adapt this through the indicator but not as the title of the subdomain, to keep the format]\n• Suggested to say “small scale production” and not smallholders if possible [Why? To check with FSAT team rationale of this]\n• To use the concept of food sovereignty instead of food security, as the latter is only related to access to food that gives access to sugary drinks, processed foods and unsustainable ways of producing. It’s important food sovereignty also for ensuring traditional foods.\n• There should be more emphasis in the part of consumer’s awareness as that has a huge impact in sending messages to policymakers with regards to agriculture and shorter food supply chains. – Public awareness and social campaign  [Out of scope - To check with Stefanie is this should be included under Infrastructure support?]\n• Transparency is also important, it should be mandatory to inform the consumer on the country of origin of each product (and it should be mandatory), and the way in which products are being produced (so that the consumer knows).\n\nMissing indicators: \n• To include indicator on biodiversity loss \n• There should be a specific indicator on freshwater use and draughts. (water is also useful for communities and population, and food security, and not only important for environmental sustainability), that indicator would have double duty potential and beneficial for inequalities\n• To include a new indicator to ensure that younger generations also work in agriculture\n• There should be a point of immigration, as it’s closely related to agriculture: plus men tend to leave and women stay, and they are not the owners of the land. [Same comment as in Europe]","Missing indicators: \n• Include indicator on youth (young farmers and employment generation)\n• Bio-fortification should be included back [To check with team/FSAT: technofix?]",null,null,"• Reading through these documents especially on the food production metrics made me immediately think of our partners in FiBL - they have done a ton of work in this area and might be able to provide some insights from their work?  Have you reached out to them? [I will reach out to them]\n\n• Several of the indicators in this domain seem to be overlapping (e.g. 1-7, but also among the remaining ones). I think it would be very difficult in practice to differentiate between these indicators. This is partly because many of them contain quite general, vague, broad terms and aspirations, that are not clearly defined. Clearly delineating the different indicators, and guidance on what counts, and what counts not towards their implementation would be good. [To include in the scope document]"]
["PRODUCT1 | Sustainable food production systems\nThe government ensures that productivity growth is environmentally sustainable, in primary agriculture, in fisheries and throughout the food chain, through protection of sustainable production systems and improving production practices with a focus on environmental sustainability outcomes, in collaboration with food producers, in particular smallholders (including women), and their organisations.\n","• The main focus of this indicator should be that measures are implemented to ensure environmental sustainability. The idea is not to increase productivity but to make sure that the production system is regenerative. \n• The part of fisheries is not agri, it’s aquatic, so those two aspects should be left aside (unless we use “agri-food systems” if we want to use the term that includes agriculture and fisheries together. However, aquaculture and fisheries is complex and sometimes they want to be divided from agriculture\n• The increase in productivity does not necessarily lead to an increase in food security, and therefore to a reduction in undernutrition. If there is an increase in the productivity but that is used to be exported to other countries, it does not necessarily have an impact on the nutrition status of the population.\n• What are the ways in which the government can improve production practices? Through financial investment in research, or via programmes? The practicalities are mainly done by farmers.\n• Too vague, it is implied other indicators. Not clear how to measure it. It should be more specified in bullets.\n• Why a focus on productivity “growth” ? In Europe/NA, there does not seem to be a need for growth, rather the opposite. In an agroecological scenario, decreasing rearing and consumption of animals yields less demand for animal feed, hence sufficient space to cultivate crops without the need for more intensification and growth. In other parts of the world, there is a need for increased yields, rather based on agroecological methods than sustainable intensification. \nNeed to define what a “sustainable food production system” is. We would advocate for i.a. agroecological methods, decreased pesticides and fertilizer use (F2F), crop rotation, crop-livestock integration, and fixing nitrogen cycles through decreased meat production and legumes. ","PRODUCT1 | Sustainable carbon sequestration practices\nThe government has programmes in place to financially support agroecological practices that enhance natural carbon capture, such as:\n• Biosequestration practices through agroforestry systems (agrisilvicultural, silvopastoral, agrosylvopastoral) \n• Afforestation or reforestation practices\n• Use of cover crops\n• Organic farming restoration of agricultural degraded lands",null,"Could we use the original PRODUCT1 indicator as an overarching description for the food production domain? Ok!\nShould we explain what \"cover crops\" are? [Maybe it can be defined in the scope document if needed, even if the term is generally used]\nShould agroecology be mentioned in this indicator or is this the only way that this is possible? [There is not a standardised clear definition of agroecology, and agroecology is already included in many indicators indirectly as it has all the principles described in carbon sequestration, soil management, water, etc]","• Given the close resemblance with PRODUCT2, PRODUCT1&2 were divided into the specific areas described, according to feedback received.\n• I have divided across different indicators practices related to agroecology, disaggregated into areas (carbon sequestration, soil management, fertilizers, water management, etc)",{"$nulls":5},"• Very broad indicator, it feels that it should be broken down to make sure it can be evaluated, not really defined and not quantifiable, not easy to implement\n• Concern with “productivity growth”, that cannot be sustainable in the way in which it is understood today, and it’s contradictory: or growth, or sustainability (and to keep in mind that productivity growth has a problem in food waste and the productivity growth is mainly related to meat that is not sustainable): suggested to change from “productivity growth” to “agricultural production”\n• The main focus of this indicator should be that measures are implemented to ensure environmental sustainability\n• There can be fewer words: “ensuring productivity growth is environmentally sustainable” is the same as ”protection of sustainable production systems”\n• Specified that the government has specific plans/intentions/policy documents around environmentally sustainable agricultural production\n• Agriculture and fisheries should be divided, each of them counting as different indicators (or subdivided within bullets)\n","• Productivity growth should be removed, as it feels it’s too economic-based and does not really go in line with sustainability. The idea is not to increase productivity but to make sure that the production system is regenerative. \n• The part of fisheries is not agri, it’s aquatic, so those two aspects should be left aside (unless we use “agri-food systems” if we want to use the term that includes agriculture and fisheries together. However, aquaculture and fisheries is complex and sometimes they want to be divided from agriculture\n• Why primary agriculture? Better to just say agriculture\n• And what about livestock? It should be included (maybe something related to hormones and antibiotics in livestock considering that this indicator says “all throughout the food chain”). In Argentina and Brasil, a huge part of mais and soya is used as animal feed. [Included under TRADE4]\n• Disagreggation: suggested to split this indicator in 3 or 4 indicators and that each of them focuses on agriculture, fisheries, livestock, etc.\n","• “in Kenya we shifting towards a household approach empowerment  instead of just focusing on empowering one gender. This is in recognition of the different roles played by both gender in food production”. Consider gender as both, not only women","• Very broad indicator, with too general dimensions. Not possible to measure.\n• The increase in productivity does not necessarily lead to an increase in food security, and therefore to a reduction in undernutrition. If there is an increase in the productivity but that is used to be exported to other countries, it does not necessarily have an impact on the nutrition status of the population.\n• What are the ways in which the government can improve production practices? Through financial investment in research, or via programmes? The practicalities are mainly done by farmers.\n• Instead of using the term “improving”, use better “creating a favourable environment in production practices“\n","• Too vague, it is implied other indicators. Not clear how to measure it.\nIt should be more specified in bullets.\n\n• Lenguaje incluyente, Cambiar pequeños propietarios por producción a pequeña y mediana escala. No centrarse únicamente en la productividad, sino en la producción de alimentos sanos, de producción local, ancestrales.","• I found that a lot of the metrics across Products 1-4 were very tightly linked and could perhaps be condensed further?\n\n• Why a focus on productivity “growth” ? In Europe/NA, there does not seem to be a need for growth, rather the opposite. In an agroecological scenario, decreasing rearing and consumption of animals yields less demand for animal feed, hence sufficient space to cultivate crops without the need for more intensification and growth. In other parts of the world, there is a need for increased yields, rather based on agroecological methods than sustainable intensification. \nNeed to define what a “sustainable food production system” is. We would advocate for i.a. agroecological methods, decreased pesticides and fertilizer use (F2F), crop rotation, crop-livestock integration, and fixing nitrogen cycles through decreased meat production and legumes. "]
[null,null,"PRODUCT2 | Sustainable fisheries\nThe government has programmes in place to financially support sustainable fisheries (including artisanal fish and other aquatic systems) as part of the national fisheries management policy directives, ensuring that fishing activities carried out by the national fleet are environmentally sustainable. The programmes require fully-documented fisheries taking into account bycatch and the preservation of marine ecosystems and sensitive species.",null,"Is the support always financial or could there be nonfinancial support too?\nNow you have fisheries separate, should there also be an indicator on sustainable agriculture or is that covered under regenerative agriculture below? [To have an indicator just on sustainable agriculture would be too general - similar to the previous PRODUCT1 - as it implies different parts: soil, fertilisers, water, etc. Overall, the majority of the indicators ensure sustainable agriculture]","•  We did not have any indicator specific on fisheries, we had it merged with agriculture but usually they are divided (even at EU level: DG AGRI - DG MARE). The issue with this one is that it's country-specific as many countries do not have fisheries. "]
["PRODUCT2 | Sustainable and regenerative agriculture\nThe government supports sustainable agriculture practices and sustainable production methods, such as agroecology, at different steps in the process:\no Fostering the adoption of on-farm management practices to optimise efficiency of crop production yields; \no Promoting responsible and sustainable production and (when and where possible) reduce the use of pesticides and fertilizers; \no Supporting and enhancing the role of smallholder farms, including women;\no Promoting emissions reduction and carbon sequestration through agroforestry practices;\no Redesigning production systems by reversing the production focus towards plant-based instead of animal-based proteins.\nSuch supports need to be equitable distributed, including to women and vulnerable populations.\n","• Suggested to disaggregate this into different indicators, each of those bullets (for instance to have one whole indicator on agroforestry practices).\n• Include that with regenerative agriculture there can be also carbon sequestration, so to include an indicator on that (on regenerative agriculture and one on agroforestry practices)\n• Many of the measures touch on the importance of protecting the soil but there are no explicit measures to actually proactively improve soil quality (carbon sequestration could be a proxy for this but it is mentioned in the context of agroforestry and there are other ways for the soil to sequester carbon not directly linked with agroforestry)\n• The notion of improving soil quality also links to the indicator of climate change preparedness because higher quality soil will also be more resistant to droughts, severe heat as well as aberrant precipitation patterns because the soil's water retention capacity will improve","PRODUCT3 | Soil management and regenerative agriculture\nThe government has programmes in place to financially support agroecological and regenerative agriculture practices that protect the soil, enhancing its fertility and health:\n• Sustainable soil remediation methods (bioremediation)\n• Increase of soil's organic matter content\n• Nitrogen fixation practices and rotation systems \n• Crop rotation of the land and return of crop residues\n\n\n\n",null,"Is the support always financial or could there be nonfinancial support too? [Yes, but I find it hard to see as these practices require an investment from the farmers and I do not see what type of non-financial incentive the government can give to ensure this]","• Decided to add based on comments from PRODUCT1&2\n• To include in the scope document that the practices should be sustainable and rotational grazing systems",{"$nulls":5},"• As in the bullet it says pesticides and fertilizers, to add also ‘water use’, as other inputs. (Access to these commodities)\n• “when and where possible” is too arbitrary: how is that determined and quantifiable in an indicator? The main aim is to keep things in the indicator or topics that need to be discussed with policy-makers: to keep in the loop of discussion\n• The role of women: can the last point “Such supports need to be equitable distributed, including to women and vulnerable populations.“ be made a little harder, as just added at the end it feels as not important enough.\n• Is the order of those five points correct? Is there a reason?\n","• “To optimise efficiency of crop production yields” is something related to production growth and lobbyist behind this support this and advocate for monocultures and the use of agro-toxics. The idea is not the efficiency of crop production, but to ensure a sustainability and the sustainable use of natural resources (soils, water, etc)\n• Instead of including women, say “keeping in mind the gender perspective”\n• Suggested to disaggregate this into different indicators, each of those bullets (for instance to have one whole indicator on agroforestry practices). In Latin America they are using practices with Agave and Acacia trees, that help reduce desertification and to improve the biodiversity loss. \n• Include that with regenerative agriculture there can be also carbon sequestration, so to include an indicator on that (on regenerative agriculture and one on agroforestry practices) Agroforestry practices and agriculture are two different worlds so each of them should have different indicators.\n• For this point: “Promoting responsible and sustainable production and (when and where possible) reduce the use of pesticides and fertilizers; “ it depends because there are also fertilizers organics that are not bad, so the new indicator on fertilizers should really explain “chemicals”. Also, some smallholders do not use pesticides and fertilizers\n• For this point: “Supporting and enhancing the role of smallholder farms, including women;” it’s also very misleading because in a way it implies that smallholder farms are sustainable but that’s not the case, if they are not doing good practices for the environment why should they be supported and their role enhanced?\n• In the part of “Promoting emissions reduction and carbon sequestration” should also include biodiversity and vegetation loss. \n• There cannot be regenerative agriculture if the farmer communities are not regenerated too, there should be a point about fair prices for farmers and also indigenous communities, and support to go back to the previous agriculture that was practiced before (more regenerative) [Included under the new indicators on regenerative agriculture, land rights and seeds]\n","• “In food production systems ,sustainability will be achieved if we dialogue more with communities on their preferences given their biophysical opportunities and dietary habits.”\n• (when and where possible) pesticides and fertilizers as a stand-alone indicator\n• This is too focused on crops and specific to crops, separate livestock and fisheries [Taken into account under the indicator on Diversification and across others]\n","• To remove or reword this sentence “Redesigning production systems by reversing the production focus towards plant-based instead of animal-based proteins.” to take account of the fact that this directive is not applicable to the context of low and middle income countries which have problems of access and inadequate dietary intake of animal protein.\n• It would be good to remove the agro-forestry practices, and keep it more general as to achieve carbon sequestration through other interventions (not focused only on forestry) [Considered under PRODUCT1]\n• The last point “Redesigning production systems by reversing the production focus towards plant-based instead of animal-based proteins.“ is tricky because the animal-based proteins are also important and there are different methods used, actually it’s important to have them as part of the agricultural landscape in West Africa – this should be adapted according to the context. This can increase food insecurity (protein intake) or micronutrient deficiencies. – Negative for some countries in West Africa, so there should be a disclaimer on adapting this according to national needs.\n","• Need to include water management, as well as biodiversity aspects. These aspects were excluded as indicators but they should be taken into account when talking about food sustainability and therefore appear in the other indicators.\n\n• Cambiar explotaciones por sistemas de producción de alimentos. No sólo aumentar rendimiento, sino calidad de producción con sistemas agroecológicos y regenerativos.\nEn el punto tres quitar de incluidas aquellas gestionadas por mujeres. Parece parche. Poner que apoyar y potenciar producción a pequeña y mediana escala con perspectiva de género y buscando la igualdad.\nAparte de prácticas agroforestales incluir proyectos regenerativos a nivel de agricultura, cría de aves de corral, alimentos cárnicos, pesca, etc.\nSacar a las mujeres del concepto de grupos y poblaciones vulnerables. Somos más de la mita de la población mundial. Más bien hablar de perspectiva de género o de equidad e igualdad.\n","• I think agroecology is great to include here but my one caution on this is that there seem to be dozens of definitions of what agroecology actually constitutes.  if you want to use this term, it might be helpful to include the definition you are using (I noted that it wasn't listed in the glossary)\nLinked to this, it is debated in some circles but I wonder if an explicit mention of 'organic' production might be useful with the associated/relevant standards clearly cited given that these certifications already exist and might make it easier and more clear to implement in practice?\nFor bullet point 2, i wonder if a more constructive word might be 'optimise' instead of 'reduce'?  this ties into movements around precision pesticide and fertiliser use particularly for farms that may not have the ability to completely and seamlessly transition to organic\nMany of the measures touch on the importance of protecting the soil but there are no explicit measures to actually proactively improve soil quality (carbon sequestration could be a proxy for this but it is mentioned in the context of agroforestry and there are other ways for the soil to sequester carbon not directly linked with agroforestry)\nI think the notion of improving soil quality also links to product 11 because higher quality soil will also be more resistant to droughts, severe heat as well as aberrant precipitation patterns because the soil's water retention capacity will improve\nIf this is going to be applied to LMICs, I think a mention of protecting water tables might be important?\n\n• The sentence \"Promoting responsible and sustainable production and (when and where appropriate) reduce the use of pesticides and fertilizers; \" for example, overlaps with Indicator Product1, 3 and 4. \nFor the next point on supporting the role of smallholder farms: Very small farms are often not very efficient in environmental and economic terms. Smallholders are often a vulnerable group, and keeping this in mind is important, but \"enhancing their role\" in the food system, may not always be in their, and society's best interest.\n\n•  Rephrase to \"Promoting emissions reduction and carbon sequestration through agroforestry and sustainable soil management practices;\"\nFertilizers and pesticides should be their own bulletpoint. [Included two indicators on this] Of course, in some parts of the world they use very little fertilizer, but generally we could think about writing something like “promote integrated crop-livestock systems to decrease the need for synthetic fertilizers”. On pesticides, we should encourage alternative pest management strategies through integrating crop rotation and different kinds of plants (not just monocultures). [All of this has been taken into account in the indicators related to pesticides and fertilizers, and PRODUCT3]\n\n• I suggest a more balanced purpose of the agro-ecology framework whereby livestock, animal-based proteins and livestock production are not considered as “bad” and against sustainable and regenerative agriculture. In our part of the world, especially in Senegal, West Africa and widely in the other subregions of Africa, we should not and are not advocating for “redesigning production systems……against animal source-food”.  Agriculture, sensus lato, is including livestock production and should remain inclusive as in large part of the world where mixed farming, small scale production, rural/family farms are largely dominant for the majority.  It is common sense for us to advocate for a balanced framework including the tremendous importance and role of animal-based proteins, therefore livestock production systems and animal related value chains in Senegal, West Africa and other large parts of Africa if not all Africa. \nSee ref :  http://www.livestockdialogue.org/about-agenda/about-the-agenda/en/ + https://www.fao.org/3/ni113en/ni113en.pdf\nGlobal food security and health: The sector is critical to human health and global food and nutritional security.  Equity and growth: Livestock is essential to the livelihoods of an estimated one billion poor. The issue is how to secure livelihoods of the poor and participate in growing food markets or take up other opportunities outside the sector for income generation, social protection and inclusion, especially the vulnerables (women and youth), economic growth Resources and climate: Livestock production based mainly on materials not competing with direct use as human food, and incentives and rewards for environmental stewardship will allow the sector to transition to existing and new resource use efficient ways of production and a greater contribution to climate change mitigation.\nMy view is that agro-ecology should not be used/considered/operated in line with anti-livestock sentiments in the global north. The narrative should be balanced - not blind pro- advocates or anti-livestock. "]
[null,null,"PRODUCT4 | Optimisation of water resources\nThe government requires farmers to integrate sustainable water resource management practices that optimise water resources and  agricultural outputs per unit of water (in accordance with their Nationally Determined Contribution to the Paris Agreement, and other relevant national planning instruments). ","PRODUCT4 | Optimisation of water resources\nThe government requires farmers to integrate sustainable water resource management practices (e.g. managed aquifer recharge and storage, subsurface waste storage and injection) that optimise water resources and  agricultural outputs per unit of water (in accordance with their Nationally Determined Contribution to the Paris Agreement, and other relevant national planning instruments). ","Do we have examples of such policies or practices for farmers that could be put between brackets? Ok!","• Decided to add based on comments from PRODUCT1&2, and merged with previously deleted indicator on freshwater use. "]
["PRODUCT3 | Crops/farms diversification and related agricultural investment\nThe government ensures diversification of crops and animals through production of diverse foods that contribute to healthy diets, including fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts and seeds, and animal source foods by:\no Applying sustainable crop production and natural resource management practices;\no Diversifying crops or farm production systems\no Incentivising small farms;  households (including women) to produce a more diverse set of foods;\no Facilitating economic and physical access to these diverse foods for all population groups, in particular for women and vulnerable groups.\n","• Important to incentivize crop and livestock diversification (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30850539/) \n• Why do the incentives only go to small farms? Also big multinational ones should be part of the change.\n• Trade off: Diverse foods may be more expensive\n• Diversification is also applicable for fisheries and not only agriculture\n• Include polyculture \n• Include a part that also mentions pollinators as they are essential for diversity and reproduction of crops\n• Not all the diversification techniques are sustainable, so it should be mentioned\n• Economic and physical access has nothing to do with this indicator","PRODUCT5 | Incentives for diversification\nThe government provides financial incentives to farmers [/fishers] that implement sustainable diversification practices, such as polyculture or crop-livestock integration, in:\n• Food crops (including neglected and underutilized traditional crops)\n• Livestock species \n[• Fisheries: new/emerging finfish species] ",null,"Is the support always financial or could there be nonfinancial support too? Same answer as for PRODUCT3","• Decided to add the part of fisheries as this was suggested. However, this is not applicable to many countries. [Country and context-specific]\n• Trade off: diversified crops may be more expensive\nShould the part of pollinators also be here? PRODUCT17 covers biodiversity protection ",{"$nulls":5},"• Why only small farms and not also big farms that should also implement this? Or to add ‘also incentivise small farms’ to show that this is already happening to in big farms but the smallholders do not have enough help for this. \n• Biodiversity loss should be mentioned here. [as biodiversity loss is an outcome and there is already an added indicator on biodiversity, I will not include this.]\n• Wouldn’t the last point “Facilitating economic and physical access to these diverse foods for all population groups, in particular for women and vulnerable groups.“ be more related to the food provision indicator? The access to the economic part is food security: you can find it close to you, in your food environment. It can be worded different. This point can be moved to the indicator on farmers support and protection and be a bullet in that one. \n• The problem is that those diverse foods become more expensive.\n• This is also applicable for fisheries and not only for agriculture.\n• Diversifying crops or farm production systems It could be included the concept of the traditional, local crops. Keep in mind that “locally produced” is not the same as “traditional”. \n","• In the part of “Diversifying crops or farm production systems“ include the recuperation of traditional (“ancestral”) foods, to incentivise the crop of plants that were used before and that now, due to modernization, have gotten lost (corn, wheat and rice)\n• Include the polyculture (to use different types of crops), so make it more obvious in the indicator\n• Include a part that also mentions pollinators (like bees, ants, slugs or bats) as they are fundamental for diversity and reproduction of crops\n• For this point: “Supporting and enhancing the role of smallholder farms, including women;” it’s also very misleading because in a way it implies that smallholder farms are sustainable but that’s not the case, if they are not doing good practices for the environment why should they be supported and their role enhance?\n• Not all the crop diversification technics are necessarily sustainable, so it should be rephrased to include that\n• The use of “food” in this phrase “Incentivising small farms;  households (including women) to produce a more diverse set of foods” is not correct, as it makes you think of processed food, so better to use crops\n• “Facilitating economic and physical access to these diverse foods for all population groups, in particular for women and vulnerable groups.” This should be rephrased and has nothing to do with this indicator so it should be taken out, and when taken out it is important to divide economic access from physical access as they are also different. \n","• “Is it  also necessary to include market linkages”\n• Crops proposed to diversify have not had enough research on them\n• Link with bio-fortification : should be included (climate smart agriculture + micronutrients deficiencies) [To discuss bio-fortification with team/FSAT]\n• “Food system has a holistic approach. Food system analysis is critical to analyse the relationships in food production systems and their related effects”\n• Crop diversification should take into consideration some important aspects like nutritional value,acceptability of recommened food crops for  a given locality\n","• Rephrase: “The government ensures/ *improves* diversification of crops and animals *production* that contribute to healthy\n• Rephrase: “Applying sustainable crop *and livestock* production and natural resource management practices”. Because this diversification should be applied to everything (agriculture, livestock, fisheries): can be either disaggregated or added in bullets depending on which area it is specifying, and also another one on natural resources.\n• Question: is the diversification proposed to be applied at national level, at regional or at local level? As that can change depending on the context and needs.\n• Disaggregation: divide this indicator into the different bullets discussed.\n","• Include the aspect of promotion of traditional crops\n\n• Quitar pequeñas explotaciones e incluidas aquellas gestionadas por mujeres y poner que favoreciendo a grupos en desigualdad como mujeres y jóvenes.","• What is the difference between bullet point 2 and 3?\nThe last point (on economic access), for example, overlaps with the tariffs and subsidies and the prices indicators.\n\n• Add a mention to phasing out harmful subsidies. [Included under PRODUCT5]\n\n• This indicators only emphasize crop diversification. However, is is important to incentivize crop AND livestock diversification for the same reasons identified in PRODUCT2. Sustainable production and management practices is  strongly linked with fertility management and organic manure in most family farming systems. The proposed change is to remove « crop\" and keep « on-farm diversification »\n"]
["PRODUCT4 | Land use management\nThe government implements coordinated and coherent actions to address desertification, land degradation and food insecurity, involving all relevant stakeholders, through policies that operate across food systems to enable sustainable land-use management, enhanced food security and low-emissions trajectories, such as:\no Securing land tenure, payments for ecosystem services, local management of natural resources, empowering women and protecting vulnerable groups;\no Encouraging low inputs pastoral systems;\no Reforming subsidies, land use zoning, environmental farm planning, standards and certification for sustainable production.\n","• This is just land use management, so it should not include food security (food security is something apart, but this indicator should only focus on land use management)\n• What about fisheries and the new blue?\n• Standards and certifications can be also included in other areas, why is it only mentioned here? \n• Many lands are being abandoned due to climate change, so this point could include to facilitate resources for people to be able to go back to their lands and learn how to manage them better","PRODUCT6 | Land use management and ecosystem services\nThe government has regulations in place that restricts how land can be used in order to support environmental conservation, by providing:\n• Guidance on land use that encourages compact development\n• Financial incentives to farmers in exchange for providing ecosystem services when managing and working the land.","PRODUCT6 | Land use management and ecosystem services\nThe government has regulations in place that restricts how land can be used in order to support environmental conservation, address desertifiation and land degradation, by providing:\n• Guidance on land use that encourages compact development\n• Financial incentives to farmers in exchange for providing ecosystem services when managing and working the land.",null,"• Decided to rephrase and keep only the part of land use, moving aspects related to land rights to PRODUCTX.\n• PES can include: carbon sequestration and storage, biodiversity conservation, and/or watershed protection. (scope document)\n• The part on reusing land abandoned has been included under PRODUCT1\n• Standards and certifications: very expensive and bureaucratic, to discuss with team\n• To check with the team as there has been some criticism of PES ",{"$nulls":5},"• To delete the word food insecurity is it is weird to see it as part of only land use management.  \n• Shouldn’t the part of land use management also include a part of water use management? [Water management is included but as a new indicator]\n• Standards and certifications can be linked also to other areas so why that’s only mentioned in this indicator? To think if that should be here of maybe in PRODUCT2\n• What about fisheries and the new blue? \n","• This is just land use management, so it should not include food security (food security is something apart, but this indicator should only focus on land use management)\n• Many lands are being abandoned due to climate change, so this point could include to facilitate resources for people to be able to go back to their lands and learn how to manage them better\n• The problem with the payment of using eco-friendly systems by farmers (subsidies) are a bit controversial because there is not enough training on education towards that change of making it more sustainable and get help from the governments (capacitacion y formacion), and this should also include concepts of regenerative agriculture\n• Women should also have more rights towards land use management and ownership\n• Certification schemes are very expensive and bureaucratic, so that in some LMICs may not be a great solution [To discuss with the team]\n• In Latin America the majority of the organic products are mainly for being exported, and even if they are organic they are mono-culture and to export, so it’s tricky\n• Make sure that the emphasis is not only on low emissions but also on preventing biodiversity loss\n","• Impacts of food production to nutrition, climate change and trade. The indicators will be critical for policy makers to analyse the existing policies whether in line the food system approach and recommend for review\n• We need to zone agricultural areas to safeguard our food production systems. \n• Under land use management we can also add crop rotation on the land. [This has been included but as part of PRODUCT3]\n","• There is something missing: (after desertification), add *deforestation*, as it’s important for soil health. [This is under soil management indicator]\n• Disaggregation: The examples given (three bullets) are in very different points that should not be together, can they be divided? This indicator should only be on land use management. It is also hard to measure as an indicator. (the ones that are too general or already covered before can be removed)\n","• Asegurar la tenencia de la tierrra para mujeres quienes se quedan a cargo ante la migración de hombres y por no ser poseedoras carecen de apoyos económicos o técnicos.\nOtra vez sacar a las mujeres de grupos vulnerables.\nHablar de certificaciones participativas [To check what are participative certifications]\n","• The last point (on Reforming subsidies), overlaps with PRODUCT5\n\n• We would think about moving the line about subsidies into indicator 3 or 5, and clarifying the role of the various examples that are highlighted there (as the goal is to address desertification, land degradation and food insecurity), which are more/less controversial and also depend on different actors (i.e. certifications can be of governments or private-sector origin).   "]
[null,null,"PRODUCT7 | Fertilizers\nThe government has programmes in place to reduce (and ideally eliminate) the synthetic use of fertilisers, including:\n• Targets for reductions of nitrogen and phosphorus discharges\n• Fertilisers accounting systems\n• Nitrogen quota systems\n• Taxes on phosphorus content in feed\n• Plans to protect groundwater and costal areas from fertilizers' pollution","PRODUCT7 | Fertilizers\nThe government has programmes and regulations in place to reduce (and ideally eliminate) the synthetic use of fertilisers, including:\n• Targets for reductions of nitrogen and phosphorus discharges\n• Fertilisers accounting systems\n• Nitrogen quota systems\n• Taxes on phosphorus content in feed\n• Plans to protect groundwater and costal areas from fertilizers' pollution","Here you say programmes and under pesticides regulations, maybe we could say programmes and regulations for both indicators? Ok!","• Decided to include again based on multiple suggestions"]
[null,null,"PRODUCT8 | Pesticides\nThe government has national regulations in place that: \n• Eliminate the use of hazardous chemical pesticides\n• Promote best practices to minimise the associated risks to human health and the environment when using chemical pesticides\n• Reduce the overall volume and number of chemical pesticides in use\n• Financially incentivise farmers to use sustainable prevention techniques for diseases and pests","PRODUCT8 | Pesticides\nThe government has programmes and regulations in place that: \n• Eliminate the use of hazardous chemical pesticides\n• Promote best practices to minimise the associated risks to human health and the environment when using chemical pesticides\n• Reduce the overall volume and number of chemical pesticides in use\n• Financially incentivise farmers to use sustainable prevention techniques for diseases and pests","Would remove the word \"national\" or \"local\" from all indicators, just because I would leave that open as it may differ in different contexts, this is more about implementation","• Decided to include based on multiple suggestions"]
