Explore los Comentarios Oficiales del Diálogo

The Food Systems Forum 2025 surfaced several important areas of divergence, reflecting the complexity of Myanmar’s food system and the diverse realities faced by different actors. These differences were constructive and helped clarify where further dialogue, evidence, and experimentation are needed. 1. Speed versus rigor in food safety and nutrition standards Participants shared divergent views on how quickly food safety and nutrition standards should be applied. Humanitarian agencies and large buyers emphasized the non-negotiability of strict standards to protect public health, while SMEs a... Leer másnd local producers highlighted the risk that rapid enforcement could exclude smaller actors due to high costs and limited technical capacity. This divergence underscored the tension between safeguarding consumers and ensuring inclusive market participation, pointing to the need for phased and adaptive compliance pathways. 2. Localization versus scale in nutrition delivery There were differing perspectives on how far nutrition interventions should rely on local production. Many participants stressed that local SMEs and community networks are essential to sustaining nutrition outcomes under access and funding constraints. Others cautioned that local systems may struggle to meet volume, consistency, and safety requirements at scale. This divergence highlighted the need to better define where localized solutions are most effective and where complementary external supply remains necessary. 3. Climate adaptation priorities at farm versus system level Participants broadly agreed on the urgency of climate resilience but differed on where to prioritize action. Some emphasized farm-level practices and inputs, while others argued that without improvements in markets, storage, extension, and coordination across sectors, farm-level gains would not be sustained. This revealed a divergence between intervention-focused and system-wide approaches to resilience building. 4. Role of regulation versus trust-based mechanisms Views differed on the extent to which informal, trust-based coordination should substitute for weakened formal institutions. Some participants saw peer monitoring and voluntary standards as practical transitional solutions in fragile contexts, while others warned of risks related to uneven quality, accountability, and consumer protection. This divergence highlighted the need to explore hybrid models that combine trust-based practices with gradual institutional strengthening. 5. Digital transformation versus accessibility and trust Participants diverged on the readiness of digital tools to support food systems coordination. Technology providers and younger actors emphasized the potential of digital platforms for extension, traceability, and finance. Others stressed constraints such as limited connectivity, low digital literacy among older farmers, and mistrust of data use. This pointed to the importance of inclusive, offline-first, and value-driven digital solutions. 6. Prioritization of stakeholders under constrained resources There were differing views on which stakeholders should be prioritized when resources are limited. Some emphasized the most vulnerable households and conflict-affected communities, while others stressed sustaining SMEs and market actors as a means of preserving system functionality. This divergence reinforced the need for balanced approaches that protect vulnerable populations while maintaining productive capacity. Overall, the areas of divergence did not signal disagreement on goals, but rather different perspectives on pathways, sequencing, and trade-offs. Participants broadly agreed that these differences warrant continued exploration through pilots, evidence generation, and sustained multistakeholder dialogue. Leer menos

Outcomes of discussions under the track: Mekong CREATES Agri-food Systems Forum Discussions under the Mekong CREATES Agri-food Systems Forum highlighted the importance of regional learning, cross-border cooperation, and innovation exchange in strengthening national food system resilience. Participants emphasized that Myanmar’s challenges—climate stress, market fragmentation, SME capability gaps, and nutrition insecurity—are shared across the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS), and that regional collaboration offers practical pathways for adaptation and scale. Urgently needed actions Key acti... Leer másons identified include strengthening regional knowledge exchange on climate-resilient production, food safety practices, SME upgrading, and digital agri-food solutions. Participants emphasized the need to document and adapt proven approaches from across the Mekong region—such as inclusive business models, farmer–SME linkages, and market-oriented resilience strategies—to Myanmar’s context. Piloting cross-border learning initiatives, joint capacity-building activities, and innovation showcases was seen as a priority to accelerate adoption while avoiding duplication. Who should take these actions Regional institutions, such as Mekong-level platforms and research organizations, were identified as key convenors and knowledge brokers. National partners—including private sector actors, SMEs, producer organizations, and technical institutions—were seen as critical implementers and adapters of regional insights. Development partners play an enabling role by supporting coordination, learning exchanges, and pilot initiatives that bridge regional expertise with local implementation. How progress could be assessed Participants agreed that progress should be assessed through practical collaboration outcomes, rather than policy alignment alone. Suggested indicators include the number and quality of regional knowledge exchanges, joint pilots or demonstrations launched, SME participation in regional learning initiatives, and evidence of adapted practices being applied locally. Improved linkages between regional innovation providers and national actors were also identified as an important marker of success. Anticipated challenges Key challenges include differences in policy environments, market maturity, and institutional capacity across Mekong countries. Limited resources, language barriers, and travel or coordination constraints may also slow exchange. Participants cautioned that regional models cannot be transferred wholesale and must be carefully adapted to Myanmar’s fragile operating context. Overall, the Mekong CREATES dialogues concluded that regional collaboration is a strategic enabler of resilience, offering Myanmar access to tested ideas, networks, and innovations. When combined with strong local ownership and adaptation, Mekong-level engagement can significantly strengthen Myanmar’s agri-food system transformation under uncertainty. Leer menos

