Explore Official Dialogue Feedback

Governance refers to processes of negotiating needs, interests and perspectives of various stake-holders. To promote more inclusive food systems transformation, a central goal of territorial governance should be to increase the voice of marginalized groups and increase the accountability of the state. A pre-condition to this type of governance is a multi-sectorial government that is rights-based in its approach; this must be embedded into law for adequate follow through and not just theoretical value-signaling without action. Only through multi-actor governance can vulnerable people be heard. ... Read moreIn line with a Leave No One Behind (LNOB) framework, stakeholders should aim to create inclusive food systems that center socially and economically disadvantaged people and involve them in policy creation. The role of the state, then, is to fulfill and support strategies that center a right-to-food framework. Territorial governance approaches must have a systemic scaffolding that encourages social participation for all agents, for participation is crucial to how knowledge is produced. Lack of participation and lack of access to participation can lead to unjust and skewed governance that is not representative of the local needs. Frames and strategies for institutional, policy and democratic innovation towards new multilevel model of food governance must be implemented. In the inclusion of indigenous voices and processes as well as other marginalized groups, there is a co-creation of knowledge that helps design more resilient and equitable methodologies of both food systems and land management; we reorient towards interculturality, a result of multiple ways of knowledge co-existing, in order to re-territorialize food systems and rebuild local knowledge. Territorial governance policies must also consider economic inclusion; that is, develop programming that enhances the generative and economic capacity of poor communities. To promote LNOB-oriented policies, we must position human rights as central and pursue empowerment and involvement for all. It is essential to pursue programing that invests in rural, health and educational infrastructures and is invested in protecting indigenous food systems. Currently, there is an obstacle of lack of participation from marginalized groups due to exclusion according to age, race, gender, and ethnic belonging. Territorial governance can help reduce tradeoffs of national policies that lack inclusion. Territorial governance, then, becomes a space for interaction between different cultures, which is essential to move towards reducing pervasive discrimination. The LNOB framework understands conflict is the main driver of hunger hence it aims to create comprehensive and inclusive food systems that are conflict-resilient and enhance future prospects of peace. Territorial governance approaches that collaborate with labor governance may be particularly adept to reduce conflict (i.e., gender-based labor discrimination) and contribute to social cohesion. Organizational contributions include LNOB framework contributes to locating and developing governance structures that mobilize people to achieve equitable social inclusion. These systems recognize food and participation as a fundamental right. It is essential to also recognize ecological processes are not bound to any one territory; thus, territorial governance policies must also consider the role of culture and biocultural dynamics. This may involve the participation and cooperation of stakeholders across various territories. LNOB approaches take into account the structures and systems already in place and pursue flexible approaches that take into account multiple dimensions simultaneously. We must aim to build stronger multi-level collaborations that communicate vertically as well as horizontally. Communication and decision-making should engage with stakeholders across levels and be informed through bottom up processes, not only top down. Read less

Adapted from Rosado-May’s remarks: Global warming, loss of biodiversity, soil erosion, hunger, pollution, among other crises challenge all cultures and peoples. Science has confirmed in recent years that Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems have been resilient and sustainable for centuries. They have been designed, managed and functioning within a cultural context that involves a complex of social, technological, ecological, economic (trade & marketing), governance, land tenure, horizontal decision making, and reflecting ways of processing information as well as constructing and passing on... Read more knowledge to new generations. This biocultural complexity explains the role of indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems to preserve and enhance biodiversity, mitigate climate change, control soil erosion, and sustain global ecological processes that benefit the planet. About 500 million Indigenous Peoples’ around the world have, in their hands, minds and hearts, conserved around 80% of the natural resources, including seeds of crops adapted to almost any ecological setting on our planet. Scientific literature reports that farmers cultivating up to two ha produce 70-80% of the world’s food; this figure has been challenged reducing the value to around 32%. The data does not specify how many of the smallholders’ farmers are indigenous but we can assume that the vast majority of them are, and still apply their traditional knowledge. Lets’ consider that 100% of the 500 million Indigenous Peoples’ are responsible for the 32% world food production; as compared to the 7.9 billion people in the world, small farmers/Indigenous Peoples’ represent only 6% of the world population. Impressive considering the many challenges those farmers are facing today. Nevertheless, the resilience and the knowledge that supports Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems are being lost rapidly. Immediate policy interventions are needed to prevent their total loss. How can we explain the above figures if it is not because of the resistance and resilience capacity of Indigenous Peoples forged over centuries? Indigenous Peoples understand that we live in a multicultural world, we also understand the value of different worldviews. As we all live in one house, we should learn how to maintain our multicultural settings and also build bridges for intercultural processes. Plenary remarks: Enacting systemic change requires institutionalizing support and making it part of the formal/subnational structure. There are a plethora of informal platforms that exchange knowledge/share information and alliances, but there is a missing link to the formal planning/decision making structures. Linking platforms to formal planning/budgeting processes is key. There remain risks in this in terms of capture of power, preexisting power imbalances, inequality and discrimination so empowerment and capacity building will be critical. Currently, there is a lack of participation in food systems from marginalized groups due to exclusion according to age, race, gender, and ethnic belonging. Territorial governance can help reduce tradeoffs of national policies that lack inclusion and can become a space for interaction between different cultures, an essential step to move to reducing pervasive discrimination. Many organizations are implementing solutions that refer to territory and to land governance. In Ethiopia, the national project on sustainable land management supports the legalization of watershed user cessations so locals can plan and manage their own watersheds at a scale of a couple of hundred hectares. Angola has gone through the process of an institutionalized farmer-field school approach integrating national rural extension services and linking local communities with local government and municipalities. The missing link is how to use these many context-specific solutions and make them part of the macro solution for food systems and territorial governance of food systems. To bridge this gap, we can bring together and integrate projects through longer-term action plans agreed on by communities that span the time needed to support natural capital (e.g., 20+years) and respect human rights. This requires: • Continued support for community cohesion, engagement and policy advocacy to enable networks at micro and macro levels. • Support for local government strengthening, through technical assistance, development of policy frameworks, policy advocacy to mainstream integrated approaches so bottom-up input stimulates national level changes. • Support for agroecological transitions and integrated landscape management by linking community and small-scale initiatives to broader landscape-scale projects and international support organizations. • Co-creation and re-design of agricultural extension services which integrate local and indigenous knowledge to ensure contextual understanding, and institutionalizing these services with cross-ministerial collaboration to ensure incentive and expenditure efficiencies. • Design public and private finance for the local context to support farmer and community transition to agroecology, processing and infrastructure with a wide variety of instruments and mechanisms. • Support for inclusion of women, youth, elders and traditional knowledge keepers within territories. • Participatory monitoring efforts with communities to serve the double function of engagement, validation, and trust building; as well as measuring contextually established indicators for success (i.e., watershed restoration, hectares under: riparian area management, agroecology). Read less

