Explore Official Dialogue Feedback

Major focus of the Discussion was a comprehensive exploration of food systems and possible levers of change. Indigenous food systems in many countries have been severely disrupted through dispossession of Indigenous Peoples from their homelands, introduction of industrial food production, processing and distribution, rapid unification of food environments and changing dietary patterns. In addition, today, indigenous peoples balanced relationship with their land-based food systems is obstructed by the ongoing exploitation of indigenous lands and infringement of their rights through industrial p... Read morerojects and states' mismanagement of land and resources. Some of the most large-scale resource development in the North, Siberia and Far East is taking place in Russia, prompting international concern for the fragile environment and the future of Russia’s indigenous peoples. At the same time sustainability, as a concept, politics or area of research receives little attention inside the country. The role of indigenous peoples in any initiatives related to sustainable development has not yet been sufficiently reflected on. Existing measures taken to achieve sustainable development are vague and do not include enforcing follow-up mechanisms. There is a lack of financial and economic resources to pursue sustainability related projects coupled with the reluctance of many political and business parties, which in turn plays into the hands of a powerful lobby of extractive industry in the country. Unrestricted access to indigenous lands, continuous downgrading of their protection regime and absence of legal instruments to defend indigenous territories from resource extraction become the new normal for country’s indigenous peoples. Agricultural communities in Central Asia and Mongolia are facing a reduced availability of water resources and their unequal distribution due to the impacts of climate change and an increase of natural disasters. Unfortunately, existing programs and measures at the national level do not cover climate change adaptation and mitigation spheres; assistance to small-scale producers and farmers is practically absent. Reforms introduced in agriculture negatively affect the volume of goods produced, their cost and sale. According to the representatives from Kyrgyzstan, whereas the large-scale production of meat all but disappeared, the cost of purchases from small-scale farms fell sharply due to the high transport and other expenses, which are calculated in the final value of the product. Therefore, at the moment, all Central Asian countries chose to import meat. The dairy industry face the same fate as those in the meat industry. Products are sold locally while large cities prefer to import dairy foods. This negatively affects the economic development and stability of local small-scale production; poverty is only increasing in remote settlements. Read less

Main findings of the Regional Indigenous Dialogue The subject of indigenous food systems isn't solely and exclusively limited to the matters of a native traditional diet, food system and food sovereignty which closely related to the cultural, social, environmental, political and legal aspects of indigenous discourse. Access to food is a human right; all barriers to that right must therefore be eliminated. Indigenous right to food examines critical questions of access to healthy, culturally appropriate food, as well as issues of ownership and control of land, traditional knowledge, governance, ... Read moreetc. Debate on food security and food sustainability led by indigenous peoples advocates not only for access to healthy food, but for an end to the structural injustices. Exploitation of indigenous lands and industrial projects ctivities are needlesly distructive and have an enormous impact on traditional fishing, hunting and harvesting areas relied on by indigenous communities. Russian government needs to significantly step up its sustainability efforts and begin to implement mechanisms to address existing inequities. Today's decisive action in economic, social and environmental dimensions of food policy will be critical in ensuring that the decade ahead delivers a sustainable food future. There is there is little time to lose, today we are witness to the pandemic of mistreated biodiversity. We must urgently reconcile humans with surrounding environments and restore our relationship with the nature. Russia’s move away from environmental agenda, continued policy of weakening indigenous legislation and needlessly destructive resource development are the most severe threat so far to country’s indigenous communities. Since the warming temperatures mean more natural resources to exploit, no other country stands to benefit from climate change more than Russia. And under the pretext of the economic feasibility of extractive projects, it substantially ignores already modest standards and requirements for environmental protection. Representatives of the Central Asia and Mongolia highlighted the need to address the risks of natural disasters and impact on agriculture and grazing, including the development of information infrastructure and a sound weather forecast system. It is also necessary to create and increase capacity of existing water storage for irrigation and food reserve of remote farms and develop effective programs to combat desertification and erosion of soils. They also recommended to introduce training programs for villages, interest-free credit systems, and state support initiatives for the local agricultural sector. It is also necessary to develop marketing infrastructure, organize wholesale local markets, compact slaughterhouses with a quality control system adapted specifically for local small-scale production. Recommendations Some of the core recommendations and next steps to a better food system proposed by representatives of breeders, reindeer herders, seed growers, fishermen, hunters, gatherers, farmers, indigenous small-numbered peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East of the Russian Federation, local communities of Central Asia, men, women and youth include: To UN structures and states Any policies developed in the sphere of food security, biodiversity, climate change and other related areas should include legal measures and standards protecting the knowledge, cultures and traditions of indigenous peoples. These measures should be based on human rights and international law and elaborated collectively with the full and active participation of indigenous peoples at every stage of development process; should include productive institutions in the dialogue and ensure indigenous women's participation. Any initiative to create online databases on food systems, cultures, traditions and practices of indigenous peoples and local communities, or to use or apply indigenous knowledge to transform food policies, should be based on the principle of free, prior and informed consent and indigenous intellectual property rights. There is an urgent need to create a global fund managed by indigenous peoples themselves with adequate funding for the successful and effective protection and support of the food systems of indigenous peoples and local communities. This will enable indigenous peoples to make their own decisions, preserve and promote traditional knowledge and practices, implement appropriate activities and policies, related to the preservation and transfer of knowledge on food systems and reinforce food security and sovereignty. It is necessary to improve, enhance and reinforce institutional environment and capacities of state officials at the national level and representatives of bodies within the UN system to collaborate with indigenous traditional knowledge holders. In order to achieve a better understanding and increased awareness of indigenous traditions, including food-based knowledge systems, a diverse list of activities and events on traditional knowledge involving people who have dedicated themselves to working on indigenous issues, and those who are in any way related to indigenous food-based systems must be prepared. When and only when policymakers truly embrace and understand the concepts of traditional cultures and interaction is built on mutual respect and human rights, collectively developed and implemented policies truly recognize, protect, preserve indigenous knowledge, traditional cultures and practices. Read less

