Explore Official Dialogue Feedback

While participants broadly agreed with the Principles of Engagement, dialogue discussions highlighted widespread anxieties about the operationalization of these principles in the Food Systems Summit. In particular, participants expressed concern over what were perceived as inadequacies in FSS governance with respect to managing conflict of interest and to defining terms of engagement with commercial sector actors. These themes are consistent with academic and civil society critiques of the opacity of the FSS process. In particular, participants expressed concern that: ● The legitimacy of the... Read more UNFSS is undermined by lack of clarity about the process by which its Principles of Engagement were developed ● The organizational structure of UNFSS lacks accountability and transparency ● The process for implementing Summit-generated solutions is unclear ● UNFSS governance risks neglecting rights-based approaches A common concern was that the development and governance of the FSS exacerbated existing power imbalances between different types of actors, in that stakeholders with substantial economic and political power are better able to engage with and dominate FSS discussions while less influential groups (including food workers, Indigenous communities, and other minority groups) will find it more difficult to engage effectively in the Summit. (To illustrate this point, we quote one participant who made the following comment in small-group discussions: “I have had no capacity to engage. And I’m privileged. I am fully employed, a stable job in academia. I’m not working on the front lines, as an unprotected restaurant worker, trying to manage kids at home, etc. It’s impossible to engage fully in this process if you aren’t paid to do it, and it’s confusing about how you can engage, even for me. I didn’t understand until today what the real issues were.”) Many participants felt that meaningful participation of less advantaged groups was unlikely to occur given they hadn’t been directly involved in the development of the Principles of Engagement and their operationalisation in Summit processes. A key conclusion of the dialogue was that a more participatory and legitimate Summit should combine recognition of power imbalances between relevant actor groups with a process for managing conflicts of interest. Summit principles and practices tend to assume that all actors and stakeholders have equal capacity and resources to engage in Summit discussions and shape outcomes. This is incompatible with demonstrable power imbalances and substantial evidence that multi-stakeholder dialogues tend to favour privileged actors and fail to generate effective solutions. This danger is compounded by the assumption that all actors participating in the process can be expected to contribute positively to the achievement of Summit objectives. The inclusion of actors with economic interests in maintaining harmful and inequitable aspects of contemporary food systems challenges this assumption, creates risks of generating tokenistic solutions, and highlights the need for governance mechanisms to actively manage such conflicts of interest. Read less

Our Dialogue provided an opportunity for participants to engage constructively and critically with the Summit’s Principles, seeking to inform pragmatic actions and develop recommendations to enhance Summit governance and to support transformation of food systems.

The discussion revealed that in a world characterized by continuous change and uncertainties, resilient agricultural and food systems are an important precondition for sustainable transfor-mation. Diversity at different levels such as production systems, farms, landscapes and in how knowledge is shared and developed is an important prerequisite for resilience. Although results are mixed and further research is needed, a positive relation between agricultural diversification and diversified diets, is true for many different farming systems. Agroecology does not deliver immediate results. Differ... Read moreent voices highlighted that despite the broad and holistic innovation strategy agroecology is offering, there is a need to address challenges such as the time lag be-tween the moment when agroecological measures are implemented and the moment when the effects become visible or measurable. Currently, the focus of agricultural policies is often limited to a production-oriented focus with a particular emphasis on food security. However, such a perspective appears to be too limited. There was consensus that given the planetary bounda-ries, the large environmental footprint of food systems and the complex and manifold health challenges related to nutrition, the focus of policies should be extended beyond targeting food security only and include other key aspects in food systems such as land, nutrition, and envi-ronmental security. This calls for action on the way we create and share knowledge using partic-ipatory learning methods, bringing farmers and other food system actors, scientists, extension services and policy makers together. In order to allow a long-term perspective on food systems performance and resilience, policy targets need to shift away from high-input systems focussing on high yields, towards incentivizing diversity in agricultural and food systems. Given the potential of agroecology in sustainably providing safe, nutritious food without com-promising on environmental quality and ecosystem services of agricultural landscapes, there is a need for a policy framework bringing all these different roles together. To unlock the potential and the holistic nature of agroecology, new approaches are required to measure success and impacts of agriculture and food systems. The Side Event called on all actors that are supportive of agroecology, to get actively engaged in the respective action coalitions that are forming under the UNFSS, to ensure the momentum that has been built up around agroecology will be main-tained after the Summit Read less