["PRODUCT5 | Tariffs and subsidies for sustainable healthy foods\nThe government ensures that any food and/or agriculture subsidies support sustainable farming for sustainable healthy foods, for instance by including grants and non-financial support services for farmers to reduce inefficiencies and promote value of sustainable healthy foods throughout the supply chain. The intent of existing subsidies on foods is to favour sustainable, local, healthy, nutrient-rich foods (fruits, vegetables, legumes, grains, nuts, eggs and seeds) rather than unhealthy unsustainable foods.\n","Some of the feedback below is taken also from the old PRODUCT2:\n• If we are subsidizing ‘sustainable healthy foods’, then subsidies should go to crop diversification, mixed farming and reducing the livestock populations\n• What happens with farmers/companies that produce soya or mais (so they are considered sustainable and healthy) but they do not produce that for consumers but for animal feed?\n• More balanced purpose needed for the agro-ecology framework whereby livestock, animal-based proteins and livestock production are not considered as “bad” and against sustainable and regenerative agriculture. In our part of the world, especially in Senegal, West Africa and widely in the other subregions of Africa, we should not and are not advocating for “redesigning production systems……against animal source-food”.  Agriculture, sensus lato, is including livestock production and should remain inclusive as in large part of the world where mixed farming, small scale production, rural/family farms are largely dominant for the majority.  It is common sense for us to advocate for a balanced framework including the tremendous importance and role of animal-based proteins, therefore livestock production systems and animal related value chains in Senegal, West Africa and other large parts of Africa if not all Africa. \nSee ref :  http://www.livestockdialogue.org/about-agenda/about-the-agenda/en/ + https://www.fao.org/3/ni113en/ni113en.pdf\nGlobal food security and health: The sector is critical to human health and global food and nutritional security.  Equity and growth: Livestock is essential to the livelihoods of an estimated one billion poor. The issue is how to secure livelihoods of the poor and participate in growing food markets or take up other opportunities outside the sector for income generation, social protection and inclusion, especially the vulnerables (women and youth), economic growth Resources and climate: Livestock production based mainly on materials not competing with direct use as human food, and incentives and rewards for environmental stewardship will allow the sector to transition to existing and new resource use efficient ways of production and a greater contribution to climate change mitigation.\nMy view is that agro-ecology should not be used/considered/operated in line with anti-livestock sentiments in the global north. The narrative should be balanced - not blind pro- advocates or anti-livestock. ","PRODUCT9 | Subsidies towards sustainable healthy foods\nThe government re-directs subsidies to support crops of which food products contribute to sustainable and healthy diets. These subsidised crops shall be for food products intended for human consumption, and not for animal feed. \nSubsidies related to livestock production and fisheries need to be considered in specific contexts/countries.","PRODUCT9 | Subsidies towards sustainable healthy foods\nThe government re-directs subsidies to support crops sustainably produced of which food products contribute to sustainable and healthy diets. These subsidised crops shall be for food products intended for human consumption, and not for animal feed. \nSubsidies related to livestock production and fisheries need to be considered in specific contexts/countries.","Should we also add that subsidized crops should be sustainably produced? Ok, let's see how it looks.","• For LMICs livestock and fisheries are still needed, so it's hard to include anything specific to livestock and fisheries. [To check with Stefanie/team]\n• Re-directs: as current subsidies are not like this. Should it be removed?\n• To include in scope document:  having to be from poly-culture there where we say the conditions of the subsidies.",{"$nulls":5},"• If it has a positive impact in obesity and NCDs, this indicator should also have positive impact on undernutrition, as we are talking about healthy diets. It should be therefore perceived triple duty potential and not only double.\n• Clear need to specify sustainable healthy foods, because some products with beans for instance can be highly processed. Definition of “unsustainable”: complex wording. Unhealthy food is not necessarily unsustainable. If there are eggs, shouldn’t there be other examples? It is better to have a clear definition of healthy sustainable foods, and to not give examples. This point is too vague: should be a more precise indicator.\n• There should be something of tax on red meat [Included in PRICES].\n• Why are we having subsidies? For governments to ensure that they support sustainable farming, wouldn’t it more effective to educate everyone in the country to eat more sustainably? Instead of providing financial incentives that decrease the cost of inputs? \n• The title says tariffs but we are only talking about subsidies. \n","• Include fair payments for ecosystemic services (Sweden is an example of that) [Included under land management indicator]\n• The part of healthy diets should also include the part of environmental sustainability (e.g. avocados are healthy but not sustainable and usually grown in mono-culture), so the part of it having to be from poly-culture there where we say the conditions of the subsidies.\n• To keep in mind: the part of sustainability is relative, as something that is sustainable in one place may not be it in another one. \n• Change food to agricultural products.\n• What happens with farmers/companies that produce soya or mais (so they are considered sustainable and healthy) but they do not produce that for consumers but for animal feed? They are also part of the problem.\n","• If the government works on market linkages and agro-processing to add value less of subsidies may be required. [I don't understand this comment]\n","• To refer to tariffs in the indicator to be consistent with the indicator heading. The concept appears in the title and not in the text.\n• Rephrase: “the government subsidises sustainable, local, healthy, nutrient-rich foods (fruits, vegetables, legumes, grains, nuts, eggs and seeds) rather than unhealthy unsustainable foods.” instead of using the verb ‘ensures’. \n• The part of the example is not clear and should be removed. What are for grants and non-financial support services for farmers?\n• Agricultural subsidies are usually not improving productivity, despite what may be thought. Would this imply that the subsidies to sustainable and healthy products would increase their productivity?\n• There should be something related to border tariffs – but maybe related to trade (customs and excises) [Included under TRADE1]\n","• Specify more clearly what is meant by unhealthy unsustainable foods, as there are unhealthy foods that are sustainable, and viceversa.\n\n• Hablar de alimentos y bebidas ultraprocesados como fuente de desnutrición, obesidad y múltilples enfermades.\nObligar a la industria con etiquetados claros no sólo de azúcares, sales y grasas sino también si incluyen organismos genéticamente modificados y el herbicida glifosato que es cancerígeno.\nCampañas educativas para la población acerca del consumo. [Out of scope] Acceso a alimentos tradicionales, frescos, locales y sanos. [Already included under RETAIL]\nRescate de dietas tradicionales\n","• I think some of the metrics across Products 5-7 might also be aggregated/condensed?\n\n• Too much emphasis on “local foods”, too little on what makes the majority of the environmental impact : what is produced (vegetal or animal), and how (organic or not, pasture-based rearing or industrial). If we are subsidizing ‘sustainable healthy foods’, then subsidies should go to crop diversification, mixed farming and reducing the livestock populations, and for supporting farmers in the EU to move away from the livestock sector. Which is different in other countries. "]
["PRODUCT6 | Farmers access to seeds, innovation and technology\nThe government invests in the access to:\no Seeds; \no Modern and sustainable technologies and innovation (including digital technologies);\no Skill training and capacity development, for farmers/ food producers (including for smallholders and women)\nto improve the production of quality and nutritious crops through on-farm conventional breeding and sustainable agriculture techniques, for instance pollination and nutrient cycling.\n","• The problem with seeds is that we are losing traditional ascentral seeds, and some of them have been stolen by big companies who have registered and privatised seeds, then creating GMOs and making these privatised seeds very expensive.\n• The indicator should be more precise and disaggregated into: seeds, and support for sustainable transition.\n• Do not include GMOs, glyphosate or pesticides under technologies\n• For PRODUCTION: need for differentiation in the support that the government needs to family farmers, as in Ecuador they are giving kits at the beginning that are very cheap with agrochemicals, and afterwards they will have to pay more and more. This is important to specify.\n• Skill training should include sustainable and regenerative production.\n• Important: the majority of the support from the government in neo-liberalist economies tends to go to big companies. The support should be more important for smallholder farmers. ","PRODUCT10 | Farmers access to traditional seeds\nThe government has programmes in place that protect ancestral, traditional seeds, making them economically accessible to farmers. Ancestral seeds shall be declared as public goods (property of the local community). ",null,null,"• GMO and biofortified seeds [To discuss with team/FSAT]\n• It was suggested to consider ancestral seeds as common goods to avoid privatisation by the industry - this is a sensitive topic. [To discuss with team/FSAT]\n• To include in the scope different names for traditional seeds (in French is was described as \"semences paysannes\"): Farm-saved seed, also known as country seed or old seed, is seed that a farmer takes from his harvest for later sowing but which, unlike farm-saved seed, is not first grown from certified seed purchased from a seed company.",{"$nulls":5},"• This indicator should be more precise because farmers have access to seeds, that’s not an issue. There are only a few companies in the world that own seeds and there is not a real variety of different ones. Traditional seeds, more diverse sources of seeds. The problem is not on access to seeds, but on the seeds they have that are not sustainable.  \n• GMO seeds? \n• The part of innovation of regenerative farming should be included more precisely as it’s a good way. \n• Is skill training including sustainable and regenerative production? It should be mentioned. \n• The training part is not included in the title.\n• Shouldn’t it be included here the reminder of women and vulnerable groups? Improving smallholders and women.\n","• The problem with seeds is that we are losing traditional ascentral seeds, and some of them have been stolen by big companies who have registered and privatised seeds, then creating GMOs and making these privatised seeds very expensive. Therefore, the government should ensure that ancestral communities are the owners of these seeds, but that they should not be registered and made private. They should be regulated as common goods (it’s a very delicate topic this one)\n• The part of innovation and technology should be related to understand the holistic agri-food system to ensure that it’s sustainable. GMOs are technologies but are not sustainable. Glyphosate and pesticides can be defined as technology or innovation but they are not sustainable. \n• This indicator should be disaggregated: one point on seeds, another one on technologies, another one on skills and capacity development \n• There is something missing here about digital technologies, as they may not be to improve nutrition or environmental sustainability; plus maybe it’s negative for inequalities as this part may not be accessible for everyone\n• For PRODUCTION: need for differentiation in the support that the government needs to family farmers, as in Ecuador they are giving kits at the beginning that are very cheap with agrochemicals, and afterwards they will have to pay more and more. This is important to specify.","• ‘Improved’ seeds.\n• Do the technologies include disruptive agriculture technology?\n• Can be merged with PRODUCT1: because when we talk about production we need to make sure we talk about seeds.\n• We can also facilitate  access of biofortified seeds  to farmers groups [To discuss with team/FSAT]\n\n","• To use “seed savings” (semences paysannes): Farm-saved seed, also known as country seed or old seed, is seed that a farmer takes from his harvest for later sowing but which, unlike farm-saved seed, is not first grown from certified seed purchased from a seed company.\n• What is “on-farm conventional breeding”?\n","• To include the aspect that subsidies should be for a start-up, but with the idea that the initiatives can become self-sufficient as well (that subsidies are not continuously necessary to keep the initiative alive)-\n\n• El gobierno apoya procesos de libre intercambio de semillas como bienes comunes y evita obtentores y apropiación de semillas de comunidades.\nFormación de habilidades y capacidades en agroecología, combate al cambio climático con proyectos regenerativos y con perspectiva de género.","• This indicator overlaps with PRODUCT7\n\n• Access to land should be present somewhere: here or in the “land management” indicator. [Already included in PRODUCT12]\nThe second line about technologies and innovation is broad and make it seem like technology is only about “high”-tech when it can also be social innovation and low-tech (such as agroecology). Also, knowledge building and research is key. I would consider adding these dimensions too. "]
[null,null,"PRODUCT11 | Farmers [and fishers]' support\nThe government supports farmers [/fishers] taking part in the transition towards sustainable food systems, by:\n• Subsidizing the access to sustainable technologies and innovation (including digital technologies);\n• Providing skill training and capacity development programmes on sustainable and regenerative practices, and on climate change adaptation\n• Financially compensating during the transition process to more sustainable practices\n• Ensuring a fairer distribution of financial support across farmers [/fishers], with particular attention given to smallholder/family farmers.",null,null,"• Should the indicator be changed to include a bullet only on farmers and a bullet only on fishers?\n• Important: the majority of the support from the government in neo-liberalist economies tends to go to big companies. The support should be more important for smallholder farmers. "]
["PRODUCT7 | Farmers support and protection\nThe government implements multisector nutrition-specific and nutrition-sensitive interventions to support farmers, particularly smallholders (including women) during the transition to more sustainable practices, by ensuring appropriate working conditions and social protection programmes, and providing infrastructure, increasing productivity and competitiveness, diversifying income sources, leaving the sector for off-farm employment, and/or providing social protection for those unable to adjust. Regulations are in place to ensure fair profits to producers, including seasonal workers, aligning producer price and production policies with shifting consumer demand, and aligning farmer incentives to respond to changing market demands.\n","• Support is not the same as protection, these two dimensions differ, in particular in legislation: to disagreggate \n• The indicator on support should not only go to smallholder farmers but to everyone\n• To separate from here the part related to nutrition-sensitive agriculture as that's related to prevent micronutrient deficiencies in country-specific contexts\n• This is very important for fishers too, not only for farmers","PRODUCT12 | Farmers [and fishers]' protection\nThe government has regulations in place to support smallholder farmers [/fishers], ensuring appropriate working conditions, social protection programmes and fair profits. The regulations align producer price and production policies with shifting consumer demand, and farmer [/fisher] incentives to respond to changing market demands.",null,null,"• Should the indicator be changed to include a bullet only on farmers and a bullet only on fishers?\n• To specify in the scope that this includes seasonal workers and migrants.",{"$nulls":5},"• Nutrition-specific and nutrition-sensitive interventions, what is that? Is that needed and is that the correct term? Why is that used only now, if that’s a term, and not elsewhere in other indicators? Sustainable food production should be equal to nutrition-sensitive. \n• The sentence is too long so it should be shorten or divided into two indicators. \n• “The part of providing social protection for those not able to adjust” is not liked, would that mean they would get help even if they are not adapted. \n• Support is not the same as protection, it’s mixed as these dimensions are very different – different kind of legislation (e.g. fair profits to producers, how is that assessed?). These two elements should be divided, either by bullet points or in different indicators.\n• The first long sentence should be divided into different ones, and the last sentence could be an indicator on its own.\n• Increasing productivity and competitiveness, is that sustainable? Especially when talking about smallholder farmers.\n• Suggested to disaggregate as there is too much information together.\n","• The support should not be divided between smallholders and big agro-business, as in the case of the latter (big scale) they also have a big impact on GHGE and they need support towards the transition. \n• One thing is the social support to workers, and another one is the support to the transition. The first makes sense that is towards smallholders, but the second should be for everyone.  To disaggregate indicator. \n• To separate nutrition-sensitive and specific interventions as they are related to micronutrient deficiencies, that may be a specific indicator on this programmes even if there is concern on their effect on sustainability, as they may be beneficial only for food security and inequalities.\n• The majority of the support from neo-liberalist governments (according to a study, in Mexico 95% of the support goes to big agribusiness that export their products and use agrochemicals) goes to the big companies. The support should have a policy that says that the support goes to those workers that are more in need for help. \n• In the part of social protection to workers, there should be a part that involves children and women, as they are working in the fields and they do not have social protection, they tend to be the first ones fired in times of crises.\n• If this indicator includes fisheries: the problem with small and big scale is the same, so there should be an indicator related to aquatic products, or maybe to create a bullet and divide agri and fisheries.\n","• Triple burden perceived\n• include e-commerce, online news sites, ride-sharing apps, and GPS systems.\n","• To disaggregate this indicator into two indicators: (1) Support to farmers (and livestock keepers), (2) Social protection of farmers (and livestock keepers)\n• This indicators have too many things going on and it would be better to just focus on the support of infrastructure and investment. The second indicator disaggregated from this one should be related to social protection mechanisms, improve their access to markets (shorted food supply chains, for instance). [Included under PROCESS3]\n• Farmers that are usually more vulnerable are the ones that are working in a more informal way, so it would be good to mention that the protection should be for everyone. \n","• Incluidas las mujeres quitar como parche.\nProtección y servicios de salud, seguridad social a jornaleros y jornaleras agrícolas.\nUsar lenguaje incluyente\nIncentivos para agricultura y ganadería para grupos de pequeña y mediana escala especialmente y aleatoriamente grupos de agricultura industrial (quienes tienen todos los recursos)\n","• Aligning farmer incentives to respond to changing market demands.\nWhat does the last part of the last sentence means? \n\n• There is a lack of effectiveness of input subsidies to improve smallholder farmers productivity and livelihood. "]
["PRODUCT8 | Women’s empowerment in agriculture \nThe government ensures an enhanced role for women in agriculture by offering them decision-making power, training and education and capacity building to engage with traders, financial services, labour saving technologies and innovation entrepreneurial opportunities across food systems. The government also invests in farmer's knowledge through nutrition education, linking food systems and household nutrition with great consideration to gender dimensions.\n","• The issue of women in agriculture is their social protection and recognition, even if they are involved all across the supply chain (they are not land owners, migration and exploitation, firs ones fired in crises, smaller salary than men doing the same job, lack of women in leadership positions). An in-depth analysis should be made to really understand which are the main issues and from there design public policies.\n• Fair trade should be more emphasised as in agriculture and fisheries there is no fair trade yet.\n• Seen as positive in general the fact that there is an indicator to empower women as there are huge gender misbalances and inequalities at the moment.\n• Important to be carefull with innovation as that can be similar to the green revolution (trade-off: environmental sustainability)","PRODUCT13 | Support to women's empowerment\nThe government has programmes in place that enhanced the role for women in agriculture [/fisheries] and provides them with:\n• Income opportunities and sustainable productive resources\n• Decision-making power in leadership positions\n• Training and capacity building\n• Credits/subsidies for sustainable technologies and sustainable innovation\n• Subdisides for land/infrastructure and storage facilities\n• Give priority and facilitate access to local, national and international markets\nEquitable opportunities to earn and learn shall be compatible with safe pregnancy and breastfeeding.",null,null,"• Should the indicator be changed to include a bullet only on farmers and a bullet only on fishers?\n• Should the options in bullets be included under scope document and keep the indicator more general in just having programmes/plans to empower women?\n• It was suggested to include aspect on gender diversity (homosexual farmers). However, it would be misleading to include it here. Should it be included at all? It has social impact but not related to double/triple duty potential we are looking at\n• An in-depth analysis should be made to really understand which are the main issues and from there design public policies.",{"$nulls":5},"• Women tend to not engage enough in agriculture, so this could be institutionalised. For instance, in Poland, women do not engage enough in agriculture as they have other tasks. Implementation of this point is not possible until women have more independence. \n• Wording: “offering them decision-making power?” what is that? Women as part of leadership and discussion at every level. “offering” is not a good word, suggested to use “ensuring”\n• Double duty: impact both in food insecurity but also obesity, as the healthy diet can have a positive impact on NCDs and obesity prevention (long term).\n• The last sentence: “Linking food systems and household nutrition” what is that? \n","• The issue of women in agriculture is their social protection and recognition, even if they are involved all across the supply chain (they are not land owners, migration and exploitation, firs ones fired in crises, smaller salary than men doing the same job, lack of women in leadership positions). An in-depth analysis should be made to really understand which are the main issues and from there design public policies.\n• Fair trade should be more emphasised as in agriculture and fisheries there is no fair trade yet.\n• Seen as positive in general the fact that there is an indicator to empower women as there are huge gender misbalances and inequalities at the moment. It was also suggested to include one related to children too.\n• Maybe to include aspect on gender diversity, as agriculture is very conservative and gay farmers have a harder time too. [Where can this go?]\n• The sentence “The government also invests in farmer's knowledge through nutrition education, linking food systems and household nutrition with great consideration to gender dimensions.” Is not liked as it seems too vague and hard to implement and not so promising, as the main knowledge comes from the land not from a room, so recommended to delete. This may be part of another indicator of education/training.\n","• What about youth? \n• Better to keep as an indicator on its own?\n","• Important to define the decision-making power (in what exactly?).\n• Rephrase: by offering them decision-making power *(in access to land, water, energy, technology and inputs, etc)*, training and education and capacity building  \n• It’s important to also raise awareness among men, otherwise this indicator will not really achieve women’s empowerment. \n• The second part of the indicator is important and it should stay, but maybe to be merged with another indicator as it’s not really related to women’s empowerment, so it can be added to another indicator on this area (but not to be merged with PRODUCT6) [Where should go the part on educating the society on gender-equality? Is it Infrastructure support?]\n","• El gobierno desarrolla políticas públicas con enfoque de género para promover la agencia económica y el empoderamiento de las mujeres en el campo\nCuidar esto de oportundiades empresariales de innovación porque están ligadas a la revolución verde que ha devastado la tierra, contaminado el agua y matado insectos polinizadores, aparte de dañar la salud humana por el uso excesivo de agrotóxicos en el campo\n","• If we wanted to be more coherent with the title of the objective, we could put something in about ensuring women’s access to land through marriage and inheritance (because in some countries women can’t easily inherit land), also access to financial services. Also, what about reproductive rights and access to family planning? Education? Women in local/national decision-making roles? "]
[null,null,"PRODUCT14 | Support to young generations\nThe government has programmes in place that give financial and non-financial support to young generations (<40) in agriculture [/fisheries], by:\n• Providing start-up grants, loans or guarantees (designed to help or advice on how best to enter sustainable farming)\n• Income support for sustainable technologies and sustainable innovation \n• Providing capacity development programmes for farmers [/fishers] on sustainable and regenerative practices, and on climate change adaptation\n• Prioritize young farmers [/fishers] when it comes to receiving basic payment entitlements from the national/regional reserve",null,"Not sure if a separate indicator for this is really needed, but we can discuss with the group\n\n[I think this one is important and makes sense to keep it as a separate indicator. At EU level, this is one of the CAP’s policies implemented]","• Decided to include based on feedback received\n• Include in the scope document funds such as: Rural Development programmes\n• Information based from example from European policies: https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/income-support/young-farmers_en"]
["PRODUCT9 | Tailored support to rural areas – Producers\nThe government ensures sufficient nutrition-sensitive agricultural production growth within nutritionally vulnerable population groups (such as women, smallholders and households living in rural and/or remote areas with little access to markets) by highlighting the benefits of saving production for own-consumption.\n","• Hard to understand, also the link with urban/rural areas and nutrition-sensitive agriculture\n• Suggested to disaggregate: one on NSA, and other in access to rural areas (the latter is now part of PROCESS)\n• What is nutrition-sensitive agricultural production growth? It does not sound well and the part of nutrition-sensitive as well as production growth should be removed according to the comments discussed previously.\n• If production for own-consumption is a sensible strategy or not depends very much on the local context - I think we should be careful not to romanisize small-scale subsistence farming.","PRODUCT15 | Nutrition-sensitive and -specific agriculture\nThe government has in place nutrition-sensitive and nutrition-specific agriculture programmes which assess the local context to address the types and causes of malnutrition, in line with national guidelines.",null,"The way this indicator is now written is fairly general compared to other indicators, can we make it more specific, perhaps through including the part of highlighting the benefits of saving production for own consumption as well? \n\n[I would not include it based also on this feedback: \"As far as I know, if production for own-consumption is a sensible strategy or not depends very much on the local context - I think we should be careful not to romanisize small-scale subsistence farming.\"]","• Decided to merge PRODUCT9&10 and focus on NSA only, as the support is already included under the new PRODUCT15\n• To check with team if this should be kept, given that there are some concerns for NSA-sustainability",{"$nulls":5},"• Hard to get: most of the people in rural areas in Europe are not food producers at all, not even for their own consumption. So where would they get their food from? In Europe people in rural areas do not have their own parcels and if they do they plant flowers, not food.\n• It is not just about highlighting the benefits, but about what in the system is making that so difficult?\n• What about ensuing exchanges, through local stores and food markets? There is in Europe a dramatic decrease of local farm food markets. Even those who are not producing a lot, but also preserving (long tradition)\n","• What is nutrition-sensitive agricultural production growth? It does not sound well and the part of nutrition-sensitive as well as production growth should be removed according to the comments discussed previously.\n• This point is also confusing as only producing for own-consumption has a repercussion on diet diversity, as there is a lack of crop diversification. \n","• Also PRODUCT7 had something similar, what’s the difference? Change the title to make sure that it’s not misleading with PRODUCT7 – change the title \n• Provide incentives for youth to engage in nutrition sensitive agriculture in rural areas and also mobilizing market for their produce\n","• To add at the end: “and resilience to face shocks\".\n• “The government guarantees an agricultural production that is resilient and nutrition-sensitive across the vulnerable groups” \n","• Agroquímicos queman cultivos tradicionales y monocultivos contribuyen a que se pierdan muchas especies de variedades; así que proponer agroecología de multicultivos tradicionales ","• As far as I know, if production for own-consumption is a sensible strategy or not depends very much on the local context - I think we should be careful not to romanisize small-scale subsistence farming.\n\n• Rural infrastructure would be more impactful here. [Included under PROCESS1]"]
["PRODUCT10 | Tailored support to urban areas – Consumers\nThe government supports nutrition-sensitive urban and peri-urban agriculture to ensure the growing provision in urban areas, ensuring that all citizens (including vulnerable populations) have affordable access to nutritious foods.\n",{"$nulls":10},"• This one is considered great, as it’s also a way to ensure access to vulnerable groups.\n• More pollution in urban areas also related to soil quality, so it can be important to mention. The quality of the soil in urban areas is not good enough to produce food.\n","• What is nutrition-sensitive agricultural production growth? It does not sound well and the part of nutrition-sensitive as well as production growth should be removed according to the comments discussed previously.\n• There should be more emphasis in this indicator related to local markets and accessibility (and to also support transport and other intermediaries that make the accessibility possible). [included under PROCESS1]\n\n","• To add SAFE [out of scope] (also related to chemicals) “to have safe and affordable access to nutritious foods”.\n• Specify home gardening in urban areas. \n","• Rephrase: “the growing provision in urban areas *by ensuring that urban and peri-urban areas reserved for cultivation are preserved* and ensuring that all citizens…”\n• This indicator should also include *storage and* provision\n","• No existe agricultura urbana y periurbana nutricional o no se entiende qué es eso\nHablar de apoyos al campo para agroecología, compras públicas para que lleguen a escuelas, hospitales, oficinas públicas, etc., a precios justos\nIncentivar comedores públicos con alimentos locales, sanos y a precios accesibles para que la población tenga acceso a alimentos de calidad [Included under PROV1]\n","• Urban and peri-urban agriculture does not necessarily yield affordable food because production costs are higher (it’s more often very specific crops with high value-add that are grown and mostly sold to higher-income households. Affordable access to nutritious food depends on economic access + physical access + symbolic/cultural barriers. Production is not one of them (as it is generally not cheaper, rather the opposite). \nSuch agriculture is more interesting when it comes to green areas, education or information. "]
["PRODUCT11 | Climate change impact preparedness\nThe government anticipates the impacts of climate change through assisting food producers, and in particular smallholders and women, to protect crops, livestock and their production systems from pests, diseases, weather-related shocks, extreme price volatility through cover crops, weather insurance and renewable energy technologies, to enhance the resilience of food supply chains to climate change impacts.\n","• The part of “assisting food producers”: is that related to subsidies? The word ‘assist’ is too broad and vague.\n• Regenerative farming can be very useful for climate change impact preparedness, so it would be interesting to include this here. Also farmers should be aware of the ways of farming to palliate and be prepared for climate change. Not just general citizens.\n•  To add biodiversity loss measures and regenerative agriculture",null,null,"Unsure about this one on whether to exclude or not","• Decided to exclude: I wonder if this one is needed, as it has common points of support to guarantee transition to sustainable practices with PRODUCT11; and the part of climate change crises should be covered under infrastructure support. [To discuss with Stefanie]",{"$nulls":5},"• Is 'preparedness' the current policy / literature terminology? In the global CC-context, it strongly resembles 'climate change adaptation'\n• It mainly depends on what exactly is supported by the policies... (eg. national organized weather insurances  or private insurances)\n• The part of “assisting food producers”: is that related to subsidies? The word ‘assist’ is too broad and vague.\n• Regenerative farming can be very useful for climate change impact preparedness, so it would be interesting to include this here. Also farmers should be aware of the ways of farming to palliate and be prepared for climate change. Not just general citizens.\n• What about awareness among citizens internationally? This is hard to be a responsibility of a national government  [To check with Stefanie if it should go under Infrastructure support]. \n• Climate change is the focus, but what about also including biodiversity loss?\n","•  To add biodiversity loss measures and regenerative agriculture [Included under PRODUCT3 & 17]","• Add something related to “climate smart agriculture” (which includes livestock, fisheries) [Included under PRODUCT1,2 &3] \n• Double duty perceived: environmental sustainability and undernutrition too\n","• Rephrase: “weather insurance, renewable energy techniques *and access to climate information*, to enhance…” [Should this part go to Infrastructure support in times of crises/shocks? To check with Stefanie]\n• To add: early-warning systems\n• The important thing is to ensure that there is a smart-agriculture for climate resilience [Included under PRODUCT1&3]\n","• Creo que es fundamental que los temas de cambio climático vayan acompañados de conservación de la biodiversidad. Dado que la biodiversidad es la otra cara del cambio climático, es necesaria la promoción de procesos de restauración y conservación ecológica de la mano con las comunidades.\n\n• La agricultura industrial es de las principales emisoras de gases de efecto invernadero, que puede transformarse con agricultura y proyectos regeneratvos para secuestrar el carbono del medioambiente y enfriar el planeta. El proyecto Un Billón de Agaves de Regeneration International es un ejemplo claro: https://regenerationinternational.org/wp-content/uploads/BillionAgaveProject_Brochure_Spanish_v1.pdf","No comments"]
["PRODUCT12 | Land, fisheries and forest rights protection\nThe government recognises and respects legitimate tenure right holders and their rights including indigenous peoples, women and local communities with customary tenure systems that exercise self-governance of land, fisheries and forests (as appropriate and in line with national legislation), and protects their traditional, collective knowledge and practices.\n","• Maybe this should be more specific only on rights, title: protecting the right and access of indigenous people to its national resources","PRODUCT16 | Rights protection\nThe government recognises and secures legitimate tenure right holders and their rights with customary tenure systems that exercise self-governance of:\n• Land \n• Fisheries \n• Forests\n",null,null,"• This is particularly important for indigenous communities and women (and also for migrants). I will include in the general scope that all the indicators need to be considered under the gender perspective, to avoid having to always include 'women and vulnerable groups', but I wonder if here is enough [To check with Stefanie]\n• This is a vital topic but I wonder if it should be included (double/triple duty potential) as it's mainly social. [To discuss with Stefanie]",{"$nulls":5},"• This seems to be a sub-indicator of the land use management one (PRODUCT4), with some overlapping. \n• It is only the first time that it includes the rights of indigenous and traditional practices, it should also be considered in some other indicators. \n• Maybe this should be more specific only on rights, title: protecting the right and access of indigenous people to its national resources\n• It’s not just protection, but the re-creation and re-discovering of traditional and collective practices, as sometimes they have been lost. Or re-valuing.\n","• Maybe this should be more specific only on rights, title: protecting the right and access of indigenous people to its national resources","No comments","No comments","• In some areas the government has sold the land and right to fish (as there are limits to the quota) to the large industries, and they keep people who wants to make a living of the land or sea away, as they are competing for the same markets.\n\n• Incluir también a las comunidades afroamericanas. Además de reconocer y respetar a los legítimos titulares de la tierra, el Estado puede también facilitar los procesos de titulación, en el sentido de disminuir obstáculos procedimentales y de costos.\n\n• Los legítimos titulares de los derechos de tenencia son hombres, así que esta frase perpetúa la situación de desigualdad. Se debe hablar de integrar a las mujeres y favorecer sus derechos a la tenencia de la tierra.\n","• What defines legitimate? Land tenure for indigenous groups is usually a really political question in practice. ‘As appropriate and in line with national legislation’ would also mean that as long as it is the law it is just?    "]
["EXCLUDED | Biodiveristy/ecosystem restoration and conservation\nThe government encourages the adoption of production systems that ensure biodiversity of landscapes, including forests, waters, oceans and coastal seas, other agro-ecosystems and sylvo-pastoral systems, through a zero-expansion policy of new agricultural land, restoring and reforesting degraded land, establishing international land use governance mechanisms, and adopting a \"Half Earth\" strategy for biodiversity conservation.",null,"PRODUCT17 | Ecosystem restoration and conservation\nThe government has programmes in place to conserve and protect biodiversity across:\n• Lands and forests (zero-expansion policy of new agricultural land, restoring and reforesting degraded land) \n• Waters, oceans and coastal seas (marine protected areas, mangrove forests) \nadopting a \"Half Earth\" strategy for biodiversity conservation.",null,null,"• Decided to include back based on feedback from the four workshops\n• In the scope document highlight pollinators.\n• To include in the scope: the global “30 by 30” conservation goal, which aims to protect 30% of the world’s seas and lands by 2030."]
