استكشاف الملاحظات الرسمية للحوار

This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of Dialogue participants and does not represent the views of the Australian Government. There were certainly areas of divergence across all elements of partnership and innovation discussed during this Dialogue. Many of the participants were self-reflective during conversation and recognised that their views and contributions were influenced by their own experiences. Many points of divergence are presented throughout the Discussion Outcomes sections. There was robust discussion about trade-offs between various approaches to partnership, and ... قراءة المزيدto innovation to transform food systems. Participants debated the benefits of bringing together partners with similar skills and goals versus bringing together diverse partners with the direct goal of strengthening capabilities – which creates greater, sustained value? Wanting to be inclusive of all relevant stakeholders raised similar trade-offs, particularly when considering the many spatial scales of systems which necessitate engagement on many levels. The trade-offs of increased aversion to risk were discussed in the context of innovation speed and impact. The divergent views that emerged demonstrated that innovation is possible in any number of circumstanced. They then converged to establish that if progress is to take place at the great speed and scale necessary to achieve the 2030 agenda and make progress towards the SDGs, then robust and steady partnerships will be needed to integrate and scale solutions globally. As such, a key practice for achieving food system sustainability will be increased reliance on and resourcing of partnerships. Establishing formal guidelines and processes for working collaboratively across sectors and industries, based on successful models, could encourage greater collaboration and better transformation of intentions into impact. The diverse geographic spread of participants and corresponding breadth of experiences shared during this Dialogue further highlight the importance of food systems solutions that are locally-contextualised and relevant to the problems faced in specific environments. Ensuring that partnerships are representative of these local contexts will be important in supporting research and innovation that solves relevant problems and can be scaled appropriately قراءة القليل

Inclusivity Participants agreed that inclusivity must drive each stage of innovation, from problem definition to scaling for impact. Key reflections about inclusivity included: • It is crucial to consciously consider inclusivity during problem-definition stages of innovation, as this allows us to define a common problem in terms that are accessible and relevant to the greatest number of people. Participants noted importance of gender-inclusivity in agricultural innovation, as women are more likely to undertake agricultural activities without access to information, technology, or markets that... قراءة المزيد would create better outcomes (in empowered decision-making, production, and livelihoods). • Participants agreed that successful scaling of food systems solutions relies on community understanding and uptake, which in turn necessitates inclusive practices, at least within that community. A point was raised that during the scaling stage of innovation, principles of inclusivity can be overlooked; this is sometimes justified by the fact that earlier stages of innovation were inclusive, but participants agreed that there must be attentiveness to inclusivity when scaling ideas/technology into new contexts. • Questions were raised about the relationship between inclusivity and accessibility. Does one necessarily guarantee the other, or are they unfortunately conflated in matters of innovation and development programs? • Participants agreed that including voices and considerations of marginalised groups, including women, youth and persons with disabilities, remains of utmost important in research for development activities. • Partnerships are key to sharing information effectively, which can in turn improve inclusivity in innovation. In situations where technologies have already been developed, communicating about the contexts in which these technologies have been successful (e.g. which stakeholders were instrumental to applying it successfully, what institutional capacities are required) can help ensure all relevant stakeholders are involved when scaling the technology into new contexts. • Inclusivity necessitates systems-thinking and goes beyond collecting stakeholder’s views to consider the nexus between social, environmental and economic issues. • Informal partnerships are often as important as formal partnerships, and inclusivity should recognise the value of social capital and networks in supporting action towards shared goals. • Inclusivity on a large scale will likely accompanied by conflict, as various groups will likely disagree on certain issues. Participants discussed that lessons from work on including specific marginalised groups (like women or youth) in deliberation processes could be harnessed to create guidelines for generalised inclusion processes. o In this way, inclusivity or lack there-of carries some element of risk. Conflict around appropriate levels of inclusion is likely to arise, particularly as existing solutions or technologies are scaled into new contexts. Explicit addressing of these issues in multi-stakeholder partnerships could provide greater structure to principles of inclusivity and therefore alleviate risk associated with scaling innovation. o Systems at different spatial scales will likely require a focus on different actors. As an example, at a farm-scale level, farmers and private industry might be prioritised in developing farm-level solutions that maximise smallholder returns, but when considering innovation at the catchment-level, regional or national authorities, water-user associations and other large institutions may set different priorities which may be less inclusive of smallholder participation. What is the responsibility of partnerships across every system-level to include actors from different scales? o There was some agreement that scaling innovation at the expense of inclusivity could be one step forward, but two steps backwards in achieving the SDGs and reducing global poverty in a sustainable way. قراءة القليل

