Status of Food and Nutrition Security in Fiji: Role of the

University and Lessons Learnt

Dr Jimaima Lako The University of the South Pacific

CTA Cross-Learning Workshop and Writeshop: Informimg Food and Nutrition Policy and Practice; Strengthening the Agriculture – Nutrition Nexus and Improving Outcomes”,

21st -25th September, 2015; Dakar, Senegal

CTA Case Study Activity 1. Quick-scan at the macro level: current provisions,

current educational scan with respect to FNS, scan of the policy framework at national (and regional) level;

Activity 2. AIFSHE Audit at the meso level: capacity development efforts, existing curricula, research programmes, community network, outreach;

Activity 3. 360° Feedback: Internal review of the Quickscan & AIFSHE audit (internal); Stakeholders mapping: actors roles, capacities, responsibilities (external)

Activity 4: National stakeholder workshop to validate results and chart the way forward.

Activity 5: Book Chapter

Background• Population of ~ 837, 271; • Rural- 48%; Urban- 52%

(2011)• Fijians – 54%, Indians – 41%,

( others 5%• 0.7% external migration

• Growth rate ~0.7% (2014est)• Life expectancy – 68yrs

• Land mass – 18,270km2

• ~332 smaller islands• Viti Levu and Vanua Levu

occupy – 87% of land mass contain ~ 84% of population.

• GDP – 4,375.41USD (2013)• Frequent natural disaster e.g.

cyclones every year

Major Food Supplies

• Local production•Agricultural crops• Livestock• Fisheries

• Imported foods

Export

Food Supply: Agricultural Crop Production

Food Supply: Livestock Production

Food Supply: Fisheries Production

Major Agricultural Export

Major Agricultural Import

Total Food Import vs Food Export: 1996-2000

• Value of food imports - $FJ200.8M• Total value of imports - $FJ1,554.8M• Total food exports - $FJ341.3M• Total exports - $FJ917.1M

• Rice imports - $FJ16.7M

• Food imports as a % of total imports – 13.2%• Food imports as a % of food exports - 55.8%• Food imports as a % of total exports – 22%

Ref: Fiji Bureau of Statistics (2002)

Import Substitution• In order to reduce high importation of

food commodities and high food bills, the Govt embarked on import substitution projects by the Agricultural Ministry focusing on growing local foods and increase production to directly replace products that were imported such as;• rice, potatoes, carrots, tomatoes, beef

dairy, poultry and feed grains, etc

Imported Macronutrients

Calories Protein Fat54

56

58

60

62

64

66

68

70

72

Figure 1: 2009 Percentage Imported Macronutrients

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

NFNC Food Balanced Sheet, 2007

Food preference • Most frequently consumed carbohydrates (kg/year)• Rice – 56kg• Cassava –68kg• Bread – 56kg – 53.1% Fijians; 71.1% Indo-Fijians• Cabin crackers – 61.7% Fijians, 61% Indo-Fijians

• Most frequently consumed fruits • Citrus – 1-2/day for 34% of households

• Meat (Protein) consumption• White meat (chicken) – Indo-Fijians- 74.4%, Fijians – 51.7%• Red meat – Indo-Fijians – 95.9%, Fijians – 92.3%• Egg 3-5/wk – 50% of all households• Fresh fish – 1-2/wk for 66% of households• Canned fish – Fijians – 70.8%, Indo-Fijians – 72.8%• Milk – daily taken by Indo-Fijians at 47.3% hh, Fijians 44.2% hh

• Vegetable consumption• 1-2/day by only 25% of all hh• < 1/3 hh consumed green leafy vegetables daily e.g. taro leaves-

31.3% and edible hibiscus 21%• Tomato common yellow/orange vegetables

• Sugar intake • > 2times/day

• Fat spread daily intake • Butter – 65.5% Fijians, 60% Indo-Fijians• Margarine - 37% Indo-Fijians, 29.2% Fijians

Subsistence consumption• 78.9% hh consumed own cultivated crops in 2004 compared

to 84.6% in 1993

• Fijians obtained most rootcrops-61% from garden while 8.6% Indo-Fijians

• Indo-Fijians obtained most green leafy vegetables 63.5% from garden compared to 25.6% Fijians

Rural and Urban consumption• Rural • Food garden consumption - Fijians obtained 61.8% while 44.5% Indo-Fijians • Livestock and birds for home consumption - Fijians keep 59.6% compared to

77.6% Indo-Fijians

• Urban • Food garden consumption - Fijians obtained 17.6% while 18.8% Indo-Fijians• Livestock and birds for home consumption - Fijians keep 12% compared to

28.4% Indo-Fijians

• Consumed own fish caught consumed – 86.8% of all hh – 51-62kg of fish consumed/capita/year

• Food preservation – Indo-Fijians – 88.6%, Fijians – 53.5%• Household food sufficiency– 90%• Household food expenses – Indo-Fijians spent $60.37/wk, Fijians spent

$41.30

Nutritional Intake

Protein, fat and carbohydrate intakes ratio showed 15%: 27.8% and 53.5% respectively compared to WHO reference of 10-15% protein: 20-30% fat: 55-70% carbohydrates

Nutritional Status• Weight• 14.5% chn overweight, 12.8% underweight, 24% adolescents

overweight• Adult BMI- 32.3% overweight, 23.9% obese, 6.1% underweight

• Hypertension• Prevalence – 19.1%

• Anaemia – 32.4% (2004) – fortification of wheat flour• Diabetes – 16% ; 24.7% in urban areas• CVD – responsible for 76% of all NCD deaths, 80% of total deaths• Cancer – various sites at an average of 673 cases reported

annually.