["EXCLUDED | Optimisation of water resources\nThe government ensures the optimization of agricultural outputs per unit of water, soil, energy, labour and land, in accordance with their Nationally Determined Contribution to the Paris Agreement, and other relevant national planning instruments.  In particular, the Government ensures management, control and sustainable use of water resources for agriculture through improved regulation, integrated water resource management at watershed scale, and by inclusive community participatory approaches, supporting smallholders (including women and vulnerable populations).",{"$nulls":4},"• Decided to include under PRODUCT4 back based on feedback from the four workshops"]
["EXCLUDED | Management of use of fertilisers\nThe government uses a combination of instruments to reduce fertilisers, including targets for reductions of nitrogen and phosphorus discharges, fertilisers accounting systems, nitrogen quota systems, bans on manure application of bare fields, fertiliser taxes for non-agricultural use, taxes on phosphorus content in feed, agri-environmental schemes and advisory services, and investment in production processes that ensure soil enrichment, supporting smallholders (including women) in the process.",{"$nulls":4},"• Decided to include under PRODUCT7 back based on feedback from the four workshops"]
["EXCLUDED | Bio-fortification\nThe government supports bio-fortification programmes for staple (healthy) foods with actions such as improvement of farmers (including smallholders and women) and consumers’ knowledge.",{"$nulls":4},"• It was suggested to include by experts in two workshops, however decided to keep excluded as bio-fortification is seen as a techno-fix\n• To discuss further with the team and see if it should still be included"]
["FOOD STORAGE, PROCESSING, PACKAGING AND DISTRIBUTION"]
["GENERAL - Food storage, processing, packaging and distribution indicators",{"$nulls":10},"• Indicators try to achieve too much at once. This makes it very difficult to measure what governments are really doing.\n\nMissing indicators: \n• Maybe missing an indicator about initiatives that support the reduction of food waste [covered under WASTE1]","Missing indicators: \n• Add an indicator related to shorter food supply chains [Done: PROCESS3]\n• Add an indicator on storage facilities and infrastructure investment specific for storage. [Done: PROCESS2]"]
["PROCESS1 | Transport and infrastructure investment\nThe government invests in transportation and road infrastructure (e.g. building/ improving roads and bridges, physical markets, transportation and logistical distribution) to ensure the production of smallholder farmers (including women) reaches territorial markets (regional, local) that create opportunities for livelihoods, complemented with improved and accessible information, technology, training and capacity building to reduce transaction costs, to increase farmers’ opportunities to enhance market performance and to ensure the delivery of diverse, perishable, safe and nutritious food to urban, peri-urban and rural markets and for consumers (including vulnerable groups) to access those markets.\n","• Clarify in the scope of this indicator: The indicator is very full which makes it difficult to judge if it is about investing  in road infrastructure or about increasing farmers opportunities or about delivering safe and nutritious food.\n• Suggested to be disaggregated: one on transport and one on improved access to information, technology, training and capacity building. \n• Include fresh fruits and vegetables reaching the market as this increases access towards safe and nutritious food and might be beneficial for reducing NCDs.\n• In some areas of Latin America cannot afford buying food in supermarkets and buy food in public markets in the municipalities and wholesale markets. However, the municipalities no longer cover the expenses of infrastructure or cleaning, and that now needs to be covered by the sellers (the majority of them are women). Even the supermarkets buy in this markets fresh products and processed by women. Therefore, this missing investment in the infrastructure of local markets goes to supermarkets to ensure food safety.\n• In some regions the government made it very difficult for family farmers to bring their food in urban areas and they had to pay high taxes for transport. This was tackled by consumers cooperatives during the pandemic to ensure that food from rural areas could arrive to the cities.\n• There should be a specific indicator on storage facilities and infrastructure investment specific for storage.\n","PROCESS1 | Transport infrastructure investment connecting smallholder farmers with territorial markets\nThe government invests in transportation, road and railway infrastructure to ensure that the local, fresh and diverse production of smallholder farmers reaches territorial markets (urban, peri-urban and rural). A tax exemption on transport costs is given to smallholder/family farmers coupled to organic farming, agroecology or sustainable agriculture practices.\n\n\n",null,"The part written in red could be mentioned as an example of this type of investment between brackets?","• To include in the scope document: (examples such as building/ improving roads and bridges, physical markets, transportation and logistical distribution) and specifications of healthy and sustainable foods like fruits, vegetables, cereals and beans. However, in some areas it may be needed to have also meat (LMICs)\n• I think the second part of the indicator (that create opportunities for livelihoods, complemented with improved and accessible information, technology, training and capacity building to reduce transaction costs, to increase farmers’ opportunities to enhance market performance) should go to PRODUCTION\n• This may be more relevant in LMICs but it is still relevant in some areas of HICs too. - For instance, this seems to be an issue also in areas of Europe too, and probably North America and Australia\n• Should there be a separation in rural areas as suggeted?\n• Trade off: more roads negative for environmental sustainability. However, it was suggested to give more emphasis to the train (as this is important particularly in Latin America) - to be added to the scope document?\n• Based on the suggestions by Latin America and the experience with local markets, decided to disaggregate in two different indicators: one for transport, one for storage\n• Based on the Latin American experience I added that part, however maybe it's too specific and I should just write \"Priority on investment is given to connect smallholder farmers producing food under...\". \n• Important for this indicator to include in the scope women, migrants, vulnerable groups.",{"$nulls":5},"• Clarify in the scope of this indicator: The indicator is very full which makes it difficult to judge if it is about investing  in road infrastructure or about increasing farmers opportunities or about delivering safe and nutritious food => Can leave out the additional effects => Simplify the wording to go back to the essence.\n• Adapt the indicator so that more relevant to different countries and communities – e.g. road infrastructure not really the issue in developed countries. \n• Big difference between HICs and LICs – This indicator is very important for the latter.\n• Include fresh fruits and vegetables reaching the market as this increases access towards safe and nutritious food and might be beneficial for reducing NCDs.\n• Potential trade-off: more roads is a trade off towards sustainability => Ruins environments, more traffic,… => Focus should be on the delivery of safe and nutritious food.\n","• Triple duty perceived (as accessible food and improved transport across a country can have beneficial effects on healthier diets in rural areas)\n• Is the train included? In Latin America, as the areas are huge, train is important and also makes the transport more affordable.\n• Does the part of infrastructure also includes internet? It should (as it helps for health but also production and closing gender gaps)\n• Potential trade off: with building roads, even if they improve nutrition aspects, it can have a strong negative impact on environmental sustainability, especially in natural habitats.\n• In some areas of Latin America (e.g. Ecuador, Peru…) cannot afford buying food in supermarkets and buy food in public markets in the municipalities and wholesale markets. However, the municipalities no longer cover the expenses of infrastructure or cleaning, and that now needs to be covered by the sellers (the majority of them are women). Even the supermarkets buy in this markets fresh products and processed by women. Therefore, this missing investment in the infrastructure of local markets goes to supermarkets to ensure food safety.\n• The issue is that in some regions (e.g. Ecuador) the government made it very difficult for family farmers to bring their food in urban areas and they had to pay high taxes for transport. This was tackled by consumers cooperatives during the pandemic to ensure that food from rural areas could arrive to the cities.\n• Suggested to be disaggregated: one on transport and one on improved access to information, technology, training and capacity building. \n• There should be a specific indicator on storage facilities and infrastructure investment specific for storage.\n","• The indicator is clear but there needs to be a focus on further study/gathering more evidence on this to see how transport and infrastructure relates to these outcomes. There is currently a lack of data.\n• This indicator impacts food access related to both under- and overnutrition and also helps with income for farmers\n• We should not forget to emphasize the food markets for people in the production areas/rural areas. The input markets are there but their own markets are often overlooked, sometimes it takes quite a long distance to reach their own markets (where they buy their own foods)\n• It is easy to miss the part on rural areas, often most of the development and support is for the urban/peri-urban areas, and people in rural areas are left behind. So there remains the question on whether there should be a separate indicator for rural areas.\n","• Securite alimentaire : alimentes douvrent etre disponibles. C’est plus important l’accessibilite. This would have an impact in food security and environmental sustainability, but it should not have an impact on obesity/NCDs (double duty). It was also suggested to be important for empowering women and potentially even to ameliorate diets and therefore to improve obesity rates. As this indicator is transversal, it will never be a priority\n• Indicateur est très transversale pour le transporte. C’est pas prioritaire pour l’action immediate. Il risque d’être pas important. Ça serait difficile de prendre ça par le ministère du transport, il n’y a pas un lien tres specifique. However, the part of infrastructure of stockage is very important\n• Important and pertinent because of the link with food loss. So it can be important actually for the ministry of transport.\n• La formulation: l’indicateur n’est pas smart, le niveau d’investissement dans les infrastructures. J’ai l’impression que l’indicateur exclue certain points de la transformation. Il y a aussi les unites de transformation. Ça peut être reformule pour éviter la redondance. Maintenu comme ça, cet indicateur sera pas mesurable. \n• L’indicateur est pertinent, par exemple a Burkina Faso c’est important pour la création des entreprises de travaille à niveau de stockage, transformation et distribution. Cet indicateur va à prévenir des problèmes a niveau des petites farmers.\n• Reformulation : parler du niveau d’investissement (they can send a proposed reformulation) \n• There are two levels : niveau d’investissement dans les infrastructures ; and then another level : technology – should be disaggregated \n• There is another aspect: the cost of healthy diets, that does not appear here and should maybe be included here as it’s related to healthy diets \n","• The government provides investment funds and technical support for startups and small- and medium-sized food processing businesses (including for women) to produce and market local healthy and nutritious foods sustainably produced targeted at all the population (including population in rural areas and vulnerable groups)\nAdd trains to modes of transport\nTrade off, construction of this infrastructure can also have negative environmental impact\nImportance of local gov. investment for cleanliness and safety of local markets, where there are primarily female workers.\n\n• Impact assessment of government infrastructure development in their contribution to nutrition (undernutrition/overnutrition) and food insecurity needs to be conducted especially in Africa.\n\n•  Désagrégation.//// 1. Le gouvernement investit dans les infrastructures de transport et les infrastructures routières (par exemple, construction/amélioration des routes et des ponts, marchés physiques, transport et distribution logistique) afin de garantir que la production des petits exploitants agricoles (y compris les femmes) atteigne les marchés territoriaux (régionaux, locaux) qui créent des opportunités de moyens de subsistance ; afin de réduire les coûts de transaction ; d'accroître les possibilités pour les agriculteurs d'améliorer leurs performances sur le marché et de garantir la livraison d'aliments diversifiés, périssables, sûrs et nutritifs aux marchés urbains, périurbains et ruraux et l'accès des consommateurs (y compris les groupes vulnérables) à ces marchés.///////////2. Mise à disposition des informations, des technologies, des formations et un renforcement des capacités améliorés et accessibles ....\nImportant to consider local transportation regulations to facilitate access","No comments"]
[null,null,"PROCESS2 | Storage infrastructure investment for smallholder farmers\nThe government invests in storage facilities to be rented at low prices to smallholder farmers, ensuring that their production reaches territorial markets (urban, peri-urban and rural) under food safety standards, covering the costs associated to hygenic practices for food storage and handling prior to selling. Priority is given to smallholder farmers coupled to organic farming, agroecology or sustainable agriculture practices.",null,"Should this indicator only focus on smallholders or be more general but then say that smallholders should be prioritized?"]
[null,null,"PROCESS3 | Shorter food supply chains\nThe government financially supports shorter food supply chains (SFSCs) initiatives that reduce (and ideally eliminate) the number of intermediaries between farmers and consumers. Special focus is given to those coupled to organic farming, agroecology or sustainable agriculture practices\n• These initiatives include CSAs (Community-Supported Agriculture), on-farm sales, off-farm schemes (farmers markets, delivery schemes), producer-to-consumer networks or collective sales in towards public institutions. \n• Other policy tools, such as training and knowledge exchange in marketing and communication on SFSCs,  shall (or if already in place, continue) to be funded by Rural Development programmes.",null,"only financial support or also other types of support?","• Decided to include based on multiple suggestions\n• I had a look at some publications and at this policy brief and seemed promising: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC80420"]
["PROCESS2 | SMEs and startups support\nThe government provides investment funds and technical support for startups and small- and medium-sized food processing businesses (including for women) to produce and market local healthy and nutritious foods sustainably produced targeted at all the population (including population in rural areas and vulnerable groups).\n","• Proposed to aggregate with PROCESS6\n• Currently use the term government; however, funding can also come from other levels (e.g. European level funds to support SMEs) => reformulate to something like ‘the government provides or makes good use of…’ That way the scope is opened up to also include funds coming from other levels. \n• Include formation and education for young generations at rural level [part of another indicator?]\n\n\n\n","PROCESS4 | Support for startups and SMEs producing sustainable healthy foods\nThe government provides (and if already in place, makes good use of) investment funds for startups, small- and medium-sized food businesses that store, process, package and/or handle healthy and sustainable foods, preferably targeted at the local population. At least 15% of the funding is addressed to employment generation in rural areas and distant locations. \n",null,"Not sure that specifying a specific % is needed?","• This indicator is context-dependent: the needs from countries and diets and micronutrients are not the same\n• Why is it only in the local market and not for exporting?\n• Include in the scope document funds such as: Rural Development programmes\n• I added the at least 15% of funding should be given to rural areas or distant locations based on a suggestion by experts from Latin America (on trade), but if it's too specific it may be rephrased to something vague like: \"Special focus is given to employment generation in rural areas and distant locations.\"\n",{"$nulls":5},"• Unclear wording: ‘targeted at all the population’ – Refers to the investment funds or the nutrition? => Unclear. Made assumption that refers to the nutrition that will be produced. However, wondered, why is it then explicitly mentioned there? \n• Currently use the term government; however, funding can also come from other levels (e.g. European level funds to support SMEs) => reformulate to something like ‘the government provides or makes good use of…’ That way the scope is opened up to also include funds coming from other levels. \no Alternative solution: this could also be explained in the scope of the indicator instead of in the indicator itself.\n","• There should be a specific legislation on artisanal process of foods. This would be also beneficial for women’s empowerment. They would not count as SMEs as women work but they do not have a specific room for processing goods and that may be illegal, so their products are not recognised. [Interesting but unsure on were to add it, or if a new indicator should be created, and should be specified that it should be healthy and sustainable too]\n• Trade off: if this refers to ultra-processed foods such as meat substitutes, even if good for environmental sustainability, they can have a negative impact of these products on obesity/NCDs and inequalities (as they are also expensive). \n• Clear need to specify what products are included as “healthy and sustainable” \n• This indicator is context-dependent: the needs from countries and diets and micronutrients are not the same\n• With regards to SME and startups, it’s great to have an indicator on this, but should focus on companies producing more beans and legumes, seeds, cereals etc., and not ultra-processed substitutes. This would have a triple duty potential. But another trade off would be that there will be an increase in the use of energy, water and packaging (plastic), for instance if it’s beans and legumes related. However, the processing at industry levels would require less energy used when compared to the ones at household levels.\n• Wording: why is it only in the local market and not for exporting? If it is an indicator focused at local population and not exports, it should be rephrased to: “produced targeted at local population”\n• A possible solution could be that governments rents to smallholder farmers facilities for storage and processing, as famers could not make that investment of facilities themselves. This has been done in Quito. [Important but to be added to WASTE1?]\n• Something should be added related to producing food from agrobiodiversity practices, for instance “include products from agroecology, or that favour agrobiodiversity”. [Important but related to PRODUCTION]\n","No comments","• Intéressant et important, surtout la partie pour le soutien des startups pour les jeunes et les femmes au milieu rural. Fournit => crée (to create, to replace the verb)\n• Impact sur la dénutrition et l’obésité: si on veut qu'il ait un impact sur l'obésité, il faut une partie qui précise \"transformation d'aliments sains, nutritifs et durables\"\n• Include formation and education for young generations at rural level [part of another indicator]\n","• Clarity of wording-\nProposed changes in capital letters\nThe government provides investment funds and technical support for startups and small- and medium-sized food processing businesses (including for women) to produce and market local healthy and nutritious foods THAT ARE sustainably produced AND targeted at the LOCAL population (including RURAL areas and vulnerable groups)\nOthers:\nIndicator 2: NOVA definition to specify nutritious foods\nmujeres piden normativa diferenciada para el procesamiento artesanal, no pueden hacer inversiones como las agroindustrias\nNecesario hacer una buena evaluación del consumo de los alimentos y que sean adecuadas al contexto, mucho lobby por las industrias\ntener cuidado con alimentos fortificados que pueden ser ultraprocesados\ncareful with local corruption, perhaps not as beneficial in some some LMICs, specifically regarding products made for school children\nneed to consider local evidence to know if supplementation has been effective\n\n• Le gouvernement fournit des fonds d'investissement et un soutien technique aux jeunes entreprises (startups) et aux petites et moyennes entreprises (PME) de transformation alimentaire (y compris pour les femmes) ...préservant autant que possible la qualité nutritionnelle des produits de base.... afin de produire et de commercialiser des aliments locaux sains et nutritifs produits de manière durable, destinés et accessibles à l'ensemble de la population (y compris la population des zones rurales et les groupes vulnérables).","No comments"]
["PROCESS3 | Fortification programmes – targeted interventions\nThe government prioritizes diversified diets and establishes clear criteria to justify the distribution of micronutrient-fortified staple healthy foods and/or supplements, with guidelines targeted based on household food insecurity and nutritional status of different population groups (severely affected by micro-nutrient deficiencies) ensuring those fortified foods reach territorial markets (regional, local) and create opportunities for livelihoods.\n","• Be careful, some fortified foods are very unhealthy and ultraprocessed.\n• To consider that the indicators are context-specific per countries and local when possible\n• Support and agreed to use guidelines targeted based interventions, as otherwise the lobbing companies are behind that, they tend to be ultra-processed (flavoured milk, granola bars high in sugar, cookies etc). It can be a pity to use subsidies for non-targeted interventions as it causes food waste. The targeted fortification would be better to be done at local level based on their diets and context-specific diets.\n• Suggested to remove supplements from this indicator, and if needed to add a new indicator (iron, vitamin B12). But the trade-off would be that the pharmaceutical industry would be behind. \n• Maybe the part of biofortification could be added here? But it’s GMO… Trade off: if there is a biotechnology company behind, there are issues related to security and needs for pesticides uses. So they should be free patented and distributed directly to farmers without additional pesticide conditions. \n• International experts considered these actions are non-applicable for environmental sustainability: There is some positive impact of bio-fortification to the environment, especially considering current crops that are bio-fortified. For example iron-rich beans: could have positive impact on nitrogen fixing in the soil which would have positive impact on the environment\n• There are also indigenous crops and looking at using them as potential fortificants for other foods is ongoing (i.e. Moringa Oleifera in Kenya). Can government support/promote indigenous sources/fortificants for foods and can this be included in this indicator?","PROCESS5 | Fortification programmes preventing micronutrient deficiencies – targeted interventions\nThe government has implemented a prevention plan to avoid micronutrient deficiencies among the population, according to a hierarchy scheme in which priority will be given to the promotion of healthy and sustainable foods as part of a diversified diet. The plan establishes clear science-based criteria according to national guidelines (and food security programmes, if any), to justify (secondly) the distribution of healthy and sustainable micronutrient-fortified foods and (thirdly) supplements, targeted at population groups severely affected.\n",null,null,"• Just to double-check: as it stays now, is it measurable?\n• To add to scope document: consider that the indicators are context-specific per countries and local when possible.\n• To specify in scope document that \"healthy and sustainable micronutrient-fortified foods\" can be rice, lentils, corn, etc. (instead of ultraprocessed foods)\n• To check with Stefanie the wording, I like the idea of having them divided by hierarchy schemes. Otherwise another suggestion was to disaggregate: \n• Suggested to remove supplements from this indicator, and if needed to add a new indicator (iron, vitamin B12). But the trade-off would be that the pharmaceutical industry would be behind. \n• What about the point made of biofortification and GMOs? I'd rather not use GMOs...\n• Trade off: high prices of micronutrient-fortified foods and supplements\nI'm wondering whether or not to include bio-fortification back in food production given all the comments made on that area, even if it's right the part on biotechnology companies and pesticides use.",{"$nulls":5},"• “distribution of micronutrient-fortified staple healthy foods” – Distribution of such foods (staple foods) is not very relevant in most settings, both HICs and LICs. It’s often more about fortifying foods that are already on the market which means that distribution isn’t really the issue. In HICs it’s more about buying such products and in LIC about supplements. Later then also speak about the products reaching the market. This feels a little inconsistent. \no Needs clarification of what the main focus should be.\n• Very good way to measure the equity in diets among the population – If all is well would not need these targeted interventions.\n• Could delete the last part: “ensuring those fortified foods reach territorial markets (regional, local) and create opportunities for livelihoods.”. => Currently there are too many things fortifications should help solving\n• (- In Norway: Vit. D supplements to infants with migrant background, so also happens in HICs.)\n","• To consider that the indicators are context-specific per countries and local when possible\n• Support and agreed to use guidelines targeted based interventions, as otherwise the lobbing companies are behind that, they tend to be ultra-processed (flavoured milk, granola bars high in sugar, cookies etc). It can be a pity to use subsidies for non-targeted interventions as it causes food waste. The targeted fortification would be better to be done at local level based on their diets and context-specific diets.\n• Disaggregate: this indicator has too many things (1 prioritise diversified diets, 2 establish clear criteria to justify fortified staple foods/supplements; 3 create guidelines, 4 ensure fortified foods reach territorial markets, 5 create opportunities for livelihoods). How can this be measured?  The most important one is to establish clear criteria and guidelines.\n• Make sure that the foods are lentils and rice, instead of fortified milk or yogurt of long duration fortified and with flavours.\n• Suggest to mention that this first part of the indicator “establish clear criteria…” aligns with food security programmes from the national countries, or their dietary guidelines. \n• Suggested to remove supplements from this indicator, and if needed to add a new indicator (iron, vitamin B12). But the trade-off would be that the pharmaceutical industry would be behind. \n• Maybe the part of biofortification could be added here? But it’s GMO… Trade off: if there is a biotechnological company behind, there are issues related to security and needs for pesticides uses. So they should be free patented and distributed directly to farmers without additional pesticide conditions. \n• To also include, as in the indicator below, “where clearly justified by the evidence” and “staple (healthy) foods”\n","• In terms of fortification, there is another element called bio-fortification, can this be introduced in the indicator? How can this be included as part of targeted fortification programmes?\n• In relation to fortified foods, there are some issues related to the production and distribution of micronutrients. In most cases those micronutrients are imported outside the country, and their price is high, so governments have to allocate budget. We need to increase bio-fortification, reaching local farmers so that they can benefit from fortified foods. This is really important in all African countries. \n• The private sector also has to invest more in the production of fortified foods at the national level (but this is probably out of scope in case it does not relate to government action)\n• How do bio-fortified seeds get to the farmers and how can governments promote their production so that consumers have better access to bio-fortified foods\n• International experts considered these actions are non-applicable for environmental sustainability: in Africa the farmers are overusing synthetic fertilizers which is a serious problem, farmers get dependent on artificial chemicals, water gets polluted  -> this is probably more relevant for the domain of food production which is not covered here. This comment is not specific to fortification. [to be considered under PRODUCTION]\n• International experts considered these actions are non-applicable for environmental sustainability: There is some positive impact of bio-fortification to the environment, especially considering current crops that are bio-fortified. For example iron-rich beans: could have positive impact on nitrogen fixing in the soil which would have positive impact on the environment\n• There are also indigenous crops and looking at using them as potential fortificants for other foods is ongoing (i.e. Moringa Oleifera in Kenya). Can government support/promote indigenous sources/fortificants for foods and can this be included in this indicator?\n• Where to put blending? For example two flours blending together. This will improve the nutritional composition of flours. This is not really fortification but rather enriching. You can enrich by blending, by way of processing, other means, etc. This is quite different from what fortification is. Should this be a new indicator? [to be considered under PRODUCTION]\n","• Important indicator but to be evaluated at national level, not local\n• Difficult to establish in Africa, it would be better to incorporate to the next indicator\n• The problem here is the “fortification” terminology, as that is related to calories/energy. Or maybe precise that the fortification is in micronutrients, or enriching in micronutrients \n• L’idee c’est de suivre l’impact de distribution\n• Il va à avoir un potentielle seulement dans la denutrition et la carence a niveau de micronutrients, mais pas sur les autres outcomes. \n• Reformuler pour préciser la pensée préciser fortification en micronutriment mettre cette partie à la fin (\"le gouvernement donne la priorité aux régimes alimentaires diversifiés\")\n• « Le gouvernement donne la priorité aux régimes alimentaires diversifiés «  is not ideal, it should be rephrased or included at the end of the sentence, and start saying ‘the government stablishes clear criteria…” \n• If the indicator is not measurable it will give problems and we won’t be able to monitor. How can this indicator be measured?\n","• Recommendation should be context specific, consider local evidence\nsome studies have shown that micronutrient supplements displace food consumption, which can reduce protein intake. In populations that do not have low protein consumption, this is an effective strategy\nneed to clarify basic foods (need to prioritized fortified rice, beans, etc.), foods that cannot be taken advantage of by food industry (i.e. fortified sugary milks)\nwe don't want to accidentally promote ultra processed foods\nalign with food based dietary guidelines\n\n• Inclusion of biofortification is key\nInclusion of indigenous plant sources for nutritional additions to foods such as moringa\n\n• Programme de fortification en micronutriments: Le gouvernement établit des critères clairs pour justifier la distribution d'aliments de base sains enrichis en micronutriments et/ou de compléments ; avec des directives ciblées en fonction de l'insécurité alimentaire des ménages et de l'état nutritionnel des différents groupes de population (gravement touchés par des carences en micronutriments) ; en veillant à ce que ces aliments enrichis atteignent les marchés territoriaux (régionaux, locaux) et créent des opportunités de moyens de subsistance; ....le gouvernement donne la priorité aux régimes alimentaires diversifiés en complément à la fortification en micronutriments","No comments"]
