Explore Official Dialogue Feedback

The participants in the dialogue were well aligned and did not present significant differences during the discussions.

The major focus of the event was on the solutions for an effective food systems transformation, especially on the interdependence of each player of the entire value chain. Each break out session focused on a different subject, in order to bring into discussion different topics, points of view but to see the relation between them as well. Carbon - Emissions related to food systems correspond to 1/3 (one third) of global emissions, being agriculture responsible for 12% of those emissions, thus the importance of the discussion and how a large scale implementation of low emissions and carbon seque... Read morestration practices can potentially drive food systems to net zero emissions by 2050. Climate change - Investments and the impact of the climate change in Brazil Payment for environmental services - What are considered environmental services, the importance of this theme for the agriculture sector and food production, historical perspectives, legal milestones (e.g. CNAE code for native forest conservation, the National Policy for PES from January 2021, etc.) and the agronomic practices that can impact the ecosystems services. Concrete examples of projects involving payments for environmental services (e.g. carbon with REDD+, Floresta+, hydro preservation projects as Extrema and Jundiaí, Natura/private company which business depend on the local communities and exploitation of certain species in the Amazon and others). Regenerative agriculture - Education, Communication and Sustainable Development Framework Sustainable Agriculture - discussed 3 pillars for producing food while having a positive impact in the environment: (i) protect the existing natural ecosystems, (ii) manage/handle food production in a sustainable way, and (iii) restore and rehabilitate degraded ecosystems and soil functionality for food production. In addition, key topics were discussed such as: (i) combating deforestation and conversion of native vegetation, (ii) taking into consideration productive systems: use of inputs, diversity and soil management; and (iii) ecosystem restoration and rehabilitation of degraded soils. Sustainable Livestock – focused on sustainable meat production, carbon emissions, the benefits of investing in sustainability and the issue of water use in the sector. Read less

The main findings (or conclusions) of the dialogue were: • It is important to align incentives and make the link between clients and suppliers to match the parties that need to reduce carbon emissions to the ones that have conditions/projects and also are lacking financing. The group suggested that financial sector players could do this link as they tend to have contact with both sides. • Make carbon methodologies more user-friendly, affordable and applicable to the agriculture and forestry sectors. Hence, these methodologies should fit-for-purpose (e.g., inventory, donor report and carbon... Read more markets). • Farmers awareness and perceptions on climate (“carbon”) issues should be increased. • Farmers should be more involved in low emissions development discussions and brought to the table for co-creating solutions. • Improvement of methodology for measuring carbon emissions is critical, as well as orientation to companies and producers on how to measure correctly. • Partnership with the supply chain for target carbon achievement also very important. • Lack of market mechanisms linking clients and suppliers: companies and banks can play an important role in building such connections, also important to make incentives reach the right end where the difference can be made (production) • Companies are already adopting good practices in sustainability and are fully aware of its impacts, however Brazil does not communicate this in an efficient manner. The country has strict legislation and significant areas under preservation but fails to communicate its accolades. • At government level, a more active monitoring is needed in order to enforce the law against wrong-doers and to inhibit traditional harmful practices such as burnings in specific areas of Brazil. • The adoption of best practices in sustainability requires investment and the cost of such investments are not transferred to final pricing, decreasing companies’ margins. • Companies expect a stronger support from the banking industry in financing the adoption of sustainability practices and as a mean to segregate those who are contributing for the change to those who are not. • The adoption of bio-fertilizers and biochemical is growing. • Renewable energy and circular economy practices are part of an increasing reality and should continue growing. • Improve level of consciousness in farmers but also at civil society; • Payment for environmental services could come from premium at commodity prices and/or carbon monetization • Both small/medium and large farmers should be part of this (Payment for environmental services) solution (broader landscape approach); • Idea: farmer Amazon fund • Education: Environmental and social responsibility should be taught to children at basic education programs and knowledge about existing sustainable techniques and practices should be disseminated to farmers. • Communication: consumers have to be aware of the sustainable initiatives being developed by the Companies and their impact. There is a transition price to be absorbed by the whole society, consumers will only agree to pay more for a sustainable product if the hidden benefits are communicated. • Sustainable development framework: the transition to a more sustainable model demands relevant long-term investments, which require well-defined policies, laws and economic incentives. • Make sure economic aspects from all parties (producers, governments and consumers) do converge. • The right incentives need to be properly allocated throughout the value chain, especially for the producers/farmers, who often incur most of the costs to become sustainable. • End consumers, banks and governments should also play a role in creating such incentives/compensation for the additional cost related to implementing sustainable practices across the value chain. • Carbon capturing and consequent monetization is another avenue to incentivize farmers while promoting sustainable production patterns. Collaboration across the value chain is already taking place (Scope 3). • These incentives should also improve the livelihood of the smaller farmers and promote sustainable economic growth. • Broader access to technology in the field is necessary to also reach more remote areas/small-holders. • Use of technology as a means to improve productivity (e.g. high precision agriculture, biological defensives/fertilizers, machinery, and others). • Traceability is a key element in properly identify illegal practices while identifying and rewarding sustainable practices and players. Collaboration among players is also necessary to map the entire value chain. • Get the right message across to the society and fight fake news are very important elements. • Clear/Objective metrics in order to benefits from the investments and current existent sustainable footprint. That would benefit the entire agri chain; • Clear carbon metrics, both visually noticed (forest) and non-visually noticed (soil enhancement). • Enhance the Brazilian agriculture image worldwide with initiative from the sector/government and media. Brazil has one of the most sustainable process but does not benefit from that. Read less