Outcomes of discussions under the track: Climate Resilience Discussions under the Climate Resilience track confirmed that climate change is now a systemic risk multiplier across Myanmar’s food system, affecting primary production, food safety, nutrition outcomes, and livelihoods simultaneously. Participants emphasized that resilience can no longer be addressed at the farm level alone, but must be built across interconnected crop, livestock, and aquaculture systems, and along value chains. Urgently needed actions Priority actions identified include scaling climate-smart and nature-positive pr... Leer másoduction practices that are practical, affordable, and locally adaptable. These include improved soil health management, organic and circular inputs, integrated crop–livestock–aquaculture systems, better post-harvest handling, and low-tech risk-reduction measures to address climate-induced quality losses (e.g. aflatoxin and disease). Participants also highlighted the need to strengthen localized extension services, farmer-to-farmer learning, and access to timely climate and market information to support adaptive decision-making. Who should take these actions Primary producers and producer groups are central actors, but cannot act alone. Local service providers, SMEs, and input suppliers were identified as key enablers for scaling climate-resilient practices. Technical institutions, researchers, and development partners were seen as critical for validating practices, supporting capacity building, and facilitating access to tools and knowledge. Multistakeholder platforms were highlighted as necessary to coordinate actions across sectors and avoid fragmented interventions. How progress could be assessed Participants agreed that resilience should be assessed through tangible and practice-based indicators, rather than abstract commitments. Suggested measures include adoption of climate-smart practices, improvements in soil and water management, reduced production and quality losses during climate shocks, stabilization of yields and input costs, and improved continuity of supply across seasons. Cross-sector indicators—such as reduced feed quality risks and more stable availability of animal-source foods—were also highlighted. Anticipated challenges Key challenges include limited financial capacity among smallholders, high upfront costs for some practices, weak extension coverage, and inconsistent access to inputs and services. Climate volatility itself makes planning difficult, while fragmented markets reduce incentives for long-term investment. Participants also noted that without coordination, isolated climate interventions risk shifting risks from one sector to another rather than reducing system-wide vulnerability. Overall, the Climate Resilience dialogues concluded that resilience must be built through integrated, localized, and coordinated approaches, combining nature-positive practices with market and knowledge support. Strengthening linkages across production systems was seen as essential to prevent climate shocks from cascading into broader food and nutrition crises. Leer menos

Outcomes of discussions under the track: Nutrition Security Discussions under the Nutrition Security track highlighted that Myanmar is facing a rapidly deepening nutrition crisis, driven by the convergence of conflict, climate shocks, market breakdowns, and shrinking humanitarian space. Participants consistently emphasized that nutrition outcomes can no longer rely solely on traditional aid delivery and must be supported by local production, market-based mechanisms, and community-level coordination. Urgently needed actions Key actions identified include strengthening local availability of safe... Leer más, nutritious foods, particularly for vulnerable groups such as children, pregnant and lactating women, and displaced households. Participants stressed the need to support SMEs and community producers to supply nutrient-dense foods that meet basic safety and quality requirements. Improving linkages between primary production, processing, and institutional buyers (e.g. school feeding and community nutrition programmes) was identified as critical. Nutrition-sensitive approaches—integrating food safety, affordability, and cultural acceptability—were seen as essential, alongside better nutrition awareness at household and community levels. Who should take these actions Local SMEs, producer groups, and community organizations were recognized as frontline actors in sustaining nutrition delivery under constrained conditions. Humanitarian agencies and development partners were seen as key enablers, particularly in setting standards, providing technical guidance, and facilitating market-based pathways where feasible. Multistakeholder platforms and networks were identified as important coordination mechanisms to align actors across production, processing, distribution, and consumption. How progress could be assessed Participants agreed that progress should be tracked through practical and outcome-oriented indicators, including improved availability of affordable nutritious foods in local markets; increased participation of local suppliers in nutrition programmes; improved consistency and safety of locally produced nutrition products; and qualitative improvements in household diet diversity. Where feasible, monitoring of child and maternal nutrition trends was also highlighted as important, while acknowledging data constraints. Anticipated challenges Key challenges include declining purchasing power, rising input and logistics costs, limited technical capacity among local producers, and strict requirements for institutional procurement that are difficult for SMEs to meet. Donor contraction and access constraints further limit scale and continuity. Participants cautioned that without adaptive approaches, there is a risk of widening gaps between humanitarian standards and local production realities. Overall, the Nutrition Security dialogues concluded that resilient nutrition outcomes in Myanmar depend on combining local production, localized delivery, and coordinated support, rather than relying on fragmented or purely external solutions. Strengthening these linkages was seen as urgent to prevent further deterioration of nutrition outcomes. Leer menos

As Food Systems Forum has more than 20 dialogues in the form of roundtables, panels, fishbowls etc. to have more concised entry for this feedback form, the discussion topics are clustered according to the Forum 3 tracks (Food Safety, Nutrition Security and Climate Resilience + Mekong CREATES Agri-food Systems Forum). Outcomes of discussions under the track: Food Safety Discussions under the Food Safety track converged on the recognition that food safety in Myanmar is no longer a narrow compliance issue, but a foundational pillar for public health, nutrition security, market confidence, and sys... Leer mástem-wide resilience. Several key outcomes emerged. Urgently needed actions Participants emphasized the need to shift from a certificate-driven approach to a practice-based food safety culture, particularly among SMEs. Priority actions include: strengthening Good Hygiene Practices (GHP) and Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) at factory level; improving access to affordable, context-appropriate testing for chemical, physical, and microbiological hazards; enhancing food labelling literacy; and embedding food safety considerations earlier in product development rather than as an afterthought. Given institutional constraints, dialogues highlighted the importance of trust-based and peer-supported quality systems as transitional solutions. Who should take these actions SMEs and food processors are central actors and must internalize food safety as a business and ethical responsibility. Technical institutions, laboratories, and service providers should support this shift through advisory services, testing, and capacity building. Retailers and buyers play a critical role by clearly communicating requirements and supporting gradual compliance pathways. Development partners and industry associations were identified as key enablers, particularly in reducing cost barriers, supporting shared infrastructure, and facilitating coordination where regulatory oversight is weak. How progress could be assessed Participants agreed that progress should be measured not only by the number of certificates issued, but by observable improvements in practices and outcomes. Suggested indicators include: adoption of basic GHP/GMP practices; frequency and transparency of product testing; reduction in food safety incidents and recalls; improved consistency of product quality; increased acceptance of local products by modern trade and institutional buyers; and growing consumer confidence in locally produced foods. Anticipated challenges Key challenges include the high cost of certification and testing, limited availability of accredited laboratories, shortages of skilled food technologists, and low consumer awareness. SMEs face particular difficulty balancing compliance costs with thin margins. Inconsistent enforcement and fragmented governance further complicate implementation. Participants cautioned that without pragmatic, staged approaches, food safety requirements risk excluding small producers rather than improving overall system safety. Overall, the Food Safety dialogues concluded that investing in practical, trust-enabled food safety systems is one of the highest-impact interventions for strengthening nutrition outcomes, market resilience, and long-term competitiveness in Myanmar’s food system. Leer menos