["PROCESS4 | Fortification programmes – non-targeted interventions\nThe government implements, where clearly justified by the evidence, mandatory large-scale food fortification programs to increase availability of micronutrients in staple (healthy) foods (e.g. iron, folate, vitamins, zinc) already available to all population groups.\n","• Two elements here in this indicator that are not present in the previous one that are needed: \"where clearly justified by the evidence\" and specifying healthy staple foods\n• Experts think that this one can be recombined with the previous one on targeted interventions. It may be context specific whether non targeted interventions are needed or whether only targeted fortification is necessary.\n• For this indicator the research/evidence on micronutrient status at national level is very important as some governments introduce programmes without evidence","PROCESS6 | Fortification programmes of specific micronutrients  – non-targeted interventions\nThe government implements, where clearly justified by the evidence, mandatory large-scale food fortification programs to increase availability of micronutrients of concern (e.g. iron, folate, zinc) in healthy and sustainable foods available to all population groups.",null,"The way the PROCESS5 indicator is now written is good, I would still think this one could be merged with the previous one","• I wonder if this one should be kept as it's general, overall only beneficial for undernutrition, the foods generally fortified are not necessarily healthy (salt, margarine) or sustainable (milk), and the part of fortification is covered before. [to discuss with Stefanie or the group]",{"$nulls":5},"• Mostly important for LICs to have PROCESS3 and PROCESS4 separated (PROCESS3 less important in EU context)\n• What is the link between this indicator and sustainability? => NA\n• Mass production has led to less nutrients in the soil and then the plants and then processing also leads to a reduction in nutrients => Covered somewhere? => Maybe add somewhere that it is about sustainable produced foods?\n• Not necessary to emphasize that are staple foods – salt with iodine, margarine and milk with vitamin D (Norway) => Staple foods like cereals or potatoes are not often fortified => Staple should be deleted => Maybe mean ‘common foods’ or ‘regularly consumed foods’ by staple foods? In that case wording needs to be changed. Could also just talk about healthy foods without specifying which foods (common or staple). \no Distinction between PROCESS3 and PROCESS4 should be made more clear: focus PROCESS3 on distribution and PROCESS4 on fortification. \n","No comments","• Experts think that this one can be recombined with the previous one on targeted interventions. It may be context specific whether non targeted interventions are needed or whether only targeted fortification is necessary.\n• For this indicator the research/evidence on micronutrient status at national level is very important as some governments introduce programmes without evidence\n","Same comments as for the indicator above (PROCESS3)","• We agreed with keeping them separate (targeted vs. non targeted)\nTwo elements here in this indicator that are not present in the previous one that are needed: \"where clearly justified by the evidence\" and specifying healthy staple foods","No comments"]
["PROCESS5 | Social protection mechanisms\nThe government supports social protection mechanisms and programmes (in support of local markets and accessibility of nutritious food in the longer term) to prevent and manage undernutrition and tackle food insecurity, that include, safe, nutritious and, where possible, local and sustainably produced food, and that achieve adequate coverage during times of crisis.\n","• Suggested to make this indicator clearer as it’s too broad, and add a new one about sustainable healthy food baskets for low-income families.\n• Some of these programs can also be beneficial for overnutrition, the indicator mentions “nutritious foods” several times. Experts think this indicator should be reframed as now it focuses only on undernutrition as this is integrated in the indicator itself. The part on “to prevent and manage undernutrition and tackle food insecurity” could therefore be removed from the indicator. Currently focus of the indicator is entirely on undernutrition/food insecurity and so this means we are supporting the status quo of these interventions rather than also using them to prevent obesity/chronic diseases. These programs could be beneficial for the double burden of malnutrition. \n• Why is this indicator included in this subdomain? An expert suggested that it may be related to infrastructure support indeed, and therefore stockage or distribution, but it’s a bit weird to have it here – maybe to be moved to PRICES? If so, add that nutritionists should collaborate controlling that basic basket that may define the products given to families of low-income households.\n• Donations to food banks of ultra-processed foods should be limited","To merge with PRICES3",null,"This one reads better than the original PRICES3 indicator I think","• In a way this is covered under PRICES3, and it's too general. I suggest to remove it there and in case of need, adapt to the feedback received of vouchers and food banks. \n• The part related to \"in times of crisis\" needed as an indicator on its own due to special circumstances, and should go under INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT?",{"$nulls":5},"• “The government supports social protection mechanisms” sounds a bit weak => It should be the government who provides these social protection mechanisms. Could also be more of a governance issue, especially in times of crisis – coordination of NGOs, foodbanks,… => Change to: “The government provides and supports…”\n• Surprised that effect on obesity and NCDs is not clear – the food that is provided should be healthy!\n","• The social protection programmes (vouchers) should be vinculated to healthy and sustainable food, so be specific or give priorities to these types of products instead of general, processed foods. Social programmes need to consider what a healthy sustainable diet is, and ensure that the access to low-income households is towards that direction.\n• The last sentence “and that achieve adequate coverage during times of crisis.” Is too broad and may be removed an added as an extra indicator the part of crises. The new indicator of crises should specify that the products given should be nutritional and sustainable, and exclude ultra-processed foods.\n• Indice de productos con el que se define la canasta basica de productos en Ecuador (IPCC), based only in the most consumed foods in the population. Nutritionists should collaborate controlling that basic basket that may define the products given to families of low-income households.\n• Donations to food banks of ultra-processed foods should be limited\n• Suggested to make this indicator clearer as it’s too broad, and add a new one about sustainable healthy food baskets for low-income families.\n","• Some of these programs can also be beneficial for overnutrition, the indicator mentions “nutritious foods” several times. Experts think this indicator should be reframed as now it focuses only on undernutrition as this is integrated in the indicator itself. The part on “to prevent and manage undernutrition and tackle food insecurity” could therefore be removed from the indicator. Currently focus of the indicator is entirely on undernutrition/food insecurity and so this means we are supporting the status quo of these interventions rather than also using them to prevent obesity/chronic diseases. These programs could be beneficial for the double burden of malnutrition. \n• Impact of these interventions on environmental sustainability: this is a bit “far off” but the foods they are sourcing for these social protection programmes could be sustainably produced so in that case the government could be triggering use of sustainable practices; also early intervention of government could help to protect environment as people might misuse available resources in times of crisis.\n• Experts like it includes “local and sustainably produced food”, so that it would not only focus on support in the short term but also support when there is no particular crisis ongoing.\n","• It would be better to stop talking about food insecurity and to really change the terminology to malnutrition, because it’s at global level and malnutrition is the real challenge. Otherwise it’s too narrow as it’s only focusing on food insecurity. \n• Why is this indicator included in this subdomain? An expert suggested that it may be related to infrastructure support indeed, and therefore stockage or distribution, but it’s a bit weird to have it here – maybe to be moved to PRICES?\n• To reformulate a bit, also the title, to specify better that is for times of crisis\n• Effect only on undernutrition (both for undenutrition and also for micronutrients deficiencies) but they say it’s also good for nutritional inequalities\n• Le gouvernement soutient les mécanismes et les programmes de protection sociale et soutien des collectivités (local)\n• effet double: sous-nutrition et carences en micronutriments, impact sur disponibilté, dénutrition  \n","• Including conditional cash transfer programs\nit is a bit vague, not sure what it refers to (very broad)\nin times of crisis needed as an indicator on its own due to special circumstances\nfood industry takes advantage of donations in times of natural disaster and COVID (no specifications to say donations must be healthy foods)\ndoes it cover school feeding as well? this could make it triple duty [This is included under PROV1]\nsocial protection programs should consider criteria to encourage consumption of healthy foods\n\n• This may need to include locally produced processed foods as potential targets for addressing food insecurity and malnutrition\n\n• Le gouvernement soutient les mécanismes et les programmes de protection sociale des collectivités (pour soutenir les marchés locaux et l'accessibilité des aliments nutritifs à long terme) afin d'assurer une couverture adéquate des besoins nutritionnels en temps de crise touchant les leviers transport, infrastructures; de prévenir et de gérer la dénutrition et de lutter contre l'insécurité alimentaire ; qui comprennent des aliments sûrs, nutritifs et, si possible, produits localement et de manière durable ;","No comments"]
["PROCESS6 | Employment generation in rural economies\nThe government ensures the availability of healthy and nutritious foods sustainably produced in rural areas and/or distant locations by  supporting initiatives in rural economies to create employment through food processing, packaging, and handling.\n","• Proposed to aggregate with PROCESS2","Merged with PROCESS2",{"$nulls":8},"• The most important thing should be stated first – It seems as if the availability of the foods is most important, but from the name of the indicator it becomes clear that the last part (creating employment) is really the main focus. => Adapt to put the main point, employment generation, in the beginning. \n• Overlaps with PROCESS2 – Could potentially be merged together.\n• Change to “create employment through sustainable food processing, packaging, and handling.” – More linked to the main objective. \n","• Good indicator, very important for the years to come. Just important to take into account that the production is environmentally sustainable. \n• This should also ensure the production in the cases in which its possible (not only the availability). Ideally they could be locally produced. \n• Potential triple effect suggested\n• There should be an indicator related to employment generation among women, especially in rural areas.\n• The employment generation should also be in the areas of storage, processing, packaging and handling.\n• Is this only about creating employment or also creating opportunities in rural economies?\n","• It could be explicitly added that processing, packaging and handling should focus on green and circular systems for processing and production. And then we can bring in environmental sustainability impact. Technologies for this are available. ","• C’est pertinent , it has a double potential (for undernutrition, overnutrition and ineaqualities) ; it is perceived by some experts as one of the most important ones\n• Ici il y a plus de domaines (prestation, conditionnement, manutention) donc c’est mieux. \n• Triple effect\n• Fusionner avec l'indicateur 2\n• Préciser à côté de transformation, les autres services liés comme l'emballage, etc,","• Clarity/wording:\nchanges in capital letters\nThe government ensures the availability of healthy and nutritious foods THAT ARE sustainably produced in rural areas and/or distant locations by supporting initiatives in rural economies to create employment through food processing, packaging, and handling.\n\n•  Embracing circular and green manufacturing\n\n• Fusionner avec Process 2","No comments"]
["PROCESS7 | Environmental impact measures\nThe government requires food businesses, including retailers to measure and take into account the environmental impact of food products to encourage the provision of nutritious food through local farmers markets, community cooperatives, food businesses and other community building efforts that engage citizens around local food culture.\n","• Disaggregate: Feels like “to measure and take into account the environmental impact of food products” doesn’t have much to do with “to encourage the provision of nutritious food” => They are like two different things. Unless the environmental impact also includes nutrition, but this isn’t necessary the case. \n• This one is too broad and the “requiring businesses” verb is too broad and there are many types of businesses. The government should first define clear criteria and guidelines. \n• Who is going to be the assessment is one of the most important things. Not sure if that should be standardised, and it should be differentiated. The companies should be the ones covering the costs but the environmental impact assessment should be done by an independent entity (public service); it should be promotional of good practices.\n• The environmental impact assessment will never be perfect because there are many variables that play a role, and the importance of the indicators may have different hierarchies. So the indicators should be hierarchized based on local, national and international measurements (e.g. GHGE is more important at national level while biodiversity loss is more important at local level).\n","PROCESS7 | Environmental impact measures\nThe government requires the food industry to measure the environmental impact of food products by calculating in a standardized way an eco-score for the environmental impact of individual food and drink products.\n",null,"To be defined who is included under food industry?","• Trade-off: it would have negative impact on inequalities; standardised and impact measures are very expensive.\n• Not sure if that should be standardised, and it should be differentiated. The companies should be the ones covering the costs but the environmental impact assessment should be done by an independent entity (public service). Should it be done by collaborating with the industry or by labelling in the package to consumers?\n• To include in the scope document: the indicators should be hierarchized based on local, national and international measurements (e.g. GHGE is more important at national level while biodiversity loss is more important at local level).\n• For RETAIL: to encourage the provision of healthy and sustainable foods through local farmers markets, community cooperatives and other community building efforts that engage citizens around local food culture?\n• To include in the scope document: excluding alcohol?\n• May not have a strong impact on undernutrition, but probably on obesity/NCDs as sustainable foods tend to be healthier. However, this eco-score would only be available for processed foods: [To discuss with Stefanie or the group]",{"$nulls":5},"• “to measure and take into account the environmental impact…” – What does it mean exactly? Should be clearly explained in the scope. Measuring is one thing, but what should then be done? Make it more concrete what the consequence would be of measuring. \n• Seems like here there is a double goal – not clear if want to also promote labelling of industrially produced foods or want to promote labelling of locally produced foods.\n• Feel like “to measure and take into account the environmental impact of food products” doesn’t have much to do with “to encourage the provision of nutritious food” => They are like two different things. Unless the environmental impact also includes nutrition, but this isn’t necessary the case. \n• “that engage citizens around local food culture.” could be omitted. \n","• This one is too broad and the “requiring businesses” verb is too broad and there are many types of businesses. The government should first define clear criteria and guidelines. \n• Should it be done by collaborating with the industry or by labelling in the package to consumers?\n• Who is going to be the assessment is one of the most important things. Not sure if that should be standardised, and it should be differentiated. The companies should be the ones covering the costs but the environmental impact assessment should be done by an independent entity (public service); it should be promotional of good practices.\n• Disagree with survey: it would have negative impact on inequalities; standardised and impact measures are very expensive.\n• The environmental impact assessment will never be perfect because there are many variables that play a role, and the importance of the indicators may have different hierarchies. So the indicators should be hierarchized based on local, national and international measurements (e.g. GHGE is more important at national level while biodiversity loss is more important at local level).\n","No comments","• C’est pertinent dans ce domain, autour de tout l’infrastructure\n• It should be however reformulated to make sure it can be measurable and monitored \n• Triple potential perceived: environmental sustainability, nutrition inequalities, obesity/NCDs \n• Can it be done at national level?\n• Reformuler de sorte à pouvoir mesurer \n• Inclure les collectivités\n• PCD important\n","No comments","No comments"]
["EXCLUDED | Packaging innovation \nThe government incentivizes the improvement of practices by the private sector food actors to work towards more environmentally-sustainable and safe packaging of products across food supply chains. ",{"$nulls":3},"Justification for exclusion? [This was excluded after the first survey in November 2021 as it was only potentially good for environmental sustainability]"]
["FOOD LOSS AND WASTE"]
["GENERAL - Food loss and waste indicators",{"$nulls":10},"• Emphasize more the role of public procurement – Food waste could be used to provide food in canteens, at schools,… =>  where local municipalities are actively involved in providing food.  [to be added in PROVISION]\n• Food waste very much related to health difference – prepacked foods have a long shelf-life which might also make it easier for people with less money (can buy more at a the same time, store it longer,…) or in LIC people drink soft drinks because know it’s safer than water and buy biscuits because know that will be safer for consumption. This way food loss and waste is very much linked to health\n\nMissing indicators: \n• Add something about portion size? This can help in preventing waste. When portions are big people will throw away more. \n","Missing indicators: \n• There should be an indicator specific to circular economy and recycling or transformation of products to be part again of the chain or other options. \n• Another important initiative would be for governments to update food based dietary guidelines to align recommendations with policies [this is related to the area of Infrastructure support]"]
["WASTE1 | Prevention through infrastructure and coordination\nThe government implements coordinated actions with stakeholders across the food supply chain to prevent and reduce food loss and waste, investing in sustainable infrastructure improving post-harvest techniques and fostering the development and uptake of storage facilities during post-harvest, processing and transportation, to minimize food losses and waste on farms.\n","• Focus across the supply chain (not only farms) and mainly on food loss and prevention with infrastructure support (leave the part of food waste for the other indicators)\n• Disaggregate into two indicators: one on general coordination to minimise loss and waste (and circular economy), and the other one on reducing food loss ","WASTE1 | Food loss prevention and minimizing through infrastructure investment\nThe government minimizes food losses across the whole food supply chain by investing in sustainable infrastructure that improves post-harvest techniques and fosters the development of  facilities for the post-harvest storage, the food processing and the transportation. \n",null,null,"• It's probably neutral for WE (but secondary outcome, so less relevant)\n• PROCESS2' focus is very different and not clear the link with that\n• The new proposed indicator (WASTE2) should have a higher focus on the retail sector, especially among HICs. The part of food loss is still needed as some ugly foods never make it to the supermarkets. \n• WASTE2 also covers some aspects from the feedback received in the old WASTE3\n• Part in red for scope document?\n• Experts have suggested mandatory food waste reporting - should it go here?",{"$nulls":5},"• How is this indicator beneficial for WE? Not clear.\n• Because it says ‘on farms’ at the end seems as if it is only relevant for rural areas – should be across the food supply chain => remove the ‘on farms’ at the end.\n• Could also be related to SME and start-ups (~PROCESS2) or WE. It could be interesting to make the link with other indicators more clear. \n","• It should be across the whole food supply chain (and not just “on farms” as mentioned in the last sentence)\n• Disaggregated: general related only to food loss “The government implements coordinated actions with stakeholders across the food supply chain to prevent and reduce food loss and waste” // storage facilities and farms “investing in sustainable infrastructure improving post-harvest techniques and fostering the development and uptake of storage facilities during post-harvest, processing and transportation, to minimize food losses across the whole food supply chain”. \n• And remove the waste part that occurs more mainstream in the food supply chain (more common on HICs)\n• In the title only the word ‘prevention‘ appears, but in the text appear two words ‘prevention’ and ‘minimize’ This indicator is good the reduce the loss, so that it does not occur, and another indicator to explain the re-use of food waste. These two indicators should be divided.\n","No comments","• Not that relevant: interesting but the main problem with waste is mainly at household level.\n• Some experts do not agree with this indicator.\n• Agreed on triple duty potential\n• To precise that the loss is related to harvest (préciser pertes de récoltes)\n• Rephrase title: Prevention of post-harvest losses with infrastructure (and remove the part of food waste)\n","• More clarity needed, very long and it says across food supply chain but then focus on farms\nLast sentence should say to \"to minimize food losses and waste THROUGHOUT THE FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN\" not just farms, because this is not where the largest waste occurs necessarily\nrecycling of food waste, so use for fertilizers etc, which encourages sustainable farming techniques\nlarger vision of waste reduction (find ways to recycle or reintegrate into chain) (once loss occurs)\nprevent and reduce are two vary different aims\n\n• Proper co-ordination of the interventions is critical for success of the programs","No comments"]
[null,null,"WASTE2 | Food loss and waste reduction through coordination and hierarchisation\nThe government requires all stakeholders across the food supply chain to elaborate a prevention plan to avoid food loss and waste, according to a hierarchy of uses for food fit for consumption but consciously discarded, in which priority will be given to human consumption: \n• Priority: fiscal measures, such as tax breaks or price adjustments, giving supremacy to fresh, healthy and/or sustainable foods;\n• Second step: human consumption through donation to organisations (such as food banks). Companies should sign agreements with the receiving organisations specifying the conditions for collection, storage and transport. \n• Third step: to transform food into other edible products for human consumption. \n• Fourth step: to use the food as animal feed. \n• Last uses: processing of industrial by-products and recycling into compost or fuels.\nThe government contemplates financial penalties for institutions that do not comply with this legislation. ",null,"This is great! But then doesn't it also overlap with some of the indicators below?\nOnly the part on supermarkets, as the ones below are for bars, restaurants, etc. Maybe in WASTE3 we can remove the second bullet. "]
["WASTE2 | Regulation framework at retail level – fiscal measures or other incentives\nThe government puts regulations in place to address food waste, such as tax breaks, price adjustments of ugly or close to sell-by date foods (considering vulnerable groups' needs), or the use of labels or messages at shelf levels to inform consumers on best before dates and expiration dates. \n",{"$nulls":4},"• Interesting comment to discuss further: Overall this is key of course, but as discussed with some NGOs and researchers, - at least in France in the case of food banks - the issue of incentivizing donations is that it maintains a system of (poor quality and low diversity) production surpluses reused in the food aid system thanks to public money. Whereas such public spending could go to supporting sustainable (small-scale, agroecological and local) food production. ",{"$nulls":5},"• “The government puts regulations in place” change to “The government has regulations in place”, otherwise sounds like something to be done towards the future. Apart from that all like the indicator.\n• Could potentially reduce inequalities because it can make healthier foods cheaper – In Norway a lot of people are using this as an opportunity. => Positive for equity between different social groups.\n","• The second part “or the use of labels or messages at shelf levels to inform consumers on best before dates and expiration dates.” Fits better in the next indicator WASTE3\n• Can fit in here something related to making fresh healthy and sustainable products cheaper?\n• The main problem here is that the indicator talks about all the foods as if they were equal, while it should be divided between processed products (with expiration date) and fresh products (that are the ones ugly foods). There should not be a benefit for the processed ones as the only ones being promoted for consumption.\n• An expert disagreed on making cheaper the ‘ugly foods’ as they are equally nutritious and diverse. \n","No comments","• Reformulation in the text remove \"réglamentations\" and add: \"des mesures d’application (ou des contrôles ou sanctionnes)\" \n• This is hard to implement or measure these mechanisms as they can be from different departments in the ministry \n• Communication and awareness are also essential\n• Double duty potential perceived (environmental sustainability, nutritional inequalities)\n• réglementation mais également application, contrôle, sanction\n• regrader le taux de conformité pour mesurer cet indicatuer\n","• there is no differentiation between ultra processed foods and fresh foods (fruits & vegetables), we suggest splitting up the indicator\nPrice reductions/discounts in general offered for produce to encourage purchase (also addresses obesity as well as undernutrition)\nTRIPLE duty\n\n• Food waste is major in LMIC where monitoring and prevention of post harvest losses needs to be documented and communicated well [already considered in WASTE1]\n\n• Le gouvernement met en place des réglementations et des mesures de suivi pour lutter contre le gaspillage alimentaire, telles que : des allègements fiscaux, des ajustements de prix des aliments « moches » ou mal classés, ou proches de la date de péremption (en tenant compte des besoins des groupes vulnérables) ; ou l'utilisation d'étiquettes ou de messages au niveau de l'emballage pour informer les consommateurs sur les dates de péremption et les dates limites de consommation.","No comments"]
["WASTE3 | Regulation framework at retail and consumer level – education and awareness\nThe government puts programmes in place targeted at retailers and/or consumers to address food waste, such as consumer education programmes (i.e. expiration date use, encourage home preparation that results in less need for cold storage) and supports donation incentives to prioritize ugly or close to sell-by date food for human consumption at lower prices, instead of using it directly as animal feed.\n","• Suggested to disaggregate as programs targeted at retailers and consumers would be very different, and also to delete some parts that were too specific or may have trade offs (like only covering processed products that have expiration date instead of fresh products that don't)","WASTE3 | Regulation framework at retail level\nThe government has programmes in place to minimize food waste at retail level: \n• Bars, cafeterias and restaurants shall be obliged to make it possible for consumers to take home food that they have not consumed, at no additional cost. To this end, reusable or easily recyclable packaging suitable for food use must be available to the consumer.\n• Supermarkets shall have sales lines for \"ugly, imperfect or unaesthetic\" products; promoting the consumption of seasonal, healthy and/or sustainable products.",null,null,"• Decided to delete the part of \"the use of labels or messages at shelf levels to inform consumers on best before dates and expiration dates.\" as this was suggested to be only for ultraprocessed/processed foods that are not always healthy or sustainable. - Should it be still added somewhere?\n• Except in buffet-style or similar establishments. ",{"$nulls":5},"• “Supports donation incentives… at lower prices” – Should the food be donated or should the food be sold at lower prices? [already covered in previous indicator]\n• Many things merged together – education programs to donation initiatives – Should this really all be put together? => Too broad indicator, better split up or narrowed down to one specific topic. \n","• Aggregation: There is a bit of an overlap with the previous indicator so maybe they could be together, but only the part of retail (interventions for the retail sector), and then keep another indicator only for consumers\n• Again, as the previous indicator, suggested to divide between process foods and fresh foods, otherwise the industry will take advantage of this.\n• Instead of “address food waste” it should be “prevent and reduce food waste“\n","No comments","• There are too many examples here so maybe it would be better to rephrase, make it shorter and just focus in informing and raising awareness among conumers, but delete the parts that are « extra » \n• Insister sur la communication sur l'ettiquettage des consommateurs\n• Formation des détaillants et ceux de la chaîne de distribution et information et sensibilisation des consomateurs \n• Introduire l'éducation scolaire [out of scope]\n","• It seems to me that programs targeted at retailers and consumers would be very different. Maybe they would share some aims but I think they would have different objectives\nThis indicator is worth separating this and also for differentiating between ultra processed foods and fresh foods (fruits & vegetables)\n\n• Le gouvernement met en place des programmes destinés aux détaillants et/ou aux consommateurs pour lutter contre le gaspillage alimentaire, tels que des programmes de communication pour un changement de comportement en nutrition des consommateurs (c'est-à-dire l'utilisation de la date de péremption, l'encouragement de la préparation à domicile qui entraîne un moindre besoin de stockage au froid) et des incitations à donner la priorité aux aliments vilains ou proches de la date de péremption pour la consommation humaine à des prix plus bas ; au lieu de les utiliser directement comme aliments pour animaux.","• Overall this is key of course, but as discussed with some NGOs and researchers, - at least in France in the case of food banks - the issue of incentivizing donations is that it maintains a system of (poor quality and low diversity) production surpluses reused in the food aid system thanks to public money. Whereas such public spending could go to supporting sustainable (small-scale, agroecological and local) food production. "]
[null,null,"WASTE4 | Regulation framework at consumer level\nThe government has programmes in place to minimize food waste targeted at consumers, such as consumer education programmes (e.g. expiration date and best-before use).",null,null,"• I'm not convinced of keeping this indicator, as consumer awareness is usually advocacy strategies but hard to implement at policy level (unless mass media campaigns are used) and that's the reason why the other indicator was removed.\n• \"The use of labels or messages at shelf levels to inform consumers on best before dates and expiration dates.\"  was suggested to be only for ultraprocessed/processed foods that are not always healthy or sustainable. - If we keep indicator, should it be still added?"]