Topic 1- Carbon • Emissions related to food systems correspond to 1/3 (one third) of global emissions, being agriculture responsible for 12% of those emissions, thus the importance of the discussion. It was also pointed out that large scale implementation of low emissions and carbon sequestration practices can potentially drive food systems to net zero emissions by 2050. • Biggest challenge is how to measure, report and verify (MRV) carbon emissions and what is the impact of the actions undertake in the attempt to reduce emissions. • Significant number of farmers in Brazil have never hea... Read morerd about “carbon” and, therefore, increasing awareness on climate issues, negotiations and commitments is needed for larger farmers engagement. Hence, farmers need to be involved in food systems/carbon discussions and help co-creating solutions. • Current methodologies (Science Based Targets) are not adapted to agriculture/forest sectors and they are involved in discussions to help foster this improvement. It is crucial for methodologies to reflect the specificities of forest sector given that this sector starts from a low carbon emission base and already has a great amount of carbon capture. Importance of doing partnership with the supply chain to achieve reduction targets. • The sugarcane sector itself does not represent a big part of carbon emissions within the agricultural sector, but this increases a lot when the supply chain is taken into account. The biggest challenge is for long supply chains where the intermediary industries have a relevant role in emissions. For instance, 1/3 of carbon emissions in the ethanol industry is along the supply chain. Main challenge is that incentives do not necessarily reach the ones that have the ability to make a bigger difference by changing practices. • There are funding alternatives in place, but it’s hard to find sound projects. • Lack of orientation, information on how the producer could measure carbon emissions and what are the incentives. What are the actions that they could implement that could have the biggest impact on carbon reductions in the short term. • Biggest challenges is that currently there is not a certification for commodities (the product itself) and just for the production process. • Traditional voluntary carbon market methodologies (e.g., Verra-VCS) are not affordable and that this process do not result in significant revenues to farmers. Read less

Topic 2 - Climate Change Carbon Sequestration: • Sugarcane in itself contributes for carbon capture and ethanol, which is an important product generated by the crushing of sugarcane and a gasoline substitute, emits 90% less carbon dioxide than the petroleum derivative. • Biodiversity is related to everything above and underneath the soil, and the latter is not measured and valued properly nowadays. Other good practices related to climate change and implemented by the companies present in the discussion: • Usage of traceability tools to track the grains used for animal feed products, choo... Read moresing good suppliers in order to produce more with less grains and less environmental impact, and to improve quality of the products to optimize the energy conversion and reduce the cattle methane emission. • Leading role towards climate change must be played by agribusiness companies - soil preservation, crop-livestock integration, use of biological fertilizers and defensives, and water reservation and use optimization. Sustainable energy generation: • Cogeneration energy from sugarcane bagasse used for own consumption and also for supplying the market and, more recently, the beginning of biogas projects that will use vinasse and other sugarcane by-products as the raw material for biogas/biomethane production. The biogas will be then used for clean energy generation while the biomethane as a substitute of diesel in the company’s logistics. • Solar energy - the investment is high, but the environmental and economic benefits are worth the expenditure. Climate change in Brazil: • Sustainable agenda and climate change discussions are here to stay. Brazil has one of the most rigid environmental rules in the world and that besides the necessity to keep legal reserves as a percentage of each productive property. 66% of the country’s territory is dedicated to the protection, preservation and conservation of native vegetation and biodiversity. • Brazilian image perceived is very negative because of the actions of a few people that do not represent the correct producers. • Farmers are commanding the market and will increasingly require more actions in the environmental field. No soy has been purchased from deforested areas and the grain producer must change its mind. The ones that do not adapt to the new reality will be out of the market soon. • Government should be more active to avoid illegal burning and punish the ones involved in those illegal activities Read less

At this stage ('Series x 3'), we have been able to identify gaps in our Food System that need attention, so are taking care of 3 and now 5 divergences here and only by continued work and enduring work can we truly hope to achieve progress in the gaps that we all identify.