During the Dialogue mext reccomendation was developed to the national goberment on Action Track 5: Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress:  To prioritize sustainable food production, food safety, food value chains, and revitalization of neglected food system initiatives and implement policies to reduce food waste  To modify regional/local structures governing food systems in accordance with the indigenous peoples' vision and development priorities  To revitalize and encourage indigenous resilient food systems grounded in traditional knowledge of lands, waterways, seaso... Read morenal food sources, ecologically sustainable diets, sophisticated agricultural practices and food preparation methods  To protect and boost indigenous local markets  To reform subsidy and regulatory regimes controlling food network and address the shortfall in sustainable food system funding by redeploying financial support for the revival of indigenous traditional food culture and conservation or other sustainability projects  To address the problem of isolation and remoteness of indigenous territories and lack of basic infrastructure  To ensure full access to free traditional food and economic activities for people residing in the marginalized and geographically remote areas, and families which are economically and socially excluded and vulnerable to food and nutrition security (older persons, children, persons with disabilities, etc.)  To support and promote distribution of traditional food of indigenous national cuisine in school and other educational facilities’ menus  To introduce indigenous knowledge on food and food literacy into school programs  To increase mass awareness and knowledge building on indigenous food systems including realization of training programs in the private sector  To introduce restrictions/moratoriums on commercial fishing and hunting in areas of indigenous residence  To protect local food systems from chemization and GMO  To ensure an access to innovations in food technologies and incorporate new technologies in sustainable development projects of local communities  To document and preserve data on traditional medicine and provide free access to the extraction of medicinal plants  To invest in the development of various types of protected areas, intact forests, projects on climate change adaptation and ecosystem recovery  To reconstruct reindeer herding institutions as facilities essential for health and traditional nutrition of indigenous peoples and aboriginal cattle breeding  To invest in the development of various types of protected areas, intact forests, projects on climate change adaptation and ecosystem recovery Read less

Breakout group 5 focused on how we can define and monitor the benefits of Regenerative agriculture and centralise results to drive continuous improvement. It is critical to first establish a robust baseline so that farmers can get started on the journey. Without this anchoring point is can be difficult for farmers to know where to get started. The importance of taking a holistic system view is at the heart of the debate, which encompasses environmental, social and economic indicators, and potentially not disparate indicator, we need to think of it more broadly across the food system as well. A... Read more full range of indicators was discussed, regarding soil organic matter, above ground biomass, land and resource efficiency measures, nutrient density, nutrient management, nutrient surplus, measures related to circularity, measure dedicated to farmer livelihoods, collective agreements in the sector, water retention, soil fertility and consumption related metrics. This only shows the complexity of this area and shows that isn't yet a framework that aligns all parties. So, in the need for accelerating transition is it obviously area to find alignments on. The general consensus was that data and sharing data is absolutely critical to transition. We are able to share data, not only because it provides transparency trust to prevent the authenticity of the journey of the transition progress, but also because the sharing of the story and building positive momentum around regenerative agriculture would inspire further ones. How can we capture and profile more of these stories to build interest of farmers? Then, sharing data is crucial because it can furnish really good agronomic advice back to farmers, which is a critical point here. Indeed, data should be shared in two directions, this isn't just from farmers to some measurement reporting body, but farmers need to see that they are getting something back which is useful for them as well in terms of knowledge and advice. Further, data is going to be critical in unlocking new income streams for farmers around ecosystems outcomes that they can generate. More broadly, really understanding catchment area impact which can only do if you aggregate data from multiple sources. It is critical that we create clarity and alignment about what the metrics and outcomes should be. There are currently no alignment and farmers may be asked for different measures from different sources – urgently need to harmonise. We need to find a way and a robust system so that we ask for that data once, not multiple times from different parties with different quotes, we need to think clerkly about the efficiency of data collection and the systems that we will aggregate and then think about the multiple uses of that data from centralized system. Really critical to establish global standards for data collection – not just an EU standard Without data one cannot have strong themes and reporting and verification. Clear next steps indicated were: 1. Move to practice by proving and demonstrating at value chain levels for specific crops and regions with multiple actors involved, how regenerative systems can work. This leads to data sharing, as different actors need to open their box. 2. Pragmatic tools for farmers to be efficient, use the ones already exciting at a large scale. How can we make this area accessible and appealing to farmers? 3. Establishing European, National and Regional Food Councils that can be a centralized body for advising all and creating protocols to guide food systems transitions including data measurement and certification addressed to specific targeted challenges. 4. Build coalition around specific outcomes objectives such as resolving certification, outcomes or moving toward healthier diets. 5. Focus on farmers and the value proposition for them, how to make their lives easier and not more difficult. 6. Need to align on what the data can and should be used for Read less