[null,null,"WASTE5 | Financial penalties \n[In the event that policies, programmes or regulations on these indicators are in place at local/national level]: The government contemplates financial penalties for institutions that do not comply with this legislation. ","Removed and merged with WASTE2","But this can be part of WASTE2, for any regulation penalties for non compliance can be included\nOK!","• I am adding this point as it was suggested during the discussion, but I wonder if this is part of MONITORING in the part of infrastructure support. The suggestion should be applied to all subdomains. - To be discussed with Stefanie"]
["EXCLUDED | Exchange of best practices\nThe government promotes the exchange of best practices between local markets on packaging and food waste disposal. "]
["FOOD TRADE AND INVESTMENT"]
["GENERAL - Food trade and investment indicators",{"$nulls":4},"• Very political topic, there are always trade-offs of trade liberalisation, as it has both positive and negative impacts, it's very context-specific (plus research on this is difficult to interpret). ",{"$nulls":5},"• Definitely sitting on triple duty potential as important implications on all areas of public policy. …with impacts on the economy as a whole, and many social, political, social economic processes.\n• Agree that potential for both positive and negative effects.\n• Problem: It's really general, goes a bit in the very general economic paradigm in which we are living\n• Good that could force at the European level and across member states to intervene and to regulate more directly rather than to keep on relying on the self- regulatory approach.\n","• It’s hard and complex the part of trade, the team of INFORMAS Mexico did a good job with the previous protocol of trade and to gather their feedback\n• TRADE2 and TRADE3 have an overlap with TRADE1\n"]
["TRADE1 | Risk impact assessment of trade agreements\nThe government undertakes risk impact assessments before and during the negotiation of trade and investment agreements, to identify, evaluate and minimize the direct and indirect negative impacts of such agreements on food systems, undernutrition, obesity/NCDs, environmental sustainability, health inequalities and women’s empowerment outcomes. The evaluations are conducted cross-ministry and cross-sector, and focus is given to reducing health inequalities while reflecting local realities and priorities.\n","• This should include an assessment on the right to food in other countries.\n• To include investment agreements in the headline.\n• Would not talk only about negative impacts, because can also have positive impact.\n• Too much attention to only health inequalities so would remove this last sentence. Other suggested solution: Instead of focusing only on health inequalities, potentially stress the interconnectedness of all factors mentioned in sentence before. \n• Should have an assessment of potential trade-offs, but can’t say what the impact will be. ","TRADE1 | Risk impact assessment of trade and investment agreements\nThe government conducts cross-ministry and cross-sector risk impact assessments before the negotiation and implementation of multilateral and bilateral trade and investment agreements, to identify, evaluate and minimize the direct and indirect impacts of such agreements on population's nutrition and health, food security and environmental sustainability, both domestically and in third countries. The assessment includes an analysis of trade-offs interconnected to these factors. Focus is given to reducing health and gender inequalities.",null,null,"• Level of implementation only at national or multi-national level, not regional/local.\n• Need to add the ministries and sectors to be involved in the risk impact assessment evaluation (to include social movements)\n• To make sure that biodiversity loss and climate change are included under the global 'environmental sustainability' definition\n• To include in the scope of the indicator examples such as: imports of key crops that do not contribute to deforestation or displacement of vulnerable people from traditional lands, be specific on imports of less sustainable foods such as GMOs. Also include imports of environmental friendly products e.g plastic packaging’s, plastics and chemicals.\n• To make sure that the scope covers vulnerable groups\n",",",{"$nulls":4},"• Agree that could have triple duty potential + equity\n• Effects of women’s empowerment are difficult to establish; depended on many different factors\n• Export led economic growth is promoted by trade liberalisation which in turn is closely related to political views, making it a very politically controversial issue\n• Many people are in principle in favour of trade liberalization for political reasons and for the liberal worldview, but others are opposed to it, due to the political stance towards market institutions, the free market analysis. \no Research on this is difficult to interpret.\n• So, this indicator very much goes back to a political discussion. However, they believe that the more governments regulate in a certain way, the better, because the more they intervene, the better it is for lower socio economic groups. However, difficult to determine exact effect for women’s empowerment.\n• Also put investment agreements in the headline, especially for this indicator, potentially also for other trade indicators.\n• Rephrase: Currently say: “…to identify, evaluate and minimize the direct and indirect negative impacts of such agreements…” => Would not talk only about negative impacts, because can also have positive impact. Reformulate to say ‘positive and negative impacts’ or just say ‘impacts’ without specifying positive or negative.\n• In the last sentence say again “focus is given to reducing health inequalities” while all factors are already mentioned in previous sentence. => Too much attention to only health inequalities so would remove this last sentence. Other suggested solution: Instead of focussing only on health inequalities, potentially stress the interconnectedness of all factors mentioned in sentence before. \n• Concern about level of implementation: Can be evaluated at EU level and at national level, but if ask this at regional or city level, they will probably say that this is not something they can control. => depending on the level of which the tool is implemented, you have to see which indicators are applicable and which not.\n• Trade-offs of trade liberalisation? Can’t simply say that trade and investment agreements or liberalizations have positive or negative impacts for any outcomes as it very much depends on the local context. => Should have an assessment of potential trade-offs, but can’t say what the impact will be. \n• Eg. Coca-cola enters market – will create jobs, but in some countries see increase in SSB, but in others not\no Will always have trade-offs, especially when looking at so many different outcomes. Can’t please everyone.\n","• Agree with triple duty, but trade agreements are very complex.\n• Hard to see the effect of women’s empowerment and socio-economic inequalities in trade agreements\n• Which ministries and sectors will be involved? Maybe good to add in the scope the actors/ministries involved cross-sector\n• To assess it in a rule like “health-in-all policies” or something similar, as otherwise the focus is commercial and not health-based. Social movements should be invited for the risk impact assessment\n• No need to disaggregate\n","• Agree with triple duty potential.\n• Which trade agreements were reviewed? Trade agreements are quite broad so advised to be more specific e.g. bilateral, regional, and preferential trade agreements or multilateral trade agreements.\n• Indicator is too long and needs to be reworded – “The government undertakes risk impact assessments before and during…” -> remove ‘during’ and change wording to “The government used risk impact assessments before”.\n• Change “cross-ministry and cross-sector” to something using a more general term, like stakeholders. [I think this part is important to keep and was suggested by other experts to keep, in the scoping document the ministries and sectors involved will be defined]","• All participants considered the indicator relevant to keep and clear but the indicator is too long\n• The indicator is very important in relation to the double or triple burden of malnutrition\n• Rather than focusing on “food systems” as a whole, the text of the indicator could be more focused on “food production and marketing” which are the most relevant aspects or dimensions of food systems related to trade agreements. [I would also include reformulation, processing/packaging, and labelling clearly has an impact also in the production countries] \n• The last sentence of the indicator could be removed because this is more about the methodology or approach of conducting the impact assessments. This is making the indicator more complex unnecessarily. \n• It will be hard to evaluate also women’s empowerment as part of this indicator, some countries might take it into account and others not, perhaps at this level the indicator could be disaggregated if that is an option\n• There are a lot of criteria included in this indicator, how is this going to be evaluated in practice?\n","• I would add that the risk impact assessment should also include identification/evaluation of the direct and indirect impacts on policy to promote healthier/ more sustainable food systems, address undernutrition, prevent obesity/NCDs, promote environmental sustainability, address health inequalities and take actions to advance women’s empowerment outcomes.\nI.e. some variation of the wording that reflects the potential impacts of trade policy on policy-space.\n\n• Aquí agregaría potencial impacto ya que se realizaría antes de la implementación. Entre los impactos a analizar también agregaría \"la seguridad alimentaria\" y el \"comercio justo para los pequeños productores\".","No comments"]
["TRADE2 | Use of trade policy levers\nThe government uses trade policy levers (i.e. formal trade agreements, appropriate tariffs, food safety regulations) to ensure a more efficient and sustainable use of food and agricultural resources to achieve the goal of sustainable, healthy diets.\n","• While not usually designed to achieve health, nutrition, or environmental goals, trade mechanisms present a substantial opportunity.\n• Depends on context if trade investment policy levers are the best policy tools to achieve these goals (while the indicators seems to recommend the use of trade investment policy levers); as such, sometimes other tools might better suited. To clarify this the indicator it could be reformulated to: “The government uses trade policy levers (i.e. formal trade agreements, appropriate tariffs, food safety regulations) in a way that ensures a more efficient and sustainable use of food and agricultural resources to achieve the goal of sustainable, healthy diets.”\no If these trade policy levers are in place, they should be used to benefit these outcomes, but don’t have to be in place.\n• Do not only talk about sustainable, healthy diets, cover the whole production process to reflect the farm-to-fork strategy\n• Could remove ‘a more efficient and sustainable use of food and agricultural resources to achieve the goal of’\n• Only include ‘appropriate tariffs’ and remove the other examples that are given between brackets. Tariffs are however quite vital.","TRADE2 | Effective use of trade policy levers for sustainable food systems\nThe government adopts measures to manage investment and protect their regulatory capacity from the influence of vested interests on policy and uses trade policy levers more effectively to ensure environmental sustainability and the availability and accessibility of healthy and sustainable foods, reduce food insecurity and under-nutrition, and promote food policy space. Instruments such as appropriate tariffs can help the shift foods available domestically as well as their relative prices.",null,null,"• Context-specific\n• Wonder if the second part of the sentence should be removed and added to the scope document. It was suggested by one group to give concreate examples while other group suggested to keep it shorter.\n• It needs to be made more explicit that trade agreements include those at all levels (international, bilateral, regional etc.). Or if not in the indicator, then this needs to be clearly defined somewhere. [To discuss further with Stefanie/group based on new modifications]",{"$nulls":5},"• Should be rephrased to include investment policies => Trade investment policy levels\n• Specify trade-related food safety regulations\n• Depends on context if trade investment policy levers are the best policy tools to achieve these goals (while the indicators seems to recommend the use of trade investment policy levers); as such, sometimes other tools might better suited. To clarify this the indicator it could be reformulated to: “The government uses trade policy levers (i.e. formal trade agreements, appropriate tariffs, food safety regulations) in a way that ensures a more efficient and sustainable use of food and agricultural resources to achieve the goal of sustainable, healthy diets.”\no If these trade policy levers are in place, they should be used to benefit these outcomes, but don’t have to be in place.\n• Do not only talk about sustainable, healthy diets, but elaborate to production, distribution, marketing => cover the whole production process to reflect the farm-to-fork strategy OR: change to “sustainable, healthy food systems” (last few words). \n• Could remove ‘a more efficient and sustainable use of food and agricultural resources to achieve the goal of’\no adapt indicator to: “The government uses trade policy levers (e.g. formal trade agreements, appropriate tariffs, trade-related food safety regulations) to ensure sustainable, healthy food systems”.\n• Cannot make general statements about trade-offs => depends on specific context\n","• This indicator is tricky and hard to identify which could be this trade policy that could ensure a more efficient and sustainable use of food and agricultural resources – it’s too abstract\n• Unclear how this differs from TRADE1. There should be a synergic effect with the previous one as the goal of the two should be quite similar. There is overlapping, so maybe it could be aggregated to the previous one.\n• Should clarify the text and content to make it clearer. As it’s similar to the first one, experts agree with the triple duty potential.\n\n","• No merging or disaggregation needed.\n• Specify which  formal agreements and which scope of food safety or tariffs.\n• Recommended remove agriculture resources and use food resources to avoid looking at the whole food chain. Different ministries are involved in negotiations and it’s important to be specific. Tariffs used to protect local producers mostly limit imports. However, not all agree. Some would prefer to keep agricultural resources. \n• Policy levers -> trade policy instruments.\n• Only include ‘appropriate tariffs’ and remove the other examples that are given between brackets. Tariffs are however quite vital.\n• Remove the word ‘formal’ and leave it at trade agreements","• All participants considered the indicator relevant to keep\n• It would be good to add “nutritional criteria” in addition to just focusing on food safety in the indicator\n• In addition to “ensure a more efficient and sustainable use”, we should also add to “ensure the access to resources”\n• Perhaps give more tangible examples on which levers could really be used for this indicator by governments\n","• I like the recognition that trade policy can be a lever to promote certain goals, but I dont know the reasoning for limiting it to 'efficient and sustainable use of resources'. The outcomes could also be: promote healthier, more sustainable diets; reduce food insecurity and under-nutrition; and promote food policy space.\n\n• En español no entiendo bien lo de \"palancas\" creo que en inglés es leverage pero es más un término contable o financiero. \"Apalancamiento\" de una inversión. No seria más apropiado decir que el gobierno impone ¿regulaciones? en los acuerdos comerciales como aranceles, cuotas, etc para garantizar un uso eficiente, equitativo y sostenible de los recursos alimentarios y agrícolas. ¿Y cómo sabemos que esas regulaciones precisamente son para lograr estos fines? Puede haber otro tipo de acuerdos, como subsidios a ciertos cultivos para garantizar ingreso para ciertos grupos sociales (por ejemplo campesinos que siembran caña de azúcar) y eso no garantizaría la sostenibilidad de la dieta. Quizá hay que ser muy específico en el tipo de \"leverage\" [wonder if this is more related to national agricultural susbidies?]\n\n• Ajouter l'accès à l'utilisation [not clear]","No comments"]
["TRADE3 | Regulatory capacity protection of trade agreements\nThe government adopts measures to manage investment and protect their regulatory capacity with respect to nutrition and environmental sustainability, with particular attention to vulnerable groups, and trade policies prioritise the supply of healthy, nutritious and sustainably produced foods over foods less healthy less sustainable foods, and by ensuring the environmental sustainability of products (i.e. imports of key crops that do not contribute to deforestation or displacement of vulnerable people from traditional lands). The government takes into account the benefits of local and international supply chains in different contexts, the protection smallholder farmers (including women), and other food system policies that are implemented.\n","• Overlap with what is already covered under TRADE1 and TRADE2\n• Make it more specific to the regulatory capacity OR: can be merged with the 2nd trade indicator => Using trade investment policy levers in a way requires protection of the regulatory capacity\n• For example, in TRADE2, could say: including protection of the regulatory capacity.\n• Is this indicator needed if the first indicator on TRADE is fully implemented? Is the first indicator not sufficient? Or are these indicators really complementary?\n• To add more information related to ensuring shorter supply chains and smallholder farmers protection\n",{"$nulls":3},"• Decided to merge with TRADE1 and TRADE2 based on feedback recevied\n• It was suggested to add a percentage of trade agreements that should consider access to healthy food, or sustainability, etc. it would be easier to evaluate. This can apply to all the indicators on trade. - To discuss with Stefanie/group\n• And labelling issues and regulations that protect people on NCDs. [unclear on how/where to add this, too specific - to discuss with Stefanie]\n• Capture non-tariff barriers (e.g. admin procedures at the borders, trucks ferrying food products and stuck due to bureaucratic procedures); they impact trade. [Unclear]\n• Stimulate governments to promote best practices within regional meetings, could this also be part of this or one of the other TRADE indicators? ",{"$nulls":5},"• Some suggestions in regards to the wording. Now partially overlaps with 2nd indicator. \n• Remove: ‘and trade policies prioritise the supply of healthy, nutritious and sustainably produced foods’. \n• Countries gave up their regulatory capacity and mostly gave it to EU when common market was created; not a bad thing => talk about the regulatory capacity instead of their \n• Last sentence not really necessary as is already assumed as protection of vulnerable groups is already said before\n• State somewhere that international regulation is also fine => Potentially specify local, regional, national and international regulatory capacity OR public regulatory capacity.\n• Indicator not specific enough! => Make it more specific to the regulatory capacity OR: can be merged with the 2nd trade indicator => Using trade investment policy levers in a way requires protection of the regulatory capacity\n• For example, in TRADE2, could say: including protection of the regulatory capacity.\n• In Germany when implementing the FOOD-EPI, merged TRADE2 and TRADE3\n","• This is too far away from the Brazilian reality; it’s also hard to understand the structure of the indicator. \n• It also feels that there is an overlap with TRADE1, but in a different scale compared to TRADE2.\n• What could be the regulatory capacity protection? \n• Too broad and too many things to consider.\n• Maybe add a percentage of trade agreements that should consider access to healthy food, or sustainability, etc. it would be easier to evaluate. This can apply to all the indicators on trade.\n","• Remove: “…imports of key crops that do not contribute to deforestation or displacement of vulnerable people from traditional lands..” and be specific on imports of less sustainable foods such as GMOs. Also include imports of environmental friendly products e.g plastic packaging’s, plastics and chemicals.\n• Add youth, vulnerable groups and people with disabilities [to be added in the scope]\n• Prioritise healthy sustainable foods that support nutrition.\n• Indicator too wordy – clarity lost along the way.\n• Place a full stop at vulnerable groups.\n• Include issues on food safety and standards. [out of scope]\n• And labelling issues and regulations that protect people on NCDs. [unclear on how/where to add this, too specific - to discuss with Stefanie]\n• Capture non-tariff barriers (e.g. admin procedures at the borders, trucks ferrying food products and stuck due to bureaucratic procedures); they impact trade.\n• The investment aspect of the indicator is not clear while this can also contribute to environmental degradation (depending on the investment of choice).","• All participants considered the indicator relevant to keep\n• The indicator is very long; the last sentence could be deleted as it is not so relevant in relation to the overall indicator\n• This is the most relevant part of the indicator: “les politiques commerciales donnent la priorité à la fourniture d'aliments sains, nutritifs et produits de manière durable par rapport aux aliments moins sains et moins durables ; et en garantissant la durabilité environnementale des produits »\n• We need to start with access to healthy and sustainable foods and then we can talk about vulnerable groups; we can remove “compared to less healthy and less sustainable foods”\n• How are we going to know if governments have this in place? Do we not need to specify what kind of provisions need to be included or excluded from trade agreements to be able to make sure that governments can keep their regulatory capacity? Is this indicator sufficiently “measurable”?\n• Is this indicator needed if the first indicator on TRADE is fully implemented? Is the first indicator not sufficient? Or are these indicators really complementary?\n• It needs to be made more explicit that trade agreements include those at all levels (international, bilateral, regional etc.). Or if not in the indicator, then this needs to be clearly defined somewhere. [Unclear]\n• Proposed reformulation of indicator: « Le gouvernement adopte des mesures sur les investissements en accordant une attention particulière aux groupes vulnérables, l’environnement durable, et une priorité sur la fourniture des aliments sains, nutritifs et produit d’une manière durable »\n• Stimulate governments to promote best practices within regional meetings, could this also be part of this or one of the other TRADE indicators?\n","• The wording of the first part of this needs some separation between protection of regulatory capacity, on the one hand, and use of of trade policy to promote healthier diets, on the other hand. In addition, I think this latter aspect would fit better with TRADE2 above.\nI would also add that this could measure whether 'The government adopts measures to manage investment and protect their regulatory capacity' from the influence of vested interests on policy.\nAnd that 'the government adopts trade agreements that protect regulatory capacity and maintain policy-space to introduce policies to protect and promote healthier and more sustainable diets'\n\n• Mi comentario es sobre \"es decir, las importaciones de cultivos clave que no contribuyen a la deforestación o al desplazamiento de personas vulnerables de sus tierras tradicionales\". Creo que debería ser exportaciones e importaciones que no contribuyan la deforestación, o al desplazamiento de personas vulnerables de sus tierras tradicionales, y que prioricen métodos de cultivo agroecológicos o sostenibles, que reduzcan las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero, el uso de agua y de suelo, la eutrofización de los mares y en general el deterioro ambiental. \n\n• proposition:\nTRADE 3 :\nLe gouvernement adopte des mesures sur les investissements en accordant une attention particulière aux groupes vulnérables, un environnement durable et une priorité à la fourniture d’aliments sains, nutritifs et produits de manière durable","No comments"]
[null,"• Decided to add based on suggestions from previous indicator and from feedback on indicators related to food PRODUCTION: add information related to ensuring shorter supply chains and smallholder farmers protection","TRADE3 | Trade incentives for shorter food supply chains\nThe government provides trade policy incentives that enable shorter food supply chains linking cities to secure a supply of healthy and sustainable foods, and ensuring that priority is given to food from exports and imports that do not contribute to deforestation, or to the displacement of vulnerable groups from their traditional lands.",null,"Is it really the best way to cover this via trade? You already have an indicator on shorter supply chains above?","• To specify in the scope document: in particular for smallholder farmers.\n• To make sure that under sustainable foods it it specify in the scope: that prioritise agroecological or sustainable farming methods that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, water and soil use, eutrophication and overall environmental degradation. "]
[null,null,"TRADE4 | Transparency through global food supply chains \nThe government fosters sustainable and responsible corporate behaviour throughout the global value chains by requiring companies to identify and, where necessary, prevent, end or mitigate adverse impacts of their activities on human rights, such as child labour and exploitation of workers, and on the environment, for example pollution and biodiversity loss. ","TRADE4 | Transparency through global food supply chains \nThe government fosters sustainable and responsible corporate behaviour throughout the global value chains by requiring companies to identify and, where necessary, prevent, end or mitigate adverse impacts of their activities on the environment, for example pollution, use of hazardous chemicals and biodiversity loss. ","Does this fit here under trade? I feel this indicator is fairly general and aspects of it are covered already in other indicators?\n\nI would maybe remove the part of human rights as, even if interesting, it's out of scope,; but I'd leave this one here as it's very important part of trade and I don't think this is covered anywhere else: purchasing companies have to ensure that farmers from third countries apply sustainable practices.","• Decided to include based on suggestions related to the part of food production, based on a German legislation: https://www.bgbl.de/xaver/bgbl/start.xav?startbk=Bundesanzeiger_BGBl&jumpTo=bgbl121s2959.pdf#__bgbl__%2F%2F*%5B%40attr_id%3D%27bgbl121s2959.pdf%27%5D__1661156112508 and soon a European one: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_1145\n\n• To discuss further with team/FSAT \n"]
["FOOD ENVIRONMENTS",{"$nulls":10},"• Clear need to define sustainable food (and healthy food) throughout the indicators","• Clear need to define “healthy and sustainable foods/diets” and “unhealthy and unsustainable”. Like a NOVA classification\n• To define clearly what is unhealthy and what is unsustainable. It was suggested to use the term “of low nutritional value” to foods that are unhealthy.\n• Important to keep in mind that in the “unhealthy foods” definition, food products that substitute healthier products and that therefore those products are unhealthier than the original, they should also be considered as unhealthy (e.g. breastmilk substitutes); and also re definition of sustainable foods: there is a risk to promote plant-based ultra-processed foods.\n\n",{"$nulls":3},"• I think might be worth reiterating is the use of the terms 'healthy', 'unhealthy', 'sustainable' and 'unsustainable'.  I think it might be worthwhile having a separate chat with Tim Smits about the use of these terms because he has deep and broad experience on the use of these terms and might be able to provide good guidance on what terms to use.  As mentioned, what he has recommended for FEAST is to use the relative terms of 'healthier' and 'more sustainable'\n\n• I was wondering why all the “Infrastructure support policies” of the Food-EPI were dropped – I found them quite important, and useful to have."]
