Explore Official Dialogue Feedback

Conclusión de la mesa 1. La educación alimentaria en el Municipio de Tulancingo Que el Gobierno Municipal diseñe políticas públicas que promuevan la importancia de adoptar modelos de alimentación nutritiva, sana y sostenible principalmente en las escuelas de nivel básico, así como en los comedores comunitarios propios del municipio. Conclusión de la mesa 2. Las y los campesinos y productores de alimentos como eslabón fundamental del sistema alimentario de Tulancingo de Bravo. Que el gobierno municipal, diseñe políticas públicas que habilite espacios públicos como puntos de venta ... Read moredonde se promuevan los productos resultado de la agricultura familiar, fortaleciendo entre otras cosas el Tejido social y la cohesión comunitaria, así mismo, se solicitó el apoyo con financiamiento viable para los pequeños productores y la transferencia tecnológica dirigidas a la productividad. Conclusión de la mesa 3. Productos Locales Vs Productos Foráneos Que el gobierno municipal, diseñe políticas públicas dirigidas a vincular a los productores locales con los consumidores y cadenas comerciales, disminuyendo la brecha a través de la organización y formación de colectivos (cooperativas), ayudándoles en el proceso de incubación y aceleramiento empresarial de sus productos. Conclusión de la mesa 4. El agua como un bien fundamental para la producción de alimentos Que la sociedad civil y el gobierno municipal diseñen y difundan acciones para el cuidado del agua, que se apoye al sector agrícola con innovación y tecnología para el mejor aprovechamiento del agua. Read less

En la mesa 1 sobre La educación alimentaria en el Municipio de Tulancingo se identificó como problema central el desconocimiento en la producción y consumo de alimentos saludables y nutritivos debido principalmente a problemas de acceso, distribución, e infraestructura, así como al abandono de prácticas de cultivo o prácticas regionales sustentables como la producción en traspatios y sistemas de producción familiar. En la mesa 2 sobre Las y los campesinos y productores de alimentos como eslabón fundamental del sistema alimentario de Tulancingo de Bravo, se identificó como un problem... Read morea principal la desvalorización del rol de las y los campesinos del Municipio en las cadenas de valor, de producción y educación, así como una desorganización y desarticulación de productores, y el bajo acceso a recursos financieros y tecnológicos para incrementar su productividad. En la mesa 3 sobre Productos Locales Vs Productos Foráneos se identificó como problema principal la falta de espacios adecuados para vender productos locales. Así mismo, se hizo referencia a los efectos propios de la globalización en los ingresos de los productores, pues se introducen a los territorios productos sobresaturados y baratos lo que ocasiona que los productores tengan que malbaratan sus productos locales. En la mesa 4 sobre El agua como un bien fundamental para la producción de alimentos se comentó que el problema de la falta y escases de agua para el cultivo de alimentos es un problema que todos deben tener en mente. Se identificó que uno de los principales problemas es el uso ineficiente del agua, otro problema es la falta de cultura de captación de agua de lluvia. También se habló sobre cómo mejorar la utilización eficiente del agua a través de la innovación y la tecnología. Read less

Nuestro diálogo lleva el nombre de “Hacia el Fortalecimiento del Sistema Alimentario del Valle de Tulancingo.” e intenta analizar cómo podemos impulsar cada una de las cuatro vías de acción planteadas. Para esto nuestro diálogo se propone discutir acerca del sistema alimentario local sobre ¿cuáles son los problemas? y ¿cómo se pueden solucionar?, con la finalidad de impulsar en Tulancingo de Bravo acciones, mecanismos y políticas públicas que mejoren el sistema alimentario. Para esto organizamos nuestro diálogo en cuatro mesas con temas, que creemos, son los más relevantes par... Read morea que el sistema alimentario local en Tulancingo de Bravo sea incluyente, sustentable y sostenible. Los temas con los que esperamos abordar y discutir estos problemas son: 1) La educación alimentaria en el Municipio de Tulancingo. 2) Las y los campesinos y productores de alimentos como eslabón fundamental del sistema alimentario de Tulancingo de Bravo. 3) Productos Locales Vs Productos Foráneos. 4) El agua como un bien fundamental para la producción de alimentos. Read less