The Food Systems Forum 2025 revealed a food system under severe and overlapping stress, yet one that continues to function through adaptive relationships, local innovation, and informal coordination. Several clear findings emerged across dialogues. 1. Fragmentation—not lack of effort—is the core systemic constraint. Stakeholders across nutrition, food safety, primary production, markets, and digital services are actively responding to crisis conditions, but largely in isolation. The Dialogue highlighted an urgent need to reconnect actors who have been operating in silos, including SMEs, co... Leer másmmunity organizations, humanitarian agencies, researchers, and market actors. Participants consistently emphasized that resilience depends less on new standalone interventions and more on stronger coordination mechanisms and shared operating spaces. 2. Nutrition security is deteriorating rapidly, and local solutions are now indispensable. Participants confirmed accelerating malnutrition, especially among children and women in conflict-affected and climate-vulnerable areas. Humanitarian pipelines are increasingly constrained by access limitations, funding contraction, and reliance on imported products. A key finding was that local production and localized delivery of safe, nutritious foods—supported by SMEs and community networks—are no longer optional but essential for sustaining nutrition outcomes. 3. Food safety has shifted from a compliance issue to a national resilience and competitiveness priority. Dialogues revealed that weak enforcement, high certification costs, and limited testing capacity undermine both public health and market confidence. At the same time, producers who prioritize food safety early tend to sustain quality, nutrition, and consumer trust over time. Participants agreed that food safety is a foundational enabler, linking nutrition, markets, and long-term resilience, and requires pragmatic, trust-based approaches in low-institutional contexts. 4. Climate shocks cascade across interconnected production systems. The Forum confirmed that crops, livestock, and aquaculture are deeply interdependent. Climate-induced disruptions in one sector rapidly transmit risks to others—through feed quality, disease, prices, and nutrition outcomes. The Dialogue identified integrated and circular production models, soil health, organic inputs, and low-tech climate-smart practices as viable, scalable responses when supported by coordination and extension. 5. Trust has emerged as a functional substitute for weakened institutions. In contexts where formal regulation and oversight are constrained, participants described how trust-based relationships, peer monitoring, shared standards, and transparent information exchange are already sustaining food system functions. These informal mechanisms act as transitional governance structures, enabling coordination, quality assurance, and market continuity. 6. Digital tools can enable coordination, but only if grounded in trust and local realities. While digital innovation remains underutilized due to connectivity gaps and low trust, the Dialogue identified clear opportunities for offline-first tools, youth intermediaries, cooperative data governance, and practical value delivery (e.g., advisories, market information, traceability). 7. Dialogue must translate into continued collective action. Rather than consensus declarations, participants converged on the need for ongoing collaboration, pilots, and shared learning pathways. This resulted in agreement around follow-up pillars focused on multistakeholder convergence, trust-based quality systems, circular and localized production loops, and sustained Forum-to-Field engagement. Overall, the Dialogue concluded that resilience in Myanmar’s food systems is emerging not from stability, but from adaptive, trust-enabled coordination. Strengthening these connections now is critical to preventing humanitarian stress from hardening into long-term systemic failure. Leer menos

The Food Systems Forum 2025 was designed as a comprehensive exploration of food systems, with a strong emphasis on examining linkages across multiple Action Tracks and levers of change, rather than addressing any single track in isolation. The Dialogue applied a food systems lens to Myanmar’s current realities, recognizing that nutrition insecurity, food safety risks, climate shocks, market fragmentation, and institutional weakness are deeply interconnected. Rather than organizing discussions strictly by Action Track, the Forum focused on how different parts of the food system interact under... Leer más stress, and how resilience can be built through coordinated, trust-based approaches. Key areas of focus included: • Nutrition security (Action Track 1), particularly the deterioration of household diets, child malnutrition, and constraints in delivering safe, nutritious foods in conflict-affected and climate-vulnerable areas. Dialogues examined the role of local production, SMEs, community networks, and market-based mechanisms in sustaining nutrition outcomes when humanitarian pipelines are constrained. • Food safety and quality systems (Action Track 2), explored not only as a public health issue but as a foundation for market confidence, competitiveness, and nutrition. The Forum examined gaps in regulatory enforcement, testing capacity, certification costs, and consumer awareness, and how trust-based and peer-driven quality systems are emerging to fill institutional voids. • Climate resilience and primary production (Action Track 5), with a strong focus on how climate shocks cascade across crops, livestock, and aquaculture. Dialogues emphasized integrated and circular production systems, low-tech climate-smart practices, soil health, organic inputs, and localized service provision as scalable resilience pathways. • Market systems, digital tools, and enabling environments (levers of change), including the role of digital platforms, data, finance, and coordination mechanisms in improving extension services, market transparency, risk management, and inclusion of smallholders, SMEs, women, and youth. Across all themes, the Dialogue explicitly examined linkages between Action Tracks, highlighting that progress in nutrition, climate adaptation, and sustainability is not possible without parallel improvements in food safety, markets, trust, and coordination. A unifying focus of the Forum was the concept of trust as an enabling infrastructure — how, in fragile and low-institutional contexts, trust-based relationships, peer monitoring, and multistakeholder platforms are increasingly sustaining food system functions and enabling resilience. In summary, the Dialogue did not seek to prioritize one Action Track over others. Instead, it focused on understanding and strengthening the interdependencies between Action Tracks and levers of change, generating system-level insights and practical pathways for building resilient, nutrition-secure, and climate-adaptive food systems under conditions of uncertainty. Leer menos