["FOOD COMPOSITION"]
["GENERAL - Food composition indicators",{"$nulls":11},"Missing indicator: \n• Indicator on public provision places with healthier foods (however, this is included under PROV)","Missing indicator:\n• Include food safety in existing indicators, especially comp2? => Food safety as such really broad (free from contaminants, pesticides,…), so would then need to be specified. "]
["COMP1 | Reformulation of processed foods\nFood composition targets/ standards/ restrictions have been established by the government for the content of energy and the nutrients of concern (trans fats, added sugars, salt, saturated fat) in and/or portion sizes of industrially processed foods, including plant-based alternatives for meat and dairy, in particular for those food groups that are major contributors to population intakes of those nutrients of concern: trans fats and added sugars in processed foods, added sugars in beverages, salt in bread, saturated fat in commercial frying fats, palm oil in industrialized products.\n","• Change to: 'nutrients of concern that contribute to energy intake'.\n• Change Salt -> Sodium\n• Remove the specific mention of including \"plant-based alternatives for meat and dairy\"\n• Why is palm-oil singled out as unsustainable and no other?\n• Clearly need to define “industrially processed foods” - UPFs?\n• A disaggregation of these indicators into 2 indicators: A) Indicator related to nutrient content B) Indicator related to portions ","COMP1 | Reformulation of processed foods\nFood composition targets/ standards/ restrictions have been established by the government for nutrients of concern that contribute to energy intake (trans fats, added sugars, saturated fat), sodium and portion sizes of processed foods, in particular for those food groups that are major contributors to the population intake of those nutrients (e.g. trans fats and added sugars in processed foods, added sugars in beverages, salt in bread, saturated fat in commercial frying fats).","COMP1 | Reformulation of processed foods\nFood composition targets/ standards/ restrictions/ bans have been established by the government for the content of energy, nutrients of concern that contribute to energy intake (trans fats, added sugars, saturated fat), and sodium and portion sizes of processed foods, in particular for those food groups that are major contributors to the population intake of those nutrients (e.g. trans fats and added sugars in processed foods, added sugars in beverages, salt in bread, saturated fat in commercial frying fat).\n\nCOMP1 | Reformulation of processed foods\nFood composition targets/ standards/ restrictions/ bans have been established by the government for the content of energy, nutrients of concern that contribute to energy intake (trans fats, added sugars, saturated fat), sodium and portion sizes of processed foods. \nParticular attention is given to those food groups that are major contributors to the population intake of those nutrients (e.g. trans fats and added sugars in processed foods, added sugars in beverages, salt in bread, saturated fat in commercial frying fat).","There could be targets on energy itself as well, so added that back in; I have  added \"bans\" as well as some countries already have bans for trans fats    To be further discussed: Right now the focus is only on health and not sustainability, I would rather add the example of palm oil back in, it is an example, I also like the comment on diversifying the origin of proteins; plant-based alternatives for meat and dairy are not generally the biggest contributors to intake but would be great to make sure they are healthy, that is why I had added that in specifically because if only focusing on biggest contributors, then these would not be included","• Reformulation could also include diversifying the origin of proteins in processed foods so as to reduce the amount of meat in the recipe and increase the volume of legumes for instance (e.g. in a lasagna product). This would have benefiial effects for the environment, but also nutrition (by diversifying ingredients, we can expect nutrients to be more diverse too)\n• Reformulation does not always imply healthy products\n• Experts did not understand how this could benefit undernutrition\n• Include bans?\n• Mentioned trade-offs: A) If reformulation has an impact on food prices, then this may have an indirect impact on increasing inequalities. \n• Mention in scope: Including animal products and plant-based alternatives for meat and dairy",{"$nulls":5},"Discussed together:\n• Should there also be something specific on processed meat instead of only plant-based alternatives and something in relation to reducing amount of meat? (or does this fit better under the domain of food provision) [suggested in scope]\n• Should make it more explicit that also in countries where meat and dairy products might not be among the major contributors, that they are clearly covered, which means that if any reformulation strategy is developed that governments particularly look at animal based products and then also the plant-based alternatives for those  [suggested in scope]\n• Impact of these policies on inequalities: When it comes to the direct impact on inequalities, this is quite clear that this should be positive, but a concern is about this indirect impact by prices. If reformulation has an impact on food prices, then this may have an indirect impact on increasing inequalities. There are not many studies on this issue. This should be noted as a potential trade-off.  \n• Impact of these policies on undernutrition: Experts did not quite understand how this could benefit undernutrition or did not provide a potential mechanism for this. One expert raised that maybe  increasing fibres or proteins in some products could have a positive impact on undernutrition and also sustainability. However these indicators focus only on the nutrients of concern and so fibre and proteins are not captured. But overall, there is not really a clear link with food security and under nutrition.\n• What about additives including sweeteners. There is some preliminary evidence they may impact obesity/chronic diseases. These are normally more considered as part of food safety and evidence is too preliminary to include this. Additives are also very well regulated which is not necessarily the case for salt and sugar for example.  \n• These indicators should not only cover restrictions but also the option to include bans, for example for trans-fasts which is already the case in some countries like Denmark.\n• The COMP2 indicator needs to more explicitly cover or mention food deliveries as well which have become much more important. \n• And where do the meal preparation kits fit, including frozen meal delivery options? These are quite expensive so probably only accessible to higher socioeconomic class people. Since these are foods and ingredients to be home assembled or prepared, this is not really relevant here for food reformulation? [If sold in store, covered by COMP1, otherwise covered by COMP2]\n• What about the role of public, collective catering and how is this covered within the list of indicators? Although wondering about whether this fits better under the provision domain where we look at while food, availability and provision and public sector settings. In any case public collective catering needs to be covered and perhaps be made more explicit.","• Agree on obesity but hard to see the link with undernutrition. No double duty perceived, discussion for inequalities (disagreement among experts): most experts suggested that lower income groups do not have enough information access so they would still buy the original ones, plus the new reformulated products can be more expensive.\n• Reformulation does not always imply healthy products: new sweeteners for SSBs are not necessarily healthier, even if the product is reformulated.\n• What happens if the nutrients of concern are replaced by even unhealthier options? This can also have an impact on low-income groups, as they tend to buy the cheaper and not original options. \n• If reformulation implies an increase in prices, then negative for inequalities. Suggested to include in the indicator that the price does not change?\n• Portion sizes should not be only for industrially processed foods, also for unprocessed ones (what about fresh meat, for instance?).  [Indicator is about processed foods, har to reduce nutrients in unprocessed foods]\n• Salt: better to say ‘sodium’ instead.\n• Clear need to define “industrially processed foods” (or “ultraprocessed foods”? \n• This indicator is very broad, how can it be measured? What happens if a country has only implemented salt reformulation? Is every percentage of reformulation the same? \n• Important that this is regulated by the government and not auto-regulated by the industry, and also that this regulation increases over time to make sure that the industry complies.","• Potential negative effects if prices increase (due to the extra costs after reformulation)\n• 2 challenges in Kenya – fat and sugar – in some products these cannot be reduced/reformulated e.g. sugar main ingredient for confectionery OR if need to use palm oil -> difficult to reduce SF and TFA\n• Adapt wording? Problem: energy content – remove because sometimes can give the impression that more energy is better (biscuits healthier than bread). => change to: nutrients of concern that contribute to energy intake.\n• Link mentioned to food taxes – tax foods that are above thresholds as determined by the country\n• Change wording: Salt -> Sodium as sodium is really the issue\n• Challenge: reformulating processed foods is tricky because then they are no longer the original food as ‘meant to be’ => educate people so can make informed decisions instead of focussing on reformulation.\n","Discussed together:\n• Both indicators are too long with a lot of information - The group proposes a disaggregation of these indicators into 2 indicators: A) Indicator related to nutrient content B) Indicator related to portions [Cannot dissaggregate this further as would lead us too far of topic ~looking at the whole food chain]\n• In my opinion, based on the discussions, I think that some of the elements indicated in the wording of the indicator should be reflected in the standard itself","• This criteria is more strictly related to nutrition (health and inequalities), the impact on environmental sustainability is unclear.\nreformulation could also include diversifying the origin of proteins in processed foods so as to reduce the amount of meat in the recipe and increase the volume of legumes for instance (e.g. in a lasagna product). This would have benefiial effects for the environment, but also nutrition (by diversifying ingredients, we can expect nutrients to be more diverse too) [Very interesting and important point, might however be out of scope for this indicator]\nNote: the emphasis on \"plant-based alternatives for meat and dairy\" here seems a bit out of purpose or even counter-productive. What is the rationale behind the specific reference to such products? I agree that plant-based alternatives are not necessarily healthy (because can be ultra-processed), but they are more than a niche in the market. They also are already adressed earlier in the sentence as they are part, together with meat-based processed foods of \"the industrially processed foods\" that can be of concern. I therefore suggest to remove this specific mention, and to reflect on the point submitted above so as to ensure this indicator can be triple-duty.\n\n• Los alimentos diseñados para la alimentación infantil (6m a 2a) quedan incluidos en este grupo, pero no se especifican como lo hacen para los alimentos para alimentación basada en plantas. [This indicator is broadly about all processed food available to consumers]\n\n• Please send us data on plant-based alternatives from the review. i do not belive it is positive. Dairy intake in Brazil is very low. Industry will love this assertive.\nAlso, portion size is a point for all intakes, not only processed. (ultraprocessed??) [This specific mention has been removed]\n\n• Remove energy as it was discussed in the meeting.\n\n• I agree with the indicator as long as the price does not change.","• \"Palm oil\" is not a nutrient, and therefore not a nutrient of concern. Apart from this, why is palm oil singled out here? Yes, a lot of palm oil is not produced sustainably, but the same is true for many other agricultural inputs. What exactly is the evidence base for singeling out palm oil? [Specific mention was removed]"]
["COMP2 | Reformulation of out-of-home meals\nFood composition targets/ standards/ restrictions have been established by the government for the content of energy and the nutrients of concern (trans fats, added sugars, salt, saturated fat) in and/or portion sizes of meals sold from food service outlets and informal food outlets (i.e. food street vendors), and including plant-based alternatives for meat and dairy, in particular for those food or beverage groups that are major contributors to population intakes of those nutrients of concern.\n","• Change to: 'nutrients of concern that contribute to energy intake'.\n• Change Salt -> Sodium\n• Not clear the whole emphasis on plant based alternatives, as they tend to be highly unhealthy\n• Sentence not clear - reformulate\n• Needs to more explicitly cover or mention food deliveries\n• A disaggregation of these indicators into 2 indicators: A) Indicator related to nutrient content B) Indicator related to portions ","COMP2 | Reformulation of out-of-home meals\nFood composition targets/ standards/ restrictions have been established by the government for nutrients of concern that contribute to energy intake (trans fats, added sugars, saturated fat), sodium and portion sizes of meals sold by food service outlets, food delivery services and informal food outlets (e.g. food street vendors).","COMP2 | Reformulation of out-of-home meals\nFood composition targets/ standards/ restrictions/bans have been established by the government for the content of energy, nutrients of concern that contribute to energy intake (trans fats, added sugars, saturated fat), and sodium and portion sizes of meals sold by food service outlets, food delivery services and informal food outlets (e.g. food street vendors).\n\nCOMP2 | Reformulation of out-of-home meals\nFood composition targets/ standards/ restrictions/bans have been established by the government for the content of energy, nutrients of concern that contribute to energy intake (trans fats, added sugars, saturated fat), sodium and portion sizes of meals sold by food service outlets, food delivery services and informal food outlets (e.g. food street vendors).","Same comments as previous indicator                          To be discussed: why is the last part of the indicator deleted in this case while it is kept for COMP2? ","• Experts did not understand how this could benefit undernutrition\n• Difficult to implement with informal vendors as is hard to enforce\n• Mentioned trade-offs: A) If reformulation has an impact on food prices, then this may have an indirect impact on increasing inequalities. ",{"$nulls":6},"• Agree on obesity but hard to see the link with undernutrition. No double duty perceived, discussion for inequalities (disagreement among experts): most experts suggested that lower income groups do not have enough information access so they would still buy the original ones, plus the new reformulated products can be more expensive.\n• This is a complex indicator: is the food eaten out of home related to working days, or related to leisure time? If it is the latter, is normal that food eaten out of home tends to be unhealthier. If it is for the first one, it may be important. \n• If this indicator is purely on selection made by consumers, it will be hard to implement. [Is about the foods available to the consumers]\n• Not clear the whole emphasis on plant based alternatives, as they tend to be highly unhealthy. Plant-based is not sustainable under the perspective of social, economic and environmental. [By listening to the discussion I have the feeling that experts did not understand that the indicator included to make sure that the reformulation of products also included unhealthy plant-based products. It feels that they understood that we were saying that plant-based products should be used as substitutes. I was not moderating this session so I could not precise this.]","• Idem above – Change energy content to nutrients of concern that contribute to energy intake and salt -> sodium\n• Reformulate sentence, not clear!\n• Hard to implement legislation in this area as hard to check if reformulation is really happening\n• Problem: enforcement! \n",null,"• Same comment than COMP1.\n\n• Again plant-based alternatives from the review. i do not belive it is positive. [This specific mention has been removed]\n\n• Energy also needs to be removed.\n• The implementation of this is going to be difficult due to lack of enforcement.\n\n• Difficult to implement with informal vendors. It may be possible to implement with food prepared and sold away from home","No comments"]
["FOOD LABELLING"]
["GENERAL - Food labelling indicators"]
["LABEL1 | Codex standards\no Ingredient lists and nutrient declarations in line with Codex recommendations are present on the labels of all packaged foods. \no Regulations ensure that information concerning the type and quantity of added sugars within a food product is clearly presented in the nutrition information panel and ingredient list of all relevant packaged foods.\n","• Add LABEL2 as a bullet point to this indicator\n• Add: most recent ‘Codex recommendations’ or specify which version of the codex\n• \"type of added sugars\" not clear\n• Add salt to this indicator","LABEL1 | Codex standards\n• Ingredient lists and nutrient declarations in line with the most recent Codex recommendations are present on the labels of all packaged foods. \n• Regulations ensure that information concerning the quantity of added sugar, sodium, trans-fat and saturated fat within a food product is clearly presented in the nutrition information panel and ingredient list of all relevant packaged foods.","LABEL1 | Codex standards\n•  Ingredient lists and nutrient declarations in line with the most recent Codex recommendations are present on the labels of all packaged foods. \n•  Regulations ensure that information concerning the quantity of added sugar and trans-fat within a food product is clearly presented in the nutrition information panel of all relevant packaged foods. \n•  Regulations ensure that information concerning the type of all fats and oils and added sugar within a food product is presented in the ingredient list of all relevant packaged foods","Deleted sodium and saturated fat as these are standard within Codex recommendations; I added LABEL2 to this as it was not added?; I would not specifically mention infant formula and children's food, we can decide whether that is in or out of scope for all of the food environment indicators, so not specifically mention this everywhere; type of added sugar means the ingredient where the sugar is coming from, have added this back in; deleted ingredient list from second bullet point and only had it as part of the third bullet point","•  Important not to overburden information panel with too much information\n• If in scope (see below), could mention there \"including infant formula and food for children under three\".",{"$nulls":5},"• Potentially negative impact on reducing inequalities. No double or triple duty potential. On the other hand, I feel like it's still an important indicator because if we think about all the other labeling initiatives and policies, like, front of back labelling, you basically need this to be able to have a good algorithm behind your front of back labelling scheme.\n• If it's in really small font, older folks are simply not going to be able to read it, so this policy is not useful for a large part of the population.\n• We could add LABEL2 as a bullet point to this indicator and in that sense we would make it at least double duty potential.\n","• This indicator is too general, has not much of an added value as it has already been implemented and every country has already advanced. Plus, the Codex is very modelled by the industry. Some experts suggested to exclude. Instead of Codex, results from international research (independent from industry) could be used. Maybe only useful for low income countries. [In practice need to Codex as is the starting point for several other things, like FOP labelling. ALso remains important inceed for LIC/LMIC]\n• However, the second bullet on added sugars is interesting to keep.\n","• Codex is always being updated => add sentence: most recent ‘Codex recommendations’ or specify which version of the codex","• Only mention sugar here, better to mention other nutrients as well such as fats and salt\n• Add salt to this indicator\n• Add a note (at the bottom of the page or under the indicator) to specify which codex recommendations should be referred to.\n• Some discussion - Some recommend to combine label 1 and Label 2 while others suggested to keep separate while adding only salt to label 1\n• Confusing that here is in bullet points while previous indicators weren’t","• I am not very familiar with Codex rules, but I see they include showcasing information on \"pesticide residues\". The focus here is clearly nutrition, but in order to move towards a more holistic, \"one health\" approach, it could be useful to add a mention to this. [True, but within other domain of index]\n\n• Not sure\n\n• The first bullet should be clear to read the most recent Codex or name the Codex. Some people have said they have used several Codex documents and it can be confusing.\n\n• Need to specify that we are referring to the latest version of Codex. A good idea but unsure about its usefulness to customers making purchases.\n\n• I agree","• Why are added sugars subsumed unter LABEL1, while fats and oils have their own indicator (LABEL2)? This looks a bit ramdom. And what is meant with \"type of added sugars\" and \"type of fats and oils\"? The ingredient list has to be complete, of course (as recommended by the Codex, and therefore already covered by the first bullet point of LABEL1); as for the nutrition information panel, it's important not to overburden it with too much information which may be of less relevance. Any addition to the nutrition information panel should be based on a rigorous, evidence-based decision process, and not happen ad-hoc or based on selective expert opinion. "]
["LABEL2 | Label of fats and oils\nRegulations ensure that information concerning the type and quantity of all fats and oils within a food product is presented in the nutrition information panel and ingredient list of all relevant packaged foods (including infant formula and food for children under three).\n","• \"type of fats and oils\" not clear\n• Aggregation: should be merged with the previous one\n• Main issue should be on trans-fat, added sugars, high amounts of sodium.","SEE ABOVE (last bullet point)",null,null,"• By only focusing on one nutrient we run the risk of playing the “game” of the industry that focuses on specific nutrients and has an impact on general awareness \n• Check Codex  - infant formula and food for children under three are not covered by the food labelling part in the codex – different recommendations for infant formula  => If recommendations are different => remove part in between brackets here",{"$nulls":5},"Question: In Europe, isn't it mandatory now to include, for example, the kind and the quantity of oil, on the label? In Italy it is mandatory, not sure about other countries or at the EU level.","• Aggregation: should be merged with the previous one, the previous indicator should include sugars, fats, trans fats and sodium. \n• Some experts suggested that it is a bad idea to have an indicator only on fat in general, as there are fats that are healthy. The main issue should be on trans-fat, added sugars, high amounts of sodium. By ony focusing on one nutrient we run the risk of playing the “game” of the industry that focuses on specific nutrients and has an impact on general awareness \n","• Agreed that should be added as a bullet point to LABEL 1 \n• Check Codex  - infant formula and food for children under three are not covered by the food labelling part in the codex – different recommendations for infant formula  => If recommendations are different => remove part in between brackets here\n","• Leave as is\n• Some discussion - Some recommend to combine label 1 and Label 2 ","• Excluded this indicator, keeps alive the fat obessession. Many fats are good. Overall fat is not a good indicator.\nBad fats should be in other indicators with addeded sugar, sodium \n\n• The regulation is fine and can be added to Label 1 as a bullet. There is also need to make sure that the infant formulas and children food have the same recommendations as the adult foods [Adding an extra indicator on this might be out of scope of this index]\n\n• I agree this should be included\n\n• I agree","No comments"]
["LABEL3 | Evidence-based claim regulations\nRobust, evidence-based regulatory systems are in place for approving/reviewing claims on foods, according to an evidence-based independent nutrient profile model  so that consumers are protected against unsubstantiated and misleading nutrition and health, as well as environmental sustainability claims.\n","• Split the nutrition and health claims and environmental sustainability claims as two bullet points.\n• Issue with the word unsubstantiated - change to “Robust, evidence-based regulatory systems are in place for approving/reviewing claims on foods, according to an evidence-based independent nutrient profile model so that consumers are protected against misleading nutrition and health claims, as well as environmental sustainability claims, which lack scientific evidence”\n• Add in the formulation of the indicator \"packaged foods, including those produced locally by small and medium enterprises and the informal sector\".","LABEL2 | Evidence-based claim regulations\nRobust, evidence-based regulatory systems are in place for:\n• Approving/reviewing nutrition and health claims on foods, according to an evidence-based independent nutrient profile model \n• Approving environmental sustainability claims \nso that consumers are protected against misleading claims on packaged foods which lack scientific evidence.","LABEL2 | Evidence-based claim regulations\nRobust, evidence-based regulatory systems are in place for:\n• Approving/reviewing nutrition and health claims on foods, according to an evidence-based independent nutrient profile model \n• Approving/reviewing environmental sustainability claims \nso that consumers are protected against misleading claims on packaged foods which lack scientific evidence.","I like this new one with the two bollets a lot!","• How could this be negative for inequalities?\n• Unclear how the indicator proposes to evaluate environmental sustainability claims\n• Mentioned trade-offs: A) If claims have an impact on food prices, then this may have an indirect impact on increasing inequalities. B) May reduce the impact of some other policies, like front-of-pack labelling (limited evidence).\n• In scope: including packaged foods produced locally by small and medium enterprises and the informal sector",{"$nulls":5},"• Similar as for Front of pack labelling need to split the nutrition and health claims and environmental sustainability claims as two bullet points. These are  quite different things. We wouldn't have nutrient profiling for environmental sustainability for example.\n• Question: what is the regulation in relation to different types of environmental sustainability claims in Europe? Something to be further explored. [Context specific]\n• Similar as for food reformulation it could be that adding certain claims to food products increases the prices of those products. And then there is also some evidence that nutrition and health claims may reduce the impact of some other policies, like front-of-pack labelling.","• “Based on scientific evidence”, which one? Some of the diseases are multifactorial, inequalities is different scientific evidence, so it’s hard to say in general based on scientific evidence, that part should be more specific. ","• How could this be negative for inequalities?\n• Word ‘unsubstantiated’ should not be used according to some because it is not very common, others think it is fine => Suggestion - remove and change to: “Robust, evidence-based regulatory systems are in place for approving/reviewing claims on foods, according to an evidence-based independent nutrient profile model so that consumers are protected against misleading nutrition and health claims, as well as environmental sustainability claims, which lack scientific evidence”.\n• Potentially problem: not enough scientific evidence for claims, BUT: remains relevant as reminder \n• Kenya has nutrient profile model, Ghana is working on getting one\n","• Clearly indicate the manufacturers to be targeted. Therefore add in the formulation of the indicator \"packaged foods, including those produced locally by small and medium enterprises and the informal sector\". \n• Add in brackets \"carbon label, water footprint\" in the wording of the indicator for environmental sustainability [these are not claims, but FOP labelling - see next]","• Agree with perceived triple-duty potential.\nIt is however unclear to me how the indicator proposes to evaluate environmental sustainability claims, as it only refers to \"an evidence-based independent profile model\" which does not cover sustainability (a priori).\nRegulation should also apply to labels - which methodology and criteria should be transparent, including informing the consumer if the label is powered by the industry, a non-profit, or the governement (EU, Member State).\n\n• I dont like claims they are good only for the food industry.\n\n• This looks fine to me but others had an issue with the word unsubstantiated.\n\n• There may be limited research capacity to generate this evidence.","• I think it would be good to have one indicator on health claims, and one on sustainability claims, as the latter are much less regulated so far.  "]
["LABEL4 | Front-of pack labelling\nA mandatory, consistent, interpretive, evidence-informed front-of-pack supplementary with a:\no Nutrition (e.g. warning labels, numerical/colour coded, graded indicators)\no Environmental (e.g. carbon label, water footprints) \ninformation system (either combined or separate), which readily allows consumers to assess a product's healthiness and/or environmental impact, is applied to all packaged foods.\n","• Remove ‘interpretive’ - Is implied\n• Add “AND” or “OR”, to understand if both bullets are needed\n• Should be based on scientific evidence available (not supported by the industry)\n• Propose to include reference to the LCA (life-cycle analysis) methodology - Say  \"balanced LCA-inspired label\" or \"full environmental footprint\" instead of \"carbon\" or \"water footprint label\".","LABEL3 | Front-of pack labelling\nA mandatory, consistent, evidence-informed front-of-pack label with a:\n• Nutrition information system (e.g. warning labels, numerical/colour coded, graded indicators) and/or\n• Environmental information system (e.g. lifecycle analysis-inspired label, full environmental footprint label) \nis applied to all packaged foods (either combined or separate), which readily allows consumers to assess a product's healthiness and/or environmental impact.","LABEL3 | Front-of pack labelling\nA mandatory, consistent, evidence-informed front-of-pack label with a:\n• Nutrition information system (e.g. warning labels, numerical/colour coded, graded indicators)\n• Environmental information system (e.g. lifecycle analysis-inspired label, full environmental footprint label) \nis required for all packaged foods (either combined or separate), which readily allows consumers to assess a product's healthiness and/or environmental impact.","I would remove the \"and/or\" as the bullet system will be differentiating this by scoring differently if a governemnt has implemented both or only one\n\nQuestion: It was suggested that this type of labellings would be only for packages foods (which are the ones that tend to be unhealthier) and therefore create a misbalance with fresh products that are not packaged but are healthier and tend to be more sustainable. Could be suggested to implement a different type of label in the shelfs of fresh products?",{"$nulls":6},"• Examples of environmental sustainability labels: Environmental sort of back labelling I think we should remove the dimension of a carbon level label in the example because if you only think about carbon, as it may be a bit misleading. We should refer more to life cycle analysis, which takes into account carbon, but also 12 different indicators iintegrating all aspects of sustainability. But do we have even enough data if we say incorporate all of these 12 dimensions and is it reasonable to expect governments to do that?\n• Experts did wonder whether we should not divide those 2 points, which are very different, in 2 different indicators, but no consensus conclusion was reached on this point.\n","• The word ‘interpretive’ should be removed, as the idea is to make sure that it’s easy to understand so that consumers don’t make mistakes with the interpretation part. Colours or graduation can be misleading, it’s better to use a sentence such as the one of Ecuador and Mexico.\n• Agree on equity aspects, however should be implemented with reduction of prices for healthy/sustainable products. \n• Maybe it’s interesting to add an “AND” or “OR”, to understand if both bullets are needed. Would they count the same if one country has only implemented one of the two? This would also be different for the double or triple duty potential.\n• Not all the types of front of pack labelling used globally are the same, there are some that are way more effective (and also better for inequalities) than others. Suggested that the selection of the type of front of pack labelling should be based on scientific evidence available (not supported by the industry). \n• Who regulated the information system? It should be a national independent agency.","• ‘A mandatory, consistent, interpretive, evidence-informed front-of-pack supplementary’ => statement not correct => should be reworded to match Codex. Problems with the word ‘mandatory’ => Should not be mandatory, rather voluntary due to lack of resources in countries => DISCUSSION! Some feel it should be mandatory, some that it should be voluntary => Should move to mandatory as is the ideal towards the future.","• Structure and wording needs to be adapted, something with the environmental sustainability","• One of the most interesting indicator for sustainability.\nDuring the group discussion I alerted about the risk to illustrate environmental labelling by a mere \"carbon\" or \"water footprint label\", which are not satisfactory and can even be misleading to the consumer (e.g. organic animal products would be ranked worse than industrial and intensive animal foods based on such critera).\nI rather propose to include reference to the LCA (life-cycle analysis) methodology - see the Product Environmental Footprint initiative by the Commission. The LCA has its own methodological challenges hence i propose for you to add \"e.g. balanced LCA-inspired label\" or \"full environmental footprint\".\n\n• This looks good to me. Some countries are resisting the mandatory nature of the label. But it was explained that it doesn't mean it it should be mandatory at country level given each country's capacity in implementation.\n\n• This will need extensive public education to pay attention and to understand the information\n\n• I agree","• As for LABEL3, I think it would be useful to have one indicator each for health and sustainability labels.  "]
["LABEL5 | Quick-service outlets menu labelling\nA consistent, single, simple, clearly-visible system of labelling the menu boards of all quick service restaurants (i.e. fast food chains) is applied by the government, which allows consumers to interpret:\no The nutrient quality, nutrient profiling and energy content (i.e. warning labels, numerical/colour coded, graded indicators, positive logos)\no The environmental sustainability (i.e. carbon label, water footprints, positive logos)  \nof foods and meals on sale.\n","• Propose to include reference to the LCA (life-cycle analysis) methodology - Say  \"balanced LCA-inspired label\" or \"full environmental footprint\" instead of \"carbon\" or \"water footprint label\".\n• Add vending machines?\n• Not clear the differences between  “nutrient quality, nutrient profiling and energy content”\n• Change to ‘all out of home outlets’ - Seems to be unclear that not only about major QSR chains.","LABEL4 | Out-of-home eating outlets menu labelling \nA consistent, simple, clearly-visible system of menu labelling is applied by the government to all out-of-home eating outlets with a:\n• Nutrition information system (e.g. warning labels, numerical/colour coded, graded indicators, positive logos) and/or\n• Environmental information system (e.g. Lifecycle analysis-inspired label, full environmental footprint label, positive logos)  \nfor all foods and meals on sale.","LABEL4 | Out-of-home eating outlets menu labelling \nA consistent, simple, clearly-visible system of menu labelling is applied by the government to all out-of-home eating outlets (including vending machines where relevant) with a:\n• Nutrition information system (e.g. energy content, content of nutrients of concern (trans fat, sodium, saturated fat, added sugar), warning labels, numerical/colour coded, graded indicators, positive logos) and/or\n• Environmental information system (e.g. Lifecycle analysis-inspired label, full environmental footprint label, positive logos)  \nfor all foods and meals on sale.\n\nLABEL4 | Out-of-home eating outlets menu labelling \nA consistent, simple, clearly-visible system of menu labelling is required for all out-of-home eating outlets (including vending machines) with a:\n• Nutrition information system (e.g. energy content, content of nutrients of concern, warning labels, numerical/colour coded, graded indicators, positive logos)\n• Environmental information system (e.g. lifecycle analysis-inspired label, full environmental footprint label)  \nfor all foods and meals on sale.","I think addition of vending machines is OK, for example vending machines in public spaces like train stations would then also be included; we need to not only include nutrient profiling systems which is a big step to take, but also simple energy/calorie labeling\n\nI don't particularly like the double parenthesis, I would not explain here which are again the nutrients of concern, it could save space and add them just in the scope document; It's too long and hard to read otherwise.\nI rephrased and removed the \"positive logos\" as that is too general and hard to understand\nQuestion to Iris: why here the part of nutrition information systems has more examples? If we add this new ones here, I suggest to also add them to the previous one.","• How can menu labelling reduce nutrition inequalities?\n• In scope: clarify that includes pizzerias, empanada places, meal vending machines…",{"$nulls":5},"• Some similar comments made as for the previous indicators\n• Would this apply to things like food cards as well and little pop up shops and things like this? And do we explicitly need to add vending machines? You have more vending machines now that even have full meals that you can just go and take out\n• What about integrating the sector of collective catering as well here for this indicator?\n","• It’s complex the terminology because even the word “chain” (from fast food chain) can be difficult to define, is that only for translational chains, or also for national or even local chains?\n• In Latin-America, the majority of the unhealthy food eaten is not fast food chains, so this would not be so effective it is does not include more commonly frequented places, such as pizzerias, empanada places, etc. They could be food trucks or shops with ready to eat food that is unhealthy but not necessarily a chain.\n• Not clear the differences between  “nutrient quality, nutrient profiling and energy content”, it would be good to describe them or explain why they are different from each other.\n• Not sure how menu labelling can reduce nutrition inequalities. ","• Not only QSR -> Out of home outlets -> Change to ‘all out of home outlets’\n• Combine with COMP2? [Only suggested in this workshop, so were not combined]\n","• There is a lot of discussion around this indicator, which seems difficult to monitor in the African context. But in the end, the idea is really to support governments so that they can initiate policies to regulate practices at the level of fast-food establishments  \n• the group proposes to disaggregate the indicator into 2: A) 1 indicator on \"quality, nutrient profiling and energy content\" B) 1 indicator on \"environmental sustainability\"\n• Concern that QSR won’t like this => Will say that consumers have freedom of choice etc. [True, but that's why policy is needed]\n• Problem: everything would score bad ~ red [not necessarily the case]","• Same comment than for LABEL 4.\nI would also add: why only quick-service outlets? Can we not target other types of outlets, such as industrial bakeries, restaurant chains, Starbucks etc ?\n\n• This is fine\n\n• An important indicator but may be difficult to implement or regulate. The indicator makes assumptions of stability and consistency in the nutrient components\n\n• I agree","No comments"]
["FOOD PROMOTION"]
["GENERAL - Food promotion indicators",{"$nulls":11},"Missing indicators:\n• Lack of indicator on marketing strategies on the internet and in-stores for adults."]