Risk Participants agreed that effectively identifying and proactively sharing risk burdens could improve partnerships and collaborations, further optimising the innovation process. Some key discussion outcomes included: • The process of innovation carries inherent risk-taking, as the process of discovery, validation and application of new solutions will not always result in the impactful changes envisioned and can have unintended system consequences. Reframing innovation as a process of iterative learning may encourage greater risk taking. However, there will always be a tension in research ... قراءة المزيدfor development, which seeks to iteratively create sustained impact while often needing to address urgent issues. Despite being urged to ‘think big’, researchers seem to agree that starting small and enhancing solutions is progressive innovation that can eventually achieve the same large impacts but with lower risks. • Participants discussed that institutional arrangements that fund and support research can sometimes encourage projects that seem to over-promise and under-deliver, as the available resources are limited, and the true expectations of funders are not always communicated. This can lead to risk-aversion in public innovation processes, particularly when there are few resources available for long-term forward planning into future stages that is needed to create sustained value. o This raised reflections on the level of innovation common in public and private sectors, and whether there is sense in adopting private-sector risk levels and approaches. Even if there was value in this strategy, how could it be operationalised given that the drivers and motivations of each sector remain so different? However, if the difference in risk-appetite between public and private is not overcome, it will continue to be difficult to form robust partnerships between sectors, further stifling global innovation. • Participants identified that a major risk of research and innovation is that the validation and scaling stages will not be properly supported due to constraints such as funding or implementation difficulties in-country. These risks could be managed, but current funding processes don’t often encourage planning 5-10 years into the future. • Effective management of risk is a key part of successful partnerships, as multi-stakeholder relationships will almost certainly bring together different risk appetites and strategies. Participants discussed the benefits of bringing together partners with similar risk profiles yet acknowledged that this attitude would likely lead to lower overall risk-taking in innovation. • Ideas for funding were discussed and a staged approach was proposed whereby funding comes online at different stages of innovation, dependent on appropriate partners being engaged (somewhat like borrowing money to build a house in evolving stages). • A need was identified for partnership frameworks that help identify not just similar characteristics and goals on which many partnerships are based, but also assign value to the right combination of dissimilar or ‘competing’ interests that can more boldly drive transformation. • Research for development activities are planned to overcome known unknowns as they arise, drawing on previous knowledge and risk management plans to solve problems that are likely to come up. However, translating outputs to outcomes (and creating sustained impact) can be more challenging than anticipated because of numerous unforeseen difficulties (unknown unknowns) that arise. Managing risk means building resilience into the process of innovation itself. • The greatest risk-holder is often seen to be the funding agency, which can make funder-fundee relationships transactional. Participants agreed that a true partnership is one in which power, and therefore risk, are truly shared. Boundary organisations and brokers must advocate for changed governance structures to change the nature of risk-management in innovation processes قراءة القليل

Capability Growing capabilities and skills is sometimes conflated with capacity building in research for development. This discussion did not seek to specifically interrogate the topic of capacity building, and therefore centred around the broader language of ‘building capabilities’ between partners when undertaking innovation. • Participants debated whether partnerships should be focused on bringing together the right combination of existing capabilities, or whether they should be formed with the intention of strengthening capabilities. The discussion was nuanced and considered various ... قراءة المزيدtypes of partnerships between organisations that have or do not have political power, funding, community influence, etc. While it may seem easier to set up a partnership between organisations that already share similar skills and capability-levels, the long-term benefits of partnership with clear goals of sharing and growing capabilities will likely be greater. • Participants noted that to grow capabilities through partnership, adequate resourcing and recognition of power are required. The impact of power dynamics on the ability to share and grow capabilities in partnership can be strong, particularly when resourcing disparities between actors are large. • Communicating in a way that distinguishes between the individual and the collective is very important, even if it is not seen as ‘team-spirited’ and therefore often discouraged. Making these distinctions clarifies the intentions and expectations of all parties. For example, saying “I will do this” differs from “We will do this” and also from “You will do this and I will contribute”. Honesty about strengths and weaknesses in partnerships would create much greater opportunity for building capabilities. Although formal partnership agreements outline legal requirements, it is uncommon that partnership arrangements are governed in a way that operationalises these distinctions in everyday language and interactions. • Participants noted the skills and capabilities developed in the private sector which allow outputs to become outcomes, and which support scaling of innovation. While the motivations of the private sector may also contribute to this ability, participants agreed these drivers had over time resulted in stronger development of specific skills that are under-represented or under-utilised in public sector innovation. • A key factor in effectively managing risk is ensuring people have the skills and capabilities needed to fulfil their responsibilities and are supported to be resilient and nimble in continued decision-making. To support all partners and mitigate risks, partnerships might choose to standardize language and share ideas and plans to ensure all stakeholders are confident in their own capabilities . قراءة القليل

Impact As there are no ‘silver bullet’ solutions, there are therefore no ‘silver bullet’ outcomes. Defining impact is a key part of creating impactful change, and participants discussed how to encourage this throughout the innovation process: • Participants agreed that iterative progress is as important, and often more rewarding than ‘big wins’, but only when all involved parties have agreed to define and acknowledge impact in smaller steps. Small changes can be empowering and motivating when they are celebrated in partnership. • This highlights the importance of establishing d... قراءة المزيدifferent partnerships for the different types of impact we seek to create. Just as in systems-thinking, where components are not all directly connected to one another but are still interlinked, so partnerships could be set up and governed in a way that values indirect connections. • This type of governance arrangement that is less prescriptive creates trade-offs where competing interests may exist, or efforts may be duplicated. However, some participants likened this to any imperfect system in the real world that we deal with as a matter of course. Other participants advocated for clear leadership that is responsible for making the partnership work – this raised further issues related to inclusivity and scale discussed previously. • Regardless of governance arrangements, partnerships which successfully define and create impact will rely on trust. Methods of building trust will differ according to the nature of relationships and cultural contexts, but leadership and guidance provided through global forums (such as the UN Food Systems Summit) could start to formally engender trust as a critical piece of innovation. Drawing on participatory best-practice could appropriately align levels of consultation needed for different types of partnership. • While defining impact is critical, so too is measuring it. Participants noted that a seeming lack of impact or change can relate to the measurement and communication of it. Without standardisation – or at least transparency – about the methods used to measure impact, it is difficult to understand and communicate progress. The SDGs provide a starting global framework for progress, yet some indicators continue to lack standard measurements of impact. • There was some discussion about the role of governments in defining impact. Governments (at all levels, but particularly national governments) are seen to represent their constituents, and therefore hold some weight in defining impact for their people. Participants agreed that all innovation must therefore take place understanding the role of government, the structure of governance and operations, and national contexts and priorities that are constantly evolving. • Participants also discussed the connection of risk with impact. In partnerships that are risk-averse, it may be more difficult to define, measure, and therefore create impact. Setting ambitious (perhaps risky) goals, can drive innovation and help scale solutions more rapidly. While this has implications for inclusivity and systems-thinking, defining impact in these ambitious terms could help bridge public-private sector divides and strengthen capabilities for those involved. قراءة القليل

