Explore Official Dialogue Feedback

None

i) How can Africa strengthen its food systems • There is need to reorient policy dialogue to underpin and inform and guide well planned transformation • There is need to mainstream strategies and frameworks aimed at transforming food systems from development actors and national systems • Serious private sector engagement is needed as well as advancing Public private sector relationships • Orientation and focusing more on the drivers and game changers including: value chain development, entrepreneurship development; and, digital transformation especially for Youth and Women both regiona... Read morel and in the African Context ii) Students that undertake agricultural degrees are those that performed fairly at high school and what can be done to reverse this trend to ensure that more young people participate in agriculture? The curricular needs to be reformed to make agriculture attractive to the Youth/students but also the governments never used to prioritize agriculture and it is of recent that agriculture is gaining prominence. Students are also not incentivized to engage in agricultural interventions due to limitation in capital, land for farming and other incentives iii) The possibility for food security initiatives to cut across the African Continent This is possible because the demand for food is across Africa. Food insecurity is attributed to the deficit of science to drive our own agriculture. iv) Seasonality of agriculture in Africa is a problem and irrigation needs to be increased. How can this be undertaken? There is need to build resilience to adapt to vulnerabilities including lack of water. Apart from irrigation, there is need for a comprehensive approach encompassing resistant varieties/breeds and resilience building Read less

i. A high dose of agricultural sciences is needed in the production systems because without science, Africa remains the science-deficient continent in the world. ii. The science agenda for agriculture in Africa needs to be promoted and domesticated within the NARS as it provides the framework for deploying science to achieve desired goals. iii. The research-extension-farmer-nexus needs to be strengthened for high technology adoption; build and strengthen solidarity and collective actions through partnerships that mobilize research and innovation expertise; co-create technologies and innovation... Read mores with farmers, to address farmer’s challenges while providing local solutions; and, enhancing the capacity of farmers and consumers to contribute to research and innovation, and to policy formulation and implementation iv. Experts need to be trained in a wide range of areas that facilitate knowledge transfer and learning to the famers to facilitate the development of sustainable food systems v. Need to conduct research to generate and adapt technologies that can optimize production vi. There is need to increase investment in agriculture from 3.3 % of annual GDP by African Countries whose commitment is 10%; promote policies that ensure economic incentives to invest in agricultural production and modern inputs; and, increase investment in agricultural research (human resource and infrastructure) from the current average of 1 % of agricultural GDP. vii. . viii. There is need to seize emerging opportunities including digital innovation, Africa continental free trade agreement, nature positive solutions in the context of the UNFSS, and, engaging in effective multi stakeholder dialogues in the preparatory phases towards the UNFSS across the whole spectrum engaging regional and sub-regional bodies ix. The need to address the infrastructural deficit that affects the food systems and address the issue of incentives as well as structural vulnerability. x. Coordinated efforts and solutions are needed to find solutions that are tailoreded to address African problems xi. Climate change and urbanization: Urbanization negatively impacts food systems. Need to improve access to quality water through exploiting climate-Smart technologies xii. Since Africa’s agriculture is predominantly subsistence farming, there is need to develop a better policy environment and promote agribusiness to drive economic growth and development, building capacity in the population and promoting value chain approaches and ensure development of agro industry as a lever for development of the African economy xiii. The need to debunk the idea that agriculture is not economically rewarding and unattractive to the youth but that it can be modernized, made more productive, and more economically rewarding xiv. Rural women need to be empowered and as well enforce policy programs that need to be expanded to empower women participation in the decision making. xv. Agriculture needs to be made attractive to the Youth to enable them accustomed to the sector at a very tender age. The stereotyping of agriculture being portrayed as a burden to the African woman needs to be changed. The governments need to start investing in the Youth whilst considering donor funding as a catalyst to the entire process. African governments need to stat funding their own institutions as this will enable Africans to set their own priorities including revisiting/valuing own indigenous knowledge and practices (sustainable practices). Despite the fact that the majority of smallholders engaging in agriculture are advanced in age, there is a new age agri-preneurs applying modern production practices xvi. Small scale famers need to be fully supported in every process that they undertake to avoid hidden hunger. xvii. There is need for collaboration, partnerships and reducing post-harvest losses. Digital technologies and renewable energy need to be harnessed with focus on the smallholder famers. Read less

The dialogue examined existing systems, policies progress towards shaping food systems trajectories in Africa and their alignment with the 2030 global Agenda. The dialogue brought together distinguished experts to galvanise voices for Africa’s development establish their perspectives on current status and issues underlining Food Systems in Africa; recommendations towards needed actions to strengthen Africa’s development especially Food Systems and Suggestions on key messages to be communicated to the UN Food Systems Summit 2021.