Territorial governance (TG) can enable functional, sustainable food system transformation and is rights-based, ensures access to nourishing food for all, and protects biodiversity, equity and livelihoods. This Independent Food Systems Summit Dialogue on Territorial Governance for Sustainable Food Systems rests on years of coalition building including the Territorial Perspectives for Development initiative and reflects understandings of actors from EC, BMZ, AFD, CIRAD, GIZ, OECD, FAO, UNCDF and NEPAD. It adds to the Independent Global Dialogue Empowering Cities and Local Governments to improve ... Read morefood systems globally; HLPF side event Territorial Approaches for Inclusive and Resilient Food Systems and UN Food Systems pre-Summit Territorial governance for sustainable food systems. Plenary speakers with notes: M. Lapão, Director Cooperation, Community of Portuguese Speaking Countries spoke to multiscale governance founded on food/nutrition security and the right to adequate food. A territorial approach promotes social participation, so policymakers make better decisions and systemic inter/multi sector food policies, programs and investments. Seven national food security and nutrition policy councils exist with reps from civil society, academia, private sector and parliaments that foster more coherent food governance through several regional cooperation programs and national policies. Gabriel Ferrero de Loma-Osorio, Ambassador at Large for Global Food Security, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, EU and Cooperation, Spain spoke about territories as unique and integrative connectors. In Spain’s experience, TG works when national enabling environments are coupled with participatory and inclusive TG platforms to merge local actors with national level agencies and programs. Alliances with adequate financial support and instruments to foster national level change could trigger territorial approaches broadly and scale up to the global level. The Food System Summit can merge and catalyze this collective movement for food system transformation and as a core element to realize the 2030 agenda. R. Messias, Policy and Advocacy Officer, UCLG. As food systems are fundamental to reshaping our relationship with the planet, we need to work for people’s well-being and preserve the global commons. This requires concerted multilevel connections, action and collaboration among cities and territories that give voice to citizens through bottom-up/top-down approaches. National frameworks are required as guidelines and institutional and financial frameworks are needed for cohesive territorial action, e.g. UCLG/UN Habitat work to develop voluntary local and national reviews. Food systems are key to enable ecological transformation from farm to waste, e.g. urban/rural GHG emissions and impacts on the global commons. Intermediary cities are key to TG because of their size, strategic position in the territory, and direct connections to hinterlands. S. Marta, Coordinator, A Territorial Approach to the SDGs, OECD As more than 100 of the 169 SDG targets can’t be achieved without local and regional governments engagement, SDGs can enable national, local and regional governments to: 1) implement a multisector territorial approach; 2) use SDGs as a policymaking tool; and 3) Manage trade-offs and promote synergies among sector policies. Requires shifts: to territories and multisector approach; from one-size fits all to place-based approaches; and to engage multilevel governance to create functional territories beyond local boundaries. E. Valette, Professor, CIRAD. University researchers can: 1) produce new methods and scientific knowledge (e.g. assessment and diagnostic tools) to better understand TG contexts and support collective decision-making; 2) support collaboration between multiple knowledge systems for a richer, more effective knowledge base to inform context-specific decisions and help stakeholders govern along continuously enriched pathways; and 3) foster dialogue and provide a framework for discussion. Together these can increase actors’ control over transformation and support new partnership design and interventions adapted to each situation. Read less

Small scale farmers can no longer eat what they produce and cannot access or afford the food they need. Local food markets have been progressively eroded by an increasingly globalized food system that disconnects producers and consumers. The distortions of present food systems reflect the commodity approach and trade focus on export-driven agriculture policies that prioritize imports into growing cities. We have ignored local culture and indigenous knowledge, opting instead for push uniform approaches. This aggravates the power asymmetry between increasingly concentrated big corporations and f... Read moreragmented small-scale producers, culture and nature, that results in a major urban-rural disconnect. Policies are ineffective and patch-work. Farmers have been led to monoculture through decades of government incentives and inappropriate financial support. Transformative innovation which builds on local and indigenous knowledge for sustainable local ecosystems needs to replace conservative innovation geared to support the present economic model. To realize the transition to sustainable food systems through territorial governance, support is needed to integrate across multiple scales and sectors. This requires: o Advocacy: Level of engagement with policymakers and integration of policy makers into dialogues; accountability mechanisms established, etc. o Policy reform: Policies changed/influenced, engagement in processes o Connecting production with consumption: Food and farm movements that act at the neighborhood/village scale can address different policy spaces and speak to local city governments to reach up to national level governments o Focus on coalitions: Coalitions across urban and rural communities at the ground level are what move policy spaces at the local level, in turn influence larger cities and gain traction at the national level o Address conflict between agriculture and trade values and priorities: Farmers must have viable livelihoods and consumers must be able to access a healthy/affordable food supply from local and distant sources. A recent OECD report states while US$720 billion/year was provided from 2018–20 for agricultural subsidies, only one in six dollars promoted sustainable productivity growth and agricultural resilience. Shifting subsidies to support agroecology and small-scale community-driven food businesses would be transformative. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/2d810e01-en/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/2d810e01-en o Co-create and re-design agricultural extension services: Extension services must integrate local and indigenous knowledge. Institutionalizing these services with cross-ministerial collaboration can ensure incentive and expenditure efficiencies. Seed-saving in Cuba could be a model for territorial governance practices. Begun in the early 2000s, it now serves 75 municipalities in 12 provinces with an emphasis on opportunities for women and youth (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2020.554414/full). o Establish multi-stakeholder partnerships: The critical point of institutionalization is to make councils/groups/partnerships, such as National Food Councils, official with links to financing and institutional support as a structure for planning and budgeting in a multisectoral multilevel and multi-actor way o Foster inclusion: To address to achieve transformative territorial governance, power imbalances must be addressed and accountability made transparent. For example, in Africa, the Community of Portuguese Speaking Countries linked sustainable territorial food systems and healthy diets in two projects through a bottom-up process that engaged actors at the regional and national scales. The participatory, multi-scaled diagnostic approach identified local, national and regional policy recommendation. Challenges include the need for more reliable financial support as well as on-going political commitment. • To do this work, communities need: o Participatory monitoring efforts which engage/validate/build trust and measure contextually established indicators for success o Access to services to enable engagement to establish shared vision(s), action plans, participation from women/youth, conflict resolutions, technology integration, etc. It is crucial for farmers to engage in local markets, connect with cities and consumers requiring the right set of services and produce quality food, reduce losses, and engage with other actors. o Community participation in decision-making bodies, policy-setting and program development, along with citizen-led monitoring approaches that can drive better standards and accountability o Financial resource mobilization, including disbursements to communities to support needs, guarantees provided for financial flows, and increased engagement of financial actors. Design public and private finance so it can be contextualized at a local level to support farmer and community transition to agroecology, processing and infrastructure with a wide variety of instruments and mechanisms: nature-positive subsidies, carbon credits/payments for ecosystem services, agricultural/forestry insurance products, grants for development processes, technical assistance, longer-term tenure loans, etc. o Concise land policy and an integrated and inclusive land planning approach, that reflects the many, varied interests in a territory (rural/urban areas, indigenous groups, commercial farmers. Read less