Breakout group 6 focused on how we build social awareness and understanding of regenerative agriculture and catalyze support. Paritcipants looked at which stakeholders have the potential to have the largest impact on raising awareness and public support. The main groups identified were: ● Farmers and Food producers - they have the chance to become independent and have autonomy for the value they put into food ● Next generations - young people are making these approaches mainstream, demanding more than sustainability (which, to them, is “table stakes”) - it’s all about regenerative an... Read mored circular economy ● Companies - can use their marketing power and experience to share stories and inspire consumers (who may have a hard time getting their heads around the complexity that is inherent to this topic (“they still don’t understand organic and now here comes something new and different) ● Policymakers & Authorities - can help to validate and and add credibility - e.g. through labeling schemes. The important thing here is to allow for experimentation and change, and not to overregulate. How do we find this balance? There are no easy answers because regenerative agriculture is so diverse and specific to farms and crops and locations. It is hard, if not impossible, to explain complexity to the consumer. Marketing messages need to be clear and simple to understand. That said, people tend to understand complexity in their own local contexts and communities. They get it when they can see it (e.g. showing them and not telling them). With this in mind: how can we drive more localized “showing” approaches to build awareness and understanding? For farmers, the message is all about getting them more independence and more value for the hard work they do. Helping them see that they can be supported economically by taking the right approach. The perception that regenerative approaches are harder or more expensive is actually wrong - farmers want to do this, and will make money doing this - even under existing systems. But, they need to have confidence in this during the transition so that they don’t feel like they are taking on extra costs and risks. The fundamental issue here is that we are trying to build a new system from our current way of thinking. So first we need to change our thinking. A first step is to recognise that we need to think in terms of living systems principles. Principles rather than prescriptive processes. How are we creating the conditions conducive to life? There is then the idea of knitting together the social and technological aspects of regenerative agriculture; in western economies it is first a foremost thought of in terms of technologies and process applications. Whereas in the global south it is thought more about as delivering social justice too. On the point of “Global vs Local” - a question of what/how do we change the food system to more resiliently produce locally where possible, and what has to continue to be produced within a local system. Read less

Given the diversity of the participants, the emergence of a number of areas of divergence was to be expected during this dialogue on regenerative agriculture. These mainly focused issues related to the benefits of regenerative agriculture, how to measure these, who captures or shares in the value, and how to ensure that the grower is both at centre of the movement and is fully supported during the transition process. All of these elements reveal how complex it is to make regenerative agriculture mainstream and scalable. Benefits One of the key areas of divergence lay in the definition and eval... Read moreuation of the benefits. Some participants felt that the primary benefit of making regenerative agriculture mainstream and scalable lies in the acceleration of low environmental impact farming with a specific focus on the greater adoption of biological inputs and processes like precision farming. Others saw the primary benefit in regenerative agriculture as supporting a systemic transformation based on the principles of circular economy but also encompassing carbon farming or the recycling of raw materials. In addition, there was a view that the benefit actually lays in the creation of increased value for regenerative agriculture production techniques which could be shared across the food chain although, not surprisingly, there was a question about how much would filter back to the primary producer – the farmer. Finally, there was a question about whether regenerative agricultural practices should solely focus on improvements in soil health when monitoring progress, or whether it should be broadened to embrace biodiversity, livestock and sustainable water use. Measurement The divergence on benefit was subsequently reflected in the discussion about what and how to measure outcomes both to understand impact and drive continuous improvement. Most of the criteria mentioned in order to measure progress were oriented towards environmental measurement and even social impacts but it was impossible to ignore the economic dimension given the important role it plays in incentivising and sustaining behaviour change. It is clear that building a consensus on the key benefits to include in the scope of regenerative agriculture and an effective and holistic criteria for measuring progress will be essential if the goals of mainstreaming and scaling are to be achieved. Finally, there was limited or no agreement on whether measurement should be exclusively outcome based or also include action-based approaches. Transition and the role of the farmer The question of benefit and what and how to measure progress was clearly linked to the role of the farmer. There were, at times, passionate exchanges between participants who felt that growers were being asked to respond to the latest protocol from public and private sector actors who may not fully understand what works at the farm level. And, inevitably, this catalyzed a further discussion about the extent to which the farmer (bearing all of the transition risk over an extended period of time) would be rewarded for making and sustaining changes by public or private actors (who may only be interested in one or two aspects of the benefit matrix). This clearly showed up in relation to soil protection where some participants argued that an exclusive focus in one area could lead to a negative impact in others (e.g. yield). There was a very strong view, articulated by some participants, that mainstreaming and scaling regenerative agriculture needs to start with the farmer at the centre of this. Several participants argued that only lip-service is being paid to this and that the change or innovation model still serves the interests of the established agri-businesses. Although none of these areas of divergence are insurmountable, they do seem to touch on the fundamentals of how to mainstream and scale regenerative agriculture. There is a need to speed up radical rethinking of our food policy framework, towards an integrated food system policy that is able to rebalance forces. Redefining consumption from owning to using; redefining production from mass sales to providing efficient functionalities; redefining core economic incentives such as taxation and subsidies. It would also mean integrating well-being across all policies; measuring sustainability with a lifecycle perspective and looking at innovation in categories of economic ecosystems that provide societal functions, rather than in categories of production sectors. Read less