Most participants were in accordance with the topics discussed, diverging only on the importance and impact of some issues raised. For example, some believe the public resistance for aquaculture products is very high, whereas others believe that there is general resistance to all intensively farmed food, whether in land or water. While the majority of members agreed that the big corporations hold too much power in aquaculture, some believe consumers should be educated so they can make different choices, demanding more variety of products (e.g. salmon is disproportionately represented in Europe... Read morean supermarkets) to skew power balances. On the other hand, some believe it is crucial to increase the power of small producers (following the model of cooperatives of European wine producers, for example) as a more effective means to spread profit and market share. Some members were in disagreement over which sectors hold the most responsibility to enact and drive change towards sustainability - some believe that consumers and the general public are responsible, while others (particularly those in the research and industry space) felt that government bodies and policymakers have the most power. This divergence is a clear reflection of uncertainty around sector roles within the industry and is common across many other food sectors. There was also a notable divergence of opinions around the role of eco-labels as a means to drive sustainable developments. While some members felt that third-party regulated eco-certifications could help to incentivise sustainable movements within the industry, a number of members felt that labels could unfairly exclude small-scale producers through financial barriers and that labels hold little merit to consumers if not thoroughly understood by buyers. Read less

Discussion group 4: Ethical Considerations & Animal Welfare The group agreed that there needs to be more reliable scientific information coming from academics and objective third parties on what the best sustainable practices are for aquaculture. These then need to be disseminated to the public in smart and effective ways (e.g. social media, documentaries, information in supermarkets to guide purchasing decisions) to change demand, sentiment, and behaviour. Many felt that large producers will eventually be judged in the court of public opinion, and that this opinion needs to be shaped well... Read more. Others stressed the clear need to educate producers, because creating healthy environments for aquatic animals and aquatic food sources is in the best ethical and economic interest of all producers. The group also noted that not all producers have access to the best knowledge, research and innovation, and thus will inevitably make poor decisions despite the desire to improve. The third site of intervention identified was regulation, governments, and overseeing bodies. There was general agreement that there needs to be greater standardisation of acceptable sustainable practices in aquaculture to increase transparency among producers and enforce a base level of ecological sustainability. Some offered words of caution that these can unfairly penalize small producers, and so a regulation or sustainability tax system that is proportional to the size of each producer’s production was proposed. Lastly, some members discussed that alternative aquatic food sources (seaweed, bivalues) can be much more sustainable but there is a lack of consumer demand. Members were optimistic that the public could be nudged towards consuming these through government support (subsidies, or levies on less sustainable options), but there was agreement that nonetheless greater sustainability for foods with large demand (salmon, fish) is paramount. Overall, the group identified four possible solutions to promote more sustainable and ethically considerate production: 1. Raising awareness among the general public: Increase awareness to nudge public demand towards more sustainable types of foods - seaweed, bivalves, etc. 2. International collaboration: Improve trans-boundary collaborations and sharing of knowledge and resources to clarify definitions of sustainability, standardising regulation, block unsustainable practices, and create strategies to incentivise sustainability 3. Connect science & industry: Industry needs to listen more to researchers and be more transparent with IP around their practices to promote research in the right areas. Economical viability and animal welfare go hand in hand. 4. Producers and farmers should give back to the environment: Fish farmers should be asked to give back to the environment via funding for industry research or donations to regional environmental research agencies. This would need to be undertaken with a size-to-contribution consideration that would see larger producers ‘paying’ more back than smaller producers. Read less