Coherent, functional territorial governance can foster equitable management of food systems, integrate rural and urban food governance, promote inclusive investment for territorial governance, direct support to local food actors, increase data availability and accessibility, private sector business support, and advise on issues of food security and territorial governance at ministerial levels. • Scaled policies and good practices can crystalize solutions to ensure needed impacts at territorial levels and bring everyone in the system together. These can be designed into context-specific proje... Read morects and programs but also provide cross-cutting solutions relevant in several contexts. While locals build good practices, continued effort is needed for flexible, replicable models and knowledge-sharing networks (e.g., “FAO Inclusive and Sustainable Territories and Landscapes Platform” http://www.fao.org/in-action/territorios-inteligentes/socios/fr/). The key is to gather varied and diverse experiences related to territorial development as a model adaptation/building tool, as well as connection/collaboration effort + creation of communities of practices, e.g. Farm Field and Business Schools enable farmers on the ground and offer a programmatic solution that can be scaled. Mobilization builds cross-sectoral and cross-service dialogue and coordination to reduce fragmentation between public, private, NGO, and producer organizations so small-scale producers do not fall through the cracks, where collective action is led by farmers to improve service provision from all angles and provide programmatic examples that can be scaled to a broader framework/approach. • To build functional territories, urban-rural linkages are key. UN Habitat helps to map complex linkages—particularly documented cases that illustrate effective vertical and horizontal multilevel linkages to provide guidance to actors at all levels. For thematic and learning guides, tools and compendia of inspiring practices, see: https://urbanpolicyplatform.org/. • The Territorial Perspective for Development (TP4D) observed that challenges are often clustered in the same way the Summit identifies solution clusters. For example, food system challenges are associated with economic, adversity, migration and other priorities already high on the list for local and sub-national authorities—identifying the intersections can place food security similarly high on the priority list of multi-scaled actors. As we learned with COVID-19, municipalities have to coordinate across many agencies and sectors that don’t interact—it is difficult to engage local decision makers whose operational demands are often crisis driven. • To better monitor this work we need: measurement (of what, in which way, is it effective, is it enough?), citizen-led accountability for reporting and monitoring and government involvement in developing models. Accountability is a priority where the goal is to remove overt pressure and antagonistic elements. It is possible to identify problems and barriers in collaborative ways to improve service delivery and standards, e.g. community score cards is a solution through citizen-led accountability. • The need to bring family farmers and territorial governance together requires UN agencies, with their different sectoral mandates, to collaborate and ask how to expand public services in a rights-based context to advance food systems. Guiding practices developed by lead agencies for their own purposes with their own institutional mandates are now converging—these frameworks need to be adapted as a foundation for co-governance by urban and rural actors supported by the appropriate levels of government. Sectors and communities of practice need to consider developing and implementing joint and cohesive policy that will support these phases of discovery by: 1) policy adjustment; 2) setting priorities, 3) engagement and support from public and private financing; and, 4) collaboration between academics and governments. We need a call for the representation of sub-national and local authorities that have a space in food security discussions at larger scales. Read less