During the dialogue, participants expressed a shared commitment to establishing sustainable and equitable food systems in Europe. However, there were several differences in opinions regarding the most efficient ways to achieve this transformation. These divergences reflected different perspectives on the cultural factors influencing food behaviour, the rate of change, the scope of interventions, and the interests of stakeholders that should be prioritised. One of the main areas of disagreement concerned the role of cultural heritage in sustainable food transitions. Some participants viewed her... Leer másitage as a valuable resource, arguing that traditional diets, seasonality, low-waste cooking methods, and local food production systems provide a blueprint for restoring biodiversity, promoting healthier diets, and reducing environmental impact. They believed that reconnecting communities to the origins and history of food could strengthen environmental stewardship and support rural economies. Others adopted a different approach, arguing that, although cultural heritage can contribute to sustainability, it should not become a hindrance to scientific progress or inclusive diets that address contemporary health concerns and social realities. The disagreement did not call into question the significance of heritage itself, but rather how it should be incorporated into forward-thinking strategies. Differences also emerged regarding the pace of the transition. Some argued for rapid, systematic interventions, including strict environmental standards, financial incentives linked to verified climate performance, and regulations that accelerate the shift away from unsustainable production models. They argued that delaying action increases climate and biodiversity risks and disadvantages future generations. Others have warned that accelerated, top-down measures may provoke resistance among farmers, manufacturers, or consumers who lack the necessary resources or knowledge to adjust. From this standpoint, long-term behavioural change must be grounded in education, capacity building, and cultural acceptance. Stimulus-based and community-led approaches were preferred over regulatory pressure, both to guarantee fairness and to enhance public ownership of the transition. The main disagreement concerned not the necessity for change, but rather whether the most efficient path is structural and immediate or educational and gradual. A third area of divergence focused on the scope of transformation. Some participants emphasised systemic levers – finance, trade regulations, certification systems, and national policies – because they argued that only large-scale interventions could shift market dynamics rapidly enough to ensure food systems compatible with climate change. Others emphasised grassroots innovations – intergenerational knowledge transfer, community kitchens, school-based food education, and local food identity – as being more responsive to people's needs and better able to create lasting behavioural change. These perspectives were not mutually exclusive, but rather, the disagreement centred on which approach should drive investment and policy focus in the short term. Further divergence emerged regarding the prioritisation of stakeholders. Some argued that farmers and fishers should remain the primary beneficiaries of transition pathways given their central role in maintaining ecosystems and rural livelihoods. Others emphasised the importance of consumers, particularly young people, in shaping the long-term viability of sustainable food production models through changes in demand. A third view emphasised the role of public institutions in leading the transition process, emphasising that sustainability cannot solely depend on individual or sector-specific initiatives. Despite these differences, there was a consistent theme throughout the Dialogue: participants viewed divergences not as obstacles, but as sources of innovation. They recognised that cultural, regulatory, educational, and economic approaches can coexist and support each other. Instead of converging on a single approach, the Dialogue highlighted a shared willingness to adopt multiple solutions that address Europe's diverse food systems, community identities, and environmental challenges. What is more, the SWITCH (Project number: 101060483) framework was perceived as an example of the convergence of diverse scientific disciplines and cultural perspectives. Altogether, they contribute to the innovation within sustainable food transitions. Leer menos

Fourth topic: Blue Foods. What is the role of blue food systems in shaping sustainable and equitable food futures for coastal communities in Europe? The discussions acknowledged that marine and freshwater resources are strategically significant for food security and livelihoods. However, their long-term viability depends on effective management of ecosystems rather than solely on consumer choices. Industrial fishing practices, lack of transparency, and limited consumer awareness create a mismatch between seafood demand and ecological limits. Participants emphasised that empowering policymakers... Leer más with scientific knowledge can create the regulatory framework necessary for the sustainable use of these resources in the long term. This, in turn, would enable responsible access for local communities. The urgent actions should focus on strengthening transparency regarding fish sustainability, stock levels, and supply chain origins, integrating scientific data and ecosystem insights into policy formulation and decision-making, and enhancing public awareness of responsible fishing practices and consumption of both commercial and non-commercial species in marine and freshwater environments. Hence, the change should involve marine research organisations, environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs), ministries of fisheries and coastal development, scientific advisory boards, media outlets, and community communication platforms. The undertaken actions should focus on improving the availability and accessibility of certified sustainably produced seafood, increasing consumer awareness regarding ocean-friendly dietary choices, introducing fishing quotas and measures to control illegal fishing, and adopting sustainability training programs across regulatory bodies. However, it is crucial to anticipate such barriers as the complexity of marine ecosystems and their stock assessments, limited consumer understanding of the health of the ocean, economic pressures on fisheries, and globalised seafood trade, which limits visibility into the practices and origins of products. Leer menos