Table 1: Food Waste Reduction Mitigation: How do we get key players in the food supply chain to adopt the internationally recognised Target, Measure and Act approach to reduce food waste in Aotearoa between 2022-2025? Key points from Facilitator’s Official Feedback Form New priority actions since the March 2021 FSSD 1. Government: Making available food waste focused funding streams (once it is clearly defined—see Immediate Actions, No. 1 below). 2. Business: Promote maintenance of profitability and innovation. 3. Community: Restoring the mana of food (mana means prowess/respected by all). ... Read more4. Community: Food redistribution to people supported e.g. food rescue. 5. Government & Community: Education in schools on food waste reduction. Immediate Actions for Table 1 1. NZ Food Waste Champions 12.3 is writing to government to progress a national baseline measurement and to issue a “food waste” definition. 2. A follow-up call was held on 16 July 2021 to brainstorm how to support food waste innovation initiatives. The group are considering a hackathon in 2022 as part of the NZ Food Waste Summit, with a specific focus on “upcycling”. 3. The facilitator has connected those on Table 1 with opportunities to support the Love Food Hate Waste campaign. Note from Convener: Could the narrative possibly be changed from ‘hate’ to ‘heed. Right now we are realising that good clean water is more precious than gold where this old adage rings true like never before: ‘one person’s waste is another person’s gold’. Food waste ➺ compost has a major role to play in restored soil and waterway health too, enter SDG14 – Life below water. The Facilitator was also involved in Government Dialogues where food waste was discussed. She wrote a summary blog on the ‘top 10 takeaways’ from all the dialogues she was involved in. Read more here by referring to pg 8 of our submitted entitled Independent Aotearoa Food Systems SUMMIT Dialogue - June 18th 2021 Report submitted July 2021 Collective Aim The first ‘Wheel Spoke FSSD’ for Table 1 happened on Friday July 16th 2021 feedback shall be provided. Read less

Table 2: Better Health For Better Nutrition Mitigation: Between the years of 2022-2025 how do we get the most accurate data on what the people of Aotearoa are eating, where they’re eating and what the challenges are to ensure that all solutions focused to improve the food security and nutrition are data-driven and measurable? Key points from Facilitator’s Official Feedback Form The table “agreed to refer to the FAO definition of sustainability to ensure that we take into consideration environmental, social and economic factors, rather than just being driven by the price on the product fo... Read morer the end user”. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) defines sustainable development as “the management and conservation of the natural resource base, and the orientation of technological and institutional change in such a manner as to ensure the attainment and continued satisfaction of human needs for present and future generations. Such sustainable development (in the agriculture, forestry, and fisheries sectors) conserves land, water, plant and animal genetic resources, is environmentally non-degrading, technologically appropriate, economically viable and socially acceptable”. The feedback form writes: “A briefing document will be collated for the table, which will enable the table member to take this to their organisations”, ultimately for commitment across the growing network of stakeholders to get the 2022- 2025 task achieved. This document will be: ➺ A one pager on what data we need and what it would be used for. ➺ Information on data use and who is going to be analysing it. ➺ Information on confidentiality, ethics and commercial sensitivity. ➺ Timeline and milestones about when we want the information by. It was excellent to read this addition to the Feedback Form meaning participants are taking accountability for delivering results to their Table at the next wheel spoke FSD. The series is well in action now and this is exciting for all involved as the 2022-2025 aims are clearly defined and are in motion to being achieved. Individual Actions: ➺ Determine process of adding questions into the census. ➺ Determine whether any of this work can be supported by Institutes ➺ See how universities can be engaged with the projects to get the manpower to deliver on this work. ➺ See what can be added into the market insights that industry run every 6 months. Table 2 have established that questions for 2023 have already closed and so someone has been charged with ensuring the 2028 Census is utilised well for this need, as this will roll over into the new 2026-2029’s workload. Table 2’s first ‘Wheel Spoke FSSD’ date is yet to be decided by the Facilitator and we shall provide feedback as to results. Read less