We need a new paradigm and vision for local food strategies and policies which are integrated in a functional multi-level territorial governance system. Food regulation is a political issue and should not be delegated to the market—food must be recognized as a right not a commodity. Local governments are best placed to integrate economic, environmental and social dimensions, bring together public actors, private sector and civil society and mediate trade-offs. They can help integrate sectors (e.g. restaurants and producers, promote local food hubs, facilitate access to digital technologies f... Read moreor aggregation) and ensure balance between food trade and local food systems. It is important to identify and support local actors, recognize the wisdom of the people that are there (first and foremost Indigenous Peoples) and prioritize transformative innovation (e.g., agroecology), building on local knowledge with science to create jobs and build resilient food systems. Local private sector actors are key players in working together to build a better system. Academic institutions should join local actors in documenting and reviewing relevant experience, providing technical assistance and linking with national or global research institutions. Participatory and inclusive democracy is essential for good territorial governance to address power imbalances, leave no one behind (women, youth, Indigenous Peoples, migrants, displaced people) and avoid capture by local elites. Short-, medium- and long-term joint planning is needed to proactively address issues such as human rights, climate change or disaster-risk management (e.g. management of flood zones). Multi-stakeholder coalitions will be needed to design, implement and monitor systems approaches on relevant topics. The following dimensions can be included in the agenda of territorial governance: • Support strong local food/farmers’ markets and connect producers and consumers (to harness their economic and political power). Consumer information, education and communication is essential. Scale up, not through corporatization or industrialization, but grow through aggregation with the support of appropriate local platforms controlled by local actors (e.g., food hubs) and local alliances. • Land use planning with attention to urban-rural linkages to address urbanization, promote nature-based urbanization and reframe urban-rural linkages with nature-based interfaces. • Diversification of food production, but also ensure sustainable management of natural resources (e.g., wild food harvesting). Revisit extension services, based on co-problem solving, and connect local actors (networks, local platforms, including community-driven platforms). • Regeneration of degraded eco-systems and provision of environmental services • Rebuild local knowledge systems to have a systems approach. We need knowledge-based systems rather than science-based solutions with academia as an active partner to co-create and share knowledge within sectors and across similar territories. Municipalities and local governments have a series of tools to support the re-territorialization of food systems, such as public procurement (e.g. for school meals), zoning (eg. for public markets and community gardens/kitchens) or strategies to restore nature and culture. But the challenge is to integrate top-down and bottom-up approaches. The public sector can regain a role through the participatory construction and implementation of local food policies shifting from sectoral approaches to integrate all dimensions of territorial systems. It is urgent to stop short term economic thinking and explore alternative financial incentives (slow money, municipal bonds geared to green infrastructure investments, ecosystem services payments etc.), seek inclusion and territoriality. Policies should support bonding and bridging through social networks. Food is not a commodity, it is about commons, rights and eco-system services—territorial governance can connect food systems with the land and the people that live in it. Territorialization is about empowering local actors to decide the future they want in the context they are in. Read less

Territorial approaches can enable Integrated Natural Resource Management (INRM) with food systems as a unifying context for action: 1. Strengthen rule of law: Mainstream law-based approaches, participation, accountability, and transparency is needed at all food systems scales so communities have the right and are empowered to engage in INRM. 2. Integrate multi/cross-sector action: Silos challenge action including cross-sector communications. Limited knowledge and capacity raise questions about agricultural impact on water sources, biodiversity, conflicts behind land use or land tenure, and fee... Read moredback with/to rural communities. Support is needed to facilitate/train for/develop capacity. Need to move landscapes/territorial planning from technocratic to rights-based (http://www.fao.org/3/i2801e/i2801e.pdf) 3. Learning exchanges to deepen mutual understanding of Agriculture, Food and Environment stakeholders: Need more systematic efforts to deepen mutual understanding among landscape stakeholders including challenge of values, e.g., knowing where, who, and how food is produced so consumers can make informed choices. Connect people to food system processes through dialogue, collaborative mapping for shared understanding and shift narratives. Consumer choice can push private sector (e.g. require supermarket chains to be transparent about food sources and add labels for CO2 emissions). 4. Mobilizing funding for landscape organization and investment: Funds for informal platforms or loose multi-stakeholder planning can be linked to more formal planning/decision-making structures. Landscapes and long-term resilience need links between local private sector and local SMEs that work beyond industrialized food system. Outside funding (e.g., GEF) can be useful but building bridges with other resources should be a priority. 5. Strengthening participation of marginalized stakeholders in governance: Pressing need to document territorial ethnic community food systems and ensure support to these foundational systems through financing, technical and policy resources. 6. Territorial alliances to advocate action for structural challenges: Structural issues around effective landscape/ecosystem action including poverty and food insecurity are significant challenges for cities/regional governments and impose pressing demands on budgets. Recovery packages could strengthen local food provision and build from innovative modalities (e.g., participatory budgeting). Structural issues need long term solutions, including shifting the narrative around food systems so needs are at the center. Subsidies can also be shifted. OECD agricultural subsidies totaled US$720 billion/year from 2018-20, yet only one in six dollars promoted sustainable productivity growth and agricultural resilience. Shifting more money to agroecology would be game changing. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/2d810e01-en/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/2d810e01-en 7. Institutionalizing capacity development for landscape/ecosystem management and governance is varied and insufficient: From producer to consumer, knowledge/awareness of landscape processes is a critical gap. Local/regional governments can create/incentivize markets for ecological products and give voice to producers using traditional or indigenous practices. Tools can address growing pressure for land use transformation (e.g., integrated platforms; knowledge sharing networks; “grading” landscapes on performance; and labelling). See, for example, the 1000 Landscapes for 1 Billion People initiative www.landscapes.global; https://www.climavore.org/ 8. Working more effectively with the private sector: As most funding is in the private sector including them in multistakeholder platforms could be critical. The main challenges are to: ensure decent livelihoods and investments in food systems at all levels; include small-scale producers and SMEs; address power inequities with bigger companies/investors; distribute funding so smallholders/SMEs have access to finance (e.g., public-private mixed company that supports local community food production while conserving the environment in Ecuador https://www.agroazuay.ec/). Read less