Discussion group 3: Policy For Social & Environmental Solutions The group agreed that there is no current universal or standardised definition of sustainability, nor a globally specified set of guidelines that could guide legislators, producers or innovators. Added clarity around markers pertaining to the term by international actors (e.g. UN FAO) could aid both small and large scale producers by guiding their development (especially in early phase operations). The group identified that it is paramount to bridge the social (and physical) gap between policy makers and aquaculture producers,... Read more so policy can be guided by the real needs and interests of producers. The inclusion of producers at the beginning (rather than retroactively) of the policy making process can help to build trust and understanding between those parties, while shaping the direction of legislation to be more practically and operationally considered. Regulators must be conscious to avoid contradictions around sustainability in supply chains, such as allowing importing of more sustainable lower trophic species, like bivalves from cheap production origins, where social and environmental regulations are less stringent. By allowing this, some of the benefits of more sustainable species (e.g. mussels) are offset by added environmental or social costs associated with imports from unregulated regions. Governments have a responsibility to support local producers that attempt to pursue methods deemed to be more sustainable. This could be done via subsidies for local producers, regulations for importers and retailers, and by emphasizing educational programmes that can improve consumer awareness around sustainability of their food with relation to product origins. The group felt that too much power (economical, political, of communication and marketing) is in the hands of the “big players” (corporations, big producers, supermarkets), leading to a disproportionate representation of the broader industry interests. It is important that this industry influence is more equally distributed in order to promote the diversification of products and spreading of profits to sustainability leaders in production and innovation. Two ways to achieve this could be via the establishment of producers associations (clusters or cooperatives), or by legislative support for local council buy-in as a partial owner over businesses that are established in their region. The latter could evoke greater buy-in from local actors and potentially shift the types of businesses permitted to operate in certain areas in favour of more sustainable options. The group noted that aquaculture is incredibly diverse in both product and practice, and thus requires a locally tailored approach regarding research and innovation. Research and innovation has to be developed according to local needs and also more closely account for locally available resources (financial, personal, etc). Local producers must have the capacity to implement the innovation and also provide maintenance. The group identified four main solutions to promote more sustainable production: 1. Speed of change: More support for researchers and innovators is needed to avoid industry growth outpacing sustainable solutions to mitigate any negative impacts. 2. Reconnect policy makers, producers and industry: Policy makers have to be closer to the producers to increase mutual trust and build more functional policies that align with real industry needs. 3. More collaboration: Increased facilitation and formation of cooperatives and clusters is needed to redistribute the voice of the industry away from a handful of key players. 4. Better communication: We need to reshape the narrative of aquaculture through transparent communication of the value and benefits of the sustainable aquaculture activities and products. Read less

Discussion group 2: Role of Research, Innovation & Technology In this discussion group, the participants agreed that current innovation and technological advancements in aquaculture are largely driven by ‘luxury’ fish producing sectors within the industry (e.g. Salmon). The group also identified a clear challenge in translating these innovations to meet diversity of species, practices and scale in other corners of the aquaculture industry where markets are less consolidated around a few key species. The group also noted a need for improved links between research and innovation which co... Read moreuld be met by increased emphasis on accelerator initiatives (e.g. HATCH or Aqua-Spark). The private sector was noted as a key actor responsible for aiding the facilitation of increased conversion of research into practice - potentially by creating and using pooled industry research funds. The group also discussed the responsibility of innovators to focus on solutions that offer value to producers, rather than costs. Focussing innovation efforts around improved animal welfare or reductions in environmental footprint will not be adopted within industry unless regulations enforce their implementation, or they offer producers value to enhance their competitive edge at market. To increase markets for more sustainable products or alternatives, the group also acknowledged the role of educators and communicators in providing the general public with a greater depth of understanding about products and practice, with the aim of creating space for new markets and increasing acceptance of ‘novel’ alternatives. Overall, the group identified three possible solutions to promote the development and adoption of more sustainable aquaculture products and practices: 1. Develop innovations that add value to producers: Adoption and implementation of sustainability oriented innovation could be improved by placing greater emphasis on producing solutions that add value to producers, not only environment or animal welfare. 2. Improve industry-research links: Innovators and entrepreneurs need greater access to ‘accelerator’ initiatives that can facilitate the conversion of research into practice. 3. Create new markets: Create new markets for sustainable alternatives or different aquaculture products via educational programmes and transparent production narratives. Read less