An area of divergence that emerged was the nature of markets surrounding smallholder producers. While there was consensus that smallholder farmers played a critical role for local food security and sovereignty, there were voices arguing for the necessity of connecting local farmers to export markets as well. Some participants argued that smallholders had a critical role to play in building and sustaining shorter production rows targeted at local and regional markets, ultimately, leading to more resilient and sovereign food systems. This critical function of small holders had become particularl... Read morey clear during the COVID-19 crisis. Others argued that niche markets for certain foods were seldom consumed locally. Participants concluded that there would be more investigation needed, considering respective geographies, products and stakeholders involved. While participants generally embraced the UN Food Systems Summit process and underlined the importance of hosting multi-stakeholder dialogues, there were voices questioning the appropriateness of the format and effectiveness of the process. Citing the fact that multiple researchers openly boycotted the summit due to the perceived dominance of wealthy developed nations and industries, participants raised concerns about green washing and driving forces behind agendas. In their opinion it would be a good start to invite representatives of local voices to the table and ensure that they would truly be engaged. Yet, their mere participation should not be mistaken for representation. Others supported this, emphasizing that the scientific and political narrative would predominantly be driven by developed countries and larger industries, which stood in stark contrast to the summit’s intentions. As such, we would need to de-construct the current model of sustainability and further investigate what it truly means to empower local leaders to shape and drive development agendas. This would also turn around the general narrative on smallholder producers which was perceived as one-sided and focused on what they would need to do to support sustainable food systems, rather than what others could do to enable smallholders to shape and contribute to sustainable food systems. Similar to that accountability for current unsustainable production practices should be equally assigned across all stakeholders including consumers. At the same time, participants argued that policy makers and smallholder farmers alike would need to work with industries to bring about transformative change. Regardless of potential biases, participants underlined the importance of creating synergies between smallholder and large-scale producers to find a common vision that enables the creation of sustainable food systems. Solutions and knowledge originating in either sector could be replicated in the other, effectively building an environment in which both smallholders and large-scale producers thrive. Others argued that, for this to happen, policy makers would have to start to pay equal attention and divide support equally among smallholders and large-scale producers. Further, participants underlined the need for agroecology to become more financially viable and not solely dependent on altruism. Policy makers in collaboration with scientists and businesses across the spectrum would need to define clear metrics and reporting criteria to measure ecosystem services and conservation benefits that are not tied to production levels. This would enable value creation and measurement, ultimately creating a market for biodiversity performance. Others agreed that this would be a suitable bargaining opportunity with larger businesses to enforce concrete and strict biodiversity criteria. Others argued that for smallholders to be included in this process, policy makers would need to recognize and address the negative impacts of climate change, biodiversity loss and already scarce natural resources disproportionately faced by smallholders. Therefore, to engage local communities and smallholders should receive support and proportioned financial assistance in deploying agroecological approaches. Read less

To achieve sustainable food systems, participants highlighted the importance of a shift in focus of policy makers. Building on examples in 55 African countries that mainstream ecological and organic agriculture into the agricultural sector, it was highlighted that 67% of agriculture budgets were spent on farm input subsidy programs. According to one participant, this would prompt more unsustainable practices as limited, immediate benefits would be favored over long-term sustainability and were often tied to short-term government campaigns. Instead, participants urged policymakers to look at sy... Read morestemic changes and policies that incentivize transformative changes in production practices. In addition, participants criticized the apparent focus of policy makers on large scale, industrial farming. In Madagascar, for instance, smallholders’ interests would neither be valued, nor considered in political agendas. Smallholders, while most exposed to the consequences of climate change and biodiversity loss, would often be invisible to policy makers and investors due to the lack of representation and visibility. While many participants agreed, several others emphasized the need to consider both smallholders and large-scale agricultural producers to ensure that both would move in the same direction and receive appropriate financial support. To tackle this issue, participants agreed that smallholders would need to come together, share their experiences with each other and effectively demonstrate their collective impact on food systems and the environment. This would improve local smallholders' access to markets and ensure that the policy makers understand the needs of local producers in terms of capacity, infrastructure and agency, which are currently lacking. Participants listed examples from China, where the government encourages smallholders to collectively found co-operatives. In contrast to this, in other areas it was raised that there is an apparent shift of some smallholder farmers selling land to large landowners, who, in return, would employ these former smallholders as direct employees. This has significant implications on tenure rights and perceived agency of smallholders. Further, participants urged policymakers to not reinvent the wheel, but instead to focus on bridging local, indigenous knowledge with scientific evidence on agroecological approaches and innovations. As part of this, a few local CSO participants underlined the need of local producers for behavioral change-based tools to build local awareness and demand for agroecological approaches and products. They pledged to further build this capacity locally and further referred to the Africa unions Heads of State’s decision to support ecological organic agriculture. Participants also discussed the impact of consumers and market forces on local smallholder producers. While there was consensus on the importance of local food security for local communities, there was recognition that a range of organic foods, by default, were determined for export markets to be sold for a higher price. The COVID-19 pandemic showed the fragility of this system as supply chains broke down, export markets crumbled, and immediate economic impacts were felt by many local producers. At the same time, local food systems proved to be critical as country’s went into lockdown and communities relied on their domestic food production. Moving forward, participants, therefore, called for consumer awareness campaigns and nutrition education, socializing local foods, effectively balancing local consumption with export markets and increasing food systems resilience. Investors and micro-finance could be a key driver to understand risks and promote investments in local food markets. Read less