1. Communicating information to the general public A point was raised that the general public does not understand where their food comes from, catalyzed by increased distances between consumers and food producers. When the general public engages with misinformation, especially in the ways that their food is produced, they have no avenues to verify information validity. And changing their ingrained perceptions with truthful information is very difficult. Food has become a way for anyone, anywhere, to express their values. This has many benefits when it comes to learning about diverse cultures b... Read moreut can also lead to food becoming a new form of identity politics, promoting exclusionary, versus inclusionary, perspectives. This has the potential to be very dangerous as it could lead people to disengage from anything from diverse foods to alternate points of view. The lens of food understanding has also shifted towards a more individually-focused lens - “what is best for my family” - that is based on deeply held beliefs, versus a more scientific, unbiased lens. A great example is the global fear of pesticides and their effects on children and overall health, as well as the complex (and sometimes inconsistent) mechanism of public and private food labeling and certification schemes like “organic” without any global unified definition. At the same time, it was discussed that influential stakeholders are not explaining to consumers what is happening in agriculture, from the issues such as monocultures to the opportunities offered by agtech and genetic engineering. More needs to be done to explain the potential benefits of agricultural innovation to consumers and not engaging with new and innovative food systems ideas is a missed opportunity. There is a need to start explaining general food systems trends, the “big picture”, to consumers and engage with them more on the topic of sustainability to reduce information asymmetry and polarization. There is also a will to motivate this communication. Retailers, food distributors, and the hospitality industry have a voice and want to get their messaging right as they have a financial stake in consumer trust - loyal consumers make sure these industries are resilient to current and future food systems shocks such as COVID-19. A final point was made that it is important to address conflict and combat misinformation. Acknowledging concerns and the people who are concerned about food systems topics is vital and creates dialogue, even if the concern is not shared. This empathetic approach can also move beyond bilateral dialogue to collaboration and inviting more people and views into food systems conversations. Collaborating with those outside the private sector and agriculture industry can provide fresh thinking and not burden food systems with visions of what has been done in the past. Digital tools were predicted to be key in this process, allowing unprecedented access to increasing diversity and inclusivity, as well as more accurate measurement and evaluation systems. A proposal was made to develop global assessment guidelines to enhance greenhouse gas emission inventories and to improve carbon footprint assessments and strategies for low-carbon livestock and food security. Such suggestions could minimize misinformation with easily understandable data (CO2 emission numbers) of interest to consumers and further the global push for greater environmental sustainability. Read less

2. Communicating complexity Food systems are complex and this complexity is confusing. This confusion is further exacerbated by a lack of effective communication in the private sector - science communication is difficult and less attractive than sensational headlines and can be perceived as inauthentic. Identifying and debunking false information does not work as the motivation behind these fact-checking efforts is deemed to be suspicious by the general public. The most accurate voice is often not the loudest, especially in the context of sensationalized Netflix documentaries on food systems o... Read morer celebrity culture. A significant question was raised on how science and scientific theory can be delivered in a palatable way, communicating directly with consumers on the key issues that matter to them versus just displaying science in difficult-to-access and cost-prohibitive avenues such as scientific journals. A point was raised that science can be sold, but needs to be sold in what is important to the consumer, not what is important to the scientist. There is a tension around making science fully accessible, as there is power in nuance and very clear drawbacks on oversimplification. A memorable quote was mentioned by Jack Bobo, the CEO of Futurity, a food foresight company, “If you lead with the science, you lose with the science.” There was a collective agreement that science needs to be championed in education, especially children learning about key food systems topics in school. Experiences like science labs and experimentation need to be leveraged and science education needs to start as early as possible. Misinformation at this early developmental stage can be detrimental - if children are exposed to messaging that leads them to reject certain ideas, the industry loses them as consumers forever as well as lose the potential for innovation and change these future consumers could bring. Read less

3. Food Systems Messaging It is important to find the right people to deliver private sector food systems messages. Identifying the voices people want to hear - farmers from local communities, markets, etc. - and amplifying their messages will ensure that the messages are being heard by the general public, as trust in these food systems actors is high. There was also a call for producers to get more involved in consumer-facing communication to combat misinformation and promote transparency along the food supply chain. Additionally, the content of food systems messages to the general public nee... Read moreds to interest consumers. For example, rather than championing agtech as a private sector innovation, the messaging needs to pivot to show how agtech has benefitted farmer livelihoods. Or instead of focusing on sensational headlines on the dangers of animal protein, the focus could shift to the ingenuity and scientific progress made in the sector increasing its sustainability. As well, messaging needs to be tailored to each geography to accommodate national and regional markets and key areas of interest, as these may vary greatly. There is potential to use the digitally savvy next generation to elevate better food systems messaging, utilizing digital tools to meet future consumers “where they are” on digital platforms. A counterpoint was raised that complexity, which is often required in food systems messaging, does not fit into a world run by Twitter and TikTok conversations. This does open the opportunity though for scientific content creators to try and fit components of complex messaging into these platforms. Read less

Areas of divergence mainly existed to promote further discussion on topical areas, with most discussions coming to some form of consensus by the end of the dialogue. Some key areas of divergence included how to leverage digital tools to communicate complex food systems topics - should popular digital tools such as social media be used or would this further encourage oversimplification and misinformation. Dialogue participants agreed on the need to communicate to the next generation of food systems leaders and in general, consumers, but the avenue of communication could not be elucidated from t... Read morehe conversation. Diverse views were also present in examining the role of the plant-based industry and how the animal protein industry can engage with it. Points were raised that many plant-based private sector companies spend increasingly more financial resources on exclusionary marketing instead of research to improve their products or deliver product innovation, which hurts the food system, as there exists inefficiency and wasted potential for innovation. Read less