Discussion group 1: Product & Practice The group talked about developments in sustainable aquaculture practices, the challenges that inhibit their regional or international success, and the policies needed to reduce or remove these inhibitions. Factors that heavily influence the development and efficiency of sustainable aquaculture practices were noted as: type of species, type of feed, and financial and legislative incentives (or lack thereof) to pursue more sustainable means of production. The participants also discussed the need for policymakers to align legislation more closely with bo... Read moreth innovator and industry demands in order to free up markets for sustainable alternatives to compete with current practices. Aligning these legislations with practical solutions would require more dialogue between the private sector and government. Additionally, the group highlighted the importance of alternative feed sourcing as a key factor for reducing environmental impacts. Promoting increased production of lower trophic or passive feeding species (e.g. bivalves or seaweed) through increased consumer awareness programmes or legislative incentives could shift focus away from more resource reliant fed species (e.g. finfish) and open space for ‘no-input’ alternatives. Overall, the group identified six possible solutions to promote the development and adoption of more sustainable aquaculture products and practices: 1. Explore restorative and multi-trophic integrated aquaculture (IMTA) systems: More financial and legislative incentives for researchers and innovators to explore scalable solutions in circular and restorative aquaculture practices. 2. Prioritise feed innovations: Alternative feeds and tighter regulation on sourcing of current feed options could offer significant reductions for the industry’s footprint. 3. Legislation must protect aquaculture investors, guaranteeing their use of allotted land or water for long periods: In many regions, there is a significant lack of aquaculture legislation which results in excessive delays for investors or prospective farmers to enter the industry. International assistance from industry experts could be useful to guide regional legislators to reduce entry barriers, and promote sustainability measures in early legislative frameworks around aquaculture. 4. Third-party sustainability reporting for the entire food system: Mandatory third-party sustainability reporting could dictate a particular producer’s available government subsidisation level and offer investors a standardised sustainability indicator prior to investment. 5. Create a market for innovation with legislation. Legislation that enforces industry adoption of sustainable alternatives could create a market for innovators to compete against each other rather than against more financially attractive, often cheaper and less sustainable options. 6. Increase support for cluster organisations for small-scale and artisanal farmers. Clusters of small-scale farmers allows artisanal producers to group and gain better deals on feed, resources (boats, nets, warehouses etc.) or technology, and would ensure individual producers are accountable to the same sustainability standards as other members of the cluster. Additionally, this would grant smallholders a more cohesive and powerful position as shapers of future policy or regulation within the industry. Read less

Participants (particularly those within industry) identified the need for a reference class with which we can compare advancements in sustainability. By outlining a clear standardised and definable metric for social and environmental sustainability, industries could act with more direction and purpose towards better practice. Many participants felt scientific and regulatory uncertainty has made sustainable progress difficult for industry to achieve in practice - regardless of any intention to do so. Many members agreed that public opinion, awareness, and consumer demand will be key to establis... Read morehing more sustainable aquaculture practices. To caveat this, it was also broadly agreed that shifting this awareness should be the responsibility of industry, researchers and governments - not solely on consumers to self-educate. By creating streams of reliable, science-based information both on social media and user endpoints (like supermarkets), consumers can be nudged towards the best options. A number of groups believe that the environment should be the primary and ultimate beneficiary of sustainability focussed developments in aquaculture. By prioritising the environmental aspects of sustainability first, many participants believed there would be longer term beneficial implications for society and economy to follow. Noted - this was contested by some. Regulatory bodies need to create flexible arrangements to accommodate and support industry during this transition to soften any financial burdens accrued by focussing on environment or animal welfare over profit and immediate production. While the focus of aquaculture research has shifted towards topics that offer solutions to industry, current funding to enable the translation of research into practice is not sufficient to inspire innovator investment. There was a clear desire to realign research with industry and small-scale producers to avoid valuable knowledge ‘gathering dust’ in archives. We need greater investment on bridging institutions that can connect research with industry to facilitate their conversion into practical solutions for producers. The fisheries and aquaculture industries are underpinned by a significant degree of mistrust between policymakers and producers - a culmination of decades of disconnected decision making that neglected to award many producers direct input or voice at the decision making table. Because of this, policy for positive innovation has often misaligned with industry needs and legislation (or lack thereof) has caused bottlenecks to innovative progress. Greater linkages and dialogue between these two sectors is needed - communicators and interdisciplinary actors will be integral to bridging this gap. On a smaller scale, participants acknowledged the need to build capacity for the implementation of technology locally, in a way that is considerate and adapted to the resources available. Technology has to be affordable, attend to local needs and the focus of development and implementation of innovation must remain on creating value for producers if we’re going to see innovation adopted in practice. On a broader scale, international bodies (such as the UN) can help by establishing global sustainability standards for production, providing support for developing regions, and by defining clear attainable goals for sustainable aquaculture in those regions. The capital intensive nature of commercialised aquaculture restricts buy-in from many seeking to farm in ‘unconventional’ manners - such as in integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) systems, or focussed on lower trophic cultivation. More sustainable farming methods need increased support from innovators and researchers in ways that can reduce operational or upfront capital costs in order to create more viable markets and profit margins for producers in this space. This also goes hand in hand with a dire need for greater education amongst the general population about less common but more alternative seafoods (e.g. lower trophic species) to boost market sizes for these products. Some participants felt that current SDG indicators (e.g. SDG14) are not sufficient to drive change as they are not sufficiently developed yet (especially in aquaculture). Researchers have a responsibility to start working more closely with industry to make indicators that make industrial, ecological and social sense. This must be a transdisciplinary exercise. Conversely, the industry also has work to do in trying to interpret their business activities in SDGs. Current feed options are incredibly cheap and are outcompeting innovation. There is a need for legislation to enable the creation of markets for competition between innovators, instead of between innovators and current ‘conventional’ feed providers. Legislation could create this market by enforcing periodic annual or bi-annual incremental increases in sustainable production. For example: regulations stipulating that this year, 1% of fish production should be 100% ‘sustainable’, and this percentage should increase over time. We cannot ask industry to volunteer for more expensive alternatives as the likelihood for adoption is low. Read less

