Explore Official Dialogue Feedback

Areas of divergence?  Some participants felt more emphasis should be placed on urban farming. While this is an important focus, the emphasis on rural areas is important for at least two key reasons: (i) incidence of poverty and malnutrition predominate in rural areas; (ii) strengthening rural economies offer opportunities for stemming the migration from rural to urban spaces. Population increase in urban cities is expected to explode within the upcoming decades. This scenario – without appropriate structural economic transformation - lends itself to compounded development challenges. Addi... Read moretionally, while the emphasis is on rural spaces, the proposed activities and expected impact do not preclude urban farming.  Some participants felt that there should be a lowering of standards regulating food products/agricultural produce, particularly for those operating in the informal economy. Acknowledging challenges faced by small-scale producers with standards compliance, emphasis should be placed on facilitating these stakeholders to comply. The impact of lowering of standards on South African agribusinesses to competitively engage in regional, global value chains and to assure consumers of food safety (particularly after COVID-19) needs to be carefully considered  Activities proposed as business solutions by some of the participants focused on promoting plant-based diets, while others emphasized meat consumption. It was agreed that it is important to focus on sustainable livestock rearing and agricultural practices, education and awareness on food nutrition and benefits, and to allow consumers free choice. Read less

The aim of the working group discussions (solution brainstorming) was intended to identify some concrete business proposals to respond to the market opportunities and address related challenges highlighted in the other focus areas. These discussions resulted in  A proposal: Indigenous 2.0 – The Next Generation Project.(Found in the Dialogue Report attached)  A supporting Position Paper (Policy Brief) (Found in the Dialogue Report attached. Also attached as a separate document)

Main Findings? 1. Case studies – All three case studies - !Khwa ttu (https://www.khwattu.org); Setšong African Tea Crafters (https://setsongtea.com), and V&A Waterfront (http://waterfrontfoodmarket.com) highlighted their operations’ positive impact on the agritourism agenda through many of the following dimensions, among others: a. Creating new, unique, nutritious, and tasty food and beverage products using indigenous and local produce, which market data show are of high interest by tourists (domestic & international) b. Displacing food and beverage products, traditionally supplie... Read mored by large multinationals, with healthy options using local ingredients and services c. Using indigenous ingredients, other cultural assets, and environmental resources to create services that raise awareness of the country’s heritage while promoting the value of healthy eating/lifestyle and environmental conservation d. Facilitating market access to smallholder farmers e. Reducing food supply chains f. Creating related off-farm jobs, particularly for women and the youth 2. Chefs – They play several important roles, including as: a. Food activists to help raise awareness on food sovereignty, biodiversity, healthy diets, and food waste management b. Facilitators of value chain inclusivity. For example, they source directly from small-scale farmers. They also work with them to educate on ingredients that are in high demand and how to use competitive marketing tools c. Creators of nutritious, tasty foods using local ingredients to respond to consumer trends 3. Challenges/Needs – There was agreement that education, innovation, access to land and finance, marketing, infrastructure, and stakeholder coordination are priority issues. Available institutional support was also identified (see dialogue report) 4. Solution Brainstorming -See section "Outcome for each Discussion Topic" Read less