Table 3: Food Sovereignty Mitigation: Between the years of 2022-2025, how do we activate, enable, connect and charge-up communities to create some resilience in the face of the significant change we face. Key points from Facilitator’s Official Feedback Form Maramatanga / Learning ➺ Food production is a climate change mitigation strategy and has to be recognised for its contribution. ➺ Eco system recovery is a direct result of methods used that restore Papatūānuku (Earth Mother). ➺ To feed the population, our population has to eat local as much as possible to financially support local... Read more food growers – as a Province what do we eat, what do we grow, what do we actually need to bring in? ➺ Holistic approach to growing food – what does this mean for people? ➺ Success is good compost for growing, local compost for local food (Intersection: Table 1). ➺ Is your growing approach enhancing Papatūānuku or diminishing her? ➺ Empower individuals / increase mentorship / encourage participation. ➺ Value food and compost production as academic subjects. ➺ Links people back to the whenua and ecosystem health. ➺ Important to shift the language, ( restore, together, climate mitigation). Meeting Climate Change Measures ➺ Where are the metrics / How do we share these? ➺ How are we measuring this? ➺ Testing and proving the mitigation measures. Business Shifting from a volunteer space to an economic space is essential for longevity and viability financially. Gaps Government are finally catching up with NGO’s—how can we make this easier and be visible so funding is allocated to local grower and buyer frameworks that are relevant and appropriate and let communities decide. Indigenous Responses Food insecurity among communities is a direct result of poor or inadequate social policies, systemic inequalities across generations and a clear indication of exclusion, marginalisation and failed interventions. ➺ Challenging inequity through institutional racism and cultural biased paradigms, are we addressing questions of equity? (SDG 10 – Reduced Inequalities). ➺ 80% of biodiversity is protected by Indigenous peoples worldwide yet only 10% of that is in land title. ➺ Holistic approaches for Māori include Hua parakore that are not restricted to the land, e.g., food from the moana, awa, ngahere (sea, rivers, forests). ➺ Land grabbing is still a threat today even in Aotearoa—globally our indigenous brothers and sisters are being murdered for defending their land. ➺ He kai he rongoā he rongoā he kai—“food is our medicine and medicine is our food”. Convenors Note: Hua Parakore (from March 16th 2021, Hua Parakore is a food verification system and the only indigenous one in the world, which provides 6 principles that connect us to the land and the land to us). All of these kaupapa (principles) are interconnected and drawn from the māramatanga (Māori knowledge) continuum. ➺ Biggest threat to food sovereignty is synthetic biology. ➺ Moving away from the right to food as a charity response to a basic human right. ➺ As Tiriti partners Government are reminded of their duty to protect Ngā hua Māori which includes taonga (Māori products including national treasures). Read less

Interestingly, seeing as we now have a series in action (June 2020, March 2021, June 2021), we have had a shift in our trajectory between March 2021 and June 2021 whereby, to remind the reader, our March 2021 efforts focused on: 1. SDG 12 – responsible production and consumption and 2. Action Track 2 – shift to sustainable consumption patterns; significantly, our June 2021 efforts have meant shifts and now we are focusing on: SDG 12 responsible consumption and production and SDG 14 – Life below water and SGD 10 Reduced Inequalities and Action Track 3 – nature positive production. The m... Read moreain reasons for these shifts can be read in detail within each Facilitator Feedback Form, (within report file submitted), and through the Convener’s lens here: Given the issues and priorities that have emerged in this 3rd FSD session: 1. Table 1 – Food Waste Reduction Table 1 focused on actions government, business and community can take to reduce food waste. For example, government needs to issue a definition of ‘food waste’ and support measurement projects. Business and government need to enable food waste innovation, such as upcycling. For community, food waste education needs be incorporated into schools and urban farming/ composting infrastructure supported. Due to engagement and workload, facilitators are holding wheel spoke dialogues between the three main FSSD. Table 1 had it’s first wheel spoke dialogue on food waste innovation on the 16 July 2021. 2. Table 2 – Better Nutrition for Better Health Keeping a strong commitment to SDG 12 this table is ensuring that we as a population are very aware of current eating patterns and what we need to be buying to eat for our health resilience via more nutrient dense food being produced. (Ultimately food has to be easily accessible at affordable prices for all and this is the subject at Table 3). Table 2’s focus intersects directly with Action Track 3—nature positive production where the focus is on how we can source and buy our food locally via nature positive production which in turn shall help restore our freshwater health too— again relating to SDG 14, Life Below Water. Table 2 at the time of writing is determining their first wheel spoke FSD date and again we shall report on results. 3. Table 3 – Food Sovereignty This table was led by a new Facilitator who took the view to understand participant backgrounds and skill-sets first. We had a scribe unable to attend at the last minute, so our Convener was Scribe. The main subject focused on was ensuring the most nutrient dense food is produced locally and purchased locally and that is it is easily accessible at affordable prices for all. Important feedback linking SDG 12 to Action Track 3 is “shifting from a volunteer space to an economic space is essential for longevity and viability financially”. This eventuality led to a shift in focus to the economic and business frameworks which shall help communities function this way. Also an additional Table developed being Compost Creation and Education which linked this Table’s efforts with Table 1's. Please see our full Independent Aotearoa Food Systems SUMMIT Dialogue - June 18th 2021 Report submitted July 2021. Read less