Breakout 4 focused on how policy and governance can accelerate change. The main outcomes came out as the need to capitalize on and accelerate what already exists, and that eco-schemes are a first move towards change. Now the question is how to speed up the uptake. Therefore, we need also private initiative. They are impatiently waiting for clarification on the promised regulatory framework. Regarding reward for farmers, it is crucial to recognise the farmers’ efforts (farmers are not rewarded for the eco-services they deliver). Regarding incentives, they could be either public or private thr... Read moreough a right market price for the product & services produced. We also need to take into consideration the disincentives (prohibit certain practices) cf. GAEC. Should we not set limits on e.g. emissions, water use, … in line with the planetary boundaries? Farmers shall receive independent advice to accompany their journey, asking here the question of: Who will be eligible and according to what criteria? Another strong statement in the acceleration of change is the involvement of consumers. It appears essential to rethink the policy toward an integrated food policy, that not only focusses on targets, but also offers methods and incentives, based on true cost accounting and where consumers must change their dietary attitudes. Finally, an issue reflects as addressing the funding gaps focusing on smallholder farmers in less developed countries especially female smallholder farmers (closing the gender gap) including land access guarantees. As key next steps, the following has been identified: 1. Empower farmers to be co-innovators 2. Create a public/private partnership developing financial incentives complementary to the CAP support 3. Organise independent payable grass roots advise and develop new tools to help farmers to understand the impact of their practices on climate, environment, health, … Enhancing effectiveness of nature positive agriculture by adapting or by replacing conventional agriculture? 4. Recognise and scale up the dozens of local initiatives 5. Stimulate innovation (products, processes, systems) 6. More participation of all stakeholders in the policy making process 7. Step up dissemination of expertise (knowledge & experience) A lot of knowledge has been built up and introduced to farmers, but also processors, retailers and consumers have to be educated A label can play a role, but consumers are not waiting for the next new label. A label should incorporate all the relevant aspects from a consumer points of view, health, climate, environment, social, agricultural, … Organise farmers in Community of Practice; promote the ambassador role of first movers. 8. Differential taxation can help (e.g.) Products produced by nature included agriculture should be less taxed than others Read less

This independent Dialogue was set to contribute to the discussions of the UNFSS Action track 3: Boost nature-positive production at scale. It was entitled: “Mainstreaming Regenerative Agriculture”, and covered all geographical regions of the world. Regenerative agriculture is an increasingly prominent topic of discussion as it provides opportunities and solutions for many of the economic, social, environmental and climatic challenges facing agriculture and our food system today. This Food Systems Summit Dialogue aimed at exploring the key questions on how to broaden the appeal of regenerat... Read moreive agriculture and accelerate the transition both in Europe and globally. Each of the six discussion groups focused on one particular aspect related to defining, scaling, and facilitating the implementation of regenerative agriculture. From the definition and alignment of key principles, to farmers engagement, policy and governance implication, and the need to monitor the benefits and centralise results in order to drive continous improvement. The 6 breakout discussion groups were: 1- How do we define and build alignment on the key principles and practices of regenerative agriculture? 2-How do we inspire and ignite the interest of all farmers and overcome barriers to participation? 3-How can the food value chain support the adoption and scaling of regenerative agriculture? 4-How can policy & governance accelerate change? 5-How can we define and monitor the benefits and centralise results to drive continuous improvement? 6-How can we build social awareness and understanding of regenerative agriculture and catalyze support? Read less