In various UNFSS Action Tracks and Food System Dialogues, agroecology emerged strongly as a key concept for inclusive food systems transformation by fostering the diversity of knowledge systems, ecosystems and nutrition. There is increasing evidence that agroecology is a powerful approach to reduce trade-offs between productivity and sustainability. The objective of the webinar was i) to identify and discuss knowledge and implementation gaps on agroecology in general as well as ii) to share knowledge and evidence on the role of agroe-cology to foster diversity in production, value chains and n... Read moreutrition to improve resilience of farm-ing and food systems. Each of the two topics was introduced by a short input followed by a panel discussion. The majority of the 118 participants (over 260 registered) work in the agricul-ture and environment/ecology sector for science/academia, NGOs, UN-Organizations, and na-tional governments. The audience had the possibility to interact with speakers and panellists via chat and Q&A function. Read less

We did not identify many divergence points. Only one of the notetakers noted the following: "I do not believe in fast change". The only way to get change is to educate the whole society. Kids and teenagers are our future, so we have to ensure projects keep getting carried on in 20 or 30 years. Education is key. We need to teach kids how the food systems work, and how important the whole cycle is. We have to be conscious about what we eat. During the session the notetaker recorded all outcome on a Miro Board. For more information you can access the board with the link attached.

Outcomes breaking out room 5: Community solution around food waste Whilst tons of food is wasted every day people are suffering from food security around the globe. In front of us are two problems that share common solutions to enable healthy, equitable, well-fed communities and sustainability of our food system. Social responsible actions can be led at the community level and help strengthen resilience for those most vulnerable. Our discussion will address these 2 challenges with the goal of improving and sustaining access to healthy fresh foods while setting the foundation for social and eco... Read morenomic equity. That is why we discussed three main questions based on these challenges. 1) How can we improve the distribution of healthy food surpluses for those food insecure? - Create a recovery chain within the city to transform the waste for ones into opportunities for others through distribution points. Change the system that is set up to perpetuate hunger - We need to redefine econ opportunity of waste/losses and change the culture of how food is perceived in the hospitality industry - Tackle the undernourishment of culture that can walk together with hunger but also alone perpetuating hunger - Food and class systems: while in Europe waste zero culture makes you a modern citizen, the concept of waste in poor countries where to waste demonstrates power (e.g. in Latam) - understanding government role and what countries produce - democratising local and indigenous food 2) What role industry can play to shift consumer behaviour to be truly sustainable: - redirection of Government subsidies and investment to support local farmers to create their circular economies and not only profit-driven - companies should offer a variety of food to allow consumers to choose what's right for them - incentivize local stores to invest in local food; and not just resell big corps highly processed products 3) How can we ensure these systems are economically sustainable for community organizations and farmers, producers and suppliers? - putting pressure on governments to force restaurants to have ecological and waste plans - build opportunities for people to realize the benefits to shift their behaviour: social stewards to connect social equity to economic equity - EDUCATION needs to be democratised: accessible and recognized by all class systems and in that process create channels and awareness - We need a global perspective on economic value of food and universal understanding about the value of our food system Read less

Outcomes breaking out room 4: Consumer voice and needs with the producers point of view Shifting our consuming behaviors in order to produce less waste and encourage a more fair food system is more important than ever. Many from us work in communities that would not consume certain products. How can we reach them and make them part of the consumption chain? How can we drive consumer demand for sustainable food systems that reduce waste? What innovations/solutions already exist around our consumer culture that we can replicate in other markets/regions ? How do we make by-products more accessibl... Read moree and desirable? In this discussion all agreed that this will only be possible if we start building bridges between the consumers and producers. We need to think about bridging the gap between. These are the ideas that have been worked on to building bridges: - Bring visibility to positive impact initiatives - A chef in its restaurant can be a platform to educate and bring awareness to the consumer - support farmers to offset their food waste with a network of restaurants & chef partners - create a coalition of local farmers, create a stall to offer their products and meet the farmers. - Food education as a main connector. How can we foster these knowledge transfers in Hospitality and culinary schools in order to create a new mindset for culinary students. - create an open source supplier network and look for new mechanisms for more shared ownership Read less