Participants agreed that to unlock smallholder producers’ potential to bring about climate resilient and biodiverse food systems, major investments in their capacity would have to be made. For those investments to be effective, stakeholders would have to learn to better understand the unique position, background, motivation and vulnerabilities of local communities and producers. Participants identified socio-economic vulnerabilities as a significant barrier to the adoption of sustainable and/ or agroecological approaches. A lack of access to markets, financial institutions and missing stable... Read more prices linked to environmental/ biodiversity performance metrics would increase the risk of poverty and reinforce exploitive practices subsequently locking in unsustainable methods. While building local capacity remains important, securing the buy-in of local producers needs to go beyond sharing of information. Real behavior change, which would be required to achieve sustainable food systems, meant to tap into the attitudes, motivation, background and cultural heritage of smallholder producers. As mentioned by one participant, pride in one's community, natural resources, or native foods can be a gateway to the adoption of agroecological approaches. While many participants agreed to this, others underlined that this would only be effective if socio-economic factors and sustainable livelihoods were supportive. Further, participants discussed the importance of consumer behavior change to create niche markets accessible to smallholder producers engaging in agroecological approaches. Drawing from own experience, one participant shared how he increased demand for biodiversity-friendly crops, by reintroducing and promoting indigenous recipes among local communities. In his opinion, recognizing local culture and heritage are a gateway to the reintroduction of native seeds and biodiverse crops. In this case, it was imperative to recognize the fact that many people didn’t know how to cook with products that, in essence, were part of the native flora. He underlined that participatory research, paired with behavior-centered design methodology helped identify opportunities to drive consumer demand and create a niche market for nature-positive products. While others generally agreed that norms around consumption of food would need to change to create market demand for sustainable foods, others underlined those related initiatives would need to consider that markets operate differently in the global North and South. Participants agreed that promising production pathways must focus on the interests and motivations of farmers and pastoralists while supporting restoration of biodiversity and recognizing the embracing ecosystem and its services. Key actions would be a review of policies and subsidies to support small-scale producers who work for both their livelihoods and the environment. Present policies and subsidies would be among the key barriers and current investments in harmful subsidies should be rerouted to support local producers and their capacity to utilize agroecological approaches. Participants underlined that harmful subsidy needed to be stopped and refunneled to local farmers and communities. We would need to critically look at intermediate parties and associations to reestablish mutual trust and ensure that investments reach farmers and communities locally. Confirming this, another participant told the group that trust levels in associations would be often low among local communities. Years ago, they had been the ones promoting agrochemicals and pesticides only for the communities and farmers to now face the consequences of this rapid adoption of supposedly helpful tools. Transparency, participatory certification and a clear stand against harmful subsidies would be key to reverse distrust and reestablish association and cooperatives as partners of smallholders. Read less