This Dialogue, convened by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) and the Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), focused on the role of partnerships in successful agricultural innovation. This theme of partnership was explored through five suggested foundations of partnership, which are integral to ensuring success at each stage of innovation and scaling out solutions for maximum impact. As Australia’s principal agricultural research for development ACIAR has a long history of building lasting, effective partnerships, which allow ... قراءة المزيدfor Australia to support collaborative research in local contexts and deliver benefits domestically and abroad. Building on this strong foundation the Dialogue brought together research and development stakeholders from around the world to reflect on the elements of partnership that have allowed Australia to support science and innovation in low and lower-middle-income partner countries. The key learning from the Dialogue was the five foundations that should be considered in building partnerships as we scale food systems solutions: - Effectively managing risk - Promoting inclusivity - Integrating systems thinking - Defining impact - Strengthening capabilities Through the Dialogue it was demonstrated that strong partnerships require that each of these elements is considered at each stage of innovation. Innovation is a process of creating value by applying knowledge or technology to a complex challenge in a novel way. This process is not linear, but often moves through four general stages of problem definition, options analysis, testing and validation, and scaling. Different stages of innovation require different forms of collaboration, and the scaling stage in particular relies on effective partnerships that help translate and apply innovative solutions to new contexts. With a focus on scaling solutions globally, the UN Food Systems Summit provides an opportunity to codify foundational elements of partnership that will support and govern innovation efforts. Since the convening of this Dialogue, the UN Food Systems Summit has notably expanded the Action Tracks to include the cross-cutting area of (6) Governance and Planning. Australia supports and funds agricultural research for development with a strong focus on capacity building and collaboration. ACIAR is celebrating a 40-year history of long-term partnerships and collaborative research planning that has laid the groundwork for ongoing research to be taken forward by partner countries and organisations. By supporting governance structures for international research organisations such as the CGIAR, Australia has also contributed to the global pool of knowledge and resources for planning the future of sustainable food systems. While the theme of this Dialogue was particularly relevant to the Innovation lever of change, partnership is also key to unlocking the other change-levers including gender, human rights and finance. Partnership is the mechanism through which all of these levers will be operationalised in order to create tangible change in the world’s food systems. This Dialogue brought together Australian and international stakeholders to discuss how partnerships are instrumental in scaling solutions across all of the UN FSS Action Tracks. Participants were able to discuss tangible elements and application of partnership through their own examples of innovation, and share best-practices with one another. These learnings will continue to inform progress towards the SDGs through collaborative scaling of game-changing innovations through the next decade. قراءة القليل