The first main finding has been to nurture the need for Compost Creation and Education to give major heed to Food Waste as a significant positive national resource, never acknowledged to this degree in importance before in the history of Aotearoa to assist with the Climate Change threat and fresh-water health restoration. Soil carbonaceous material, part of the make-up of compost acts as a water quality filter—enter SDG 14, Life Below Water. (Compost is the common denominator between all Tables) The second finding is that, due to demand of interest and workload being understood, we have prog... Read moreressed from 3 to 5 tables with separate and yet connected focuses/ kaupapa. Each table will have its subsequent wheel spoke FSD’s for tables 3, 4 and 5, which will take place in July/August and outcomes shall be reported. Table 3: Food Sovereignty Self-Determined food growing is to encompass selling and buying techniques. Table 4: Compost (Creation and Education) Both 'boosting' compost creation and education will be the focus of this table. Table 5: Monitoring (Metrics and Evaluation) In the work done by Table 3, a strong emphasis was put on the ‘increasing need’ for metrics. This syncs perfectly with the Food System SUMMIT Synthesis Report, April 2021 (page 6) where a major focus established is the need for monitoring and evaluation functionality. Hence we have opened up Table 5. Both metrics and evaluation techniques will be the focus of this table. (Please see our Independent Aotearoa Food Systems SUMMIT Dialogue - June 18th 2021 Report submitted July 2021, page 8). The third main find has been Reduced Inequalities SDG 10 has been picked up on and included as a direct result of having indigenous peoples input in our dialogue who are brave enough to say it how it is. To support this strength, let us remember what Dr Agnes Kalibata, Special Envoy of the United Nations Secretary-General for the 2021 FSSD advocates, “we must have courageous conversations”. Only by taking courage and identifying actual barriers to needed shifts, or gaps that need filling, will game changing ideas and initiatives too be identified and actioned. The fourth main find has been commitment expressed from the facilitators, scribes, our digital expert and crucially our participants to an enduring FSD dialogue platform 2021-2035. The fifth main finding has been to depend on the FSD method/structure/advice for progress to take place. Read less

All participants agreed on the importance of all stakeholders in implementing game-changers. The participants were aware of Leabnon's challenges and emphasized the importance of immediate action and implementation.

Participants in the open discussions addressed issues concerning the water-energy-food nexus and how to incorporate this nexus into agriculture. Furthermore, concerns such as proper solution adoption, resource availability, the collaboration among ministries and institutions, export of highly consuming crops, product markets, and reluctance to use treated wastewater for irrigation were highlighted. Other commentaries reiterated the input on Mural in regards to optimal irrigation scheduling, the use of low-cost sensors to monitor water quality, and the collection of data, particularly for groun... Read moredwater. Finally, participants discussed issues such as small-scale wastewater treatment plants, identifying sources of wastewater pollution, and the use of treated urine, cyanobacteria toxicity, and quality monitoring program. Read less

The game-changing actions identified in each of the two topics discussed are: (a) How can technology improve water use in food systems? • Invest in technology • Increase efficient use of available water sources in irrigation and optimize irrigation scheduling • Adopt low-cost sensors to monitor water quality which is suitable for Lebanon's case. • Raise awareness on the use of affordable technology and educate farmers on use of ICT to improve crop production • Make available micro credits for farmers to use new equipment that improve agriculture • Reuse of water and treated wastewa... Read moreter • Decrease water consumption • Research virtual water trade • Ensure that water policies are implemented through tracking efficient irrigation in agricultural fields • Collect data regarding water demand and supply and analyze the data to promote better use • Promote the use of Renewable Energy in agriculture specially to reduce cost • Promote collaboration between universities • Mitigate climate change considering smart innovation systems and create future climatic scenarios to set agricultural calendars e.g. identify crops (b) How to enhance/ improve water quality to ensure food safety? • Map and identify main sources of water pollution and implement a comprehensive water quality monitoring program in the country in order to identify sources of pollution • Encourage small scale wastewater treatment • Implement proper treatment methods through WWTP to be used in agriculture. It is important to treat wastewater at source before discharging into water bodies that will be then used for irrigation • Rehabilitate irrigation networks and ensure continuous maintenance of sewage networks • Enhance governance, improve regulation and standards and apply new/strict policies/procedures to prevent/mitigate pollution at the source levels rather than looking for innovative or classical ways to treat pollution on a bigger scale • Update related guidelines on water quality, • Improve efficiency of use of fertilizers and pesticides • Raise awareness on the importance of using treated wastewater, and educate farmers on safe use of treated wastewater and regulations to indicate type of crop and areas (farmers use polluted water but the notion of using treated water is still considered an outlaw) • Increase investment in data collection • Enhance the use of appropriate technologies to ensure water quality and safe food • Test the water quality used for irrigation regularly • Use of remote sensing tools • Revitalize the role of local governments that can support exploring alternative solutions for using quality nonconventional water, at the same time take appropriate measures to prohibit misuse of fertilizers and pesticides Read less