Currrently, there is no precise definition for regenerative agriculture that is recognized and approved by the entire food chain, academic and public authorities. As a concept, regenerative agriculture focuses on how to ‘restore and enhance capacity of soil health and biodiversity’. Regenerative agricultural practices look at the positive impact on the natural assets, as well as the social and economic dimensions of agriculture. Understanding the baseline from which the farmer can start applying regenerative practices is crucial to measuring progress. Regenerative agriculture is a holistic... Read more approach to farming which takes into account the biophysical environment of the soil, but also the broader efficiency of land use. It is looking at a multiple range of public goods production, and involves practices looking at soil protecting and regenerating systems, biodiversity-friendly operations, integration of better water management systems, restoring soil life and more As knowledge about regenerative agriculture continues to grow, farmers and the value chain are learning that practices must be flexible to take into consideration the region-specific, and climate-specific context of the land. Only with a strong legislative framework, orchestrated efforts upstream and downstream of the food value chain will farmers be able to adapt and change practices. But if the legislators, buyers, and processors don’t recognize the need for change, it will fail just like past attempts to implement widely nature-friendly agricultural systems. There was a large consensus on the need for a common language among all stakeholders of the food system to agree on terminology, to avoid greenwashing. Further, farmers need to be put at the center of the food systems, by listening to their needs, supporting them with proper advisory systems that would come from independent bodies. The latter seems to be a key trigger to the transitioning towards sustainable practices at scale. Possible solutions could include organizing independent payable grassroots advice and developing new tools to help farmers to understand the impact of their practices on climate, environment, and health. By ensuring long-term relationships among the food chain actors, this builds trust and gives the farming community the long-term security they need to be able to be economically viable. Most importantly, regenerative agriculture needs to be easy to understand for farmers and lower levels of administrative burden by building the reporting and data collection systems into the existing ones rather than creating new reporting grids. This would help them to communicate their work and raise public awareness while transferring their knowledge; it would accelerate the consumers’ education, motivate them to make better choices provided the food distributors reflect the farmers’ efforts and processors equalize prices. The major current challenge is socio-economic: how to integrate those practices, while continuing the business and be profitable. Current processed food sourced from Regenerative farms are mostly premium products; the challenge for many processing companies is to make those products mainstream. To do so, costs of production need to be reflected and somehow shared among the value chain in order to secure farmers in this transition. Hence, local systems need to change holistically, if it is to be mainstreamed. Trying to set strict, rigid standards for larger scales can only fail, due to systems’ complexity and variety. Recommendations: Data collection and centralization: establishing National and Regional food Councils that can be a centralized body for advising all and creating protocols to guide food systems transitions including data measurement and certification. Also, building coalitions around specific outcome objectives such as resolving the many certification schemes in harmonizing requirements would support knowledge exchange and education of all stakeholders, and would allow stronger communication campaigns being picked up by the various bodies engaged in the process. -Step up the dissemination of expertise, both information, advice and best practices through the creation of Communities of Practice. Lots of knowledge has been built up and introduced to farmers, but processors, retailers and consumers have to be educated as well. Public authorities could create an investment fund for communication and awareness-raising. -Reinforce public and private collaboration: organize farmers in communities of practices, promoting the ambassador role of first movers. A other actors of the food value chain would also benefit from closer collaboration in public-private partnerships. It would help to close the gaps and misinterpretation of today’s farming systems. Subsidy schemes, farmers’ incentives (price premiums), sustainability outcome (carbon) markets and differential taxation systems could mitigate true transition costs and pricing; products produced by nature should be less taxed than processed ones. Further, regenerative agricultural practices could be used as the backbone of carbon farming standards delivering carbon certificates to buyers and processors, as an indicator to show applied practices’ impact. The evolution of farmers’ profession over the past forty years calls for a crucial adaptation of their training; redefining the focus of already-existing public-private training systems would enable farmers to progress on sustainable practices. Agronomic schools & universities should integrate regenerative practices in their educational programs. Read less

Breakout group 1 focused on the definition of Regenerative agriculture and its key principles. On the key principles and definitions there were two main directions of comments from the participants, a certain degree of confusion over the definition may be useful to avoid dogmatisms and exclusion. In this regard it was mentioned that a word cloud highlighting the various terms involved in regenerative agriculture can be more meaningful than a long definition. One is the need to set goals not only for soils (and especially not only for carbon sequestration which was seen as a too narrow focus in... Read more the current debates) but also for water, air and biodiversity. It was mentioned that the principles of regenerative agriculture could actually be defined to address these four elements; what has most been repeated is the importance on aligning the language. A key outcome to align stakeholders was finding an alignment on the goals for regenerative agriculture while taking into account the complexity of the different situations globally. It was also stressed that the focus should be placed on ‘what’ and ‘how’ is measured to achieve a set of goals rather than on agreeing on a narrow definition of principles based on a fixed set of practices. Thresholds could be set to determine whether a farm can be called regenerative or not, although constant improvement in the key principles should be demonstrated. Collaboration among all stakeholders, securing benefits for farmers and the social impacts should also not be forgotten. Another important aspect is that soil is not static but dynamic, and accounting for a continuous improvement of soil is important when setting targets. In addition to this, there was consensus on the importance of the context in which the farmer operates and that global differences need to be taken into account, which has not been the case in the past. Participants also stressed the importance of how public money is spent to ensure that food remains affordable. Public spending should not only support the farmer but contribute to the necessary transition. It cannot be left to the markets alone. There were two final issues to consider. One is that education and social dimensions should not be forgotten. Bringing science to the farm. And there should be a shared responsibility along the food chain. The second is that there may be areas that are not suitable for agriculture and which would need to be returned to nature, while others may have to be intensified. Read less

Breakout group 2 focused on how to inspire and ignite the interest of all farmers to overcome the barriers to participation. On how to inspire them, transform their interest into active participation, and overcome any barriers in this process, one major outcome was the need to focus on long-term vision, as well as a shift in mindset and behaviour from the entire food value chain to enable the transition towards regenerative agriculture. Due to the lack of awareness and lack of understanding on how regenerative farming practices are beneficial for the entire value chain, but also how the effort... Read mores made by farmers are integrated in the market, the number of barriers hindering the mainstreaming of regenerative agriculture are too numerous. Discussants have identified the following potential solutions to overcome barriers: Advisory and training programs for farmers, Peer networks, Subsidies (with a shift from action to a measurable outcome), Flexibility of farmers, Access to funding and incentives, Research and scientific clarity on definitions and measurement methods. In terms of overcoming barriers and, more broadly, steps to get farmers more involved, the team identified several valuable tools to help farmers become more aware and correctly assess risks and opportunities - Advisory and training programs for farmers - Peer networks - Subsidies (with a shift from action to a measurable outcome) - Flexibility of farmers - Access to funding and incentives - Research and scientific clarity on definitions and measurement methods. Read less