This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of Dialogue participants and does not represent the views of the Australian Government. The main findings that emerged from this Dialogue: 1) In order to successfully scale game-changing innovations and propositions that can transform food systems, we will need robust partnerships that bring together different skill sets and capabilities, as identified through the case studies shared as examples. 2) Participants agreed that there are at least five foundational elements of successful partnership, though this is certainly not an exhaustive li... قراءة المزيدst. Participants agreed that to work successfully to scale innovation, partnerships need to reflect on and implement these foundations: a. Systems thinking: integrating systems-thinking into the innovation process opens up partnerships to include more varied and dynamic members than might otherwise be involved. b. Inclusivity: promoting inclusivity creates an explicit focus on bringing together diverse viewpoints that might not organically emerge from all partnerships. c. Capability: partnerships can create a successful platform for sharing knowledge and strengthening capabilities, particularly if these activities are actively prioritised. d. Risk: effective risk management is integral to successful partnership, and means that risk is adequately identified, acknowledged, and appropriately shared by all partners. e. Impact: defining impact is key to long-term change. When partners can work towards clearly defined goals, collective efforts are much more likely to create ‘game-changing’ impact. 3) While many existing partnerships already informally practice the above foundations that contribute to collaborative and productive work, participants agreed that formal practices that institutionalise these foundations of partnerships would improve partnership arrangements and lead to enhanced, wider and enduring impacts. 4) There is recognition that scalable solutions do not emerge from a linear innovation process. Rather, innovation takes place in a number of stages that can meander back and forth between problem definition, options analysis, validation and testing, and scaling. 5) The type and value of partnership across each of these stages may vary, and it is not always the same partnerships that are needed when scaling an innovation as were integral to the options analysis and testing of that same solution. A key question remains: how to maintain strong, purposeful partnerships that are responsive to the challenges of supporting locally-relevant, globally-impactful solutions. Introductory keynote presentations shared learnings from diverse case studies of innovative practices that could be taken to scale to transform food systems. These examples were shared to prime the participants to think about partnership in action across a number of disciplines and at different stages of the innovation process. Brief notes are below. SOLAW-LIVE: The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) State of Land and Water (SOLAW) report that is published every 10 years provides a wealth of information that can be used to improve relevant decision-making. A pilot project in the Philippines – supported by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), Griffith University, and the Philippines Government (through Philippine Council for Agriculture, Aquatic and Natural Resources Research and Development (DOST-PCAARRD) and the Bureau of Soils and Waste Management) – is testing a ‘living assessment framework’ that could shift the decadal report into a tool that collects and shares environmental information more quickly and nimbly. Creating an interactive tool and supportive system for gathering, applying, and sharing land and water data could transform decision-making at every level, with greater ability to examine existing practices and identify co-benefits of other responses. At the validation and testing stage, this ‘SOLAW-LIVE’ tool has enormous potential impact if scaled successfully through supportive partnerships. Community-based fisheries management: ACIAR has been supporting research relevant to community-based fisheries management (CBFM) for over a decade. Current research efforts draw on the skills and contributions of several partners, including the Australian government and researchers, the New Zealand government, and numerous organisations within the Pacific region, including government, academia and civil society. CBFM is based on collective knowledge and action that draws on systems-thinking to sustainably manage fisheries in a way that also respects local communities. Notably, CBFM requires different types of partnership at different scales to best share and spread this very successful practice. Island-level scaling from a community requires formal and informal networks, while international forums have helped to share and shape transferable lessons for other islands. Smallholder irrigation: In an Australian–African collaboration, ACIAR funding contributed to the development of the Virtual Irrigation Academy, which brings together new irrigation monitoring tools with an online communication and learning system. This project is already creating global impact, with the Chameleon Soil Water Sensor tool from the project now semi-commercialised, available and in-use across Africa and Australia. Expanding the partnership and sharing risks (and benefits) among other public and private actors could encourage further scaling of this transformative innovation قراءة القليل

This section reports in greater detail the discussion participants had around the five foundational elements of partnership that were deemed important to successfully scaling innovation. As participants were split into smaller discussion groups, the commentary on each of the discussion topics has come from a relatively small number of participants. Each group shared key takeaways back with the plenary and there was great enthusiasm to delve more deeply into each of these topics. Systems-thinking Participants agreed that systems-thinking is needed to optimise food systems innovation. Key reflec... قراءة المزيدtions about what systems-thinking entails included: • People are a dynamic, integral part of the food ‘system’. Systems-thinking is different to systems analysis or big-data approaches. While considering environmental and technical elements of a systems is important, a people-centred approach to research and innovation is key if systems-thinking is truly to be operationalised. This means that community engagement must be at the heart of food systems change. One participant noted that change arises from working within a system, by stimulating different parts of a system that naturally interact rather than by forcibly changing any particular part of that system. o This raised a further point that building capabilities and capacity should be part of all innovation, in order to create self-sustaining value. Reserving resources to record, review and reflect on previous successes will allow for greater development impacts. • Reframing the start and end points of innovation may be helpful in stimulating systems-thinking. Systems-thinking supports an iterative process for developing solutions as there can be many strands of ideas and testing at once. o Considering value propositions from the perspective of numerous potential end-users or adopters could help anticipate co-benefits and prioritise research streams. • Systems-thinking requires both specialists and connectors, with each player recognising their own place in this ‘system’ of innovation. The role of enablers or knowledge brokers is key in creating partnership structures that define what each actor contributes at each stage of innovation. • Because of the complexity of systems, they can often be defined as narrowly or broadly as convenient to each party. For successful partnership, assumptions about systems pathways must be clarified and communicated so that all relevant actors, value-chains, etc. are identified, and constraints are agreed upon. This ties to the foundations of defining impact and inclusivity at various scales. • While systems-thinking should in theory enable multi-stakeholder, cross-disciplinary partnerships, it can actually be the difficulties of partnering that inhibit successful systems-thinking. Participants discussed many of the challenges associated with operationalising systems thinking in innovation: o Competition for resources often results in narrowly-focused solutions because funding arrangements seldom prioritise systems-thinking over timeliness, cost-effectiveness, etc. In order to demonstrate fast, scalable impact in the competition for resourcing, solutions are often pared back in complexity. o Institutionalised funding structures may prevent systems-thinking. Agriculture historically has not often been prioritised in allocations of funding (domestic or development aid), especially in comparison to sectors such as education, health, and trade. How might the traditional ‘zero-sum game’ be reframed so that partners across sectors see value in collaboration (e.g. 1+1=3 mindset)? • Systems exist on a number of spatial scales that require different types of actors to be considered or prioritised throughout the innovation process. • Practical approaches for encouraging systems-thinking in multi-stakeholder partnerships through the innovation process could include: o Resourcing fore-sighting and reflection activities to build a library of good examples accompanied by contextual information Formalising mechanisms for integrating various scales of systems and enabling multi-scalar connections قراءة القليل

The Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (DAWE) is the National Convenor for the Australian FSS dialogues. DAWE has held a series of webinars around FSS Action Track 3: Boost nature-positive production. To complement these webinars, the Department of Health’s roundtable dialogue focused on FSS Action Track 2: Shift to sustainable and healthy consumption patterns. The dialogue was an online roundtable discussion which considered the role of food labelling to help shift consumers towards healthier, safe and sustainable consumption. This roundtable provided a purposeful and orga... قراءة المزيدnised forum for stakeholders share examples and experiences, ideas, opportunities and solutions on the role of labelling in consumers making healthy, safe and sustainable food choices. This topic was selected as Australia is a co-convenor of the Global Action Network on Nutrition Labelling. The dialogue featured short presentations from five key speakers from a range of areas including government, academia and industry, as follows: • The Department of Health provided examples of current government food labelling initiatives that focus on safety, health and origins of food including country of origin labelling and date marking with discussion on how these initiatives can help consumers make safe and sustainable food choices. • The Department of Health also presented to the group on the Health Star Rating, Australia’s front of pack nutrition labelling system, which aims san help consumers make healthier choices when selecting packaged food. • The George Institute delivered a presentation on the FoodSwitch app and the Planetary Health Rating. This app includes an Australian database which allows consumers to scan the barcode of a product and see both healthier choices and the impact of that food on the planet. • Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation presented on the Australasian Recycling Label Program, focusing on the idea of packaging as the link between the product and consumer. • OpenSC (SC stands for supply chain) presented on their traceability platform, providing an example of how scanning a QR code on a package can show a consumer exactly where the food has come from. The group discussion was focused on the future of food labelling, and the following key discussion questions: • How can food labelling motivate and empower consumers to make informed, healthy, safe and sustainable food choices? • How can food labelling help to inform consumers about food choices that are better for the environment? • What is currently working well in food labelling for sustainable diets? What is not working well? • What are the incentives and disincentives for using food labelling to improve the health, safety and sustainability of diets? • What are the barriers to using or understanding food labels, which could reduce consumers’ ability to make informed, healthy, safe and sustainable choices? • How can labelling be incorporated into food systems to ensure consumers can make informed decisions about both health and sustainability? • What innovative food labelling solutions have been tried, and what were the outcomes and learnings? • Are there any trade-offs? • What does the future of food labelling look like? • How can we utilise technology to improve the effectiveness of food labelling? قراءة القليل

This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of webinar participants during discussions, and does not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Health or the Australian Government. The main findings of the dialogue were as follows: Evidence finds that consumers are mostly driven by price, health, taste and nutrition. Issues such as the environment and sustainability are lower priorities when choosing food. Food labelling initiatives range from simple symbols or text on a label to interactive experiences via QR codes and/or apps that can provide much more information to cons... قراءة المزيدumers. Labels may start as a consumer facing symbol, but this can evolve into the products themselves changing (for example, product reformulation due to Health Star Rating front of pack labelling, or better adherence to sustainable fishing practices). Labelling on its own doesn’t change behaviour. Consumers need to invest the time to look at, and act on, the information presented on a label. Even with good food labelling, nutrition and sustainability literacy is important for consumers to understand and make better choices. Consumer comprehension can be quite limited and therefore there is a need to engage with consumers to find out what they need to improve their understanding. Understanding the requirements of the community is especially important for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. It was noted that aside from the targeted Good Tucker app, developers are generally not engaging diverse communities, such as Aboriginal communities, when developing new food labelling solutions. It was also noted that the range of information that can be made available consumers is ever increasing and can be overwhelming. Different consumers will engage with different types of information. The role of a food label and innovative options for sharing information needs to be considered and balanced. The sustainability of food is so complex that we can’t necessarily just leave it all to consumers to make sustainable choices – food producers, manufacturers and retailers all have a role to play as well. Participants considered whether we are moving towards a future where conscious consumer food choice is taken away and becomes something delivered by an algorithm. Algorithms can nudge consumers into more environmentally friendly choices either without their knowledge, or by design (i.e. if the consumer can choose how to set the algorithm then they could set it to select more sustainable choices if that’s what they’re interested in). For data and algorithms to be trusted it must be either 100% transparent or independently verified. However, algorithms may not be useful in Indigenous communities which are grappling with more fundamental issues such as access to local healthy food supply (i.e. food security). قراءة القليل