Outcomes breaking out room 3: Role of public policies Public policies play an important role in encouraging food waste reduction and fostering innovations around the subject. In our session we asked ourselves how effective are those in creating circular collaboration models that incentivize the production of products. What needs to change in order to leverage more impact through policies? Most of the participants agreed that this is a very delicate subject. Often organizations or companies have very good ideas and projects, but if they are not supported by real state policies, they will disapp... Read moreear when the new government comes, especially in Latin America. That is why one of the main recommendations is that we need to focus on collective impact programmes engaging: Government, Private, and Society. Projects need a common ground between these sectors.In order to achieve that collaboration we need one key ingredient: Communication. Only through active dialogues we can achieve alignment, understanding and TRUST. All agreed that only trust makes change. We believe that the government can become one of those food system game changers, incentivizing people to join the farming business, and encouraging the next generation to trust and get involved. Public policies definitely CAN make a difference. But very often only if not only the government is committed but also other actors in the food system especially because some policies are very hard to implement. So we need to find a good mix between laws and action-driven collaboration to solve food waste challenges. Here are the most discussed solution approaches for fostering public participation and collaboration: - Get specific funds and bring either tax benefits or other incentives to allow people to get started. They often want to act, but don't know how. This can also have a snowball effect. Have specific - If we are going to generate change, we need to focus on education. It is the true pillar for change. We need to educate on resources and systems, and teach people the real value of food. - We need more transparency. The system cannot change, if systems aren't transparent.. Trust makes change. We can only trust food systems if they are transparent. - underline that eating is a political act - redesign social conscience of restaurants, and educate them. Government can encourage restaurants to repurpose food and therefore help the community. - Normally we need to educate the consumer - but it's very hard to educate 6 billion people. Maybe what we can do is try to educate food manufacturers. They should be more aware of the real value of food; it is not just a commodity. A simple solution could be with labeling, for example, labels about expiry date can be confusing and food that is still very edible is thrown away as a consequence. - Create a network where everyone can share knowledge but also needs. What can be an ingredient for someone, can be a waste for someone else. - create workshops on how to reduce food waste - learn how to use composting bins, and use it for the fields. Reward system: If citizens recycle and create only little waste, you have to pay less for the rubbish. It can be implemented locally by governments (example: is already implemented in Switzerland where you pay per bag of waste) Read less

Outcomes breaking out room 2: Rethinking our multi-sectoral collaborations to create a future that leaves no space for food waste? Our Food System already involves multi-sector partnerships but resources such as food are still wasted. That is why we want to explore together how to rethink our multi-sectoral collaborations to create a future that leaves no space for food waste. Participants outlined how hard it is sometimes to partner with big companies because of branding and food manipulation guidelines. Companies don’t want to be liable. Another problem many mentioned is that there are no ... Read morecommunication channels established that support in announcing overproduction from the private sector to NGOs and to businesses who treat food waste. Also the connection between companies and farmers is not well established. Farmers have a big challenge with overproduction and have no efficient ways to connect and deliver in an efficient way their products for food processing to avoid it getting wasted. And last but not least the consumer. There is no real discussion and connection between the producers of food with the end consumer. Even if many countries have food banks who have taken over that role of being an articulator and connector, a big challenge is their capacity of distribution and logistics. They do not have enough funds to bring food at the right time to the right stakeholders. That is why we came up with different solution approaches that we recommend to investigate further: - Create chains of communications between all – create a marketplace where all actors can easily exchange information around food waste - Communicate and build awareness in the consumers and the restauration sector on the food waste and methods to fight against it - Convert kitchens in laboratories where chefs can experiment recipes and apply traditional techniques through fermentation for example. - Support more entrepreneurs who cook home and sell food at home and promote their Ideas on how to reduce food waste in the food delivery system. The idea of cloud kitchens is definitely a concept to research and explore further. - promote education with consumers focusing on teaching traditional methods of preservation - work together on a global campaign undermining that we don’t get our money and throw it in the trash! Food is money. Food has value. - acknowledging food ingredients and their virtues. Create awareness within the consumers, educate young minds at school, professionals at hospitality, producers etc., on traditional methods of preservation and that throwing away parts of ingredients that are perfectly edible is throwing away energy (water, work, light, effort etc.). - composting systems must be re-enforced - Communicate overproduction - we need to know how much to actually become active! Read less