Breakout group 3 focused on how the food value chain can support the adoption and scaling of regenerative agriculture. One main outcome was the analysis that there was no structure of collaboration between farmers and the rest of the food value chain actors, and a major need to educate the stakeholders of the food chain on what Regenerative agriculture means, and why it needs to be valued and supported by them, and the larger public. Further, discussants came to the conclusion that it would be better to set a number of minimum standards what is not sustainable and exclude those products from t... Read morehe market. Supply chain traceability and transparency is needed to allow for independently-verified and enforced standards for the production and supply of sustainable food. Food suppliers and retailers should commit to providing and incentivising sustainable food options – it needs to be the easy choice for consumers, not a burden. A label should incorporate all the relevant aspects from a consumer points of view, health, climate, environment, social, agricultural. Food companies can offer longer term contracts and/or higher prices to farmers that agree to produce more sustainably (measured against their own operation/benchmark and verified by an external party), to derisk and financially incentive the transition to more sustainable practices. Finally, the stakeholders recognized the need to create a harmonized label system, in order to avoid confusing consumers. Harmonized approach in labels and certifications would support the transition. We discussed how and who should provide support to farmers with education and financially. We also discussed how consumers can increase demand by making choices. We should also consider if new marketing channels are needed for sustainable products to get visibility and shorter route from farmers to consumers. Creating market demand and translating the sustainability work to consumers. All stakeholders should crate consistency in measures and communication. We discussed the complexity in food systems and supply chains and the financial aspects and how to address them. Investments are needed and not having enough demand yet to develop further. Interesting aspect was also to discuss if regenerative agriculture is a good business case or just more cost for farmers. Read less

Action Track 1: Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all • Several food policies cannot catch up to food system development. • Lack in effective implementation of food policies and laws • Limited access and relatively low consumer trust to safe and nutritious foods • Food safety is a major issue due to hygiene deficits along the value chains resulting to considerable health risk for consumers (e.g., consumption of pork contaminated with microbial pathogens, abuse of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, veterinary products, food additives, and traditional farming habits). • High... Read more rate of children malnutrition and nutrition deficiency in the mountainous and remote areas Action Track 2: Shift to sustainable consumption patterns • Junk food transition happens due to inadequate post-harvest handling practices and infrastructure, availability, and prices. • Food labeling is not transparent. • There is no clear evidence to distinguish between healthy, safe foods, and junk foods. • There is lack of research and policies on food waste and food loss. Action Track 3: Boost nature-positive production • Limited capacity of cooperatives to manage trade and develop agricultural products • Transition to landscape approach regarding land procession, land use planning, application of new varieties/technologies • Conflicts between the optimal temporal and spatial scales of synergies from products and diversification when applying the landscape approach due to dominance of small-scale and fragmented production (ecological and adaptation benefits are longer term) • Donors often give the funding for short-term projects (3 - 4 years) which is not feasible for perennial plantations nor to result to many of the ecosystem benefits (e.g., soil improvement, natural pollination, and even effects on natural disaster prevention). • Farmers, extension, and local seed/seedling suppliers are unfamiliar with choosing input products and matching production systems for diversification/ecosystem approaches. • Large-scale production planning is needed. • Some agricultural policy favor monoculture; resulting to gaps and less opportunities for diversification. • The provincial policy is not harmonized with the national policies, e.g., there are no offers/support/incentives to implement diversification policy at the local level. Action Track 4: Advanced equitable livelihoods • Many food value chains are not sustainable; the linkages between actors are loose, and the flow of information is not transparent. • The poor and ethnic minorities are dependent on agriculture and natural resources and vulnerable to climate change. They have limited access to resources (input, capital, land, market). • Ethnic minorities are still lagging behind on income, accessibility to education, services and nutrition. • Unfair competition among enterprises due to lack of information transparency. Action Track 5: Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stress • A common problem for agricultural products in Vietnam: high yields (good harvest season) cause price drops due to limited postharvest and processing technologies. • Harsh weather conditions, climate change, African swine fever outbreak, and COVID-19 pandemic make farmers unsecure and result in major market shocks. • Climate change causing more frequent and harsher storms, landslide, soil erosion, drought, saline water intrusion negatively impacts crops, and livestock and producers’ livelihood • Failure of cultivation on monocrops • Limited ability to adapt to climate change • Limited involvement of the private sectors Read less