This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of webinar participants during discussions, and does not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Health or the Australian Government. In addition to the topics already highlighted, there were a number of additional messages that emerged during the discussion, which related to the key discussion questions outlined above. The key outcomes of these discussion topics were as follows: What innovative food labelling solutions have been tried, and what were the outcomes and learnings? Some examples of innovative solutions were discuss... قراءة المزيدed, including: • Carbon labelling, which presents information about the carbon footprint of a product in a relatable way that is also easy to understand. “Lightbulb minutes” on the label were presented as something people could relate to. A study found people were more likely to choose the lower carbon footprint options based on the label. However, it was noted that in general, knowledge of the carbon footprint of different foods was low. • The FoodSwitch app, which scans barcodes and provides simple health information for a products as well as healthier alternatives to ‘switch’ to. A ‘Planetary Health Rating’ has been added to the app and displays a star rating between 0.5 stars (higher greenhouse gas emissions) and 5 star (lower emissions) to provide consumers with information about the emissions associated with producing a certain food product. • The Good Tucker app, which is targeted to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The app scans barcodes and gives a thumbs up, thumb sideways or thumbs down to indicate the healthiness of the food choice. The app was developed in consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, including elders and local Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations, which empowered communities and contributed to the success and acceptance of the app. • OpenSC (supply chain), which uses QR codes to help consumers verify whether a product was sustainably and ethically produced and trace their food from the origin to their plates. For example, consumers can see when and where a specific fish was caught, by which fishing company, verify that it was caught in a legal fishing zone, and trace its journey to their location (e.g. restaurant). The app helps consumers make sustainable choices but is also a powerful tool to ensure businesses are adhering to sustainable and ethical practices. A deliberate decision was made to display the information on a webpage, as the requirement to download a specific app was identified as a potential barrier to uptake. • The Australasian Recycling Program, which provides on-pack information to consumers about whether the different components in packaging (box, lid, wrap etc.) are recyclable, non-recycle or conditionally recyclable, and how to dispose of them correctly (e.g. in bin, in recycling bin, return to store, etc). The governance structure is designed to ensure the labelling is consistent, fair and accurate, with representation across the supply chain, including brand owners, packaging manufacturers, waste and recyclers, independent experts and government. This contributed to the increasing adoption of the label by many Australian and New Zealand brands. • A partnership in the UK between Waste & Resources Action Programme, the UK Food Standards Agency and the UK Department of Environment, Food & Regional Affairs developed standardised food labelling guidance to help consumers to better manage their food and waste less of it, resulting in a reduction of household food waste in the UK by a quarter. The initiative focused on educating consumers on the meaning of ‘use by’ and ‘best before’ dates, how to store different categories of food, whether a food product is suitable for home freezing (indicated by a snowflake logo), how to safely defrost and use frozen foods, and the temperature that should be maintained in fridges and freezers. The Food Food Waste Cooperative Research Centre in Australia intends to take these learnings to replicate in Australia. قراءة القليل

What are the barriers to using or understanding food labels, which could reduce consumers’ ability to make informed, healthy, safe and sustainable choices? There is limited real estate (space) on a food label, with many legislated requirements competing with other information such as branding and images. Solutions other than on-pack labelling need to be considered in order to give consumers more information than space allows. The FoodSwitch app and the OpenSC platform are examples of how this can work. Consumers need to have the motivation, time and understanding to really take in the inform... قراءة المزيدation presented through food labelling. Many consumers do not have sufficient health or environmental literacy to understand the information and respond accordingly. In addition to understanding labels, the community also needs to trust the information included on food labels or apps. Education and engaging with communities is an important part of this. Research has found that consumers are influenced by price, taste, health and nutrition when grocery shopping, while factors such as animal welfare and environmental impact rank quite low. Therefore clear sustainability labelling would not necessarily push consumers to make sustainable choices if the price is not competitive. قراءة القليل

How can labelling be incorporated into food systems to ensure consumers can make informed decisions about both health and sustainability? While some consumers may have the time, motivation and health/environmental literacy to seek information from a food label to make healthier and more sustainable food choices, many do not. As consumers do not necessarily prioritise sustainability, one suggestion was to incorporate healthier and sustainable food choices into food systems by moving decision away from the consumer and instead delegate it through algorithms so that sustainable choices are the de... قراءة المزيدfault. Alternatively, consumers could retain influence over algorithms, for example by selecting sustainability as a preference for a food delivery service’s suggested menu items. It was also noted that choices about the healthiness and sustainability of a product need to be made before the products even reach consumers; that is, innovation is required further up the pipeline at the agriculture/farming/fisheries and manufacturing levels, so that by the time the consumer is purchasing, it’s the best possible choice. Labelling and technology may help make this push. قراءة القليل

How can we utilise technology to improve the effectiveness of food labelling? As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, Australian consumers have become more familiar with using QR codes. There is an opportunity to harness QR codes to provide the additional information consumers desire about their food without taking up limited space on food labels. Technology can also influence the healthiness and sustainability of packaged food before it even reaches consumers. For example, the OpenSC software can identify companies that are not producing food ethically and sustainability and use the platform to... قراءة المزيد encourage them to change practices. قراءة القليل

This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of webinar participants during discussions, and does not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Health or the Australian Government. Expanding on the summary of the main outcomes and discussion topics outlined above, several areas of divergence emerged during the dialogue. Views diverged about what is needed for food system sustainability. While much of the discussion was focused on the use of technology and algorithms moving forward, it was noted that in some parts of Australia, in particular rural and remote communities, foo... قراءة المزيدd security remains an issue and some participants considered this should be prioritised for food system sustainability over the use of technology. Algorithms to drive food choices will not make a difference in food insecure remote communities. With regard to the use of technology and algorithms to nudge consumers towards more sustainable and healthy choices, views diverged about data that would sit behind the algorithms. Some participants highlighted concerned about transparency of the data and suggested that the data and assumptions driving algorithms should be accessible to researchers and the public to ensure public trust. There were also concerns that the use of technology will take away choice from consumers. Other participants voiced disagreement and noted that the use of algorithms to make food choices for consumers already happens without transparent data – for example, the products available on the shelves of major supermarkets impacts consumer choice and the decisions about what is stocked is not transparent. Concerns were raised that it is mostly technology experts deciding on the algorithms and therefore issues of health, sustainability and equity are secondary considerations. It was suggested that diverse expertise needed around the table when algorithms are being developed. قراءة القليل