Achieving sustainable food systems requires a change in norms and practices across all levels. Current policies, financial and non-financial incentives would promote unsustainable food consumption and production patterns alike which reinforced harmful habits across the board. Production practices such as nutrient loading, monoculture and unsustainable deforestation are all practices that emerged over the past decades due to the global demand for unified foods and rise in overconsumption as well as food waste. Participants pointed out that changing the current state of food systems required bol... Read mored action and a holistic approach. A multi stakeholder approach centered around a shared vision would be needed to reverse policies and ‘un-learn’ currently locked-in harmful practices. Participants underlined that while Climate Change, the current Biodiversity crisis as well as the COVID made our dependency on natural resources and the need for transformative shifts of food systems abundantly clear, political willingness and current market forces as well as buy-in from larger companies would be lacking. This would be particularly visible in the current market incentive mechanisms, tax regimes and persistent harmful subsidies. A first step in the right direction would be a renewed focus on specialised production systems and inclusion of indigenous communities in the conversation around sustainable food systems. To do so, raising awareness for solutions coming from smallholders and indigenous people could be a gateway to address lingering issues around inclusion, equity, and tenure rights. At this point, participants noted that smallholder farmers were disproportionately vulnerable to climate change and the loss of biodiversity and, therefore, required particular attention. Others argued that such efforts should, however, also involve large farms in efforts to create synergies. There was consensus on the need to develop standardized measuring scales for biodiversity and to share (indigenous) knowledge, best practices, and inspirational examples/ case-studies of, but not limited, to successful approaches to the adoption of agroecology. The latter would be particularly important in the absence of unified measuring systems of biodiversity and could serve as a proxy that is close to reality, while more accurate scales are being developed. To this extent, participants emphasized the need for investments in databases, participatory as well as farmers research networks, and eco-based research networks. This would allow to balance the current trend to focus on yields only and to conserve traditional knowledge (e.g. concept of ecological calendars). In addition, achieving sustainable food systems requires working with consumers and other key stakeholders along the food supply chain. Participants emphasized that currently unsustainable food systems are merely driven by local producers’ preferences and practices but a result of a complex interplay of market forces, policy environments and consumer demand. To this extent, one would need to look at the whole value chain. Appropriate pricing, paired with social protection of consumer groups and public procurement programmes as well as value chain laws, similar to the ones deployed in Europe, could nudge food systems in the right direction. Further, consumer awareness in regard to pricing, origin and nutritional value would be critical to shape the market demand that drives food production. Other participants supported this by underlining the importance of awareness raising interventions targeted at consumers’ demand and perception of agroecological products. Another important measure raised was the enabling of true cost accounting (TCA). According to one participant, only a few countries are implementing TCA. However, due to climate change and COVID-19 the awareness of the dependency with nature could be a good start for the implementation of such measures. Read less

All four discussion groups discussed the same guiding topic and question. However, to appropriately lay out responses and respect nuances, the following sections will report-out on main outcomes of each respective breakout group. To achieve sustainable food systems, we must not reinvent the wheel, but apply a multistakeholder approach that builds agency and enables active participation of all stakeholders along the food supply chain. Farming systems are complex and at the foundation of all sustainable development goals. While governments and policy makers play a critical role in providing the ... Read moreincentive schemes and frameworks needed to achieve our ambitious development targets, local farmers, governments and other stakeholders are the ones ‘localizing these agendas’. For instance, as recent events in Chile’s social uprising showed, governments need to work closely with the stakeholders impacted by their decisions, including farmers, local communities and particularly women as protagonists who effectively manage entire landscapes. There was consensus among participants that governments tend to focus on industrial development and top-down policy making, neglecting farms and ecosystems. Instead, their policies should be developed through an active exchange between stakeholders with particular emphasis on the involvement of female farmers and indigenous people. This would also allow for the inclusion of indigenous, ancestral, and local knowledge which may yield promising returns if matched with appropriate science and fed into local-, subnational and national policy. We need to understand and reward the vast range of services that nature-positive production delivers beyond food production. This requires looking deeper into, so far, underrated ecosystems services and non-agricultural biodiversity such as forests. We need globally harmonized and well-defined metrics that look at the holistic value of farm sustainability, lands sharing and farming in harmony with nature schemes. These need to be integrated into existing policy frameworks such as the UN CBD and the Paris Agreement. To this extent, the SDG indicator framework offers a bridge between both policy processes. Determining the true value of nature will also be paramount for well-functioning incentive schemes that promote outcomes and use practices that are beneficial to biodiversity, climate change adaptation as well as mitigation. This could, for instance, manifest itself in trade deals and policy agreements and lay the foundation for a Paris Agreement of Food Systems. Building on the above, we must approach sustainable food systems from both the production, as well as the demand side of the equation. Current market forces do not support farming practices that align with, or promote, biodiversity. On the contrary, exploitative, and extractive practices are often more profitable for local producers in the short term. So, while government and private sectors play a critical role in designing the right incentive structures for biodiversity friendly food production, we need to work with consumers and all stakeholders along the food supply chain to make ‘sustainable foods’ the new norm. Facing the biodiversity and climate crises and transforming food systems requires behavior change across all levels. With climate change affecting weather patterns and seasons, farmers are most vulnerable to climate change and need to be empowered to change their practices while being equipped with the knowledge and tools required to adapt to climate change. At the same time, governments need to abandon the deeply entrenched habit of subsidizing harmful pesticides and fertilizers that favors short-term benefits over long-term sustainability. Read less

