Entre a riqueza e a fome: condições para a promoção da segurança alimentar e nutricional nas capitais do Sul do Brasil

Lima, Giovana Felício; Machado, Mick Lennon; Martins, Milena Corrêa; Pinto, Murilo Lyra; Gabriel, Cristine Garcia

RESUMO

Objetivo:

A pesquisa foi conduzida com o objetivo de avaliar as condições para a promoção da segurança alimentar e nutricional nas três capitais da região Sul do Brasil.

Métodos:

Trata-se de uma pesquisa avaliativa, que utilizou uma matriz de análise e julgamento composta por 7 dimensões, 11 subdimensões, 27 indicadores e 56 medidas. Permitiu também classificar cada um dos elementos da matriz como ótimos, bons, regulares ou ruins para a promoção da segurança alimentar e nutricional nas três capitais. A coleta de dados ocorreu em sistemas de informação públicos e de acesso livre.

Resultados:

As três capitais foram avaliadas como ruins em suas condições para a promoção da segurança alimentar e nutricional, sendo que Florianópolis e Porto Alegre apresentaram condições menos favoráveis em comparação com Curitiba. Destacaram-se negativamente nas três capitais, aspectos relacionados ao acesso universal à alimentação adequada e à água, aos sistemas de produção agroecológica e ao abastecimento sustentável de alimentos, e aos povos e comunidades tradicionais.

Conclusão:

Apesar de as capitais avaliadas apresentarem bons indicadores socioeconômicos, ainda são frágeis as condições para a promoção da segurança alimentar e nutricional, o que tem se refletido na incapacidade de superação da fome e da insegurança alimentar na região Sul do país. Os resultados alertam para a necessidade de qualificação das estratégias territoriais de segurança alimentar e nutricional, considerando os diferentes contextos, como condição para garantir a realização do direito à alimentação com equidade e prioridade para as famílias e povos em situação de vulnerabilidade social.

Palavras-chave:
Segurança alimentar; Avaliação em saúde; Fome; Governo local; Política pública

[1] Correspondence to: CG GABRIEL. E-mail: cristine.gabriel@ufsc.br

Characteristics	Curitiba	Porto Alegre	Florianópolis
Population*	1,963,726	1,492,530	516,524
Area (km²)*	434.892	495.39	674.844
Municipal Human Development Index**	0.823	0.805	0.847
State level of Food Insecurity***	22.5	23.5	13.1
Year of entry into Sistema Nacional de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional ********	2016	2014	No entry
Existence of a Food and Nutrition Security Plan****	Yes	Yes	No

Dimensions	Sub-dimensions	Indicators	Sources of Information
Dimension 1 - Universal access to adequate food	S1- Populations in situation of social vulnerability	I1 - Families insocial vulnerability	CECAD, 2021; IBGE, 2021; CNES, 2021; SUAS Census, 2021
	S1- Populations in situation of social vulnerability	I2 - Social Inequality	Population Census - IBGE, 2010; UNDP, 2010
	S2 - Income	I3 - Families benefiting from income transfer programs	CECAD, 2021
		I4 - Access to income	Population Census - IBGE, 2010
		I5 - Access to employment	Population Census - IBGE, 2010
	S3 - Distribution of food and meals	I6 - Existence of Public Infrastructure for Food and Nutrition Security	MapaSAN, 2018
		I7 - Local food commercialization establishments	Population Census - IBGE, 2019
		I8 - Food purchased by the Government	Conab, 2021; IBGE, 2021; FNDE, 2020; INEP, 2020
		I9 - Families in poverty and extreme poverty benefiting from non-monetary food distribution	CECAD, 2021; Conab, 2021
Dimension 2 - Agroecological Production Systems and Sustainable Food Supply	S4 - Access to land	I10 - Land distribution	Census of Agriculture - IBGE, 2017
	S5 - Production and supply	I11 - Agriculture incentive programs	Census of Agriculture - IBGE, 2017; FNDE/2020
		I12 - Access to social programs in rural areas	Census of Agriculture - IBGE, 2017
		I13 - Organic production	Census of Agriculture - IBGE, 2017
Dimension 3 - Permanent processes of education, research, and training in FNS	S6 - Food and nutrition education	I14 - FNE actions within PNAE	FNDE, 2019
	S6 - Food and nutrition education	I15 - PSE actions	Painel PSE, 2017
	S7 - Public education	I16 - Access to public education	Population Census - IBGE, 2010 and 2020
	S7 - Public education	I17 - Educational level	Population Census - IBGE, 2010
Dimension 4 - Food and Nutrition at All Levels of Health Care	S8 - Primary Health Care	I18 - Food and nutrition surveillance	SISVAN, 2021; Tabnet - DATASUS, 2020
		I19 - Promotion of adequate and healthy nutrition	Tabnet - DATASUS, 2015
		I20 - Prevention and control of health problems	Tabnet - DATASUS, 2015
		I21 - Sanitary and environmental surveillance	IBGE, 2017; Tabnet - DATASUS, 2021
		I22 - Primary care coverage	Tabnet - DATASUS, 2020 and 2021
Dimension 5 - Universal Access to Water	S9 - Basic sanitation	I23 - Water supply	Population Census - IBGE, 2010
		I24 - Sanitary sewer	Population Census - IBGE, 2010
		I25 - Garbage collection	Population Census - IBGE, 2010
Dimension 6 - Traditional Peoples and Communities	S10 - Traditional Peoples and Communities	I26 - Access to services for traditional peoples and communities	-
Dimension 7 - Assessment and Monitoring	S11 - Assessment and monitoring of SISAN	I27 - SISAN’s structure	MapaSAN, 2014, 2015 and 2018