Action Track 4 • IFAD programs are being implemented to promote savings creating and a saving culture • There is need for creating group circles which facilitates team work and strong sense of affiliation • Clear cut value chains and then at each stage of the value chain we identify opportunities available for women and youth • For technology solutions it would be good to piggyback developments that can assist women and youth on the ICT platforms • Capacitation should be conducted in correct places and in suitable times which makes it possible for women and youth to participate • I... قراءة المزيدndustrialization of food processing in rural areas –agro-SMEs will create employment for women and youth • Information dissemination on loan opportunities at the banks and credit facilities • Review all gender sensitive policies and put them in practice • Engage producer groups to have access to information during policy formulation • There is need for women farmer representation on policy forums where decisions are made • Agricultural and Land policy review for inclusion. • Monitoring the implementation of policies e.g. participation of the Gender Commission Action Track 5 • WFP is currently providing certified seeds to farmers however there is need for consumer awareness. Increase investment in seed sector development , improve market access to farmers growing indigenous foods • Creation of enabling policies e.g. Kenya has a policy that for maize meal to be put on market, it must be blended by small grain and incorporation into diets for people in special institution cares, prisons, orphanages, boarding schools, rehabilitation centres • Operationalize climate services-have a framework to encourage research. Promote weather insurance and early warnings on national and household level, meteorological settings capacitation • Social safety, need for conditionality in the designing programs and asset creation (FFA), e.g. roads to improve access قراءة القليل

• Buy in and support from permanent Secretary for Health on food quality and safety legislation and marketing of fresh and processed (convenient foods) is critical to ensure compliance. Compliance is better than enforcement • ZRBF produced a manual on resilient and sustainable agriculture covering issues on agro-ecology and other nature positive production mechanisms. They are planning to translate the manual into different local languages. • Food legislation is clear however there are still enforcement issues. • Proposing the first statement on Action Track 1 proposed Pathways to read... قراءة المزيد ‘The government of Zimbabwe and partners should promote and enforce food safety legislation and standards not to be limited to enforcement of standards only • Harmonisation of policies and efforts in transforming food systems and agriculture by the government and other stakeholders. • Private sector participation in production, joint ventures of resettled farmers on the ground. • To look at social initiatives through nutrition • Government to incentivise private sector to venture into production of healthy food • The issue regarding trans-fat, sugar and salt taxes would create more problems than solutions and might not change the consumption patterns as expected • There is sometimes a disconnect between the farming skill and management of the farm business • Youth has better knowledge in internet and modern technologies قراءة القليل

The Focus of this dialogue was to engage the various stakeholders on the issues raised through consultations, in stage 1 and stage dialogues. This stage aimed to shape Zimbabwe’s pathways for transforming agriculture and food systems to achieve sustainable food systems by 2030, and to identify the intentions and commitments of different stakeholders. In addition the were also structured into five sub themes or action tracks as listed below: 1. Action Track 1: National Food safety regulations ensure all consumers have access to comprehensive information about how and where food is produced, e... قراءة المزيدmpowering them to make informed choices. 2. Action Track 2: Sustainable supply chains ensure a responsible use of natural resources, healthy food choices and a reduction of food loss and waste. 3. Action Track 3: Farmers adopt home-grown nature positive agriculture practices 4. Action Track 4: National agriculture and food policies promote the production of affordable nutritious, sustainably produced food while remunerating all farmers and food workers. 5. Action Track 5: Building Resilience to Vulnerabilities Shocks and Stress Expectations of the dialogue: • Stakeholders were to agree on issues where consensus exists • Identify areas for further dialogue • Shape the national pathway and seek to reach agreement on its scope • Work out and prioritize the actions they expect to take in coming years to support the pathway and agree on intentions and commitments for future action. The statement that guided the discussions was; Working together we will achieve the transformation in our national food system. This shared and collective vision was backed by the following discussion questions: 1. What are the prioritised actions we intend to undertake? 2. What will be our real breakthroughs? 3. Who is committed to participate in this work? قراءة القليل