Present policies and subsidies are among the key barriers to sustainable food systems. Current investments will need to be stopped and rerouted to support local producers and their capacity as well as agency to utilize agroecological approaches. Triggering positive changes on the farm level is a significant step forward but policy makers need to look across terrestrial landscapes (including water and seascapes) and think in integrated ways of ‘foodscapes’. Participants of this dialogue are committed to work with and advise policy makers while continuously building the capacity of local com... Read moremunities and producers. Creating sustainable food systems by 2030 requires behavior change among both producer and consumer groups. Current consumption levels, changing dietary patterns of an affluent population and the unequal increase in purchasing power associated with larger footprints lead to overexploitation and degradation of food systems. Therefore, consumer behavior change in favor of sustainable consumption and increasing demand for agroecological products is a critical component of a paradigm shift towards sustainable food systems. Paired with supporting policy frameworks and incentive schemes, such change would create enabling market conditions for smallholders and large scale farmers alike, to adopt sustainable production practices. Behavior change is a powerful tool to empower local smallholders producers and to provide them with the agency needed to adopt and replicate agroecological approaches. Traditional approaches often focus on monetary short term benefits and regulations to encourage sustainable production methods. While these remain an important part of the solution needed, transformative change requires tapping into approaches that go beyond awareness raising and consider attitudes, motivation, background and cultural heritage of smallholder producers. This is a key ingredient of transformative change and allows local actors to leave the role as a passive recipient of knowledge and tools but empowers them to become agents of change themselves. Both the large-scale, industrial food producers and smallholders need to be part of the paradigm shift needed to achieve sustainable food systems. However, smallholder producers and especially small-scale farmers require particular support as they are often underrepresented in decision making in terms of policies and investments. Further, their livelihoods are disproportionately vulnerable to the impact of climate change and biodiversity-loss. Given that they play a key role for local and regional food security and sovereignty, urgent action to build capacity and an enabling policy environment are needed. To do so, the apparent gap between high-level development policy and the reality of farmers and communities needs to be closed. On the one hand, this requires translating development policy into local action. On the other hand, smallholders need to be involved in the design of what local action looks like to develop feasible, yet effective measures that merge biodiversity conservation with agricultural production. Standardized and evidence-based metrics to measure the relative contribution of biodiversity to food systems are needed to make the business case for biodiversity in agriculture. There is a current lack of data and understanding of the contribution of biodiversity to livelihoods and ecosystem integrity. Often, the definition of sustainable agriculture is biased, focusing on production and yield levels, and, therefore, neglecting non-productive conservation measure’s contribution to food systems. At the same time, harmful agricultural subsidies continue to reinforce destructive agricultural practices, leaving little room for the adoption of agroecological approaches. So to transform our current food production systems, scientists, farmers, policy makers and civil society need to work together to better understand and measure the importance of biodiversity for food systems and to redirect harmful subsidies to approaches that make biodiversity an integral part of agricultural production. Finally, the dialogue concluded that we must not reinvent the wheel when it comes to transforming our food systems. Rather than building new systems from scratch, we must look at local brightspots as well as indigenous knowledge and marry them to the best available science, innovative finance schemes and enabling policies. To achieve this, it is crucial for all stakeholder including consumers and producers to align on a common vision to ensure a multi stakeholder dialogue and exchange. Participants acknowledge that, in order for this to take place, smallholders and vulnerable groups, women and youth would require additional support to ensure that their voice is heard and taken into consideration. All participants agreed to contribute to an ongoing exchange around sustainable food systems. Read less