Third topic: Living Heritage. How can living heritage serve as a cultural driver to inspire sustainable food transitions across Europe? Participants emphasised that sustainable transition can be more easily achieved when food practices are based on identity, enjoyment, and community values. Living heritage, including culinary traditions, the transmission of recipes between generations, seasonal community meals, and shared eating rituals, was seen as a valuable resource against the high-waste and high-convenience food system. By recognising heritage as an asset, rather than simply nostalgia, co... Leer másmmunities can rediscover low-impact practices such as home cooking, food preservation, and the revival of traditional “fast foods”, which are nutritious and require minimal processing. To promote this shift, urgent actions are needed: Encourage intergenerational knowledge exchange about cooking in educational and community settings; Support community programs, festivals, and food workshops that showcase traditional preparation methods and seasonal ingredients; Develop storytelling platforms to connect producers with consumers and highlight the significance, history, and environmental benefits of food. The discussion prioritised schools, municipalities, cultural organisations, community kitchens, youth groups, and food heritage organisations as key responsible actors. The key progress indicators could be the increased participation in community-based food events and workshops, increased demand for seasonal and locally produced foods, and a decrease in avoidable food waste due to the rediscovery of traditional cooking and preservation techniques. Nonetheless, potential challenges are the increasing loss of traditional flavours and skills, reliance on mass-produced processed foods, socioeconomic barriers that prevent access to diverse foods, and limited institutional recognition of food heritage as an important aspect of sustainability. Leer menos

Second topic: Nutrition. What actions and innovations can drive community-led shifts toward dietary habits that support human well-being and environmental health? Discussions emphasised that nutritional changes should not be based on restrictive messaging, but rather on empowering communities with knowledge, meaning, and balanced information. Participants emphasised that dietary sustainability can be achieved when it is relevant to culture, easy to implement, and aligned with wellbeing rather than guilt. Schools and families were identified as pivotal spaces for forming food literacy and habit... Leer máss, but broader societal mechanisms such as media and trusted digital channels also need to shift toward evidence-based and culturally relevant communication. Urgent actions include integration of nutrition literacy and food systems education into school curricula for all age groups, development of dietary guidelines that balance health and cultural identity, and creation of practical, hands-on learning opportunities in schools and communities, such as cooking workshops, seasonal meal challenges, and food labs. The responsible stakeholders are: government health authorities, education ministries, universities and research institutions, educators, food media, and communication channels. In order to measure the progress, it would be crucial to decrease the prevalence of nutrition misinformation, increase dietary diversity scores, increase student awareness of food origin and seasonality and participation in cooking and food literacy programs. However, some potential barriers include competition from conflicting nutrition narratives and influencers online, pressure of time constraints on families, lack of engagement among young people outside of formal education settings and financial barriers to accessing healthy food in some households. Leer menos

First topic: Regenerative Agriculture. How can agroecological and regenerative practices act as a catalyst for thriving rural communities and resilient European food systems? Agroecological and regenerative approaches can be a catalyst for the success of rural communities and the resilience of European food systems. The participants agreed that regenerative agriculture has the potential to restore ecosystems and revive rural economies simultaneously. However, its adoption is constrained by financial risks, regulatory uncertainties, and limited public awareness. The participants emphasised the ... Leer másimportance of agroecological practices, such as crop rotation, multifunctional land management, agroforestry, rotational grazing, and reduced tillage, which help reverse soil degradation, improve water retention, protect biodiversity, and reduce reliance on external inputs. The group emphasised that the transition to regenerative agriculture must provide socioeconomic benefits for farmers and land managers to be sustainable and scalable. Urgent actions are clearly evident. One of them involves increasing dedicated financial support and transition funding for farmers adopting agroecological practices. Another action calls for the development of harmonised and credible carbon and soil certification systems, which would monetise ecosystem services and increase investor confidence. Additionally, knowledge transfer needs to be strengthened through demonstration farms, extension services, and open-access data platforms. The communication of regenerative benefits to consumers also needs improvement to strengthen market pull. Several groups have responsibility in this regard. Policymakers at the EU and national levels need to take action. Universities and agricultural research centres play a crucial role, while ministries of agriculture also have duties in this area. Farmers' associations and cooperatives can also contribute. Progress assessment relies on specific indicators. Soil health is a crucial factor, encompassing carbon content, biodiversity preservation, and erosion control. The adoption of carbon credits and soil certification programs demonstrates progress. A reduction in monoculture farming also serves as an indicator. Participation in farmer training and peer learning activities indicates engagement. Despite these positive developments, barriers and challenges persist. Financing limitations for transitional stages pose a challenge. The complexity of regenerative practices for farmers adds to the difficulty. Public understanding of ecosystem services is limited, slowing progress. Lack of clear economic incentives in the early stages of transition remains a concern. Leer menos