Action Track 1: Ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all • There is need to ensure food safety through legislation, support healthy environment. MoHCC should put in place a food safety act. The government of Zimbabwe (GoZ) and partners should promote and enforce food safety standards in both formal and informal food markets to protect consumers. During anthrax outbreaks unscrupulous businessman sell meat that poses harm to consumers. Consumers to be advised to purchase meat from registered abattoirs. • Breastmilk substitute restrictions to be enforced to promote breastfeeding �... قراءة المزيد� It is critical that all agriculture strategies apply a nutrition lens and pursue a deliberate contribution to diversification of the diet.- Increase consumption of local nutritious foods through product diversification at both household and commercial levels. • Promote home grown school feeding programs which should be under intensified investment which include at least 5 or more types of fruits and vegetables (dietary diversity). • Investment in production and post-harvest technologies especially at small holder level • All social protection strategies should consider how explicit actions can be taken to address nutrition needs, this should be fairly low investment, high impact. • The provision of inputs that are compatible with the target agro-ecological region • Promote biofortification of staple crops like millet and sorghum in addition to what is already listed. Nutrient rich varieties of Fe, Zn and Ca to be considered for Biofortification. We need to market bio-fortified foods so that they are part of national food supply systems • Reformulation of current food products to contain less fat, sugar and salt • Incentives for private sector to engage into producing nutritious healthy food- the notion that healthy food is profitable. • The government in partnership with relevant stakeholders should provide incentives for small-holder farmers who are growing healthy foods. Action Track 2: Shifting to sustainable consumption patterns • CCZ to Focus on consumer marketing, education and awareness (CCZ intends to grow their efforts to increase consumer demand for healthy food). Deliberate sensitization of the younger generation about the benefits of the indigenous and traditional foods is key. • To improve interest for indigenous foods especially amongst younger demographics. This will raise demand and stimulate production of these traditional Foods. Sustainable urban agriculture and development of value chains to improve production and consumption. • There is need to create an environment that is conducive for sustainability e.g. having food vouchers for nutritious foods, instil nutrition education and healthy food product promotions in the supermarkets. • Research is needed to understand the food environment, food consumption patterns and developing indicators that need to be tracked and characteristics of sustainable consumption • There is need to reduce the levels of food wastage and losses in Zimbabwe. Investment in post-harvest infrastructure and value addition is essential to ensure that we maximize on all that we have, come up with ways to reduce food loss in informal markets as well. Action Track 3: Boosting nature positive production at sufficient scale • Increase soil fertility through the use of organic soil fertilizers and doing away with the use of harmful synthetic fertilisers. Starting on farm organic fertilizer production. • Introduction of the use of live mulching when doing pfumvudza farming by doing intercropping. This will allow people located in areas where dry grass may not be available to still do pfumvunda. This also allow higher yield of various crops from a small pfumvudza plot. • When conducting the reforestation exercise there is need to plant fruit trees as well, like Avocado trees which can grow without any close monitoring to enhance nutrition. • Introducing curriculums that teach children at primary level on food and nutrition security focusing on the nature conserving productions. • There is need to address the lack of strict environmental governance and impose strict penalties for people who are starting veld fires as means of clearing land. • Scaling up community level nutrition sensitive agriculture interventions • Implement effectively the already existing policies and the already available resources to implement nature positive productions so as to prevent further degradation of the environment. Action Track 4: Advancing equitable livelihoods and value distribution • Equip extension workers to reach more rural farmers (motor bikes, fuel, capacity building etc). Dedicate specific extension workers to women and youth • Create a platform for specific set of skills for women and youth so that they can become specialised in certain area of agriculture as opposed to giving generic information on farm management • Banks that offer loans to young people and women should consider offering financial literacy skills for both women and youth. • Inclusion of names for both male and female couple for livestock cards • Awareness to communal leaders to include women to access land in order to avoid segregation of women • Capacity building for both women and training on specific skills e.g. women on management of funds and youth in ICT skills Action Track 5: Building resilience to vulnerabilities shocks and stress • Pfumvudza is improving yield and thus it needs to be strengthened, intensified and up scaled • Crop varieties resilient to drought and diseases need to be pro قراءة القليل

Action Track 1 • Continued humanitarian Support from WFP • MOHCC to put in place a food safety act • The Department of VET to enforce the food legislation • The Food security Cluster should be reengage for accountability purposes regarding access and utilization of food Action Track 2 • Improve food markets so that they promote healthy eating. To come up with a possible solution in involving the markets in diversifying menus and still have them to be affordable. • UNICEF is willing to engage with CCZ and other stakeholders including the government on consumer awareness of nutritiou... قراءة المزيدs foods and consumer awareness projects. • WFP will be ready to partner in programs that make interventions in consumption of traditional foods. • The Academia, ZimNA, eMkambo and other stakeholders are willing to engage and research more on food systems and food consumption • Government subsidies for healthy foods are recommended to increase availability of cheap nutritious foods. On the contrary heavy taxes on unhealthy foods are also required. E.g sugar tax • Domesticating/localizing dietary guidelines will be another achievement, readdress dietary guidelines • Accommodating street vendors in our by-laws since they are more affordable, have them maintain food standards, there should be a facilitation of dialogue between vendors and authorities • Developing indicators and characteristics of sustainable consumption. Food may be cheap but produced through plundering the environment. We need to look more at the production aspect e.g. farm level, organic farming being promoted • To an extent, people follow personalities, our group can identify famous personality (musician/sports star) who can be the face to sustainable consumption. • Nutritional information on food packages in order to educate the consumers on the foods they choose and the likely consequences. • KTA/eMKambo is already committed to continuous evidence gathering in markets as well as playing a daily watch dog role for food flowing into markets daily. Working with CCZ and other stakeholders, they will be able to come up with weekly report on the quality of food in markets. • CFU is committed to be the link to the farmers and encourage production of sustainable crops and livestock Action Track 3 • Intensively implementing Bee keeping across the country as this is underutilized resource which can generate significant income and boost the economy. Bees are also known to be the most efficient pollinating insects. • Scaling up the innovations on agro-ecology down to the household level as well as communities • Developing inclusive robust value chain which result in high output by utilizing minimum inputs. • Educating the rural community on issues on environmental protection highlighting the benefits it has on them and the future generations as well as the consequences of not taking any action. • Synergy between the Ministries e.g. Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Mines and find productive way towards protecting the land before the country is plagued with ghost rural communities with toxic lands. • ZIMOFF Masvingo is implementing soil fertility management and water harvesting schemes are underway. Efforts are being put for a local seed bank • Fambidzanai Permaculture Centre has a Training centre in Agroecology already established at Bindura University • In order to have orderly commitments from various stakeholders, there is need to present proper budget allocation towards activities then other interested parties can assist financially as well promoting a stated common goal. There is need to make full use of the already available resources for example making use of Environmental Management Agent (EMA) to implement strict environmental protection rules. • Trocaire Zimbabwe is willing to work with partners that are focusing on agro-ecological development قراءة القليل