This Independent Food Systems Summit (FSS) Dialogue discussed nature-based and behavior-centered solutions in smallholder productive sectors as one of the key ingredients to achieving sustainable food systems. The dialogue focused on biodiversity as the foundation of sustainable food systems and agroecological approaches as a key pathway to achieve nature-positive production and to support small-scale farmers’ agency, livelihoods, entrepreneurship, and culture. Combined, these aspects build and scale climate- and biodiversity friendly food production systems globally. While intentionally des... Read moreigned to explore solutions and levers of change under action track 3 “boosting nature-positive production” the dialogue naturally touched upon action track 2 of the UN Food Systems Summit Dialogue on “shifting to sustainable consumption patterns” as well. Recognizing that neither of the two are mutually exclusive focus areas but, in fact, strongly overlap, the dialogue also examined the interlinkages between action tracks 2 and 3. Building on tangible examples presented by local farmers and grass root civil society organizations the event offered a multistakeholder forum for local leaders, practitioners, researchers, private sector, donors and policy makers. Together, they discussed what would be needed for small-scale producers to adopt and scale agroecological approaches for nature positive production and resilient food systems. The guiding topic and vision statement was hereby phrased as follows: By 2030, resilient and diversified agriculture and food systems are nourishing the world sustainably through inclusive and equitable agroecological production at scale, supported by a conducive policy, institutional and socio-economic environment that unlocks small-holder producers’ potential. Read less

-Estamos viviendo una pandemia por Covid-19 la cual coexiste y se relaciona con la ya existente pandemia invisible de la obesidad por malnutrición o exceso, afectando e impactando gravemente al sistema de salud: *Aumento de la obesidad como efecto de la pandemia, mala alimentación y sedentarismo a causa de las restricciones de movilidad y sedentarismo. * Correlación de índice de Masa Corporal (IMC) y requerimientos de atención en Unidades de Pacientes Críticos (UPC). *Tendencia al aumento de la gravedad y duración de tratamiento. *Aumento de la ocupación de camas, estadía en Unidades ... Read morede Pacientes Críticos, estrés del sistema de salud. * Cambios epidemiológicos post pandemia asociados a coexistencia de enfermedades crónicas no transmisibles y virales/infecciosas. * Situación epidemiológica va a cambiar a nivel país, importancia de poner foco en la prevención en base a estilos de vida saludables. -Las medidas de confinamiento, dada la pandemia por Covid-19, han tenido un efecto importante en la vida diaria de las personas, impactando los hábitos de alimentación y actividad física y repercutiendo en los hábitos y salud mental de los niños como efecto del encierro:*Cambios en preferencias y hábitos de alimentación en la población que ha derivado en un aumento/ganancia de peso importante en la población a nivel mundial y de forma importante en Chile. *Tendencia de consumo por productos como pan, bollería, bebidas azucaradas, frituras entre otros. *Cocina en casa ha ido orientada a la indulgencia, aumento en tamaño de porciones. *Sedentarismo por restricciones de desplazamientos por la pandemia, falta de espacios para realización de actividad física. *Angustia y ansiedad en niños y niñas por encierro y restricciones, falta de espacios protegidos para poder jugar e interactuar con sus pares, imposibilidad de asistir al colegio, falta de entorno escolar. *Radiografía de la alimentación Elige Vivir Sano, demostró el aumento del consumo de alimentos no saludables dada la pandemia, producto de la ansiedad y el aburrimiento causado por la pandemia. -Vías para promover el acceso a una alimentación saludable para personas de sectores más vulnerables que incluya frutas y verduras, considerando que el 2021 se ha declarado como el Año Internacional de las Frutas y Verduras por la FAO: * En la actualidad se pierde o desperdicia el 54% de las frutas y verduras mientras hay sectores que sufren falta de acceso a estos. * Rol clave de las ferias libres en el acceso y distribución a frutas y verduras. * Oportunidad y necesidad para impulsar subvenciones a las frutas, y verduras. * Necesidad de crear hábitos y educar a la población en torno a alimentación saludable, incorporación de frutas y verduras en la dieta diaria. * Apoyo a ollas comunes con foco en la incorporación de frutas y verduras para minutas diarias. * Surgimiento de aplicaciones y tecnologías que permiten comercializar y acercar las frutas y verduras a la población, oportunidad para potenciarlas y facilitar su consumo. * “Kioskos verdes” que promuevan la venta de alimentos saludables en escuelas. - Valoración actual y proyección post pandemia de iniciativa de banda horaria para realizar actividad física al aire libre (Franja Elige Vivir Sano): * Importancia de la vida activa para promover el bienestar y la salud en las familias. * Espacio para que las familias puedan desarrollar actividad física al aire libre, disminuyendo la posibilidad de contagio y obteniendo beneficios asociados al movimiento. * Aumento de uso de bicicletas, ocupación de plazas para realizar actividad física. *Tendencia a estructurar ciudades que promuevan el deporte, la actividad física al aire libre * Adecuación de políticas públicas y generación, diseño e implementación de convenios para la promoción de actividad física. - Necesidad de promover una cultura de consumo responsable en los sectores más vulnerables: *Importancia de la educación nutricional de cara a los consumidores, educación en torno a compras responsables, planificación de compras, preferencia de alimentos. *Promoción de estilos de vida saludable y act. física en escuelas con respaldo de políticas públicas Read less