A summary of the solutions which need support from CGIAR are identified for each Action Track are as follows: Action Track 1: Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all • Issue a new policy on the right to access safe and nutritious foods to protect producers and consumers • Issue a legal document on food safety and human health based on four aspects: safety, nutrition, accessibility, and enough quantity • Research on profit and competitiveness comparison among producers exporting/importing agricultural products • Introduce specific programs on food waste and food systems for ch... Read moreildren and the elderly • Increase consumers' trust on food products Action Track 2: Shift to sustainable consumption patterns • Promote access to healthy diets, especially to marginalized rural consumers who have low-income—it could be done via policies and communication campaigns in schools and for children and making healthy food more appealing and attractive • Develop clear targets to understand the nature of consumers, thereby changing/raising their awareness by applying behavior change approaches • Promote production of fortified good quality foods • Conduct an in-depth study on drivers and perceptions on junk food consumption, to suggest policies on the issue Action Track 3: Boost nature-positive production • Combine agriculture and tourism so that the producers can ask for better prices for their products and give them motivation to produce safe foods with high quality • Apply ecosystem approach on small scale productions • Promote the formation of cooperatives • Create policies to attract young people and to strengthen farmers' capacity in the cooperatives • Promote communication, marketing, food processing, and storage/preservation technology • Promote digital agriculture and economy, organic production, climate-smart production, and agroforestry models • Promote market-oriented planning and integrating biodiversity conservation for large production areas • Implement regulation and stabilization of input supplies for production • Describe different scenarios at landscape levels to integrate products and stakeholders in the value chains • Involve policy makers and authorities in production planning • Engage the private sector to maintain farmers’ production • Strengthen public-private partnership Action Track 4: Advance equitable livelihoods • Move from a crop-based approach to system approach • Research on different types of systems (wetland, upland) and management to regulate access, ensuring that vulnerable and marginalized people get access to resources • Work with collective actions for smallholder farmers. • Research on the characterization of seed systems to understand the access of the poor and the ethnic minorities to farming inputs • Tailor low-cost interventions to the retail or value chain type, and use of risk-based approaches and risk communication Action Track 5: Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stress • Establish agroforestry landscapes with fruit trees and integrated with forest rehabilitation in Northwest Vietnam to reduce soil erosion, landslides, and extreme weather condition • Diversify the cropping system and other agro-ecological system research • Develop and apply advanced technologies and innovations to cope up with climate change and improve soil health • There should be better vertical policy integration for diversification to avoid gaps and contradictory national and subnational policies. Policies are opportunities to show long-term intentions towards more integrated landscape approaches and diverse land uses. Read less

Divergent views from participants are as follows: • Policy conflicts, demarcation of institutional responsibility and program are disconnected or overlapped • The legal framework is internationally recognized but the food policies issued need to be updated and efficiently and effectively • Vietnam’ legal frameworks are internationally updated, however, food policies should be updated and be implemented more effectively and efficiently. • The consumer perception on health risks on microbial versus chemical food safety risk are different and may not reflect actual risks • Practice of... Read more monoculture and specialized production over diversification • Practice of nature and biodiversity preservation versus natural resources utilization for agricultural production • Safe and nature-positive production compromises production yield and quantity • Balancing short-term production and economic goals of smallholder farmers and SMEs, and the long-term food system sustainability and food security Read less

The CGIAR Independent Dialogue focused on the five main Action Tracks of the UNFSS exploring the current challenges, opportunities, trade-offs, and synergies in Vietnam food systems. The Dialogue was a half day event with about 90 participants. The dialogue’s theme was Understanding Food Systems in the Context of Vietnam. Action Track 1: Access to safe and nutritious food for all Action Track 2: Sustainable consumption patterns Action Track 3: Sustainable food production Action Track 4: Advance equitable livelihoods Action Track 5: Resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stress The event ... Read moreopened with messages from CGIAR representatives, then a short introduction on CGIAR in Vietnam, followed by the summary of the Stage 1 National Dialogue. The participants were divided into five breakout groups according to their preferred Action Track. Each group was assigned an Action Track and was supported by a facilitator and a notetaker. First, the facilitator gave a brief presentation to provide group members a background of the topic and process for the discussion, afterwards participants were invited to share their opinions, guided by four questions: • What are the current issues of the interested Action Track? • Which solutions are needed to address those issues? • What type of support is needed from CGIAR? • Which stakeholders should CGIAR approach to foster the level of changes? Read less

The CGIAR Independent Dialogue was successfully organized with the participation of diverse stakeholders coming from six food related sectors. The Dialogue created a friendly and trustworthy platform for participants to share their ideas, experiences, and knowledge on specific problems and challenges of Vietnam food systems and to contribute bold ideas and creative solutions and identify types of support needed from CGIAR to address these problems and to catalyze system changes. The main findings from the dialogue section and panel discussion are described in two parts: The first part characte... Read morerized problems, challenges, and gaps that need to be addressed in Vietnam food systems, such as inconsistent policies between national and provincial policies, inefficient and ineffective policy implementation, mislabeling of foods, difficulty to assess healthy and safe foods, unbalanced nutrition, unsustainable supply chain operation, low awareness of people on food safety (including misperception of food safety risks) and nutrition, climate change and environmental pollution due to abuse of chemicals and over-exploitation, and the invisible role of minorities and women in the society, among others. On the flip side, the participants identified opportunities, solutions, and types of support needed from CGIAR in order to transform Vietnam food systems to be more responsible, sustainable, and transparent. The solutions could be grouped into: (i) using innovations and technologies applied across the entire food system including labelling, traceability, food safety, use of risk based approaches, product quality, and e-commerce, (ii) providing insights in legal framework and policy implementation to support or control sustainable/un-safe production, (iii) funding distribution chains to be effective, and (iv) addressing environmental protection, and gender equality and social inclusion, particularly most vulnerable groups affected by shocks and stress. Read less