Production without deforestation and conversion (“After all, what is sustainable food production?”) There are two key points to be considered in this discussion – the lack of incentives and conditions to gain scale in productive models considered sustainable and the difficulty in recognizing some of them, due to a series of factors that will be discussed in more depth below. With regard to sustainable practices, such as agroecology, organic and regenerative agriculture, for their intensification, the needs to value the communities on their lands and value their knowledge were identified,... Read more as they are the ones who understand exactly how to manage their land, climate conditions and native species. Systematizing and disseminating this knowledge is imperative to strengthen this production and gain scale. When there is technical assistance offered in these places, in general they tend to be based on more technocratic and “conventional” models, which is an obstacle and a risk for the maintenance of these practices. Another important point to recognize is that each territory has its peculiarities, especially in a country as large as Brazil. Sociocultural and environmental factors change a lot from region to region, and good agricultural practices will be different for different peoples, cultures and territories. In any case, strengthening research actions that are more localized and more respectful of traditional knowledge can support the construction of indicators that demonstrate their sustainability and potential for replicability. As an example of the difficulty in conceptualizing some systems, the sector of native seeds and seedlings was pointed out: while the exotic eucalyptus has abundant public resources for its planting, research on native species is close to zero. It is known that there is a huge variety of native autochthonous species, only in the region of Rio de Janeiro (Atlantic Forest) that have no records and are not easily found in nature and that for an estimated ¾ of them, the risk of extinction is not being monitored by the usual indicators. Even less is known about its qualities. In order to encourage and gain the scale of the more well-established practices, it is important to develop and strengthen incentives, financial and technical policies for these initiatives, and increase knowledge on the part of both producers and society in general of these programs, to that can respectively access them and demand, civically, their maintenance and full execution. In the sense of social participation in public agendas, the urgency of strengthening the performance of public councils and committees was highlighted, so that they occupy the democratic spaces of public participation properly and press for the implementation and compliance with already established laws and monitor possible setbacks. For this, it was also identified the importance of the involvement of academia, as part of society, for the maintenance of more informed and science-based debates in these spaces. Still discussing the role of consumers and civil society, it is essential that, through educational programs and qualified information, the differences between the different production models and their implications are made known, as well as local products from socio-biodiversity. This appreciation and recognition by society also affects the private sector, which can be a vector of dissemination and support for these practices. Another important point is that the conceptualization of good practices, as well as the evaluation of progress, needs to be a more participatory process, involving academic or more technical institutions, but also civil society, producer associations and cooperatives, in order to build consensus. The narrative of “conventional” agribusiness is very well structured, and it is important that there is a good enough understanding for joint actions among the group of producers who apply sustainable practices. Read less

Looking comprehensively at the group and plenary discussions, even though there are mostly converging points, interconnected, there is a series of divergences or points to be better explored in future opportunities. A central issue concerns the risk of “commodification” of organic or agroecological agriculture. We cannot aim for organic monocultures. In parallel to the gain of scale and increase in the number of initiatives and networks in agroecology, organic production, etc. it is necessary to think about more systemic changes in consumption patterns and market relations. Another importa... Read morent point to be discussed in more depth is the role of the private sector in each of the areas of this Dialogue. Although there were statements in all groups addressing the responsibilities and opportunities associated with the participation of the private sector, there are reservations about possible conflicts of interest inherent to this performance. An example is the question of whether or not there is self-regulation by the sector regarding the communication of product attributes. Can you expect this communication to always be done with the consumer's well-being in mind? And if not, how do you work around this conflict in a feasible way? Although there are initiatives that bet on this self-regulation, social control and public regulation in these segments are essential. In fact, although in most groups and topics of discussion this is a point of consensus, the framing of “government” or "public agencies" also needs to be better defined in order to better address engagement actions in this sector. There are conflicts of interest, overlapping responsibilities and blind spots in this huge structure, and identifying the best entry points and actors to engage across different levels of government is essential to achieving good results. Collaboration to conceptualize solutions and good practices, as mentioned above, is also a point to be deepened, in the sense of consolidating possible indicators to consider in the construction of tools for mapping initiatives and construction of narratives that can reach end consumers in a more understandable way. Several groups raised the need to better define and standardize (as far as possible) environmental indicators for these good practices, as well as the need to give more visibility to social and territorial indicators. Read less