Participants came to understand cultural perspectives on food as a resource rather than a challenge. It has been demonstrated that these perspectives can significantly contribute to sustainable practices in innovative ways. Elements such as living heritage can influence behaviour by reconnecting people with the underlying reasons for food, including taste, identity, and seasonal variations. Education has emerged as the most significant means of achieving this, evident in school curricula and community initiatives. Labelling and dissemination of culinary knowledge also play a role. Participants... Leer más emphasised the importance of addressing larger issues, such as the lack of financial support for small-scale food producers. Public awareness of sustainable farming practices and information on sustainable fishing and nutrition remains limited. The group emphasised the need to strengthen connections between various stakeholders involved, including researchers, local groups, teachers, and food producers. They discussed establishing learning spaces that promote environmentally friendly choices. The discussion led to several main points that were shared by all participants: 1. Education plays a crucial role in transforming food systems for the better. Speakers emphasised the importance of teaching about nutrition and food traditions, as well as the need for literacy on sustainability to be spread throughout society. This includes children and their families, farmers, shoppers, and even policymakers. This type of education empowers people to choose foods that promote health and help maintain balance in the environment; 2. Market-based incentives and rewards can influence consumer and producer behaviour. Ideas for systems that recognise restaurants for using high-quality ingredients that are sustainable over time have been suggested. Loyalty programs in stores could award points for purchasing healthy, locally sourced products. Public procurement for institutions such as hospitals and schools could focus on seasonal meals that are less harmful to the environment. Such measures could contribute to making healthy, sustainable choices the norm; 3. Agroecology and sustainable farming are essential for maintaining strong ecosystems and supporting livelihoods. Practices such as crop rotation and multi-functional land management stand out as effective approaches. These practices help restore natural life by reducing soil disturbance, promoting tree planting, and facilitating animal grazing. They also contribute to carbon sequestration and reduce the use of harmful chemicals from factories. However, there are concerns about the costs of implementing these practices, as well as the difficulty in certifying them. This highlights the need for financial support and knowledge sharing to facilitate widespread adoption; 4. Similarly, managing marine and freshwater ecosystems requires immediate action to address threats such as overfishing and the impact of large factory boats on biodiversity. Ensuring sustainable practices in these areas is crucial for the well-being of local communities and the long-term sustainability of these resources; 5. Developing skills and training programs for those responsible for setting regulations and enforcing regulations is crucial for achieving sustainable outcomes. Laws and regulations play a significant role in shaping how these resources are managed over time; 6. Food heritage contributes to sustainability by providing it with real meaning and a sense of our identity. Traditions surrounding home cooking and eating in groups reinforce this. By valuing what is in season and acquiring cooking skills, waste is reduced, and harm is also minimised. Promoting these practices in schools and public spaces can reverse the trend towards convenience foods. Throughout these discussions, one clear theme emerged: changing food systems works best when sustainability is seen as something people desire, not something imposed upon them. This approach improves health and preserves cultural heritage. Nature remains safe, and more people can find ways to make a living. Participants stressed that such initiatives as SWITCH (Project number: 101060483) can be perceived as a bridge, connecting policy, science, and community-led engagement. Food culture then becomes an active driver of sustainability. The Dialogue emphasised the significance of networks, which can translate high-level research (for example, presented by project partners in nutrition, marine science, and environmental health) into community action and behavioural change. The Dialogue strengthened the value of the SWITCH network in facilitating shared spaces, which incorporate scientific knowledge and evidence, a high level of youth engagement, cultural heritage, and community-based innovation. Their interaction, hence, accelerates the transformation of European food systems. Leer menos

The Food Systems Dialogue “Food, Culture, Community: A Living Heritage in the European Food Transition”, organised by the Future Food Institute in Pollica on November 15, 2025, as part of the SWITCH Project (Project number: 101060483). The dialogue aimed to explore the ways food systems across Europe could shift toward being more sustainable and fair, while staying connected to local cultures. The dialogue embraced the links between nutrition, agroecology, sustainability in blue ecosystems, and traditions around living food heritage. The main goal centred on defining real steps that could ... Leer másfacilitate change in the stakeholder behaviour, including consumers, producers, institutions, and policymakers. What is more, the conversation aimed to protect ecosystems and build up community health in the process. The Dialogue was preceded by SWITCH sessions (presentations and research), including “Eat Well, Stay Well, Save the Plate: The Mediterranean Diet and the Longevity Algorithm” and “Healthy Oceans, Healthy Lives”, which offered scientific and cultural framing for the later working-group discussions. The Dialogue displayed that transforming food systems should not be limited to just technological solutions. Culture, education, and governance are incredibly crucial as well. The participants stressed that sustainable change can be realised when healthy diets feel both reachable and appealing to people. It is also supported by farming methods that help rebuild ecosystems instead of wearing them down. Moreover, marine and freshwater resources have to be handled sustainably. All of these actions are then supported by the traditions around food that tie communities together, keeping them alive and engaged. One key topic, which can be seen in every conversation, was to adapt the societal view on the sustainable food systems shift from quick wins (for example, easy access and low prices) to a long-term perspective. There should be actions towards creating a lasting balance, sustainability, and purpose. One of the steps towards it includes guiding people, regular people and professionals. The change should also be supported by policies and the market setup. Overall, the Dialogue aimed to link the various fields of the food system and explore how education, policy, financial measures, and community involvement can act together to facilitate the change to healthy and sustainable nutrition for everybody. Leer menos

From the main Policymaker perspectives, it was realized that the main focus point of the Dialogue, and that is preventing and fighting food waste, requires collaboration that should be initiated from the top (local authority) and connect all main stakeholders within the City limits that are working in the area regarding environmental protection and waste management, as well as channelling educative materials and tools towards the public, educations systems and spreading and sharing the acquired knowledge towards other cities and regions. Within the cities, we can see separate departments that ... Leer másare already fighting food waste on some level within their work frame, but incorporating all those departments, institutions and other important stakeholders regarding the topic, in one "Working group" that works together on the same goal, is much more efficient path in achieving the goal that we all strive towards, and that is preventing and fighting food waste. Regarding the whole City Food Systems, that project Cities2030 is working on through their Living and Policy Labs, are also facing the same challenges as the initiative mentioned above. They require collaboration and unity of many stakeholders within the City government and municipalities, city institutions and other relevant stakeholders. The weakness in implementing activities important for the entire food system comes from the disconnection of city offices, institutions and all relevant stakeholders important for the food system to function well and to have all its activities under one common item, which is the Food System. The creation of such a prerequisite is crucial for the further development and increase of the efficiency of the production system, short supply chains - distribution chains of delivery and recycling of food, with cities as the bearers of the activity. What was found through this research project, and what showed as correct through the Dialogue discussion between the participants, was the big spectrum of various initiatives, projects and examples of good practices that can thrive if Cities, as holders of Food Systems (when established), are better connected and collaborate in their activities. Being a part of Cities 2030 projects, collaborating with many European countries, on different levels of Food System development, and also connecting with other projects related to food, was the first step in acquiring the necessary knowledge to move forward and start the process of establishing a Food System. Knowledge and key findings in the project gave us the main inputs for the proposal towards our City for the establishment of such systems locally and hopefully to be transferred as a good practice towards the rest of the region and country. Regarding this, we have presented the possibilities, difficulties and possibilities to the rest of the surrounding cities and offered our assistance to start their activities in the right direction. To simplify, we all need access and collaboration between cities, municipalities and Counties so we can be better connected in various initiatives aimed at similar topics in order to work together more efficiently for the same common goals we have at a Country level. As we can see from the dialogue participants, who were mostly policymakers and city representatives, is that we share a common issue with disconnected activities, and signing a Voluntary agreement as one part of the Food System is the right step in a city organization and collaboration between key stakeholders and then also a collaboration between cities, counties and regions. Leer menos