El diálogo trató sobre la participación de las personas jóvenes en los sistemas agroalimentarios. Esto porque Involucrando a las y los jóvenes rurales apostamos al mismo tiempo a aprovechar su potencial como agentes de cambio para contribuir a revitalizar sus territorios y a promover estrategias territoriales que los incluyan y mejoren sus oportunidades de bienestar. Los jóvenes abandonan crecientemente la actividad agrícola, enfrentándose a dificultades para encontrar empleo en otros sectores, y muchos toman la alternativa de migrar, como una forma de resolver la violencia local o la ... Read morefalta de empleos o de acceso a los recursos de producción. Entretanto, son cada vez más las mujeres que quedan a cargo de la agricultura de subsistencia y, por ende, caen en la pobreza rural (FAO, 2011; WB, 2016). No obstante, las oportunidades que surgen del proceso de transformación rural son especialmente evidentes para las y los jóvenes. Los jóvenes son la clave de la supervivencia de una agricultura que requiere cada vez más de innovaciones para lograr simultáneamente productividad, globalidad y sostenibilidad del medioambiente. Los jóvenes tienen más flexibilidad, son más conscientes del medioambiente, más inmersos en las nuevas tecnologías y las comunicaciones; se trasladan con más facilidad de la ciudad al mundo rural. En resumen, la nueva generación dispone de un gran potencial de aporte a una agricultura sólida, sostenible y productiva. Además, una mayor participación de las jóvenes mujeres del mundo rural, con sus habilidades en producción alimenticia y manejo de recursos naturales puede contribuir a mejorar la calidad de vida de la familia rural. El diálogo se basó en revisar cada vía de acción desde la participación de los y las jóvenes en ellas. Read less

Los jóvenes pueden ser una bisagra entre eslabones de las cadenas agroalimentarias, entre generaciones y entre territorios rurales y urbanos. De esta forma, a la vez que integran "lo nuevo" (innovación, tecnología en producción y comercialización, uso de TICs, valor agregado) con el conocimiento tradicional de producción; y conectan los territorios de mejor manera debido a sus trayectorias personales y conectividad. En este sentido, tienen un rol fundamental en generar cambios culturales sobre el consumo, la conciencia sobre el impacto en la naturaleza y cambio climático, así como en l... Read morea implementación de prácticas sustentables, agroecológicas y rentables. La pandemia junto a todos sus efectos adeversos trae algunas oportunidades: su efecto de migración de retorno en cuanto mayor cantidad de jóvenes con capacidades e ideas de innovación regresan a los territorios; y se ha puesto en boga la relevancia de la alimentación y soberanía alimentaria, así como su efecto adverso en el la naturaleza. Por otro lado, los efectos negativos y aumento de pobreza concentrado en las urbes hace más difícil que las necesidades de la juventud rural sean prioridad. Se hace necesario incidir en que los gobiernos, locales y nacionales, presenten atención a las expectativas (trabajo no agrícola, innovación y valor agregado) y necesidades (formación y capacitación pertinente, planes de inversión y apoyo al emprendimiento) de las personas jóvenes en los sistemas alimentarios. Read less

En cuanto a patrones de consumo sustentable y medios de vida equitativos, es necesario: - Se deben seguir promoviendo proyectos que permitan generar espacios para que los productos puedan ser vendidos directamente al consumidor. Estos también deben facilitar la movilidad de productos e insumos, y la accesibilidad de las personas desde el campo a la ciudad. Así como fomentar los métodos emprendedores de procesamiento y recolección de alimentos que se dan en los escenarios de sobreproducción. Esto permitirá aprovechar los alimentos a través de bancos de alimentos, y eventualmente fortalec... Read moreer el proceso de planeación sobre la producción de acuerdo a las necesidades de la población. - Fortalecer y potenciar la producción de alimentos básicos en las urbes a través de huertas verticales para fortalecer la soberanía alimentaria. Así como fomentar la soberanía en los alimentos, eso nos permite mayor cuidado, hacer cercos epidemiológicos de manera más fácil. El mayor desafío es la falta de planificación en los sistemas productivos, alimentos desperdiciados o escasez. Además el contexto de pandemia se ha evidenciado el restringido acceso a tecnología y las dificultades de la implementación de medidas de bioseguridad respecto a las prácticas tradicionales de las comunidades campesinas. - Las y los jóvenes deben ser promotores comunitarios de nuevas formas de producción y consumo. Es necesario fomentar que se enfoquen en carreras profesionales o técnicas relacionadas con lo rural. Se reconoce las dificultades para generar transferencias tecnológicas y las capacitaciones deben responder a las necesidades de la juventud rural. Asimismo, debe responder a dificultades asociadas con transporte y accesibilidad con el objetivo de generar cadenas cortas de producción. Esto dificulta el futuro de la población rural en cuanto a la migración hacia las ciudades. - Generar condiciones de trabajo digno en las labores de producción de alimentos. Los y las jóvenes tienen el rol de desnaturalizando las dinámicas que fomentan la explotación laboral en el rubro. Esto se asocia a mejor formación para cuestionar las prácticas y generar mejores escenarios laborales y mayor participación en el sector. - Incidir y fomentar la articulación de entidades de todos los sectores y niveles: Promover procesos comunitarios que fomenten la articulación y por lo tanto la incidencia. Los espacios de formación deben abrirse para acompañar a más jóvenes para que tengan mayor incidencia y las mujeres deben estar presentes en todos los ejes frente ala producción. Fortalecer el proceso de articulación de iniciativas entre el Estado, ONGs, gremios, y otras organizaciones. Existen múltiples esfuerzos que no se retroalimentan entre sí, por lo que el proceso de fortalecimiento y articulación va a permitir mejorar la incidencia y hacerle frente a posibles emergencias sanitarias-alimentarias. Read less