Food Secure Pacific Framework for Action on Food Security in the Pacific

Conceptual Model for Food Security in the Pacific

National Policies related to FNS

Fiji Green Growth Framework (2014)Strategic Planning

National Food and Nutrition Policy (2008)

National Food and Nutrition CentreFood Policy/ Food Safety Regulation (2009)

Food Unit, Ministry of HealthPlan of Action on Nutrition (2010)

National Food and Nutrition CentreNational Non-Communicable Diseases Strategic Plan (2010) Ministry of Health

Fiji 2020 Agriculture Sector Policy Agenda (2014)Ministry of Agriculture

National Food and Nutrition Policy for School (2012)

Ministry of Education

No overarching national policy on food security

Summary of FNS in Fiji based on 4 FNS pillars

• AVAILABILITY– there is adequate food supply due to strong traditional subsistence accounting 40% of energy requirement, however great nutritional insecurity due to increased overweight and obesity due to changing dietary habits to more fatty foods, wheat flour-based and sugar. • ACCESS– weak (due to land issue, processing, post-harvest,

technology, limited market access -quality/safety – strict quarantine standards.• UTILIZATION – poor; due to increase consumption of high

fat, wheat-based and sugar resulting high NCD and associated risks

• Stability – highly vulnerable to natural disaster and CC

Weak Link

Role of Universities in Fiji in addressing FNS and Lessons Learnt

• 3 major universities• Two national – FNU and UniFiji• A regional –USP

Research and Outreach Activities related to FNS

Lessons Learnt from Quick Scan

• Lots of policies with various approaches for FNS at regional and national level (Fiji), however limited alignment and a mismatch with what is happening at the three universities in the areas of teaching esp, research and outreach

OpportunityThere is a need for a systematic design and alignment in the curriculum and have compulsory (core) units from different disciplines to produce an integrated curriculum to address food security in all the 4 pillars.

The STAR (strategic total academic review) project did not address this deficiency in food security elements within the university.Instead SMT recommended removal of FNScience from science and in-coorporated with Agriculture prog

AIFSHE Audit Result

Global Indicators

Present Situatio

n

Desired Situatio

nMedian 1.5 3

Plan Do Balance

+4 -1

Policy Ambition

  22

Plan-Do Balance = The sum of the DO scores minus the sum of the PLAN scores

If this score is >0, (+4 for USP), it shows that the education has been made sustainable in a relatively strong amount, but not very well anchored in the organisation.

Policy Ambition - the sum of all the differences between the desired and the present stageUSP = 22 the second highest score of the ten universities in this pilot

Analysis of AIFSHE Indicators

Global Indicators

Present Situation

Desired Situation

Median 1.5 3

Plan Do Balance

+4 -1

Policy Ambition

  22

Major Lessons Learnt from AISHE AUDIT:

No policy on Food Security is explicitly defined, it’s only embedded in the “sustainable development” part of the

University’s vision. Thus

• Food security related areas (teaching, research and community outreach) at USP are too scattered and taught in assolation

• without proper alignment

• poor communication within departments

• no focal point/group to take the lead

• curriculum not aligned to address regional framework and national

policies (undergraduate)

• research and postgraduate difficult of poor undergraduate alignment

• Translations of learning outcomes and competencies for students are

limited

Lessons Learnt from National Workshops

Priority Areas

Current Expected Gaps

Curriculum Not addressing what the policy wants.

Address the needs of the policy (region).

Not aligned to meet the policy requirements.

Staffs

Facilities

Limited staffs More qualified staffs to teach specialized areas

Not enough qualified staffs in relevant areas

Scattered and limited.

More modern facilities to teach

Purchase and construct required facilities.

TeachingFood related teaching in different facilities

More cross communication among faculties

Isolated teaching

ResearchIndividual academic research

Conduct research relevant to the policy

No/limited consultations on priority areas.

National Seminar and Workshop: Current gaps in resources, curriculum, teaching and research to address priority and build

capacity.

Appropriate Pathways For Bridging the Gaps and the Way ForwardPriority Areas

Gaps Ways of bridging the gap

Curriculum Not aligned to meet the policy requirements.

•University wide consultation – stakeholder, community, etc.•Improve current “irrelevant” courses.•Introduce areas of demand in the curriculum – e.g. food processing, post-harvest, standards, etc

Staffs

Facilities-technology

Not enough qualified staffs in relevant areas

Acquire funds to appoint required staffs to teach and carry out relevant research.

Purchase and construct required facilities and technology

•Acquire funds and international collaboration

Teaching

Isolated and fragmented teaching

Bring all programmes related to food security under one umbrella.

ResearchNo/limited consultations on priority areas.

Industrial/ Institution develop a range of relevant research areas and external services needed to address the priority areas.

Conclusion• There is some degree of food security observed in Fiji when

availability pillar is concerned due to adequate food supplies, however food insecurity also exists in relation to limited accessibility and utilization pillars of FNS which are reflected in the high importation and consumption of imported processed foods contributing to prevalence NCDs and associated risks.

• Higher education institutions play a pivotal role in ensuring that they provide relevant training needs that match the workforce required to improve FNS for its country.• through re-orientation of curriculum to match, align and address

policies and FNS gaps and the needs of the country.

• The three Universities in Fiji have a lot of opportunities to contribute to the improvement and realization of FNS in Fiji.