The Dialogue titled "Food is Not Waste Initiative: Voluntary Agreements with Cities and Counties" yielded several significant conclusions and initiatives aimed at enhancing food system solutions within the City of Velika Gorica. Below are the key findings and agreements that emerged from this Dialogue: Key Findings and Conclusions: Establishment of New Connections: The Dialogue emphasized the importance of establishing new connections between various stakeholders within the food system. This includes food producers, processors, retailers, the hospitality sector, scientific and academic communi... Leer másties, local and regional government units, nonprofit organizations, initiatives, and associations. The collaborative approach is seen as vital for the success of the waste prevention and reduction initiatives. Agreement on Actions and Commitments: A significant outcome of the Dialogue was the Voluntary Agreement titled "Together Against Food Waste," which has garnered a positive reception and commitment from the City of Velika Gorica. This agreement is scheduled to be signed at the final conference of the Cities2030 project in September. The signatories of this agreement voluntarily commit to reducing food waste in their business processes, donating food, and actively communicating with consumers. The comprehensive nature of this agreement covers the entire food chain, from production and processing to household consumption. Exploration of Food Systems: The Dialogue highlighted the need to explore specific aspects of food systems in greater depth, particularly focusing on waste prevention and reduction. The presentation of the Milan Pact on Urban Food Policy and its methodology, as well as its connection to the Cities2030 project, provided valuable insights into effective strategies and policies for urban food systems. Main Initiatives: City's Role in Food System Solutions: The City of Velika Gorica's active role in enhancing food system solutions was a central theme, not only for our city but for all local counties and municipalities. The main initiative was to gather surrounding policymakers and encourage them to embrace this initiative and present all available resources and tools to achieve that goal. The city's involvement in the Horizon2020 research project Cities2030 and its commitment to the Ministry of Agriculture's “Food Is Not Waste” initiative underline its dedication to sustainable food practices. Voluntary Agreement on Waste Prevention and Reduction: The "Together Against Food Waste" agreement involves a broad coalition of stakeholders committing to concerted efforts to reduce food waste. This voluntary agreement stands as a testament to the collective responsibility and shared commitment of diverse actors within the food system. Raising Awareness and Encouraging Collaboration: The Dialogue successfully increased awareness about the importance of signing the Voluntary Agreement and fostered a collaborative spirit among participants. The event served as a platform to encourage dialogue and collaboration among various stakeholders, aiming to enhance the effectiveness of preventive activities and surplus food redistribution. Socially Responsible Practices: The agreement and the Dialogue highlight the importance of socially responsible and socially sensitive business practices. By committing to these practices, stakeholders contribute to the broader goal of sustainable and ethical food systems. Overall, the Dialogue underscored the necessity of involving all relevant stakeholders in the fight against food waste and the importance of collaborative efforts to achieve a significant and lasting impact. Leer menos

The main initiative of the Dialogue "Food is Not Waste Initiative: Voluntary Agreements with Cities and Counties" was the Cities2030 role in enhancing Food System solutions. VE-GO-RA and Inventive Solutions have been actively working on establishing a food system in the city of Velika Gorica for the past three years as part of the Horizon2020 research project Cities2030. Recognizing the importance of waste prevention and reduction, we have embraced the Ministry of Agriculture’s initiative “Food Is Not Waste.” As one of the project’s activities, we invited collaborative action through a... Leer más Voluntary Agreement, which has already been positively received by our City. The signing of this agreement is scheduled for the final conference of the Cities2030 project in September. The Voluntary Agreement on waste prevention and reduction, titled “Together Against Food Waste,” is signed by the Ministry of Agriculture and representatives from food producers, processors, retailers, hospitality, scientific and academic communities, local and regional government units, nonprofit organizations, initiatives, and associations. Signatories voluntarily commit to efforts to reduce food waste by 30% until 2028 within their business processes, food donation, and active communication with consumers. The agreement encompasses the entire chain of action, from food production and processing to households. Mr. Emil Tuk from the Department of Urban Nutrition of the City of Zagreb and Ms. Gordana Matasin from the Administrative Department for Agriculture, Rural Development, and Forestry of Zagreb County presented to us the current and future activities and the issues faced by existing signatories. At the conference, Velika Gorica LAB also presented the Milan Urban Policy Pact and its methodology, as well as its connection to the Cities2030 project and the Voluntary Agreement initiative of the Ministry of Agriculture, along with the “Food Is Not Waste” project. We are pleased that participants expressed interest in this event, which aims to increase awareness of signing this agreement, whose primary goal is to prevent and reduce food waste. No plan can succeed without the involvement, connection, and participation of all necessary stakeholders. Therefore, we invited representatives from food producers, processors, retailers, hospitality, scientific and academic communities, local and regional government units, nonprofit organizations, initiatives, associations, and companies to participate in this essential initiative. The purpose of such agreements, including the conference’s goal, was to present and encourage collaboration and dialogue among various stakeholders focused on preventive activities, surplus food redistribution, and all other efforts contributing to the effectiveness of waste prevention in the food system. The agreement also represents a contribution to socially responsible and socially sensitive business practices by stakeholders, particularly the local government. Leer menos