Access to land / legal security There is a perceived lack of recognition, both by institutions and by civil society, of the right to land by producers, especially by traditional populations – a right that is guaranteed, at least formally, by the Brazilian constitution. This lack of recognition, together with real estate speculation in the countryside and in the cities, generates insecurity and violence. The importance of guaranteeing this right related to the promotion of more sustainable production practices is also not perceived, although the importance of this collective recognition and t... Read morehe effective defense of human rights should go beyond issues related to production - traditional peoples and communities do not necessarily identify themselves only as producers, and their relationship with the land goes beyond that, although the historical knowledge of a harmonious relationship with nature – which also materializes in the sustainable production of food – can and should be valued. There are three important points in this debate. First, the need to strengthen and enforce public policies that guarantee the right to land, it's use, and permanence in the territory, and thus ensure that people from traditional communities and small farmers have the right to live as they see fit, guaranteeing them sovereignty over the territories where they live. And for this, it is necessary that the competent institutions – such as the Public Ministry and the Federal Supreme Court, for example – are able to act effectively in the implementation of public policies such as land demarcation, in the articulation and in mechanisms for reporting, monitoring and if necessary, punishing for violations of the law. The second point highlighted is the current political scenario, which not only makes the implementation of existing tools difficult, but also constantly creates threats of setbacks to the conquered rights. The dismantling of important institutions such as the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA), the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio) and the National Indigenous Peoples' Foundation (FUNAI) is observed, as well as public policies such as the National Program for Strengthening Family Agriculture (PRONAF). In responde to this, the valorization of local initiatives, individually, but also the promotion of exchanges and bonding opportunities between small groups, is presented as a solution, so that collective actions are constituted and strong enough to resist. In addition, it is essential to garner support from civil society, seeking genuine and emotional engagement, without promoting polarization and supported by strong narratives, so that citizens can favorably influence the legal system, speaking out against imminent setbacks, but also making different choices in the elections of future representatives. And finally, although the current moment is mainly one of resistance, solutions such as the development of tools for the mapping, connection and visibility of existing initiatives - such as existing projects for mapping social technologies - are suggested as priorities, in order to identify those that already are established, their food production, what they lose when there are invasions, as well as those who are no longer able to access public policy, and to help to identifying the strengths and challenges in both scenarios. In addition, a mapping of territorial initiatives involving economic, environmental and social indicators, such as how much income these actions generate, how many jobs they create locally, what is their impact on literacy rates, which territories these organizations help to conserve, among others, they can support the planning of future actions and investments, as well as strengthen the fight for the claim of rights and the necessary narrative for the engagement of society. Read less

Technical Assistance and Rural Extension / Inclusive Technology Technical assistance and rural extension are essential for the development of more sustainable production solutions, both from the point of view of gaining the scale of existing models and technologies, as well as to support the transition to new healthier and more environmentally sustainable models. However, there is both the lack of assistance, especially those that allow organic and agroecological practices, and the infrequency in their offer in general, as well as the presence of biases in the most frequently available current... Read more models, which often reinforce practices based on monocultures and dependent on pesticides, for example. It is necessary to increase the capillarity and access to technical assistance, as well as its frequency and constancy. But at the same time, it is identified that the quality of technical assistance offered to producers needs to be improved, with due attention to the knowledge of the particularities of each region, its soils, climate and availability of native species. In particular, there is a need to strengthen specializations in a technical area such as agroecology and to develop specific training for the particularities of family farming. In its constitution, assistance activities need to focus simultaneously on environmental quality and sustainability of production in its various aspects: economic, social and environmental. Another key point of debate is the need to promote technical assistance actions that are emancipatory, so that producers can continue the work after the end of a specific project. From this perspective, the creation of mechanisms that allow the transfer of technology to the producer emerges as a solution, in a logic of co-creation, in which the producers who generate the demand and the technicians work to solve the identified problem. However, without ceasing to use existing practices, so that both approaches are complementary. Still from the perspective of emancipation, it is important to work on the more comprehensive training of farmers instead of focusing solely on productive practices. Producers, especially smallholders, need better access to trainings and technologies that promote their digital inclusion, and that provide them with better inventory and cash flow management, for example. Leadership trainings in governance, acountability and other factors are also essencial to their market acess and livelihoods. In addition, it is urgent to strengthen networks that allow the exchange of knowledge between producers and the dissemination of agroecological practices and lessons learned, as well as the creation of mutual support groups that distribute some costs associated with production among different producers or families, such as the acquisition of inputs, for example. As challenges, it was pointed out the difficulty in establishing bridges between producers, to share information, experiences and good practices, which can be stimulated by NGOs, academia and the farmers themselves. The difficulty in obtaining specific public and private resources to implement actions to improve family agriculture, agroecological, etc. was also discussed. These resources can come from public rural credit programs or from the private initiative itself, through grants or partnerships, and finally, the difficulty in systematizing and disseminating knowledge related to agroecology, which can also be conducted in partnerships between producers, NGOs, the technicians themselves and academia. Read less