Outcomes breaking room 1: Role of the farming sector The farming sector starting the food cycle can influence a lot on how much is wasted and reproduced. Many participants outlined the following challenges during the session: - consuming in ethical ways can be out of people's possibilities and that the logistics of maintaining food waste creates winners and losers - waste of talent, especially among farmers and on the farm - relationships are lacking between chefs and farmers - the issue of food waste has to be seen from a wide perspective that considers government while creating alternative s... Read moreystems for farmers After understanding and discussing the challenges the participants moved quickly to the ideation of solutions: - empowering farmers to create products could provide an income all year long and change the way people view farmers - changing the way we consume and not taking advantage of biodiversity - looking at the value chain and implement regulations on the value of food - creating infrastructures that teach farmers how to invest and grow their portfolios - consumers need to start caring and the youth needs to be empowered and be connected to the land - food in schools is a way to support local farmers and teach kids about the biodiversity that surrounds them - hosting zero food waste events at farms - women are the farmers that must be empowered and have their own economic weight to pull in their communities - we can co-create projects that preserve foods and then be given to food pantries - integrate too good to go into our community to help solves these problems - cocreate a system that feeds itself with value. this can be done through political change pressured by consumers Read less

1) Farming sector We must engage all parts of the food system to create multiple solutions that will collectively foster sustainable change. We need to create a system of accountability for consumers, governments, small/medium businesses and corporations Empowering farmers and making farming sexy again. We must harvest the talent of female, minority, and youth populations. 2) Multi-sectoral collaborations Build a global campaign with multiple sectors around food waste – improving the chains of communication between producers, consumers, and large supermarkets (donate) Educate young minds on ... Read morethe importance of preservation of ingredients and acknowledging the entire products, for example through traditional culinary methods Educate the producers on how to meet the demand of consumers more responsibly, for example by not overstocking (and more possibilities) 3) Role of public policies Education. If we are going to generate change, we need to focus on education. It is the true pillar for change. We need to educate on resources and systems, and teach people the real value of food. Partnerships. We would like to see incentivization of profitable networking. Partnerships are key for change. There should be an incentive for collaboration. Transparency. The system cannot change, if systems aren't transparent.. Trust makes change. We can only trust food systems if they are transparent. 4) Consumer voice and needs with the producers point of view Food literacy as a tool for mindset shifts in every part of the food chain (teaching the value of good food and impacts) Giving visibility and responsible messaging about the solutions that currently exist, their added value and impact in the food systems. The power of togetherness and networks of networks; creating an ecosystem of change. 5) Distribution of healthy food surpluses for food insecure people NURTURING EQUITY across our food system: We need to build models that support economic equity and benefit all stakeholders in order to see true systems change. By creating examples and mechanisms how sustainable practices can bring value and opportunity. With this we can build a new culture around the value of our food EDUCATION IS KEY to bridging inclusivity and social equity across all cultures. EDUCATION needs to be democratised: accessible and recognized by all class systems to ensure adoption and a shift in behaviors. It should also be responsive to the diverse communities and represent food customs and heritage The need for a GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE owned and supported by governments that expresses the value of our food system, recognizes how their countries' systems are interconnected and asks for commitments that will positively influence and incentify sustainability, health and equity Read less

In this dialogue, our main focus was on understanding what is necessary to work as a collective on new collaboration models to approach together the problem of reducing, using, and upcycling food waste. Initially one of our ideas was to focus only on product creation but since it is a multi-sectoral approach there are different components we wanted to discuss with the social gastronomy community before we talk about food waste product development that focuses on rescuing food excess. The components we decided to discuss were: 1) discussing the importance of the farming sector as they are the s... Read moretart of the food cycle and can influence a lot on how much is wasted and reproduced. 2) rethinking our multi-sectoral collaborations to create a future that leaves no space for food waste 3) understanding the role of public policies as it plays an important role in encouraging food waste reduction and fostering innovations around the subject. 4) contrast the powerful consumer voice and needs with the producers' point of view since we believe that shifting consuming and production behaviors can encourage a fairer food system. 5) exploring how we can improve the distribution of healthy food surpluses for food-insecure people and how these systems can become economically sustainable for community organizations and farmers, producers, and suppliers? Read less