Major topics of focus? The themes of the dialogue related most to Action Track 2, although there are also strong linkages with Action Tracks 1,3 and 4. The overall goal of the Dialogue was to present a market-based approach to addressing broken food systems. In this case, the focus is on market opportunities in the agritourism sub-sector The objectives of the dialogue were to:  Increase awareness and generate discussion among stakeholders on key market opportunities in the agritourism sub-sector to support all dimensions of food systems sustainability including food security & nutrition... Read more, sustainable job creation, and environmental conservation.  Identify key policy and program interventions to support maximizing agritourism market opportunities for transforming South Africa’s food system.  Generate interest in establishing an informal Agritourism food systems network for continued dialogue and action beyond the Summit. The theme of the dialogue was premised on the position that agritourism markets can provide strong incentives for transforming food systems. Functioning markets in which buyers and sellers exchange goods and services acts as a central organizing principle of successful economies. They can stimulate competition, place pressure on producers to improve products and services, and in turn offer better value for consumers . The topics were categorised around 4 areas 1. Case studies – the objectives were to increase awareness on (i) various business approaches to the agritourism-sustainable food system agenda; (ii) good practices; (iii) benefits; and (iv) challenges 2. The culinary industry – the objectives was to explore the role of chefs in facilitating productive linkages between agritourism activities and the food system agenda, with particular emphasis on how facilitating farmers’ inclusion in agritourism and food value chains 3. Challenges/Needs – the objective was to explore binding constraints to South African stakeholders to maximize agritourism market opportunities and learn what institutions are doing to help address them 4. Solution Brainstorming – the objective was to outline, within 4 working groups, agritourism market solutions to support the sustainable food system agenda Read less

There were two areas of divergence among the participants of this dialogue. In both cases, the disagreement related to methods of expansion and sustainable farming. In the first case, there was a surprisingly lengthy discussion about whether or not access to export markets would be a viable strategy for sustainably growing a small farm. This has implications for developing future resources and infrastructure in the name of streamlining the experience for small farmers. For example, one participant raised the experience of facing difficulties navigating the regulations of importing and exportin... Read moreg his products; much like domestic regulations on crops, this points to the need for building deeper community roots for government regulatory agencies, where farmers can turn to for advisement. Another participant pointed out that given how competitive the developed-country market can be (such as the United States), small farmers may find their best opportunities by exporting to other countries. However, this assertion was countered by the equally valid concern that this strategy underestimates the massive capital requirements for exporting. Not only does it require accessing massive infrastructures that small farmers would not already have access to (placing an undue burden on them with respect to expansion), but it also downplays both the capital and the volume required to mitigate the risks associated with exporting to developing markets. For example, exporting to developing markets can bring with it failures to pay; this could be catastrophic for smaller farmers whose margins are already thin, and who already do not have sufficient access to resources to weather that loss of crop. Moreover, the amount of crop necessary to actually make exporting profitable--given the intricacies of transporting goods at scale--may be difficult or entirely unachievable to render exporting an insufficient strategy for smaller farmers. Overall, this discussion provided useful and important context to the discussion of where to prioritize educational and infrastructural resources for small to medium sized Black farmers. Relatedly, a second area of divergence came from whether or not achieving "large farm" status is, itself, a sustainable strategy for national or global food systems. This speaks to global issues of climate and resource sustainability: if the only path to success in agriculture is achieving large-farm status, then by definition all small to medium sized farms will scale themselves towards these industrial-scale strategies. These strategies may not be sustainable for the future, given the climate and resource implications of industrial-scale agriculture. Thus, there is a systemic question of whether the aspirations of farmer success should be restricted to the modern large-scale agriculture practices. This has major implications for how countries allocate resources to small, medium, and large farms: if this aspiration is in fact unsustainable (which many of our participants argued it was), it becomes the responsibility of governments to transfer substantial monetary and capital resources to small- and mid-sized farms, such that these farms can achieve large-farm levels of monetary success without the unsustainable practices that come with it. This area of discussion seems to have the most global implication, though it remains a difficult one to define more concretely. This discussion was furthered with the concern that local and state markets discriminate against Black Farmers and contractual relationships with schools etc. are not favored with Black Farmers. There was concern that small-scale farm should also include community farms (gardens) and therefore redefining and clarifying eligibility requirements for governmental and private support. Read less