Despite a longstanding history of development and expansion within Asia, the value and potential of global aquaculture has only recently surged to the forefront of public attention. With the industry’s rapid growth in recent decades, current commercial aquaculture practices have drawn scepticism over the environmental, social and ethical impacts of the industry. The key aim of this dialogue was to address whether scientific findings, personal stories and industry insights support or mitigate these concerns. We did this by questioning the limitations of current practices and by identifying ne... Read morew solutions that could aid us in overcoming barriers that presently limit the industry’s ability to sustainably expand and offer an economically, socially and environmentally viable means to feed higher and lower socio economic regions. We aimed to foster a more open and dynamic form of dialogue between sectors and stakeholders that would infrequently interact so candidly, to see if a more relaxed conversational style of discussion could help to gain mutual trust, understanding and ultimately lead to more rounded solutions that could ensure developments in aquaculture meet all actors’ respective measures of sustainability. Given the breadth of the topic, we broke the discussion down into four key areas in order to delve deeper into major areas of topical importance within the industry’s development. We addressed key concerns and solutions through the following groups: 1. Products & Practice: This group focussed on whether or not we are currently focussing our attention on producing the right products and using the right methods to do so. Discussion topics were oriented around the proportional roles of researchers, innovators, the public, and policymakers in shaping what we should produce and how we should produce it. 2. The Role of Research, Innovation & Technology: This group focussed on what role research, innovation and technology will respectively play in shaping and facilitating a more sustainable aquaculture industry. 3. Ethical Considerations & Animal Welfare: This group focussed on how to overcome issues relating to value chain inequities, unevenly distributed allocation of knowledge or resources needed to foster sustainable growth of aquaculture, and solutions for improved animal welfare. 4. Aligning Policy For Social & Environmental Solutions: This group focussed on the critical role of policy as both an inhibitor and provider of positive social and environmental progression within the aquaculture industry. This group discussed solutions that could help to better align policy with other sectors in order to facilitate and encourage sustainable movements. Read less

Some of the biggest vulnerabilities within food systems include the lack of availability and access to information, making it difficult for farmers to understand which innovations are most suited to address food and agriculture challenges at their level. Participants all agreed that information and data should be better shared, and called for more accurate measurements overall – but there were varying views as to which area should be prioritized (e.g. policy-making, actions on the ground, etc.). The discussion also revolved around the need to rethink funding structures, with a focus on rewar... Read moreding innovation. Areas that need further exploration include trade-offs with other systems. Participants indeed questioned the extent to which innovations will be accepted in the market – as most of them will require trade-offs. Building on this, it will be crucial to create innovation ecosystems that can be easily deployed and scaled up – which will require overcoming existing barriers in the system. The debate then lies in identifying what the systemic barriers are, and agreeing on how to overcome them. Practices that are needed for food system sustainability may differ, as stakeholders agreed that there is no ‘one-size fits all’ approach. Innovations will thus need to be context-dependent and tailored to the needs of farmers. Although innovation management can become quite complex, customizing innovation is key. Read less