Feedback from the critical friends A panel of four “critical friends” (Elise Golan, Geeta Sethi, Eugenio Diaz-Bonilla and Karim el-Aynaoui) and an additional special guest (Shakuntala Thilsted) reflected on the ideas generated in the Action Track breakout sessions. Some of the points raised were the following: ● Development is a learning process – and permanent. We will never fully overcome data or evidence gaps, our knowledge will always be incomplete. While this means that we may need to act before we have all the facts, we should still remain flexible and try to avoid rash decisions... Read more. ● Trade-offs are inevitable, and not well understood. It is important to recognize and follow or measure them, but be careful trying to always minimize them. For example, given some current estimates of the externalities associated with food, internalising these costs could hypothetically double the price of food. Some of the necessary transformations of food systems may similarly create negative effects on people’s employment and livelihoods. But the fact that trade-offs exist should not become a reason for inaction. Some policies may indeed make some people worse, but may still be what is needed. ● Based on the reflections from the various Action Tracks it seems that information on preferences, values, cultural aspects, desirability… are particularly lacking. ● While the discussion focused mostly on identifying evidence gaps where more research is needed, we should also be thinking about how we make better use of the existing evidence. In fact, given the knowledge we currently have, we’re not doing great in terms of policies. We should think about issues around communicating science to policy makers; these are equally important. ● Information is often missing at the local level, for example on local foods (and their nutritional content, prices, etc). But a creative use of existing information (e.g. moving back and forth between information on the production side and on the consumption side) can often reveal “entry points” for change. There is a need to better capture of what is happening in the informal sector, which is so important for the agri-food domain. ● The importance of safeguarding the operating space for science behind the policy formulation process was also highlighted. Read less

Main insights by Action Track on evidence gaps In the Action Track 1 discussion, a distinction was made between data, evidence, and what we can do. There are considerable data gaps on many issues relevant to food security and nutrition. For example, much of the data on food safety issues is fairly old; there is a lack of accurate data on the burden of foodborne disease. In other cases, estimates are not sufficiently granular; e.g. food waste estimates tend to be at the global level; on many issues, data is not disaggregated by gender. There is also a gap in basic data on diet quality (e.g. wha... Read moret people are actually eating), or which food environment they face. Tracking along food value chains is similarly limited. An important gap is around the question of “agency” – i.e. what influence people have themselves. Evidence is missing on policy effectiveness – for example, how could nutrient gaps be filled? How could we influence food environments, and how would this in turn shape consumer behaviour? There is also not enough evidence on how to make healthy food more affordable. Faced with these gaps, we also need to have better insights on what we can do concretely. Evidence mapping could be a good place to start. In the Action Track 2 discussion, a number of similar issues came up, including the lack of information on what people eat and why (consumer psychology, values, culture, and the role of policies in shaping demand). An important question is how far progress on healthy diets will get us (e.g. in terms of reaching sustainability objectives), which touches on the broader point of synergies and trade-offs of different policy instruments. On the one hand, it feels as if enough is known about what constitutes a healthy and sustainable diet to start moving policy; on the other hand, we don’t always know specifics of current dietary patterns, drivers, and policy effectiveness. In the Action Track 3 discussion, five main themes were raised. A first point is that we do not always understand the effects of (current or proposed) policies, and their synergies or trade-offs. A second and related point is that assessments of policies sometimes overlook the social and/or the environmental dimension, but both are needed to identify solutions which can be adopted and scaled. Third, knowledge can come from different sources, and the role of traditional and indigenous knowledge has often been overlooked. A fourth issue is that it is not always clear when trade-offs are real, and when they are simply a narrative – i.e. distinguishing facts versus myths. A final point is that more knowledge is needed on how to drive long-term trends to stimulate positive change. In the Action Track 4 discussion, recurring and intersecting themes were the role of data, the role of structures and localisation, and the role of agency. For example, information is often sparse on the number of people working in food supply chains, and their vulnerability, as well as on the different pathways taken by different households. The role of agency (i.e. how much influence people themselves have over their own lives) is key to the work of Action Track 4, but very little is currently known about how much agency people have, and it is not obvious how this should be measured, nor is there much evidence on how various policies would affect agency and what their costs and benefits would be. There are also numerous open questions on structural and local aspects, e.g. the role of land rights, the impact of small-scale versus large-scale farming, etc. In the Action Track 5 discussion, a central concern was the link between the social and environmental aspects of systems. Information is often missing on the social aspects of systems, as well as on “tipping points” for both social and environmental systems. Cost benefit analysis is also missing on the impact of various possible initiatives to build resilience. Read less