Findings from this Dialogue included: ● Reputation is what is limiting full private sector involvement in food systems conversations. There is great interest in the private sector to be more closely involved with the Food Systems Summit and food systems sustainability. Participants agreed that the industry needed to be more collaborative and integrate more stakeholder perspectives in its food systems work. Participants also recognized that the private sector is seen as too involved in public sector conversations by some food system stakeholders but the private sector itself does not feel inv... Read moreolved - many are just now getting to the table and having holistic food systems conversations. Predictions were made that 2050 sustainability goals will focus heavily on actions needed to be taken by the private sector, so involvement and qualitative engagement now are important. ● Communicating information has never been more difficult. There was frustration around false or incomplete facts or facts that are not scientifically proven creating an increasingly polarized world. There is a diversity of perspectives that become increasingly more dangerous through factors such as filter bubbles and echo chambers, where individuals encounter only information and opinions that conform to and reinforce their own beliefs, as well as oversimplification driven by social media, hysteria, hyper-connectivity, and large distances (in both geographic distance and use of digital technology) between food producers and consumers. Oversimplification is especially harmful as it is easily shareable on social media, makes logical sense, and breaks down complex points into one that is very simple to understand, removing any nuance. In this way, information consumers are not receiving complete information and will in turn not make optimal decisions, which harms food systems even further. ● Multi-stakeholder partnerships support sustainability and food systems transformation. Many global organizations face difficulties that multinational private sector actors can help solve, including sharing best-in-class models, facilitating better governance, reducing waste at multiple areas of the food supply chain, ensuring adherence to hygiene and other health-related factors, and helping prevent negative externalities. There are asymmetric challenges that exist and many stakeholders feel like they are pulled in different ways. Especially with more controversial food systems actors, having a seat at the table (through investing or other financial commitments) is important to ensure that the conversation is open instead of behind closed doors. Exclusionary investing will have broad negative unintended consequences, eliminating key parts of our food systems without leaving sustainable products to fill their place. The private sector, therefore, needs to be intentional about multi-stakeholder engagement - it needs to listen to stakeholders, including critical civil society organizations. As well, the sector needs to view these engagements as serious, bringing stakeholders to the table in intentional and recurring ways with planned long-term commitment. In this way, there is a chance to find a shared food systems purpose. Everyone wants to make the food system work - it does not help anyone if our food systems struggle. ● Diets are perceived to be changing dramatically towards the consumption of plant-based foods. This also means, however, that increasingly food is being produced in factories versus the land-based supply chains of animal proteins. We need a variety of proteins to feed the world, and consuming only plant-based solutions will not be sustainable in the near future, as more work needs to be put into research for other opportunities. Animal agriculture has a myriad of benefits and industry players are open to evolving their business models and engaging in dialogue with plant-based sectors. ● The role of youth and the next generation in food systems conversations is not to be underestimated. Youth can influence and change perspectives in innovative ways unheard of by many other stakeholders. As digital natives, their understanding of the internet provides them with the tools to examine all information with a critical lens. In this VUCA world, youth are thinking & acting differently than different generations. They are purpose-driven, idealistic, not loyal to brands, want to see change, and put value systems at the forefront, global citizens, open-minded, and changemakers. Youth see challenges as opportunities and can be trained to seek nuance in today’s information overload through equipping themselves with the skills to be mindful of media & information consumption. As more youth are taking leadership roles in food systems, it is important to build bridges, listen, ask them questions, and help them establish a shared purpose behind their work, to substantively shift food systems to be more positive for future generations. There is a strong need to connect with youth and listen to their perspectives through humble and open attitudes. Everyone has a role to play in food systems conversations. Read less

This Dialogue explored innovating for positive impact in a polarized world, through the private sector perspective. In today’s VUCA (Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, and Ambiguous) world, new ways of thinking, (re-)acting, and communicating are urgently needed to deliver on the potential benefits of innovation. Behaviors such as openness, collaboration, entrepreneurial mindset, and community engagement are more necessary than ever before, but how do we get there? This Dialogue brought together global private sector stakeholders to discuss the role of innovation in revolutionizing our world’s ... Read morefood systems, navigating ambiguity, building trust, and responding to the unprecedented challenges present in today’s world. Four discussion questions were proposed to structure the conversation: 1. What are the main topics that cause polarization when it comes to food systems? 2. How can we deliver science-based solutions in a polarized world? How should our approach to innovation adapt to this environment? 3. What is the role of communication in securing a social license to operate? With whom and where do we need to engage? 4. Who needs to be at the table and what are the ways to help (re)build trust and combat misinformation? Read less

• There are very different visions of the future of agriculture, from organic to conventional integrated pest management. • The current context of farming is a long way from the future trajectory outlined in EU and UK policy.

‘Bioprotection’ includes biocontrol technologies in agriculture and has uses in agriculture, forestry and public health. It protects against unwanted organisms e.g. pests and pathogens and is found in nature/are nature identical if synthesised. Biocontrol could reshape agricultural practices to be nature positive, reduce pesticide use, supporting biodiversity and regenerative farming practices supporting soil health and carbon sequestration. Bioprotection aids integrated pest management and has benefits in nature based solutions for agriculture to reduce pesticide use, supporting ambitions... Read more of legislation e.g. the EU Green Deal. What is biocontrol? Globally, terminology is unclear with lots of terms used. IBMA Product categories within the scope of “Bioprotection” include 4 categories which are the same as the French legally defined list for “biocontrôle”: • Semiochemicals are emitted by plants, animals and other organisms for intra-species and/or inter-species communication targeting specific and non-toxic mode of action, such as pheromones affecting behaviours of pests. • Microbials are based on microorganisms e.g. bacteria, fungi, protozoans, viruses, viroids, mycoplasmas and may include entire microorganisms, living and dead cells, associated microbial metabolites, fermentation materials and cell fragments. They outcompete pests within a crop. • Natural substances consist of >1 component from nature, e.g. plants, (micro) algae, animals, minerals, bacteria, fungi, protozoans, viruses, viroids and mycoplasmas. They’re found in nature/are nature identical if synthetised. This excludes semiochemicals and microbials. • Invertebrate Biocontrol Agents (IBCAs) (‘macrobials’) are natural enemies e.g. insect, mite and nematode species controlling pests through predation or parasitism. Currently IBMA doesn’t include, within the scope of “Bioprotection”, technology where there is no regulatory pathway or policy decision. Once policy decisions are published, technologies are considered for inclusion. Bioprotection may be a preferred pest management solution as it’s non-pathogenic to humans and doesn’t contribute to antimicrobial resistance development for human or veterinary pathogens. Bioprotectants are natural and minimally impact the environment. Natural substances and semiochemicals have degradation pathways or are inert; microbials have existing ecosystem mechanisms to balance populations; they’re usually specific to target organisms. They may cause minimal negative effects to non-target organisms, ecosystems and the environment because any negligible negative impact would be transient, resulting in no lasting reduction in biodiversity; indeed, bioprotectants often contribute to ecosystem services. Contextually, this work is timely as agriculture is shifting fast with the climate emergency, rising focus on soil health and biodiversity, and new EU and UK legislation where policy agenda is moving focus to ecosystem services and natural capital values. This means both food businesses and suppliers are actively building nature-friendly farming into strategies. Biocontrol could support food companies and growers to reach outcomes. However, it can be poorly understood outside of horticulture. It may face barriers to adoption from lack of knowledge, limited practical experience, European Common Agricultural Policy funding structure and inertia, with current profitable practices fitting with existing farming operations. The workshop addresses current biocontrol uses; opportunities/issues in emerging uses and identifies how to drive uptake of practices supporting biodiversity and soil health while being safe and productive. The audience included farmers, food businesses, policymakers, agricultural service providers. The geographical scope is Europe with a focus on arable farming. With ~ 80% of European farming under arable cropping and 20% in horticulture, upscaling nature positive solutions in arable farming is vital. Biocontrol is an existing solution and well-used in horticulture and speciality crops. Upscaling in arable requires adaption by in field learning and development. Read less