["PROMO1 | Marketing restrictions to children through all media\nComprehensive, mandatory regulations with effective enforcement are implemented by the government to restrict exposure and power of promotion of unhealthy foods to children, including adolescents, through:\no Broadcast media (TV, radio)\no Non-broadcast media (e.g. internet, online videogames, influencers/social media) \no Food packaging\no Sport clubs and events (e.g. sponsorship)\no In public settings where children gather (e.g. outdoor advertising around preschools, schools, train stations, and cultural events).","• Add \"sponsoring events (like Olympics) or using football/tennis players and other celebrities\" to sport clubs\n• Add effective enforcement aspect\n• Just say all types of media, and then, for example: (list)\n• Include billboards/\"advertising posters\" in the outdoor advertisements\n• Adapt title to ‘Marketing restrictions of unhealthy foods to children through all media’\n• Include a condition on \"sustainability\" (restriction of marketing for animal-based foods) in the current proposed indicator - not covered by \"unhealthy foods\".\n• Reason why indicator PROMO2 refers to \"unhealthy, unstainable food\", and PROMO1 only to unhealthy foods?\n• Add buses to public spaces where children gather","PROMO1 | Marketing restrictions of unhealthy and unsustainable foods to children across all media\nComprehensive, mandatory regulations with effective enforcement are implemented by the government to restrict exposure and power of promotion of less healthy and sustainable foods to children and/or their parents across all types of media, including:\n• Broadcast media (TV, radio)\n• Non-broadcast media (e.g. internet, online videogames, influencers/social media) \n• Food packaging\n• Sport clubs and events (e.g. sponsorship, billboards/advertising posters)\n• In public settings where children gather (e.g. outdoor advertising around preschools, schools, train stations, buses and cultural events).","PROMO1 | Marketing restrictions of unhealthy and unsustainable foods to children across all media\nComprehensive, mandatory regulations with effective enforcement are implemented by the government to restrict exposure and power of promotion of less healthy and sustainable foods to children, and/or their parents/caregivers across all types of media, including:\n• Broadcast media (TV, radio)\n• Non-broadcast media (e.g. internet, online videogames, influencers/social media) \n• Food packaging\n• Sport clubs and events (e.g. sponsorship, billboards/advertising posters)\n• In public settings where children gather (e.g. outdoor advertising around preschools, schools, train stations, buses and cultural events).","To be discussed: Need to either use less healthy or unhealthy, to be decided; adding PROMO2 as a bullet point?\n\n","• What happens if a country only meets the one on broadcast media and not in the others?\n• What about marketing addressed to adults?\n• Define sustainable food - Use \"ideal\" diets modelled in agroecological scenarios such as Iddri's TYFA (Ten Years for Agroecology)\n• Feasable to include sustainability?\n• In Scope section: mention that including adolescents",{"$nulls":5},"• In terms of environmental sustainability this indicator is not so clear. Maybe we could have also a double double edge approach on this and not only about restriction, but also about promotion of, healthy and sustainable food. Definition of healthy and sustainable needs to be quite strict, because some experts would argue that there shouldn't be any marketing to children.\n• Restriction of marketing of unsustainable foods needs to be context specific as in some contexts increased consumption of animal products is recommended. So this could be based on whether recommendations are met/not met in certain contexts.\n• Power of promotion should be added in this indicator. It was part of the original Food-EPI indicators. [Already mentioned]\n• How would you regulate the influencers on social media? Literature indicates that the majority of influence from social media on children's eating habits doesn't come from the actual food companies themselves. It comes from their peers. How could this be regulated? A ban would be possible. [Indicator is about policies regulating both broadcast as non-broadcast media - includes infleuncers via social media]","• Clear need to define what is considered as “unhealthy food to children”\n• What happens if a country only meets the one on broadcast media and not in the others? [Seperate bullet points]\n• The idea of sport clubs and events should also include sponsoring events (like Olympics) or using football/tennis players and other celebrities.\n• This cannot be autoregulated by the industry, but done by the government.\n• What about marketing addressed to adults? Or to parents? That’s missing and it’s also important.\n• What about an effective enforcement? That’s a really important point – this dimension should be added in the indicator (and actually also maybe in all the other ones)\n• What about the marketing inside the canteens of schools, and not only the surrounding environment? ","• Just say all types of media, and then, for example and provide the list:\n“Comprehensive, mandatory regulations with effective enforcement are implemented by the government to restrict exposure and power of promotion of unhealthy foods to children, including adolescents, across all types of media, including:\no Broadcast media (TV, radio)\no Non-broadcast media (e.g. internet, online videogames, influencers/social media) \no Food packaging\no Sport clubs and events (e.g. sponsorship)\no In public settings where children gather (e.g. outdoor advertising around preschools, schools, train stations, and cultural events).”\n• Can we include billboards in the outdoor advertisements?\n• Adapt title to ‘Marketing restrictions of unhealthy foods to children through all media’ – Important one!\n","• Add the following elements: A) Sports clubs and events (e.g. sponsorship) B) Public places where children gather (e.g. buses - In Africa, advertising posters are stuck on the outside and sometimes even inside buses) C) Clearly state \"advertising posters\". \n• Add/mention mothers in indicator as they can buy the products -> Say the mothers and their children","• As discussed during the session, it would be beneficial to add a \"positive\" dimension to marketing here by encouraging campaigns on healthy eating (fruits and veggies) - even though such campaigns may have a detrimental effect on inequalities (as higher-educated classes are more sensitive to governemental campaigns than other classes who may perceive them as guilt-inducing). [Promoting healthy food is often easier as restricting marketing. It is an important point that could be translated into an additional indicator, but we need to remain vigilant to not have too many food environment indicators]\nWe also mentionned including a condition on \"sustainability\" (restriction of marketing for animal-based foods) in the current proposed indicator, which is insufficiently covered by the mention to \"unhealthy foods\".\nDefining what is sustainable food can be useful in that regard. Using \"ideal\" diets modelled in agroecological scenarios such as Iddri's TYFA (Ten Years for Agroecology) may provide a helpful basis.\n\n• And all media to ensure they are all in.\n\n• An important indicator but is extremely difficult to implement and monitor\n\n• I agree","• Is there a reason why indicator PROMO2 refers to \"unhealthy, unstainable food\", and PROMO1 only to unhealthy foods?\n  "]
["PROMO2 | Restriction of marketing of unhealthy, unsustainable food in retail outlets\nEffective policies are implemented by the government to restrict the way unhealthy, unsustainable foods are marketed within supermarkets and other retail stores, including through restrictions on product placement in prominent in-store positions (such as checkouts and end-of-aisle displays), price discounts, and sales to children.\n","• Cover adults as well - include adults and parents?","PROMO2 | Restriction of marketing of unhealthy, unsustainable food in retail outlets\nEffective policies are implemented by the government to restrict the way unhealthier, less sustainable foods are marketed within supermarkets and other retail stores, including restrictions on product placement in prominent in-store positions (such as checkouts and end-of-aisle displays), price discounts, and sales targetting children and/or their parents.","PROMO2 | Restriction of marketing of unhealthy, unsustainable food in retail outlets\nEffective policies are implemented by the government to restrict the way unhealthy, less sustainable foods are marketed within supermarkets and other retail stores, including restrictions on product placement in prominent in-store positions (such as checkouts and end-of-aisle displays), price discounts, and sales targetting children and/or their parents/caregivers.\n\nPROMO2 | Restriction of marketing of unhealthy, unsustainable food in retail outlets\nThe government has regulations in place to restrict the marketing of unhealthier, less sustainable foods within supermarkets and other retail stores, including restrictions on product placement in prominent in-store positions (e.g. checkouts, end-of-aisle displays), price discounts, and sales targetting children and/or their parents/caregivers.","I suggest to rephrase to keep it easier to understand and consistent with the style of other indicators","• In Scope section: Mention that use FAO definition ~sustainability; add examples of less healthy and less sustainable; ",{"$nulls":5},"• Experts agreed to keep this indicator separate from the previous one, it is harder for governments to intervene in this (private) sector\n• Here the focus should be broader than children and cover adults as well.\n","• Agreed to have it divided from the previous indicator.\n• Agreed to have it specific to children, but it would be good to also include adults and parents?\n• Agreed on triple duty potential of this indicator.\n","• Mention that use FAO definition – otherwise get discussion about what is meant by unsustainable, as was the case during the meeting\n• Keep indicator separate because different responsibilities\n• Always remove the word mandatory [Aim for mandatory so keep the word]\n","• Define concepts such as \"sustainable food\"\n• Put unhealthy and unsustainable foods in brackets","• Similar to PROMO 1.\nPrice discounts, product placement etc... can have a decisive effect on whether healthy and sustainable foods (legumes, low processed foods, fruits and veggies, vegetal-protein based foods...) are purchased or not. [Part of the adapted RETAIL2 indicator]\n\n• Looks fine\n\n• An important indicator but is extremely difficult to implement.\n\n• The word \"unhealthy, unsustainable foods\" can be followed with the examples of it? [Definitions will be/are provided]","No comments"]
["PROMO3 | Marketing restrictions on  breastmilk substitutes\nPolicies and practices that implement the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes and World Health Assembly Resolutions (i.e. prohibit the promotion of breastmilk substitutes, feeding bottles and teats) and restrictions on the marketing of breast milk substitutes to adult women of reproductive age, pregnant women, parents of children under three years, caregivers and healthcare providers are implemented by the government. Follow-up (6-12 months) and grow-up (12-36 months) milks are included, as they are also considered as a breastmilk substitute.\n","• Include environments within kindergartens/pre-schools, parks, etc.\n• The indicator is too long - remove details that are already clearly mentioned in the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes. ","PROMO3 | Marketing restrictions on  breastmilk substitutes\nAcross different settings {(non-) broadcast media, healthcare centers, public spaces, schools, events} the government implements the 'International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes' and 'World Health Assembly Resolutions' (e.g. prohibit the promotion of breastmilk substitutes, feeding bottles and teats) policies and practices and restricts the marketing of breast milk substitutes to adult women of reproductive age, pregnant women, parents of children under three years, caregivers and healthcare providers. ","PROMO3 | Marketing restrictions on  breastmilk substitutes\nAcross all media and settings {(non-) broadcast media, healthcare centers, public spaces, schools, events} the government implements the 'International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes' and 'World Health Assembly Resolutions' (e.g. prohibit the promotion of breastmilk substitutes, feeding bottles and teats) policies and practices and restricts the marketing of breast milk substitutes to adult women of reproductive age, pregnant women, parents of children under three years, caregivers and healthcare providers. \n\nPROMO3 | Marketing restrictions on  breastmilk substitutes\nThe government implements, across all media and settings, the policies and practices of the 'International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes' and 'World Health Assembly Resolutions' (e.g. prohibit the promotion of breastmilk substitutes, feeding bottles and teats) and restricts the marketing of breast milk substitutes to adult women of reproductive age, pregnant women, parents of children under three years, caregivers and healthcare providers. ","To be discussed: specifically mention follow up and grow up milks as part of the indicator and not in the scope as this is so important to be emphasized\n\nI would remove again the specification of all media and settings as it's already mentioned under PROMO1, and would just add that as part of the scope document. Rephrased because before it was hard to read.","• Reformulate so people who can’t breastfeed don’t feel attacked?\n• Mentioned trade-off: might be negative for WE\n• In Scope section: Follow-up (6-12 months) and grow-up (12-36 months) milks are included, as they are also considered as a breastmilk substitute. [~covered by code WHO global, update 2017]",{"$nulls":5},"• What about promotion of breastfeeding more broadly than just restricting marketing of substitutes? For example provide facilities to to give breastfeeding, Breast pumps, for example, could they be subsidized by universal health care systems for women [Promoting is often easier that restricting marketing. It is an important point that could be translated into an additional indicator, but we need to remain vigilant to not have too many food environment indicators]","• The word “restriction” was considered to be too strong. [Kept because might be strict, but is important as this is what is aimed for, not necessarily what is currently in place]\n• It should include environments within kindergartens/pre-schools, parks, etc.\n• Agreed on triple duty potential of this indicator.\n","• Mixed feelings – difficult for children when parents have died, who can’t breastfeed,….\n• Reformulate so people who can’t breastfeed don’t feel attacked? => add between brackets that not for them? \n• Issues WE also mentioned during discussion ~ trade-off\n","• The indicator is too long. It should be reworded by removing details that are already clearly mentioned in the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes. \n• Suggested rewording: The government implements policies and practices related to the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes, including follow-on (6-12 months) and growing-up (12-36 months) milks and World Health Organization (WHO) resolutions","• Tal vez el indicador debería incluir a promoción en medios digitaes, paginas web, TV, y demás. [Not explicitly mentioned, but covered]\n\n• If promotion is prohibited, what happens to women who are unable to breast fed?\n\n• Agree\n\n• I agree","No comments"]
["FOOD PROVISION"]
["GENERAL - Food provision indicators",{"$nulls":3},"I have a general comment for this three indicators: I would change the wording as it always says \"ensures\" but that's a vague term that was suggested to remove and replace for something stronger and more concrete.",{"$nulls":8},"Missing indicator:\n• To be sure, does the indicator PROV2 cover work places? If not, should be included somewhere."]
["PROV1 | School food and nutrition policies\nThe government ensures that there are clear, consistent policies implemented in schools and early childhood education services for food service activities (canteens, food at events, fundraising, promotions, vending machines etc.) to provide and promote healthy and sustainable food choices, with particular emphasis on locally-produced school meals (where food served in schools is procured from local and/or family farmers), promoting tap water or water fountains and restricting unhealthy and unsustainable products and beverages.\n","• Promotion of vegetarian meals has a much bigger impact - suggest to include explicit reference to vegetarian meals - mention to \"more plant-based meals\" in the environmental sustainability section.\n• Change to: “…promoting safe drinking water (safe drinking tap water or water fountains)…”\n• Indicator too long: change wording or split up into 2 bullet points","PROV1 | School food and nutrition policies\nThe government ensures that there are clear, consistent policies implemented in schools and early childhood education services for food service activities (canteens, food at events, fundraising, promotions, vending machines etc.) \n• To promote safe drinking water (safe tap water or water fountains),\n• To provide and promote healthier and more sustainable food choices and/or \n• To restrict unhealthier and less sustainable food products and beverages.","PROV1 | School food and nutrition policies\nThe government ensures that there are clear, consistent policies implemented in schools and early childhood education services for food service activities (canteens, food at events, fundraising, promotions, vending machines etc.) \n• To promote safe drinking water (safe tap water or water fountains),\n• To provide and promote healthier and more sustainable food choices applying nutritional guidelines and prioritizing purchasing local, seasonal, nutritious and sustainable foods from smallholders       and/or \n• To restrict unhealthier and less sustainable food products and beverages.\n\nPROV1 | School food and nutrition policies\nThe government implements clear, consistent policies in schools and early childhood education services with food service activities (canteens, food at events, fundraising, promotions, vending machines etc.) that:\n• Promote safe drinking water (safe tap water or water fountains)\n• Provide and promote healthier and more sustainable foods based on nutritional guidelines and prioritizing the purchase of seasonal, nutritious and sustainable foods from local smallholders.\n• Restrict unhealthier and less sustainable foods and beverages.","make sure that there is consistency between PROV1 and PROV2 \n\nI suggest to rephrase and that way delete the \"ensure\"","•  Healthy and sustainable food choices are not clearly defined\n• Locally produced food is not always the most sustainable choice",{"$nulls":5},"Discussed together:\n• Should there be a separate indicator on public procurement? [Not explicitly mentioned, but kind of covered]\n• Procurement policies to target reducing provision/amount of meat and meat products especially from ruminants [Not explicitly mentioned, but part of more sustainable...]\n• The focus on environmental sustainability is mainly on  locally produced meals and food procurement here, promoting tap water, which is too limited. The promotion of vegetarian meals has a much bigger impact for example. It is also because healthy and sustainable food choices are not clearly defined what these are. What is produced locally is not necessarily good for the environment or good for your health. [True, but might be an issue in some countries which still struggle with several deficiencies]\n","• This indicator should differentiate public from private schools. In Brazil this is applied only in public schools, for instance. [Indicator should be for all schools, both public and private]\n• Agree on triple duty potential of this indicator.\n• First it is also needed to ask if there is already a national regulation on the nutritional standards that the school needs to implement, before even ensuring that it’s happening. ","• Issues with promoting tap water – say: safe drinking water instead \n• Remove water fountains? \n• Ghana agrees with current wording, but to match LMIC: change to: “…promoting safe drinking water (safe drinking tap water or water fountains)…”\n","• Sustainable food refers to what???\n• A lot of information, disaggregated into 2 indicators (first the school meals and second part focus on water): \nA) Indicator 1: Government ensures that clear and consistent policies are implemented in schools and early childhood education services for catering activities to promote healthy and sustainable food choices; with particular emphasis on locally produced school meals.  => Could, instead of focussing on locally in full text, say the following between brackets: (when food served in schools is purchased from local and/or family farmers)\nB) Indicator 2: The government ensures that clear and consistent policies are implemented in schools and early childhood education services to limit unhealthy products and beverages and by promoting safe drinking water. => The water must be drinkable whatever its source (tap, water fountain etc.) [Split up in bullet points]","• An emphasis on locally-produced foods/meals is not sufficient to include the sustainability dimension, and can even be detrimental (thinking in absolute, GHG impacts terms). I suggest to include explicit reference to vegetarian meals first (due to the overwhelming impact of meat production on the environment - biodiversity, GHG, water resources...), and then mention locally-produced meals. Favouring organic products can also have a double-duty effect on health and the environment, and should be included. [True, but might be an issue in LIC/LMIC countries where there are still several deficiencies]\n\n• Incluir en primer lugar, si hay una política de alimentación escolar.\n\n• Tap water and fountain water are only familiar to HIC and not in LMIC. Therefore it maybe best to just say promoting safe drinking water (tap and fountain water) etc.\n\n• Completely agree\n\n• I agree","• This might be out of scope but it might also be helpful to have education for children on healthier and more sustainable diets as part of their standard curricula \n\n• Why this emphasis? Locally produced food is not always the most sustainable choice (in countries with a cold climate, locally produced fresh vegetables during the cold season are often from heated and illuminated greenhouses, which is considerably less sustainable than importing vegetables from southern countries, as long as these are not flown in). [Specific mention removed]\n\n"]
["PROV2 | Public sector setting food and nutrition policies\nThe government ensures that there are clear, consistent policies in public sector settings other than school and early childhood education services (i.e. hospitals, universities, armed forces) for food service activities (canteens, food at events, fundraising, promotions, vending machines, public procurement standards etc.) to provide and promote healthy and sustainable food choices applying nutritional guidelines and prioritizing purchasing from smallholders, local, seasonal, fresh produced and sustainable food producers.\n","• Procurement policies to target reducing provision/amount of meat and meat products especially from ruminants\n• Add  “promoting tap water or water fountains and restricting unhealthy and unsustainable products and beverages.”\n• The “etc.” should also go after ‘armed forces’\n• Use nutritious foods (or nutrient dense foods) instead of fresh produced - Say nutritious and sustainable food producers\n• Mention \"more plant-based meals\" in the environmental sustainability section\n• Mention public collective catering more explicitly\n• Indicator too long: change wording or split up into 2 bullet points","PROV2 | Public sector setting food and nutrition policies\nThe government ensures that there are clear, consistent policies in public sector settings other than school and early childhood education services (e.g. hospitals, universities, armed forces etc.) for food service activities (canteens, food at events, fundraising, promotions, vending machines, public procurement standards etc.) \n• To promote safe drinking water (safe tap water or water fountains) and/or \n• To provide and promote healthier and more sustainable food choices applying nutritional guidelines and prioritizing purchasing local, seasonal, nutritious and sustainable foods from smallholders.","PROV2 | Public sector setting food and nutrition policies\nThe government ensures that there are clear, consistent policies in public sector settings other than school and early childhood education services (e.g. hospitals, universities, armed forces etc.) for food service activities (canteens, food at events, fundraising, promotions, vending machines, public procurement standards etc.) \n• To promote safe drinking water (safe tap water or water fountains) and/or \n• To provide and promote healthier and more sustainable food choices applying nutritional guidelines and prioritizing purchasing local, seasonal, nutritious and sustainable foods from smallholders.                                                                     \n• To restrict unhealthier and less sustainable food products and beverages.\n\nPROV2 | Public sector setting food and nutrition policies\nThe government has clear, consistent policies in place to guarantee that public sector settings (other than school and early childhood education services) with food service activities (e.g. hospitals and healthcare facilities, universities, public canteens, food banks, armed forces):\n• Promote safe drinking water (safe tap water or water fountains) \n• Provide and promote healthier and more sustainable food choices based on nutritional guidelines and prioritizing the purchase of seasonal, nutritious and sustainable foods from local smallholders.                                                                     \n• Restrict unhealthier and less sustainable foods and beverages.","make sure that there is consistency between PROV1 and PROV2; added the one on restriction here as well as nutrition standards can be applied in those other settings as well, not just schools\n\nI don't particularly like the wording of this indicator, it has too much information and it's not easy to read because of the examples. Propose to rephrase\nI would remove the part of the canteens etc and just specify that as part of the scope of the indicator: explaining that \"food service activities\" include: canteens, food at events, fundraising, promotions, vending machines, public procurement standards etc.\nI also wonder if the examples of food service activities should also go just to the scope document.",{"$nulls":7},"• The “etc.” should also go after ‘armed forces’\n• It would be good to also add “promoting tap water or water fountains and restricting unhealthy and unsustainable products and beverages.” as in the previous indicator.\n","• Use nutritious foods (or nutrient dense foods) instead of fresh produced","• Indicator too long and complex - Two options to adapt the indicator: \nA) Change the wording - Change to: \"The government shall ensure that there are clear and consistent policies to ensure the sustainable supply of healthy, fresh food for public institutions (hospitals, universities, ministries, security forces etc.) for catering activities (canteens, food at events, fundraising, promotions, vending machines, public procurement standards etc.).\"\nB) Split into 2 bullet points:\n* Supply should be provided by smallholders, local, seasonal producers - Should support local production\n* The promotion of healthy food choices in these public facilities should be based on national dietary recommendations or international nutritional guidelines [Split up slightly different, but split up]","• \"prioritizing purchasing from smallholders, local, seasonal, fresh produced and sustainable food producers\" same here, I suggest to add a mention to \"more plant-based meals\" in the environmental sustainability section.\nI suppose public collective catering is already implied in the beginning of the sentence, but maybe the reference should be more explicit. Commercial collective catering is also a very important change lever (in FR, public and commercial collective catering are almost equivalent in volume).\n\n• Tal vez pensar en políticas para la compra de alimentos que el Estado provee, por ejemplo la leche que entrega para el Plan Materno Infantil o los módulos alimentarios.\n\n• Say nutritious and sustainable food producers....instead say fresh produced....\n\n• An important indicator but what is the evidence of effectiveness?\n\n• I agree","No comments"]
[null,null,"PROV3 I Public procurement\nThe government ensures that public procurement of food is for healthier, more sustainable products which are made available in settings were communcal feeding takes place (e.g. healthcare facilities, public canteens and schools).\n","PROV3 I Public procurement\nThe government has programmes/regulations in place to guarantee the use of healthier and more sustainable foods in public procurement settings were communal feeding takes place (e.g. hospitals and healthcare facilities,  universities, public canteens, military services, etc).\n","TO be discussed: This does not fit under prices, we could have a separate indicator on procurement under the provision domain, this was done in the EU foodepi \n\nI agree that this one should not be under PRICES, it should be here. However, I don't see the added value as this is very much what is said under the other two. I suggest to delete this.","• Suggested to include public procurement - do this as seperate indicator? + Include all settings where any kind of communal feeding happens => Based on feedback here, but already covered by PROV1 and PROV2?"]
["EXCLUDED | Private companies\nThe government actively encourages and supports private companies to provide and promote healthy, sustainable foods and meals in their workplaces, to stimulate the shift of sustainable diets."]