Dimension		C1	C2	C3	Sub-dimension		C1	C2	C3
1 - Universal access to adequate food					1- Populations in situation of social vulnerability
					2 - Income
					3 - Distribution of food and meals
2 - Agroecological production systems and sustainable food supply					4 - Access to land
					5 - Production and supply
3 - Permanent processes of education, research, and training in FNS					6 - Food and nutrition education
					7 - Public education
4 - Food and nutrition at all levels of health care					8 - Primary Health Care
5 - Universal access to water					9 - Basic sanitation
6 - Traditional peoples and communities					10 - Traditional peoples and communities
7 - Assessment and monitoring					11 - Assessment and monitoring of SISAN
Total “excellent” classifications per municipality	n	1	0	0	Total “excellent” classifications per municipality	n	2	1	0
Total “excellent” classifications per municipality	%	14	0	0	Total “excellent” classifications per municipality	%	18	9	0
Total “poor” classifications per municipality	n	4	4	3	Total “poor” classifications per municipality	n	4	5	5
Total “poor” classifications per municipality	%	57	57	42	Total “poor” classifications per municipality	%	36	45	45
Total FNS Situation Assessment

Sub-dimension	Indicators		C1	C2	C3	No. municipalities with classification “excellent”	No. municipalities with classification “poor”
1- Populations in situation of social vulnerability	1 - Families in social vulnerability					0	1
1- Populations in situation of social vulnerability	2 - Social inequality					0	0
2 - Income	3 - Families who benefit from income transfer programs					1	2
	4 - Access to income					0	0
	5 - Access to employment					0	3
3 - Distribution of food and meals	6 - Existence of Public Infrastructure for Food and Nutrition Security					1	1
	7 - Local food commercialization establishments					1	0
	8 - Food purchased by the Government					0	2
	9 - Families in poverty and extreme poverty benefiting from non-monetary food distribution					0	3
4 - Access to land	10 - Land distribution					0	1
5 - Production and supply	11 - Agriculture incentive programs					0	2
	12 - Access to social programs in rural areas					3	0
	13 - Organic production					0	1
6 - Food and nutrition education	14 - FNE actions within PNAE					1	2
6 - Food and nutrition education	15 - PSE actions					3	0
7 - Public education	16 - Access to public education					1	0
7 - Public education	17 - Educational level					3	0
8 - Primary Health Care	18 - Food and nutrition surveillance					0	1
	19 - Promotion of adequate and healthy eating					0	0
	20 - Prevention and control of health problems					1	0
	21 - Sanitary and environmental surveillance					1	0
	22 - Primary care coverage					1	1
9 - Basic sanitation	23 - Water supply					0	3
	24 - Sanitary sewer					2	0
	25 - Garbage collection					0	1
10 - Traditional peoples and communities	26 - Access to services for traditional peoples and communities					0	3
11 - Assessment and monitoring of SISAN	27 - SISAN’s structure					1	0
Total “excellent” classifications per municipality		n	7	6	7
Total “excellent” classifications per municipality		%	25	22	25
Total “poor” classifications per municipality		n	8	10	9
Total “poor” classifications per municipality		%	29	37	33