Ownership vs. Lease: Discussion regarding the advantages and disadvantages of land ownership versus leasing, particularly in relation to agricultural viability and sustainability. Role of Organizations (TDL, SAFER, Metropolitan Area): Varied perspectives on the effectiveness and limitations of organizations such as Terre de Liens (TDL), Société d'aménagement foncier et d'établissement rural (SAFER), and the Metropolitan Area in addressing land access and agricultural development. Land Use Policies (Zoning, Land Preservation): Debate over the impact and effectiveness of zoning regulations, ... Leer másparticularly Agricultural Protection Zones (ZAP), and land preservation policies in facilitating or hindering agricultural activities and land access. Government Intervention and Support: Discussion on the role of government intervention and support, including the provision of subsidies, technical assistance, and regulatory frameworks, in promoting sustainable agriculture and addressing land access challenges. Financial Constraints and Economic Viability: Diverging opinions on the financial constraints faced by agricultural projects, including the affordability of land, access to funding, and economic viability in the context of sustainable agriculture. Community Engagement and Collaboration: Varying perspectives on the importance and effectiveness of community engagement, collaboration with local authorities, and collective action in addressing land access issues and promoting agricultural sustainability. Policy Implementation Challenges: Debate surrounding the challenges and obstacles in implementing land use policies, including bureaucratic delays, political considerations, and conflicts between different stakeholders' interests. Local Food Systems and Food Sovereignty: Discussion on the significance of local food systems, food sovereignty, and the promotion of sustainable agriculture in addressing food security concerns and reducing dependency on imported goods. Innovations and Solutions: Exploration of innovative solutions, such as land-sharing arrangements, alternative land tenure models, and technological advancements, in overcoming land access barriers and promoting sustainable agricultural practices. Evaluation of Past Projects and Initiatives: Assessment and critique of past projects and initiatives aimed at addressing land access issues, including their successes, failures, and lessons learned for future interventions. Leer menos

Metropolitan Actions and Initiatives: Inventory of agricultural assets to assess lands for potential cultivation. Completed installations: 5 in Ste. Marthe, 1 in Maussanne (11th arrondissement), and an ongoing project in Barbière near Pennes-Mirabeau and St. Victoret. Planned Installation: 2 agricultural lots totaling 4.5 hectares in Cuges-les-Pins, with calls for applications expected by year-end. Circuit Shortening Efforts: Operation of two producer markets in Plan de Campagne and La Barasse, with plans for a third in Marseille. Future projects include automatic distributors, producer store... Leer máss, and markets, including participation in the Provence Agriculture Fair. Upcoming Metropolitan Innovations in Municipal Support and Zoning: Limitations on Zoning: Metropolitan area lacks authority over Agricultural Protection Zones (ZAP), with decisions resting with municipalities. However, the metropolitan area provides advisory opinions. Challenges with ZAPs: Some landowners resist cultivation post-ZAP designation, hoping for future reclassification as buildable land. Future Project: Providing technical expertise to municipalities. Political Obstacles: Political factors may hinder project progress, exemplified by potential zoning changes for housing needs like Parc de l'Etoile. Interacting with the Metropolitan Area in Land Search: Installation Criteria: Emphasis on food production, organic practices, short supply chains, sustainability, and environmental leases. Encouraging Municipal Collaboration: While not considered particularly helpful due to limited metropolitan influence. Participant Highlights: Political Influence Hindering Progress: Participants noted bureaucratic delays and limited available hectares within the metropolitan area. Perception of Installations: Viewed as showcases with limited project depth and insecure land tenure. Importance of Local Food Production: Emphasized the need to improve local food self-sufficiency. Challenges with the Vallon des Douces: Lack of funding for land acquisition, primarily due to structural issues with existing buildings. Additional Remarks: Concerns about agricultural import-export imbalances and the need for local food production. Updates on incubator projects, pending installations, and water reuse initiatives in Cuges-les-Pins. Access to calls for applications through the agricultural chamber network. Leer menos

Regional Agricultural Land Market Specifics: High Pressure: Agricultural land under pressure due to speculation and urbanization, with significant price discrepancies across regions. Average Prices: French agricultural land averages €6000/ha, whereas in Bouches-du-Rhône (BDR) it's €17,000/ha, with even higher prices in urbanized areas like Marseille (€50,000/ha) and Aubagne (€80,000/ha). Lack of Tools: Limited tools to combat land abandonment, despite considerable land availability. Interacting with SAFER in Land Search: Criteria for Greenlighting a Proposal: Comprehensive proposal, b... Leer másacked by agricultural organizations, realistic business plan, and emphasis on the agricultural project. SAFER Website: Checking weekly for listings and directly contacting SAFER advisors for inquiries. Demands and Suggestions: More Comprehensive Calls for Applications: Request for more detailed information in calls for applications to ease the process for applicants. Emphasizing Eco-Models: Advocating for recognition of diverse eco-agricultural models in urban areas and their viability criteria. Other Remarks: Lack of Preemption Tools for Houses: Highlights the need for tools to preempt houses to prevent urban sprawl. Collaboration with Local Authorities: Acknowledgement of the role of local authorities in zoning and urban planning. Initiatives like Terre de Liens and Terre Adonis: Acknowledgment of their importance in land access and management. The workshop participants emphasized the challenges of land access, high prices, and the need for more effective tools and collaboration to address these issues. Leer menos