Sustainable and Resilient Agriculture – technical gaps, needs, and opportunities drawing from the Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture This group discussion focused on innovation gaps, with big capacity gaps being found amongst ministries, specifically regarding multiple approaches and initiatives, and getting action on the ground. Furthermore, there is high uncertainty around carbon sources and sinks, and capacity gaps to do MRV (Monitoring, Reporting and Verification) – especially for the livestock sector and pastoral systems, particularly in Africa. Participants noted the importance of m... Read moreetrics for adaptation and resilience for land-based systems. Indeed, there are big gaps between concrete actions and what is being measured – this is for example the case when it comes to the volatility of soil carbon. There are also digital gaps in decision-support systems, agricultural advisories, and digital services (also showing the importance of dealing with data ownership). Participants also noted the need to continue developing basic / practical technologies such as water management technologies, solar water pumps, varieties suitable to different agroecological features (soil management), and practical steps to deal with Bio Circular Green Economy (BCG) and resilient food systems approaches (amidst a pandemic). Lastly related to the Koronivia process, participants highlighted the need to extract actions from this process and implement them. Solutions to these problems were also discussed. These included fostering public-private partnerships in innovation, reducing food loss and waste, as well as building the production capacity of smallholder farmers – not by introducing high technological advancement, but rather by catering technologies to specific site problems (for example, by packaging technologies for specific agroecological natural systems). Finally, participants agreed on the importance of deciding where to embed actions – whether it be in national processes or in multilateral agencies. They also discussed the use of metrics and how they can help in getting finance flowing. The group concluded that agriculture is the most promising poverty reduction method in the Global South, and that we should not forget the multiple positive outcomes agriculture can have on food security, nature, and poverty. Read less

Private sector investments in innovations supports the delivery of outcomes for people, nature and climate During the discussions in this breakout group, five key messages emerged. To start with, participants emphasized the need to put farmers first. Too many existing commitments focus solely on companies, while . farmers need to know that they are also part of the solution. Additionally, and because they run the highest risks, farmers need better access to investments. However, they also often risk their land as collateral and therefore need to be provided with alternatives and assistance. Go... Read moreing beyond, farmers need incentives to adopt innovations. Making the business case for farmers notably includes showing that innovative solutions can be affordable, and that they stand as investments rather than costs. The second key message that emerged from the discussion is that solutions from the innovation ecosystem can make it easier for farmers – for example through packaged solutions such as coupling insurance with climate information, or media innovation (including educational entertainment shows on national and regional TV programs). Participants also pointed to conditioned solutions as an option – such as financial innovation offered by banks in Brazil, who are conducting assessments to help identify gaps at farm level and offer tailor-made support. The third key message was the use of policies to help farmers transition. Policies can level the playing field by reshuffling regulatory tools and looking out for factors that may hinder the transition. Currently, the competition is not equal, and good practice requires using taxes, custom codes, and procurement guidelines. Furthermore, subsidies could be redirected to SME and farmer levels. Another key message identified was that consumers at the other end of the spectrum must also be involved and helped. Lastly, participants agreed that digital, finance and media should all be framed in the innovation and solution ecosystem. Read less