Finally, an important point raised in the discussions was who gets to define what the “evidence gaps” are. The consensus which emerged is that this should be a dialogue between researchers, policy makers and stakeholders.

As stated above, the goal for this Dialogue was to create a better understanding of the evidence gaps currently holding back action to transform food systems, and consequently to kick start the definition of a priority research agenda. This dialogue thus acted as a preparatory step towards the Science Days on July 8-9, and was organised in collaboration with the Scientific Group. Importantly, the Dialogue focussed on the content of the research agenda and did not cover the question how science for food systems policy should be organised institutionally, a question which is currently being stud... Read moreied in other fora. Read less

An area of divergence in ensuring access to safe and nutritious foods is that we have a high rate of food security and an abundance of food waste. To have a sustainable food system, managing food wastes must be a priority and a responsibility for all. Also, there is a need to strength and increased food distribution while also looking at strategies to reduce our City’s carbon footprint. Creating food hubs and food forests within the community and in food desserts was an idea to overcome this issue. We also need to continue to focus on fair pay for all individuals working within the food syst... Read moreem as well ensuring all nutritious food is affordable for all. Finally, prioritizing all the challenges we currently face in our food system is an area of divergence. There are local issues that need to be addressed but also federal legislation that can create roadblocks to building a resilient food system. Further discussions are needed. Read less

Finally, Action Track 5 focused on defining a resilient food system and the actions needed to move towards this vision. A resilient food system was defined around being diverse, ensuring equitable access to nutritious food, and flourishing despite shocks or stress. It was highlighted in our discussion that improving emergency response strategies, communication, and reliability is needed to improve our food system. There is a need to focus on a bottom-up, community-rooted response rather than top-down approach. This type of approach could help all individuals working in the food systems to prep... Read moreare and recover from instabilities. Possible indicators discussed were to evaluate lower rates of poverty and health disparities, chronic diseases and evaluating demands of the local food supply. Some challenges that might be anticipated are determining how to prioritize action items, allocating funds for implementing and supporting strategic initiatives and identifying the roles of stakeholders. Further discussions are needed to determine future action items. Read less

The discussion around advancing equitable livelihoods (Action Track 4) was focused on improving human rights and social disparities that exist among our community. The disparities that currently exist were highlighted because of the COVID-19 pandemic, but it’s clear that returning to “normal” or pre-pandemic living is unacceptable. There is a need to focus on improving economic conditions, food access and living wages to work towards a future of equitable livelihoods.

Action Track 3: Participants focused on implementing initiatives to support nature-positive food production and distribution particularly during times of a natural disaster. A community emergency response approach was favored as opposed to having government officials navigating and managing a crisis response. Creating an inclusive network of farmers, local food vendors, community health workers, community/faith-based organizations, city departments and academic institutions to response to a crisis is key to ensuring food is distributed to those in need. Another discussion outcome was to focus ... Read moreon maintaining virtual work environments to continue to make progress on reducing carbon emissions. Additionally, there were suggestions to focus on incentivizing businesses to manage food waste and land use for green initiatives. There creation of food forests throughout the city was well supported among participants. At the same time, there is a need to engage the community on advocating for these changes by bridging the knowledge gap on climate change and how it affects the availability and cost of food. More discussions on this topic is needed to determine ways to optimize environmental resources throughout the food system. Read less