Why is biocontrol relevant for the future food system? Why are we having this conversation now? The world is shifting its focus toward forms of agricultural production that are healthier for both people and planet, and support the restoration of our environment. The 2020s have brought increasing shifts across policy, legislation and corporate strategies toward nature positive farming, with a focus on biodiversity restoration and regenerative and agroecological farming practices. Signposts include the EU Green Deal, its Farm to Fork Strategy and the UK 25 Year Environment Plan and Agriculture B... Read moreill. Government support payments for farmers will increasingly favour nature positive practices. Clear signals from business, for example from food service giant Compass, to the world’s largest retailer, Walmart, to major commodity producers such as Cargill, target regenerative agriculture as a key means to deliver their climate, net zero and sustainability strategies. Reductions in pesticide use are flagged in the legislative and policy frameworks above. Soil health is a key target for maintaining resilient productivity in the face of climate change impacts such as more extreme weather, so methods of pest management that protect the soil biome will play a significant part in future agricultural solutions. In short, agriculture will need to incorporate different practices to shift away from the needs of the 20th Century and meet the deepening challenges of the 21st Century. Biocontrol can contribute to agroecological practices and support resilient nature positive farming. It keeps biodiversity in the soil which contributes to plant health, and allows for reduced chemical inputs as part of integrated pest management programmes. Examples presented included the production of apple orchards, vineyards and arable crops such as wheat, barley, rapeseed and other crops such as corn and potatoes and beets. Opportunities identified in case studies presented included the improvement of biodiversity and reduction in chemical pest management. Adoption of decision-making tools allowed for optimisation of the use and timing of chemical products application, and the introduction of biocontrol, thus reducing the amount of chemical plant health management required for arable crops such as rapeseed and wheat. This has enabled the farmers to market their crops under High Environmental Value (HVE) labels which align with the strategies and preferred buying practices of many food companies. The farmers note that this shift in practices has also increased their reputation within the agriculture and food sector and many stakeholders want to see the on farm example of change. Financial benefits do not flow from a reduction in costs, as the biocontrol products costs more, but from the ability to access labels and standards such as GlobalGap and HVE premiums. This also aligns with the preferred buying standards of food companies and supports their strategic commitments to reduce pesticide use, and their ability to communicate their achievements to consumers. Other farmers identified the potential for biocontrol as an element of shifts in agricultural practices in response to new climate change challenges. Farmers shifting their practices noted that the shift comes at a cost, so to remain profitable produce needs to be marketed at a higher price, if not through an accreditation such as HVE in France, through higher purchase prices from food companies or traders or government support. Read less

What can biocontrol deliver? In creating a sustainable and healthy food system, reducing the pressure on the environment is key. As a non-chemical and targeted input, biocontrol can offer a systemic and balanced solution for sustainable agriculture. The effect of plant protection methods on biodiversity and health are now at the centre of political and technical discussions. In face of the upcoming revision of the Sustainable Use Directive, a milestone within the implementation of the Green Deal objectives, it’s essential to explore sustainable alternatives. As a non-chemical and targeted in... Read moreput, biocontrol offers a systemic and balanced solution for sustainable agriculture. Biocontrol acts within the farm ecosystem of life cycles, insects’ behaviour and the influence of agronomic practices on plant health. It thereby becomes a key enabler of the European Green Deal, particularly for the Farm-to-Fork objectives. Evidence of the role that biocontrol can play in sustainable agriculture, particularly in terms of benefits for biodiversity, was presented to the dialogue, based on a report from the Institute for European Environmental Policy (link to report below). Their literature review examines definitions around biocontrol, the literature on benefits with regard to biodiversity, soil and human health, current efficacy levels and market position, and potential wider impacts on farm economics and climate considerations. The report states that “…biocontrol has an advantage in its overall long lasting effects, which in itself has a positive knock-on effect on biodiversity and crop resilience. Biocontrol opens a virtuous circle generating more biodiversity and more resilient agroecological systems.” The report notes key evidence in the following areas: • Biocontrol has recognised potential to support the protection and enhancement of biodiversity, particularly in the framework of Integrated Pest Management and in combination with organic production. Reducing the overall use of chemical pesticides has widely acknowledged benefits for biodiversity. • Biocontrol has evolved into being a targeted measure, with little adverse effects on non-targeted fauna and flora. • The positive interplay between biodiversity and soil health is an area where biocontrol can play a key role. The living organisms in the soil create a vital living ecosystem, which can, among other functions, filter potential pollutants and sustain healthy plant growth. The reviewed studies indicated benefits of biocontrol both in decreasing chemicals reaching the soil and creating favourable states for soil microbes. • The use of biocontrol can lower negative impacts on human health. From farmers and field workers to residues in food products, chemical pesticides pose a multitude of health issues. Biological approaches can deliver on the safety of both consumers and workers. Several key shifts in the food and agriculture system are needed to realise the potential of biocontrol in nature friendly farming. These are outlined in the ‘action’ section at the end of this dialogue report, but include an appropriate legislative framework, policy alignment opportunities, with the new EU Green Deal and Farm to Fork strategy, research in to wider environmental implications of biocontrol, such as its role in agricultural systems for climate change mitigation; and field application studies. Read less