The investment gap in agricultural innovation is bridged, ushering in a new era of innovation and sustainability, delivering benefits for people, nature and climate Moving towards more integrated approaches for smallholder farmers, a partner identified the need to set a climate change adaptation target within its organization (i.e. 75% of approved projects focusing on sustainability) as a way of pledging support to the campaign, along with a commitment to evidence building (from proof of concept to scale). Throughout the discussion, participants agreed that public investment remains essential ... Read moreto support research and transition for farmers. In particular, identifying ways to repurpose and realign agricultural subsidies would provide the right incentives to engage investors and ensure investments align with the SDGs and climate change targets. For example, innovation in sustainable protein sources is particularly appealing for investors, as food systems transformation and ESG criteria have risen to the top of the agenda. Yet, private investment business cases are needed to move beyond public subsidies for food systems. On this matter, working with social entrepreneurs is key. This means expanding the pool of entrepreneurs interested in social returns, but also better connecting them with one another. A variety of partners can offer capacity building to social entrepreneurs. In addition to this, participants agreed that doing more co-investment and working with the private sector towards joint sustainability goals can be transformative whilst leveraging multilaterals as mediators. Collaborative engagements could include PPPs and blended finance mechanisms. Participants also asked for increasing investment in proof of concepts, as successful proof of concepts can then be taken to scale. Overall, more funding is needed, but also better funding. To ensure no geography is left out, there must be a combination of national and international investments. In relation to ensuring no one is left out, taking into account social equity and fostering a just rural transition are also key, as there is no one-size-fits-all solution given the diversity of contexts and needs at farmer level. Moreover, better identifying research gaps and ensuring easy access to the right data would benefit both the public and private sectors. Participants emphasized the need to bridge evidence gaps by testing hypotheses, pulling together evidence of what works, and developing metrics to measure the level of transformation in agricultural innovation systems. We should recognize that agricultural innovation is not only about ODA (Official Development Assistance) – and that it is part of a broader story around food transformation. To do this, metrics are essential: we need to be better at understanding what counts as innovation for agriculture and have the right metrics to ensure we are on track. There is a need to develop models for sustainability and to test hypotheses on recommendations that have been made elsewhere (especially on end-to-end innovations and payment-by-results), thus pulling together evidence of what works for investors in agricultural innovation. Continuing to ensure information-sharing and connecting stakeholders across the board is important. Lastly, and coming back to the core of the issue, participants noted that building a stronger understanding of market barriers and innovation needs – especially around what works for farmers – is essential to catalyzing change. Read less

Innovation ecosystems unlock the power of new and emerging technologies – from social media to fintech to data and digital services – to accelerate food systems transformation The biggest issue participants reflected on as part of the broader topic of "Innovation ecosystems" is the need to ensure a balance of power, and to avoid excluding any stakeholder group. This means paying particular attention to vulnerable populations, and, going beyond, actively supporting those who suffer the most from systemic shocks such as the COVID-19 crisis. Moreover, it is important to question whom certain ... Read moreactions are successful for, and whose interests are being served, which aids in protecting vulnerable groups of stakeholders. Another area of interest explored by the group was the role of policy officials – including what they know, as well as what gaps need to be filled. For example, in the lead up to COP26, we must figure out which areas need to be ramped up and how academics can help in feeding into policy officials hands. The group asked for greater focus on the policy action side, with a view to foster dialogue and ensure academic information is widely shared with policy makers. Additionally, the use of concrete case studies could help identify risks and responsibilities (i.e. “who has done it, and how it worked out”). This would contribute to answering the question of whether all innovation is good, and would ensure better alignment with peoples’ needs and interests. Participants also talked about the role of the private sector , and emphasized the need for greater work on regulations (which requires overcoming a lot of external factors, but block chain mapping helps). Participants notably discussed the opposition between development NGOs / organizations who demand transparency, and the private sector, for whom the question of access to information and Intellectual Property is particularly important to navigate in a highly competitive landscape. Another really important issue the group highlighted is that indicators that define a development program can be constraining to innovation. Indeed, innovation by definition means ‘unexpected outcomes’, and traditional indicators built within a program usually don’t explore these unintended outcomes – which go unreported. As an example, one participant reflected on when they worked with Kofi Annan, who said how “lots of effective solutions don’t make it off the shelf”, specifically at a policy level. Read less

User driven innovation, underpinned by robust partnerships, delivers impacts for people, nature and climate This breakout group mainly focused on how to create a more integrated and responsive R&D system. This included a discussion on increasing public investment in R&D around proteins, as well as a reflection on the importance of farmer-focused, demand-driven innovation. First, to get the support and facilitation needed, there must be greater clarity on the cost of innovation to guide demand. Second, we must tackle subsidies and how they distort the market. Lastly, it is important to ... Read morecreate stronger ties between local grassroots projects and national data collection, so that localized action is better informed by big data and scenario planning, taking advantage of ‘composite’ technology. Participants also emphasized the need to put data directly into the hands of those who create value. Read less