-Estamos viviendo una pandemia por Covid-19 la cual coexiste y se relaciona con la ya existente pandemia invisible de la obesidad en contextos de inseguridad alimentaria, afectando gravemente a la población e impactando de forma significativa al sistema de salud. -Las medidas de confinamiento, dada la pandemia por Covid-19, han tenido un efecto importante en la vida diaria de las personas, impactando los hábitos de alimentación y actividad física y repercutiendo en las rutinas y salud mental de los niños como efecto del encierro. -Necesidad de fortalecer las vías para promover el acceso ... Read morea una alimentación saludable para personas de sectores más vulnerables, entre ellas, la incorporación de alimentos saludables que permitan una dieta equilibrada, entre ellos las frutas y verduras, considerando además que el 2021 se ha declarado como el Año Internacional de las Frutas y Verduras por la FAO, poniendo especial foco en la promoción de su consumo. - Positiva valoración actual y proyección post pandemia de iniciativa de banda horaria para realizar actividad física al aire libre (Franja Elige Vivir Sano), la cual surge en contextos de confinamiento. Iniciativa que se ha instaurado exitosamente y se espera perdure en el tiempo, considerando un escenario post pandemia. - Una alimentación balanceada resulta un factor protector en el caso de las pandemias de la obesidad y por Covid-19, sin embargo, frente a un contexto de menores ingresos, se torna aún más relevante promover una cultura de consumo responsable en los sectores más vulnerables, donde la educación debe comenzar desde la niñez. Read less

Análisis y evidencia sobre la pandemia del Covid-19 y pandemia de la obesidad en contextos de inseguridad alimentaria

Although participants did not show divergent opinions on the need to promote a package of actions to address diet related NCDs and on the importance of dealing with conflicts of interest and food industry interference, it is important to note that the need to include more Member States in these discussions and to allow for other actors to take part of discussing policy challenges. Important to include people in the “supply” side of the issue. Hopefully the Summit will enable some of these discussion and perhaps some conflict, which would be healthy.

3. What are the immediate steps and necessary shifts to address the challenges - Increase public awareness why are these policies needed. Stop promotion of UP foods worldwide - Consensus on non-interference of food industry in public health needed (Framework Convention or alike). Need to recognise that business as usual is not good enough. We need to deal with governance. Finalise and put into action guidance for global governance and conflicts of interest (WHO guidance). -Pushing ultra processed terminology - Building the investment case. Evidence shows that following dietary guidelines is a ... Read morewin for countries - Engage stakeholders from global to local and across sectors - National capacity building and strengthening - Peer learning among countries: share ideas, strategies, evidence, industry arguments - Promote a Rights’ framing and align with environmental sustainability - The burden of responsibility should be shifted away from consumers - Engage youth: youth led campaigns -Need to recognise the limitations of the summit: We need to recognize the limitation of the way that the summit has been set up. We need revised versions of the principles of engagement that will generate productive discussions and the summit process. We need to address conflicts of interest. People that are involved with the organisation of the summit want to see a positive outcome that the Summit is set up and address them. How we prioritise things. Two things that are not discussed in the summit are ultra processed foods and agroecology. It is necessary to talk about these issues. - Need to ensure focus on the Summit and not get distracted by other global events. The food systems Summit is the starting point not the end to the conversation. What are the changes that will be needed for future actions. - We need to change the environment not the product. Reformulation is an attempt to pretend that we can shift from really bad to really good products and have an impact. Reformulation is a barrier to coherence. As are voluntary initiatives. Read less

2. Challenges to support a policy package to sustainably prevent diet related NCDs - There is lack of public awareness and consumer confusion - A main challenge is continuing interference of food industry in policy processes and the lack of management of conflicts of interests of those participating in policy discussions. We need mechanisms to protect against this.- -Need to focus on food quality and nutrition rather than ingredients and single nutrient approaches. - Limited engagement of health departments in trade related policies - Globalization of food industry tactics and arguments with c... Read moreross border influence -Lack of research (regional and local) on policy monitoring and evaluation -Lack of coordination within UN System (FAO, IMF, WHO, UNICEF, etc.) -Failure of the Summit to engage the people in its processes. -Dealing with the economics of food - framing of food as consumer good instead of a human right -Weak government action across different levels Read less