Financial mechanisms There was a time when it was possible to observe a prioritization on building and rolling out public policies focused on food production, agrarian development and minimizing hunger in Brazil. Even with due criticism of this past model, in the last five years the scenario was inverted, becoming a time for dismantling of these policies. It is therefore necessary to consolidate a narrative of reconstruction through two main paths: facilitating access to credit in the private sector - which still has very high transaction costs - and combining and potentializing it with the ca... Read morepilarity of the public sector - which does not yet have its resources completely free for organizations. In this way, it becomes possible, for example, “to use the private sector tractor in a way oriented towards healthier production systems”. The financial system itself, as a whole, is changing: an example of this are ESG investments, focused on the environment, sustainability and governance. This may be a significant opportunity, over the next few years, to open gaps for financial access focused on family farming and agroecology. It should be remembered, however, that large banks are involved in this discussion, which can make it difficult to advance these agendas. It is essential to look more fairly at public policies related to food production, such as access to land, land tenure regularization and rural technical assistance. Once the producer has technical monitoring, it is necessary to create easier mechanisms for granting credit, and the government is fundamental in this context. However, each of the opportunities offered by the state has a specific process to be accessed, so reducing bureaucracy in accessing these opportunities is urgent. Family farmers still have some difficulty in accessing markets - public and private, and therefore cooperatives or assotiations take on the role of facilitating it however possible, and this can also be the case for private and public credit or financing. In the case of retail chains, the model is quite asymmetric, as they only pay after 30 to 90 days. In this sense, it is extremely necessary to review business practices. Finally, financing does not need to happen only at the food production stage. It can also occur in its commercialization and processing. New models, such as financing for warehouses and agro-industries can be carried out from this perspective. Large banks offer loans at unfeasible rates, which are close to 40% a year, which reinforces the need for action by the government. In this sense, the National Program for Strengthening Family Agriculture (PRONAF) has public information on the amount of credit approved. However, there is also an asymmetry regarding the types of crops or products served by the Program: while some receive a lot of investment, others receive an incredibly smaller contribution, and development banks, such as the BNDES, end up not having much appeal to operate in the public initiative. Thus, public-private partnerships can be very welcome to resolve this issue. The debate about the essentiality of small producers already exists in the academic environment: they are capable of bringing positive environmental and social consequences to food systems. However, measuring these consequences is still very complex, and the public sector could offer subsidies to advance this issue. Ultimately, it is necessary to think about the extrapolation of production and productivity indicators and start thinking about social development, regeneration and restoration of landscapes through food production, in addition to the more traditional indicators. Read less

Fair market relations The group's discussion was focused on short production and consumption cycles, assuming that this is an essential dynamic for more horizontal relationships between the parties, and that they encourage the real appreciation of agriculture, both from a monetary and symbolic point of view (which directly affects in the price). However, it is also recognized the importance and urgency of improving relations between producers and retailers, seeking better rates of remuneration. The establishment of fairer relationships - when applicable to market logic, from an economic point ... Read moreof view - has great potential to be a lever for sustainable food prodution, a statement proven by the existence of models such as Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), in which consumers become co-farmers and support and participate in the production of their food regardless of the products received. This guarantee is essential for promoting safety in the field, and the opposite also applies; the more fluctuations in product prices, the greater the difficulty for producers to maintain this activity over generations and to invest – time and financial and human resources – in improvements in production. Certifications and seals are tools that would potentially support a better valuation of products from more socially and environmentally responsible models, however, the bureaucracy to obtain these certifications is so great that it makes them inaccessible for most producers. As a proposal, the creation of an agroecological seal that is simpler to be obtained was discussed, or the creation (or adaptations to existing models) of some mechanism that guarantees the traceability and identification of riverine, quilombola and indigenous communities in the products, as a certificate of origin. However, the fact that existing certifications are accredited in public procurement programs, which are good sales opportunities for family farmers, organic and agro-ecological producers, would continue to be an obstacle. Anyway, other labels would support the increase of recognition and appreciation by consumers, another important aspect of this equation. To support consumers in better valuing food and differentiate production models, open cost spreadsheets at points of sale are an example of a tool that can both raise consumer awareness and encourage fairer remuneration for farmers. Greater adhesion of consumers to networks such as CSAs or consumer groups, more consistent with the solidarity economy than with the logic of purchases and sales by middlemen in a traditional trade, would guarantee fair prices and the flow of production, also reducing waste in logistics. Based on the experiences of direct sales and home deliveries, which flourished during the pandemic, it is shown that it is necessary and possible to bring the relationship between producer and consumer closer together beyond the purchase. Even considering the most vulnerable people, who do not necessarily fully exercise their right to choose food, the presence of more direct consumption channels or tools that allow for a closer relationship with agriculture would be extremely beneficial and would increase access to healthy and sustainable food. In urban centers, for example, where most food deserts are located, the presence of urban agriculture could be in public spaces such as schools, Basic Health Units - UBS, in public squares. This contact with nature, of consuming something that was produced locally, has educational potential and guarantees food security. Another significant obstacles identified by the group were logistical flows. It is necessary to consolidate online tools that facilitate the flow of family farming products, as well as solidarity funds for purchases that encourage agro-ecological purchases to reach those in need, and mechanisms that encourage exchanges. For the implementation of the proposed solutions, each entity in society has its role, and they must be articulated. The articulations of the food security councils are fundamental to make this connection between public sectors, so that citizens can claim rights and press for public polcies and subsidies. Read less