Agricultural production has a positive impact on biodiversity under a changing climate The discussion focused on how to support a shift towards production systems that deliver more diversified diets (including through a change in consumer dietary habits / reduction in meat consumption) and on the adoption of organic / agroecological / environmental practices that support and protect biodiversity. Stakeholders noted the need for a shift in current dietary habits, together with the scaling up and sharing of knowledge and evidence on practices that support ecosystem services, as well as increased... Read more diversification strategies (within fields and across fields and landscapes) that support ecosystem functions and resilience. Group members flagged contributions and pledges related to building and further developing the current knowledge base by sharing lessons and examples of current practices. They also noted the need to consider and take into account the work of the private sector, as well as to support research that is inclusive, that builds on local and indigenous knowledge, and that promotes local innovation. The need to focus on current livestock practices was noted as a critical area for future knowledge development, including building on lessons in the policy arena that support a shift from livestock production, looking at how to effectively support transitions (for example through improving fertilizer efficiency), and supporting both marginal / transitional and transformational improvements. Stakeholders noted the importance of the campaign in raising issues related to institutional development and support, a repurposing of policies to support farmer-focused R&D, increased investment in capacity building, as well as in practices that support biodiversity. To get the right support and facilitation, the campaign can assist by highlighting the need to invest in and focus on this area, showing the link with agroecology approaches, and making other links across the food system – for example through a focus on influencing and changing consumer preferences, and on food loss and waste. Stakeholders also noted that it would be useful to develop a set of objectives and outcomes for practices that protect agrobiodiversity. This set of objectives would take into account and build on experience and evidence gained from existing practice, and would help inform the development of a platform / toolbox assisting farmers in the design and implementation of future programs – giving them a clear view of associated costs, benefits and risks. This platform could be developed as a public good to be further refined by practitioners, and would include a set of indicators. It would also make sure to use a broad definition of innovation – not solely focusing on technology development, but also taking consideration of practice and social engagement. Read less

Agroecological practices that deliver benefits for people, nature and climate are deployed at scale The participants in this breakout room pinpointed to several areas that need urgent action. First, there needs to be better engagement between farmers, research, and innovation development. In addition, demand-driven innovation, tailored to the needs of farmers and adapted to local challenges, must be supported. Second, we must steer public investment towards smallholder farmers and agriculture, and foster public-private partnerships to pull in private sector investment with a focus on evidence-... Read morebased approaches. Third, there is a need for developing and harmonizing outcome indicators and metrics. Lastly, mechanisms must be provided to build bridges between knowledge and investment in adaptation and resilience. In order to facilitate action for the above areas, participants identified the following supporting/ enabling mechanisms: • A scientific toolbox that could help improve farmers’ choices by sharing evidence on what creates value for them – whether it is agroecology, climate-smart agriculture, or incorporating indigenous sources of knowledge into digital-based advisory services; • Farmers’ dialogues and a systematic inclusion of farmers in the development of research and innovation as important mechanisms; • Further investment in public goods relevant to agriculture and rural livelihoods, to create an enabling environment in which farmers are empowered to make the right choices. This includes improving infrastructure, sharing knowledge through climate advisory services or advice on markets, disease and pest threats, as well as building evidence on what works. This will also incentivize and pull in private sector investment. Closing the economic development gap through health, education and other infrastructure will position smallholder farmers on a level playing field and enable them to compete; • Tailored and locally-relevant impact assessments and cost-effectiveness analyses, involving farmers as economic actors and as co-designers. There is a need for more high-quality, long-term research at scale, which is demand-led, system-based and deepens the evidence-base on what works in different localities; • Improved and harmonized outcome indicators (climate, biodiversity, nutrition, livelihoods / social inclusion, etc.), to deliver on the multiple objectives demanded in agriculture. These can provide a common framework for assessing the value of different approaches in different contexts and for different ends, and can help overcome unhelpful dichotomies between different approaches. These outcome indicators can also help reduce investor uncertainty. Finally, as mitigation and nature objectives become increasingly important, we need to bring those outcomes together with the “human face” that comes through livelihoods / income and adaptation outcomes. We need to find mechanisms to bridge the divide between adaptation and mitigation for communities and investment streams. An adaptation and mitigation commission is one option to facilitate and coordinate this. Read less