From this Independent Dialogue and according to the questions discussed the break-up groups, the main conclusions include de following: 1.Expectation of participants on what the UNFSS would achieve for diet-related NCDs: - It will important for the Summit to plant the seed for more coherent policies with less interference from food industries and have a movement towards strong international agreement with package of measures for countries to implemented (inspired by Framework Convention on Tobacco Control) including a systemic and integrated approach to healthier food environments considering ... Read moreall forms of malnutrition. - For Member States, it is crucial that they promote the policies WHO recommends. They can scale up on others who have already promoted these policies. Governments should prepare to regulate. - There is a need and an urgency to address diet-related NCDs through the recognition that we need to address ultra processed foods as the way to go- not to just address reformulation. -Interested in governance of the food systems summit - hopes it will mark a change from the moment of being seen as doing something to actually doing something. - The summit’s focus should be in food as a human right and shift more to also focus on the demand side measures required to transform the food system and resist the temptation to split everything into silos. - Ensure that we keep in mind that health and people are at the centre and that there is greater transparency in the way that food policies are made. -Important for food policies to be people centred and people driven. Discussions should focus on how the policies can be translated at community level. Read less

The following key messages and themes emerged from the interactive dialogue and plenary with guided discussions among representatives from governments, civil society, : - Consensus on the need for complementary package of policies to address diet related NCDs and that such package includes restrictions to marketing and taxation of unhealthy foods, and front-of-package labeling systems on food products to provide clear and easy information to consumer and support healthier choices. Given the regulatory nature of these measures, and the evidence of industry interference in these types of nutriti... Read moreon policy-making processes, participants noted a need for tools, transparency and protective mechanisms to minimize risk of industry interference in public health policy and avoidance of conflicts of interest. - Participants recommended a common global definition of what is healthy or unhealthy food/diets, clarifying and including terms like ultra-processed food. - The UK experience highlighted that isolated voluntary initiatives have not been universal and industry partnerships have proven slower, less effective and thus less successful compared to mandated approaches established by government. where regulation exists, such as around school meals, where it is not reinforced by other complementary and coherent measures, these regulatory measures are not optimized. Further, taxation f of sugar sweetened beverages is working and is a good way to stimulate change – but not quickly, nor enough. The UK government has realized more must be done to reduce diet related NCDs and obesity, hence moving to implement further ‘policy package’ measures as part of a wider strategy to accelerate health improvements to support more sustained and deeper actions pushing down to rectify an environment where unhealthy industries to expand their products and drive people to make unhealthy choices. - The Chilean experience concluded about the importance of Chile’s promoting a law which includes front-of-package labeling, marketing restrictions and ban on the sale of products “high in” in schools; how essential it was to form an alliance of key members from the academia, the legislative sector and the executive sector and to have a well-defined set of evidence-based arguments (e.g. prevalence of overweight and obesity and associated costs). The Chilean example, recognized as pioneering and world leading in terms of front of pack labelling rules, demonstrated the importance of, not wait for all the evidence and taking a precautionary approach, as it was the case with tobacco control. In that sense, it was also pointed out how an global instrument with provisions such as those in the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) could also benefit food policy making. - The majority of participants also showed interest in being part of a coalition in support of a policy package for healthy diets within the Summit context and beyond. Discussants also noted: - the need to address governance issues, policy coherence (or lack thereof), conflicts of interest and power imbalance within the Summit but also in the food system as a whole. - the need to use a child and human-rights protection framing should also be prioritized. - the need to reset default in framing the conversation about healthy/unhealthy diets, to shift the perception that individuals are to be blamed for making unhealthy food choices when diets are shaped, if not determined by environments, options and circumstances. Nutrition has a much wider definition than single micro-nutrients, and food poverty should not be defined by low calories, but food poverty should be better understood as poor diet quality, as the issues to be addressed. - Countries want to share learnings and experiences in implementing these kinds of policies. Promote learning between countries and sharing information and lessons. - The Food System Summit is an opportunity for change, but we need to make sure that what comes out of it is really game changing. Important to also recognize limitations of the Summit. Read less