What is the relationship of biocontrol to strategy? The following key themes arose from the dialogue: There is increasing focus on regenerative agriculture from food companies – and major new commitments from companies. Therefore companies are looking into the technical solutions that will underpin the shift. Links can be drawn between healthy diets and the quality of food. Biocontrol needs to sit within the context of a food company’s sustainable nutrition strategy and healthy diets. Biocontrol is a long way from the consumer – so finding ways of linking biocontrol to consumer aspiratio... Read morens is essential to get consumer pull through. Companies are also looking at landscape level solutions and whether, in changing their farming practices, they can work over the long term across rotations and other surrounding land owners, to optimise outcomes across the crop cycle. Biocontrol is an area with potential for innovation strategy of food companies, for example looking at introducing integrated pest management, peer to peer learning and utilising the capabilities of food companies to drive innovation at farm level. Least cost is a key consideration for business strategy – the UK and EU are already working to higher standards. So there is a risk that use of newer and more expensive products could price growers out of the market. Businesses are committing increasingly to net zero carbon strategies and will need to respond to the policy environment which is shifting toward nature positive farming and environmental restoration. Pioneering farmers are adopting strategies that do prioritise more sustainable farming methods; however this is not yet recognised in the marketplace. Farmers’ business models need to be financially viable and thus biocontrol needs to sit within an economic model that is sustainable and values their environmental performance. Biocontrol can form a bridge between organic practices and the shift in conventional farming. Read less

Barriers and opportunities While the opportunities are extensive, the shift to biocontrol will require a change in mindset, backed by clear evidence and data to prove the efficacy of biocontrol products. The notable barriers and opportunities raised through the dialogue are outlined here: Barriers: • The regulatory environment moves too slowly to bring in new products to replace those chemicals that are being phased out, potentially leaving major gaps in the portfolio of pest management options for farmers. Increased speed and adaptation of regulatory processes for biocontrol are urgently ne... Read moreeded. • A lack of knowledge of the potential role of biocontrol within food system actors further up the supply chain • Cost: Biocontrol products do not yet have the benefit of scale and thus may cost more • Specificity: Biocontrol products may be specific to a particular crop or species of pest, and to optimise their use may require use at a different time in the cropping cycle to chemical pesticides so having a greater operational cost implication for the farmer • Inertia: farmers are experienced in the use of pesticides and their effectiveness, and may not see the need to change and biocontrol is not usually a straight replacement of chemistry as to optimise its use other agronomic and environmental factors need to be considered and often adapted. • Cost of investment and length of time in bringing a product to market (for the biocontrol manufacturing industry) • Regulatory frameworks: these vary globally and are not designed for assessing biocontrol products • A lack of solutions in the market for particular crops • Perceived risk of lack of efficacy of biocontrol measures in outdoor farming setting such as arable, as opposed to horticulture • In horticulture, use of biocontrol is much more mainstream but this is less well developed in broad acre crops Opportunities: • Access to higher value premiums through environmental claims and assurance standards • Strong environmental credentials to production practices can be communicated • Alignment with new regulatory environments and financial support mechanisms that reward either shifts in practice away from pesticide use, or outcomes such as improved biodiversity • Shifts in business strategy (not just for food and fibre companies) toward nature positive farming and regenerative agricultural practices • Farmers can act as enablers of food companies’ environmental strategy • Potential for food companies to communicate the benefits and alignment of biocontrol to public and reflect societal demands on pesticide use and nature positive farming Read less

What needs to change? The dialogue identified the following actions to accelerate the shift to nature positive farming and adoption of biocontrol: Knowledge: • Build linkages between food companies, suppliers and growers, to understand the appetite for shifts in agricultural practices across the value chain • Increased farmer knowledge of the efficacy of biocontrol products, and how they can transition • Utilise decision support tools to enable farmers to understand how biocontrol efficacy could be optimised in their specific context • Increase awareness of what biocontrol products are... Read more available, and how to use them: from advisors and suppliers to agricultural media • Research and development to prioritise biocontrol, demonstrate its efficacy and the business case for its use • Knowledge transfer and training in the use of biocontrol methods in the farm context • An understanding of farming operation implications such as work and labour Cost and risk: • Pricing structures (product cost and incentives for utilisation) that allow farmers to invest in the transition to, and adoption of, biocontrol • Contracts and partnerships with off-takers and food companies to share risk in the transition, rather than borne solely by the farmer • The shift to ecologically focused farming needs to be appropriately compensated, particularly for the additional benefits such as carbon storage and biodiversity and ecosystem services such as water quality The wider role of food companies: • Build stronger connections between farmers using biocontrol and actors further up the supply chain such as food retailers and manufacturers, to share knowledge, demonstrate practice and engage in partnership • Food companies need to understand the process of agricultural transition, and support farmers as they gradually transform practice, for example through longer term relationships, contracts, access to metrics to demonstrate outcomes, and sharing risk • Food companies can communicate to the public the use of biocontrol strategies and the wider benefits arising from its use • Collaboration across the sector and through the supply chain on advocacy for a better enabling environment for a shift to nature positive farming (such as the speed of decision-making and regulatory frameworks underpinning biocontrol) Policy To enable biocontrol to play its part in the shift to nature positive farming, a significant shift in policy is required. Agricultural policies need to align with the future ambitions of the EU Green Deal and Farm to Fork strategy, looking forward rather than reflecting the agricultural practices of the past. The following represent the top five policy recommendations from the IEEP report. • Definition: Using a common EU definition on biocontrol would bring clarity of its technical aspects to the political discussion on pest control for sustainable agriculture. • Legal framework: Adapting the current EU legal framework to recognise the non-toxic implications of biocontrol, in comparison to chemical products, should be considered. • Alignment opportunities: By increasing the uptake of biocontrol use, as part of Integrated Pest Management, the Common Agricultural Policy can be better aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals and the Farm-to-Fork strategy in creating a pathway for achieving the 2030 targets on organic farming and chemical pesticide reduction. • Research needs: Extending research topics and investment beyond technical issues to biocontrol’s relation to climate change mitigation and farm economics will create a more holistic image of the impact of the use of biocontrol. • Field application: Pushing for larger scale and accelerated application, supported by available policy instruments in the Common Agricultural Policy, will show the potential that biocontrol demonstrates for controlling plant pests and diseases, in support of EU Green Deal targets. Read less