["FOOD RETAIL"]
["GENERAL - Food retail indicators",{"$nulls":4},"• Indicator related to maintaining local shops \n• Indicator related to limiting the sales of unhealthy unsustainable food stores in the rural areas where more migrants and low-income live\n–> Include in part on zoning laws? (suggestion added in red)",{"$nulls":5},"Missing indicators:\n• Originally had included an indicator about the in-store placement, but was removed because only government advocacy and not policy – Is included in the FOOD-EPI and is very much missing in the current version of the tool – This could be regulated by the governments so doesn’t need to be only advocacy. \n• Indicator related to maintaining local shops – Not really emphasised by current indicators, but could help promote a shorter food chain. This shorter food chain is also important throughout. \n","Missing indicators:\n• There should be an indicator on limiting the sales of unhealthy unsustainable food stores in the rural areas where more migrants and low-income live, as those are the communities that are already more impacted by malnutrition. "]
["RETAIL1 | Zoning laws\no Zoning schemes, regulations and policies (e.g. tax incentives) are robust enough and are being used, where needed, by the local or national governments to place limits on the density or placement of quick serve restaurants or other outlets selling mainly unhealthy and/or unsustainable foods.\no Zoning schemes are in place to encourage more territorial markets with frequent purchases rather than large shopping outings that result in more food waste.","• Large shopping outings not necessarily bad\n• Need to change the healthiness of fast food, not the density of the outlets","RETAIL1 | Zoning laws\n• Zoning schemes, regulations and policies (e.g. tax incentives) are robust enough and are being used, where needed, by the local or national governments to place limits on the density or placement of quick-service restaurants or other outlets selling mainly unhealthy and/or unsustainable foods.\n• Zoning schemes are in place to attract local, healthy grocery stores with a focus on underserved, low-income areas","RETAIL1 | Zoning laws\n• Zoning schemes, regulations and policies (e.g. tax incentives) are robust enough and are being used, where needed, by the local or national governments to place limits on the density or placement of quick-service restaurants or other outlets selling mainly unhealthy and/or unsustainable foods.\n• Zoning schemes are in place to attract local, healthy grocery stores or markets with a focus on underserved, low-income areas","To be discussed: the prevention of food waste is not anymore fully covered? Although I agree with the fact that large shopping outings are not necessarily bad","• Why rated negatively?\n• Large shopping outings - More relevant in LICs\n• Link with WE?\n• Properly define unhealthy and unsustainable\n• Not sure what is meant by: \"dans une 3eme puce opportunité d'agir dans le contenu / on pourrait le garder et ajouter 3eme puce opportunité d'agir dans le contenu\"",{"$nulls":5},"• Received three negative ratings, especially for environmental sustainability. Rather surprising for these experts. Wanted to know where this comes from? \n• People did not know what “large shopping outings” meant – Experts thought that this was about a large area with a lot of shops – Needs to be clarified.\no When they came to RETAIL2 they realised that it probably had to do with the number of shopping outings and not the area – They want people to shop more frequent rather than to buy large amounts – Is in contrast with what is recommended in Norway where people tend to go to the shop nearly every day => Think it is too far fetched to say that one is better than the other.\no This could have to do with the areas where people live (HIC have proper storage and fridges where LICs often purely rely on the market and have less options to safely store the foods). \n• “…frequent purchases rather than large shopping outings that result in more food waste.” - if does not strictly refer to the food chain, than maybe not include it or rephrase it (were making the assumption that large shopping outings are areas with a lot of shops).\n• Zoning laws do not directly translate into WE – currently seems a little unrelated to one another. ","• General agreement with this indicator. However, again, clear need to define parameters of unhealthy and unsustainable foods (like the NOVA classification). ","• The element of zoning is not very clear in LMIC. Zoning is very hard in LMIC, especially because the informal markets and street food are very important and hard to regulate. Zoning is more used for animal movements (not moving them from one area to another), non-food commercial crops, but not for food crops and foods. The level of informality is too high. However, keeping this indicator can stimulate governments to start thinking about how to potentially tackle this and how zoning laws could potentially be developed in this context. Even in high income countries this is not the lowest hanging fruit for policy implementation. \n• It could be looked at other issues like tobacco and alcohol consumption and how these are potentially dealt with through zoning policies in LMIC","• L’alimentation en rue est de plus en plus dominant, donc c’est pas la densité plutôt le contenu du point de vente qui offre des aliments saines. => c’est pas limite la dominance mais réduire les aliments malsains. On a fast food qui peuvent être saines. \n• However, another expert said that indeed he agrees, that it would be like the zonage of pharmacies. \n• reformuler \"gouvernements locaux\"\n• plus contextualiser les indicateurs par rapport aux réalités \n• il faut plûtot changer le contenu des restaurants de service rapide et non la densité de ces points de vente avoir des fast-foods sains\n• dans une 3eme puce opportunité d'agir dans le contenu / on pourrait le garder et ajouter 3eme puce opportunité d'agir dans le contenu\n• potentiel triple\n","• Zoning animal movements\n\n• Les systèmes de zonage, les réglementations et les politiques (par exemple, les incitations fiscales) sont suffisamment solides et sont utilisés, le cas échéant, par les gouvernements locaux ou nationaux pour limiter la densité ou l'emplacement des restaurants à service rapide ou d'autres points de vente proposant principalement des aliments malsains et/ou non durables.\nDes systèmes de zonage sont en place pour encourager des marchés plus territoriaux avec des achats fréquents plutôt que de grandes sorties shopping qui entraînent plus de déchets alimentaires.","• Is there evidence backing up the claim \"rather than large shopping outings that result in more food waste\"? I'm not an expert on this, but as far as I know, large supermarketes are actually quite efficient in reducing food waste (and possible more so than small-scale retailers)\n  "]
["RETAIL2 | Healthy, sustainable food in food trucks, street vendors\nThe government incentivizes through financial incentives the placement and prominence of healthy foods (e.g. the default of plain water instead of sugary beverages).\n","• Indicator lacks a description - what in titel not in the text\n• Replace food trucks and street vendors by all the retailers or the whole informal food market\n• Also include non-financial incentives","RETAIL2 | Accessibility of healthy, sustainable food in the (in)formal food sector\nThrough (non-)financial incentives the government encourages the placement and prominence of healthier and more sustainable foods (e.g. the default of plain water instead of sugary beverages) among formal and informal food vendors (including food trucks and street vendors).","RETAIL2 | Accessibility of healthy, sustainable food in the (in)formal food sector\nThe government requires formal and informal food vendors (including food trucks and street vendors) to prioritise the placement and prominence of healthier and more sustainable foods (e.g. the default of plain water instead of sugary beverages).","I did not particularly like the wording as it was too general and not explained how, so I propose to modify to make it easier to read.","• Properly define unhealthy and unsustainable",{"$nulls":5},"• Indicator lacks a description – what is in the title should be in the description.\n• Why does it not include public procurement? Why does it only target the informal sector? Could be because target LIC and the informal food market. \n• Very relevant for LIC. Why is it limited to only financial incentives? Maybe also mention other non-financial incentives or regulations.\n• Why chosen food trucks and not other forms of sale (like community shared agriculture, farmer markets) or is that covered somewhere else as part of production? \n• Is the idea to make sustainable food more popular or more common?\n• Replace food trucks and street vendors by informal food markets\n• Region appropriate suggestions – plain water where have safe tap water, but not in LICs for example","• Agree that it considers street vendors, as they are always forgotten in public policies, but why is only in food trucks and street vendors, and not all the retailers?\n• Not feasible only for food trucks as they are more informal vendors and they do not always have permissions, how can that be implemented and evaluated?\n• What about retail strategies such as pricing, promotions, coupons, etc?\n• The title has the word sustainable but it does not appear in the text of the indicator. \n• Need for more training and education for workers of food trucks and  street vendors. The processing part should also be consider (you can have healthy and sustainable products that are healthy but if you process them and make them unhealthy – like frying in palm oil – they become unhealthy).\n","No comments","No comments","• Define healthy more precisely, using NOVA classification\nWhy just food trucks and vendors? this also might be infeasible considering how complex informal markets are\nMissing HUGE opportunity to expand this to different types of formal retail outlets where regulations can be implemented more easily and monitored, and evaluated easily (i.e. supermarkets, hypermarkets, bodegas, discount stores, convenience stores, local mom n pops stores)\nExpand to promotions, not just placement of products (including discounts, cross promotions, store type promotions that use point systems, coupons)\nFor example, incentivize discounts on fruits and vegetables\nGovt subsidies as well to encourage purchasing healthy foods\nAnd also re definition of sustainable foods: there is a risk to promote plant-based ultra-processed foods and products with non caloric sweeteners\n\n• Tax incentives\nProvision of infrastructure to address food safety concerns with street food vending","• This might be covered but how is the use of packaging, particularly single use plastics and non-recyclable material like styrofoam, addressed within the 'sustainable' aspect of this indicator?\n\n• Do these necessarily have to be financial incentives? I would frame this broader, as there may also be other relevant policies not based exclusively on providing financial incentives."]
["EXCLUDED | Healthy, sustainable food in stores \nThe government ensures existing support systems are in place to encourage food stores to promote more prominently the in-store availability of safe, nutritious and sustainably produced foods that contribute to healthy diets and to limit the in-store availability of unhealthy foods, and including digital systems such as e-commerce platforms.","• Originally had included an indicator about the in-store placement, but was removed because only government advocacy and not policy – Is included in the FOOD-EPI and is very much missing in the current version of the tool – This could be regulated by the governments so doesn’t need to be only advocacy. ",null,null,"To be discussed: needs to be added as policy then and not just removed? Could be integrated with RETAIL2\n\nI wonder though as it can have an overlap with PROMO2, so either it stays there, or we move PROMO2 to new RETAIL3","• Partly included in RETAIL2 if decide to include both the formal and informal food vendors there (the part on 'encouraging food stores to promote more prominently healthy and sustainablye foods' is then covered; the part on limiting unhealthy foods not)"]
["FOOD PRICES"]
["GENERAL - Food prices indicators",{"$nulls":4},"• In general for all indicators – the shorter the better as every word can open a world of discussions.\n• Keep taxes in relation to unhealthy and subsidies in relation to healthy",{"$nulls":5},"• Keep taxes in relation to unhealthy and subsidies in relation to healthy => Could formulate an additional indicator in the lines of “when any subsidies are paid for food and food production it should in general benefit healthier and more sustainable foods and subsidies on production and consumption of unhealthy and unsustainable foods should be minimized.” => Maybe easier to have separate indicator than to integrate in current price indicators => Thought that had this type of indicator in FOOD-EPI => Moved to another domain?\n• 0% tax considered as tax or subsidy in general (question Vanessa) – in general seen as subsidy within economics; but leads to question, what do you take as a benchmark? \n• In general for all indicators – the shorter the better as every word can open a world of discussions.\n• At a policy level often trapped, if not perfect won’t do it, but actually should look at if implementing a certain policy could improve a little what we already have and then go ahead. \n","Missing indicator:\n• What about an indicator of general population affordability? And not only for vulnerable groups? "]
["PRICES1 | Fiscal measures – Taxes and levies on unhealthy/unsustainable foods\nThe government implements taxation on unhealthy and/or unsustainable foods (e.g. sugar-sweetened beverages, red meat, foods high in nutrients of concern) and increase the retail prices of these foods by at least 20% to discourage unhealthy or unsustainable food choices where possible, and these tax revenues are reinvested to create healthy and sustainable food environments and food systems, promote healthy and sustainable diets or promote health strategies to reduce the price (lowering of TVA) of nutritious food or beverages (i.e. quality of tap water, healthy and sustainably produced foods).\n","• Change to: “…discourage unhealthy or unsustainable food choices where possible. These tax revenues may be reinvested to…”\n• Drop “promote healthy and sustainable diets”\n• Change to “govt imposes taxes and levies….”\n• Change “and increase” -> “to increase” \n• Remove \"retail\"?\n• Maybe this indicator should have two bullets: A) For unhealthy foods (e.g. high fats, SSBs, ultraprocessed foods) (+ consider the use of the revenue) and B) For unsustainable foods (e.g. red meat) (- use of the revenue, with focus on higher income groups -> focus on expensive cuts of red meat). OR: delete red meat","PRICES1 | Fiscal measures – Taxes on less healthy/sustainable foods\n• The government imposes taxes on less healthy foods (e.g. high in nutrients of concern) to increase the prices of these foods by at least 20% to discourage less healthy food choices where possible. These tax revenues may be reinvested to create healthy food environments and food systems or promote health strategies to reduce the price (lowering of TVA) of nutritious foods or beverages (e.g. quality of tap water, fruits and vegetables).\n• The government imposes taxes on more exclusive?, less sustainable foods (e.g. expensive cuts of red meat such as rib eye) to increase the prices of these foods by at least 20% to discourage less sustainable food choices where possible.","PRICES1 | Fiscal measures – Taxes on less healthy/sustainable foods\n• The government imposes taxes on less healthy foods (e.g. foods high in nutrients of concern) to increase the prices of these foods by at least 20% to discourage less healthy food choices where possible. These tax revenues may be reinvested to create healthy food environments and food systems or promote health strategies to reduce the price (lowering of TVA) of nutritious foods or beverages (e.g. quality of tap water, fruits and vegetables).\n• The government imposes taxes on less sustainable foods (e.g. red meat ) to increase the prices of these foods by at least 20% to discourage less sustainable food choices where possible.\n\nPRICES1 | Fiscal measures – Taxes on less healthy/sustainable foods\n• The government imposes taxes on less healthy foods (e.g. foods high in nutrients of concern) to increase the prices of these foods by at least 20% to discourage less healthy food choices where possible. \n• The government imposes taxes on less sustainable foods (e.g. red meat ) to increase the prices of these foods by at least 20% to discourage less sustainable food choices where possible.\n• These tax revenues are reinvested to create healthy and sustainable food systems, invest in infrastructure (e.g. quality of tap water) or TVA reductions of healthier and sustainable foods or beverages.","not sure what you mean with \"more exclusive\"? I have deleted it; also I disagree that we should only tax expensive meat!, for the second bullet point should we also include the point of reinvesting for sustainable food systems?\n\nI suggest to add also a part on tax revenues to sustainable foods, as it has been added to nutrition. However, this is very hard to expect from governments so I wonder if it should be added as a bullet (what happens if they only have the tax but not the tax revenue?)","• Ideally taxes and subsidies should go hand in hand to reduce/avoid negative effects on inequality, but  include together in the same indicator?\n• Better to talk about healthier and unhealthier/less healthy\n• Mention UPFs here?\n• Remove levies?\n• Include tax incentives to companies producing healthy foods? \n• Mentioned trade-off: \nA) the tax on red meats can have a negative repercussion on undernutrition and micronutrient deficiencies. \nB) the tax on SSBs can increase the intake of bottle water in many countries and the environmental impact of the use of plastics continues to be high. (However, that switch is better even for the environment if compared to the same consumption of SSBs.)",{"$nulls":5},"• Healthy/unhealthy defined clearly somewhere? Because often have a lot of discussion about this; very tricky debate => Better to talk about healthier and unhealthier/less healthy\n• Important to look at both taxes AND subsidies => relevant for all indicators on food prices => See general comment!\n• Remove “and these tax revenues are reinvested” – Not necessary, this money could also be used for something else. Money could also be used for something else; there should not be a correlation between the two. HOWEVER: doing this creates an extra impact + research has shown a higher acceptability for such taxes in case revenues are reinvested. \no Change to: “…discourage unhealthy or unsustainable food choices where possible. These tax revenues may be reinvested to…”\n• “…create healthy and sustainable food environments and food systems, promote healthy and sustainable diets…” => kind of repetition; drop “promote healthy and sustainable diets”\n• Mention that tax revenues can be used to counter the effect of the tax itself on income distribution\n• Wording suggestions – sent through email to Vanessa and Celia\n• Ideally taxes and subsidies should go hand in hand to reduce/avoid negative effects on inequality – effect on inequality really depends on what fiscal measures are implemented","• Agree triple duty potential, clear indicator (wording)\n• Regarding  trade off: products that have plastic in their packaging (SSBs) can still have an impact on environmental sustainability\n• Should the taxation and the use of the revenues be included together in the same indicator? This would be ideal but extremely hard to find. They should be disaggregated into two. Because the number of countries applying the taxation is already low, and if we also include this extra of the revenues, the number of countries meeting the indicator’s requirement is going to be even lower (mainly zero). This is harder for policymakers to implement. \n• Concern regarding taxes to red meat: we don’t have enough evidence, as much as SSBs or foods high in fat that are clearly unhealthy; there are some groups in the population that need meat as it’s still nutritious. Foods high in nutrients of concern is OK, but delete red meat. Also, eventual taxes on red meat should not have the extra of then adding the revenues. Maybe the only meat that should be taxes are the most expensive cuts or the highly processed ones. \n• In some countries, like Mexico, low income groups consume the adequate amount of meat, the issue is mainly high income populations and those are the ones who need to reduce it, and maybe taxes are therefore not the solution. \n• In Argentina, meat is part of the culinary culture and it is very hard to expect that the government would ever tax this. \n• Maybe this indicator should have two bullets, one for unhealthy foods (e.g. high fats, SSBs, ultraprocessed foods) (and in here consider the use of the revenue) and one for unsustainable foods (e.g. red meat) (but here don’t use the use of the revenue, but this should focus more on higher income groups of the population).\n• Trade off: the tax on red meats can have a negative repercussion on undernutrition and micronutrient deficiencies.\n• Trade off (minimal): the tax on SSBs can increase the intake of bottle water in many countries and the environmental impact of the use of plastics continues to be high. However, that switch is better even for the environment if compared to the same consumption of SSBs.\n• This could include price elasticities for population subgroups. ","• Change to “govt imposes taxes and levies….” instead of the word ‘implements’.\n• Implementation of tax incentives to companies producing healthy foods could also be included.\n• Issue with mention of red meat – Some feel that should be remove because no proof that issue on sustainability.\n• Needs to be evaluated how revenues from taxes are reinvested back to healthy and sustainable foods.","• All participants considered the indicator relevant to keep, it is very similar to the original FOOD-EPI indicator but with adding environmental sustainability\n• Instead of “and increase” or “et augmente” we should change it to “to increase”  and “pour augmenter”. It is not the government who increases the price as that is up to the manufacturers. The words “retail” or “detail” could be removed as well.\n• Why 20%? But this is the minimum as recommended by the WHO and the scientific evidence.\n","• Should this and PRICES2 capture the relative prices of unhealthy vs healthy foods, or the absolute prices?\n\n• Considerar incluir el término \"alimentos ultraprocesados\", también considerar subsidios al consumidor para reducir el precio de alimentos frescos y mínimamente procesados. Entre los alimentos menos sostenibles por supuesto están las carnes rojas, sin embargo un impuesto a estas carnes puede ser inequitativo con los grupos poblacionales más pobres. Podría ser impuesto a cortes caros de carne roja (rib eye, etc). También debería subsidiarse alimentos que sean mínimamente procesados o los que tengan técnicas de producción que contribuyan a cuidar el ambiente.","• We advise caution regarding this indicator. The effects of taxation are not clear in the literature, and we may expect a highly detrimental effect on inequalities as such price increases will fall disproportionately on the poorest households who already have a higher relative part of their monthly budget dedicated to food. In the meantime, behaviour changes do not happen overnight, hence they will not compensate for such increases in the short-term. \n\n"]
["PRICES2 | Fiscal measures – Taxes and levies on healthy/sustainable foods\nTaxes or levies on healthy foods are minimised to encourage healthy and/or sustainable food choices (e.g. low or no sales tax, excise, value-added or import duties on fruit and vegetables). \n","• Change to “Taxes or levies on healthy and sustainable foods are minimised…”\n• Change to “Govt introduces tax incentives on healthy foods…”\n• Even better to go to the subsidy instead of just minimising the tax\n• Better to say zero or minimal taxes on fresh and minimally processed food, preferably locally produced and produced with agro-ecological techniques.\n","PRICES2 | Fiscal measures – Subsidies for healthy/sustainable foods\nThe government provides subsidies for healthier and more sustainable foods to encourage healthier and/or more sustainable food choices (e.g. subsidies or no sales taxes for fruits and vegetables). ","PRICES2 | Fiscal measures – Subsidies for healthy/sustainable foods\nThe government implements subsidies and/or VAT reductions for healthier and more sustainable foods (e.g. fruits, vegetables, beans and lentils, whole grains). ","I preferred the original one, so based on feedback I would rephrase, also to avoid the repetition of healthier and more sustainable..","• Keep taxes in relation to unhealthy and subsidies in relation to healthy - Eliminating tax is also a subsidie (in scope).\n• Better to talk about healthier and unhealthier/less healthy as well as more/less sustainable\n• What happens in countries where they do not have taxes?\n• Mention percentage as well?\n• Experts would need to come up with a clear list of healthy and unhealthy foods to guide taxes imposed\n• What happens at production level when there is a subsidy? Does a subsidy increase the production? If so, that could also be unsustainable. This is just an hypothesis. \n• Mentioned trade-off: \nA) increase in food waste (for cheaper F&Vs), and therefore negative for environmental sustainability. \nB)  the amount of money saved from buying healthier products then is used to purchase unhealthier ones, instead of saving it or buying more quantity of healthy products.",{"$nulls":5},"• Text itself only mentions healthy foods in the beginning of the sentence => Change to “Taxes or levies on healthy and sustainable foods are minimised…”\n• Same comment as for PRICE1 – Need clear definition for healthy and sustainable - Better to talk about healthier and unhealthier/less healthy as well as more/less sustainable\n• In general minimizing taxes on healthier and more sustainable foods is easier than having taxes (~PRICE1)\n","• Clear triple duty potential and clear indicator. \n• Easier to implement this type of policies. In Argentina they have implemented this (subsidies on F&Vs)\n• This is one step to minimise the tax, but it would be even better to go to the subsidy instead of just minimising the tax. Technically eliminating the tax is a way of subsidising products. But what happens in countries where they do not have taxes? Maybe we should be more explicit in the definition of the indicator. The scoping review mentioned subsidies in F&Vs, but this indicator is not on subsidies directly but more general in minimising taxes.\n• Maybe include in the examples other that are not related to taxes and levis but also potential ways of subsidies used in countries.\n• Possible trade off: increase in food waste (for cheaper F&Vs), and therefore negative for environmental sustainability.\n• Possible trade off: the amount of money saved from buying healthier products then is used to purchase unhealthier ones, instead of saving it or buying more quantity of healthy products (this was also found in the scoping review)\n• Question: What happens at production level when there is a subsidy? Does a subsidy increase the production? If so, that could also be unsustainable. This is just an hypothesis.\n","• Suggested to merge PRICE1 with PRICE2\n• Change wording - The indicator should start with “Govt introduces tax incentives on healthy foods…”\n• Remove the word subsidies? (Subsidies are different from taxes).\n• Need to mention percentage as well ~ check literature.\n• Experts would need to come up with a clear list of healthy and unhealthy foods to guide taxes imposed – Best to use a NPM – Maybe specify in the indicator?","• All participants considered the indicator relevant to keep, it is very similar to the original FOOD-EPI indicator but with adding environmental sustainability\n• Need to include subsidies (subventions) here as well as these are also fiscal measures, which seem relevant to this indicator (unless this overlaps with the indicator on subsidies as part of the food production domain)? \n","• Alimentos sanos hay que definirlos. En realidad, todo alimento fresco, mínimamente procesado sería sano. En este caso podría haber contradicción con el impuesto a carne roja que se estipula en el indicador anterior. Pero también habría que considerar que además de sano su impacto ambiental sea menor en relación a otros alimentos sanos. En este caso sería mejor decir que impuestos cero o mínimos a alimentos frescos y mínimamente procesados, de preferencia de producción local y producidos con técnicas agroecológicas.","No comments"]
["PRICES3 | Affordability of healthy diets\nThe government ensures that food-related income support programs (e.g. vouchers, cash, school feeding, food supplement programs) for poor households and vulnerable groups are for healthy, sustainable foods.\n","• Include public procurement aspect\n• Include all settings where any kind of communal feeding happens\n• Change “are for” to “improve access and encourage healthy, sustainable foods.” \n• Change to “are mostly for healthy, sustainable foods”.\n• Change to “Govt should provide adequate budgets to ensure food related income group receive healthy and sustainable foods.” - Currently not strong enough\n• Maybe we should remove school feeding from here, as it’s already included under PROV1?\n• Add in the title “and sustainable” and “for vulnerable population groups”\n• Use energy sufficient, nutritional adequate and healthy","PRICES3 | Affordability of healthy and sustainable diets\nThe government provides and coordinates? food-related income support programs (e.g. vouchers, cash, food supplement programs) for poor households and vulnerable groups to improve access and encourage the acquisition of healthier, more sustainable foods.","PRICES3 | Affordability of healthy and sustainable diets                                                                                      \nThe government ensures that food-related income support programs (e.g. vouchers, cash, school feeding, food supplement programs) for poor households and vulnerable groups are for healthy, sustainable foods.\n\n[I agree with Stefanie, as the new indicator has changed meaning, but I don't like to use the word \"ensures\" as it's vague and general, it was suggested to be more specific]\n\nPRICES3 | Affordability of healthy and sustainable foods\nThe government has in place food-related income support programmes (e.g. vouchers, cash, school feeding) that guarantees the accessibility to healthier and more sustainable foods for low-income households and vulnerable groups.","To be discussed: the purpose of this indicator has changed, the idea is if there are food related income support programs that they are for healthy foods, not just to stimulate more food related income support programs….I prefer to keep the original indicator","• Not necessarily adequate to reserve them for healthy/sustainable food as it can be seen as guilt-inducing and stigmatizing for the targeted vulnerable groups.\n• Also capture accessibility?\n• Mentioned trade-off: A) Agree with trade-off identified, but carefully formulated programs can minimize this effect. Trade-off should be addresses as much as possible in design of policy and if necessary later on. B)  the amount of money saved from buying healthier products then is used to purchase unhealthier ones, instead of saving it or buying more quantity of healthy products. C) Increase of food waste with school feeding programmes if children do not like the food.",{"$nulls":5},"• Public procurement aspects could more explicitly be mentioned as they are one of the most important means to provide food to citizens\n• Also include all settings where any kind of communal feeding happens (kindergartens, universities, public institutions)\n• Instead of saying “are for” say “improve access and encourage healthy, sustainable foods.” \n• Agree with trade-off identified. In general, low-income groups eat more unhealthy foods so if increase what remains from income without changing the whole food environment people might spend this on unhealthy food, but carefully formulated programs can minimize this effect. \no in a social justice perspective this indicator is really important so should definitely be kept, but trade-off should be addresses as much as possible in design of policy and if necessary later on. \n","• Same trade off as in the indicator above: the amount of money saved from buying healthier products then is used to purchase unhealthier ones, instead of saving it or buying more quantity of healthy products (this was also found in the scoping review)\n• For school feeding this one makes sense because that’s the menu they receive, but what about vouchers and cash? It cannot be controlled if that money goes to healthy and sustainable foods. It can put a lot of burden in the administration to have conditions in the expending, so hard to find policymakers willing to implement it.\n• Trade off: increase of food waste with school feeding programmes if children do not like the food.\no Maybe we should remove school feeding from here, as it’s already included under PROV1?\n• The voucher idea does not necessarily imply that they would not buy unhealthy or unsustainable products, as they can still receive other sources of income and use that other income towards those products.\n• Wording: add “mostly” or “mainly”  “are mostly for healthy, sustainable foods”. This way it’s easier to implement. \n• Add in the title “and sustainable” and “for vulnerable population groups”","• Indicator not strong enough.\n• Not comfortable with the indicator and not strong. Govts not being held strongly, they will score highly when it is not the case. Maybe also capture accessibility?\n• Rephrase to “Govt should provide adequate budgets to ensure food related income group receive healthy and sustainable foods.” Currently not strong enough to hold govts accountable.\n• Change the parameters and use energy sufficient, nutritional adequate and healthy.","• All participants considered the indicator relevant to keep\n• It would be good to focus more globally on programmes for social protection more broadly; especially with COVID there are quite some countries who are starting to implement more of these programs\n• L’accessibilité financière  Il faut utiliser “économique” au lieu de “financière” comme traduction\n","• Does this mean that the support programs provide adequate income to afford healthy, sustainable foods, or that the programs come with contingencies (e.g. some goods can't be purchased)? I think this could be clarified in the phrasing.\n\n• \"sea para adquirir alimentos que contribuyan a una dieta saludable y sostenible\"\n\n• Peut être ajouter un indicateur évaluant l'existence des programmes de soutien aux ménages pauvres","• Add \"and sustainable\" in the title\nWhen it comes to vouchers and cash transfers, it is not necessarily adequate to reserve them for healthy/sustainable food as it can be seen as guilt-inducing and stigmatizing for the targeted vulnerable groups. Except in times of emergency (such as the Ukraine crisis for instance), the financing of such measures may also prevent investment in other crucial domains (such as increasing the minimum wage, or subsidizing healthy/sustainable food production) – specific food-related support is not the most efficient / inclusive way to make good food accessible. \nIn any case, the success of any measure of that type is also dependent upon the definition of healthy/sustainable foods that is chosen. \n"]
["EXCLUDED | Price volatility reduction \nThe government ensures policy consistency in market interventions and safety nets to reduce price volatility of healthy and sustainably produced foods.",{"$nulls":3},"ok to exclude but we will need to provide a justification [Same as in other cases, this was decided to exclude based on results from the survey in November 2021, lack of impact on the outcomes]"]