First, we examined the question of addressing racial discrimination. Participants identified multiple points of concern with respect to alleviating this discrimination. This included access to capital: for example, venture capital to expand farms, or government capital and investment to establish markets. It is noteworthy here to pause and briefly emphasize that this was, again, not merely a complaint about desiring more wealth. Farming is uniquely multi-generational in terms of both ownership and geographic location: as such, past inequities and injustices in a given location and upon a given... Read more farm are inextricably linked to modern-day outcomes as previously stated. Inequitable access to capital in the past has left many Black farmers behind in terms of their success, to the point where their capacity to farm has not kept pace with overall societal trends. For example, participants commented on the increasing price of land, and the increasing acreage necessary to sustain a family farm: given that these communities have been systemically disadvantaged, the pace of their own economic development has not kept up with the pace of inflation in terms of prices or competitiveness. This results in a food system which, over time, will systematically exclude Black farmers from starting, maintaining, and/or expanding their farms. In this vein, a concerted and substantial transfer of capital--for instance, (recommendation 1) establishing a separate fund for Black farmers, run by Black farmers--seems to be a key solution for redressing their exclusion from the food systems. They also pointed to access to government resources. For example, Black farmers are often either rejected or dismissed at USDA offices, with some participants describing a "good ole boy" culture within these offices, where officers do not devote sufficient time and energy to communicate key information to these farmers. (Recommendation 2) Here, an affirmative attempt to institutionally include Black farmers (or allies) in government offices, especially in tandem with expanding government infrastructure into marginalized areas, may help begin to redress these cultural issues. This moves into the second discussion topic of resources. Here, we saw two primary themes. First, building off the previous section, participants emphasized the lack of infrastructure for accessing government resources. For example, the issue of storage units was raised multiple times: without equitable access to approved storage units and transportation mechanisms, these same farmers will not have enough access to meet stringent regulatory requirements, and thus will be systematically excluded from selling to certain markets. In other words, without the requisite infrastructure (both in terms of access and competitive pricing for using it), there is a direct line to systemic exclusion to markets--causing an unsustainable cycle for these farmers with the eventual risk of excluding them from markets entirely. Small family farms must have continued, strong access to infrastructure so as to keep the barriers to entry attainable for new generations of farmers to access, build, and enrich new links to the existing food system. (Recommendation 3) Black owned and operated related resource arm that provides loans, capital, etc., advocacy etc. that is a user-friendly gateway to correct previous mistreatment, access, etc.? Relatedly, participants discussed difficulties in accessing markets. Again, this had to do with both capital resources (for example, advanced transportation methods) and also systemic discrimination from markets. Some of these discriminatory practices are more subtle than others: for example, in the United States especially, the aesthetic demands of crops can favor larger-scale farmers who use industrial-scale methods to selectively breed marketable crops. This causes smaller family farms to be excluded from the market, and again can lead to destructive cycles of eroding the connection between food systems and small- to mid-sized farmers. Read less

With reference to BLACK farmers in the Southeastern United States, there are two evident conclusions that can be drawn with respect to sustainable food systems over the next decade and beyond. First, the very foundations of the food system--namely, the Black farmers who grow food--are at high-risk of failure. This is due, in great part, to historic structural inequities since the 250+ years of enslavement of People of Africa and the legacy of Jim Crow and racism upon their descendants including today. At the peak, Black farmers used to own 16-19 million acres (roughly 6.5 million hectares), no... Read morew Black farmers own 3.6 million acres (roughly 1.5 million hectaces)--less than 1% of the farmland in the US. Especially among Black farmers, the majority of this population, on average, is aging. . Although there is evidence of younger generations expressing new interest, this needs nurturing and investment. At the same time, The intergenerational incentives for younger farmers to maintain the system seemed to be of great concern to all of our participants--particularly those who ran smaller farms. Though a variety of reasons were provided for this concern, one theme rose up above the rest: the up-front costs of breaking into farming are high for beginners, and the current crop of farmers are not being compensated enough to motivate the youth to pursue farming in the first place. Participants emphasized the low compensation as driving the youth away from farming, and they pointed to lack of start-up resources as driving away even youth who may already be somewhat interested. This is a key failure point in the food system and cannot be dismissed or overlooked as a mere gripe over wages. Without incentivizing younger people to choose farming over other, perhaps more lucrative industrial or white-collar career paths, the entire human foundation of the food system would be at risk of collapsing. This cannot be understated, and as a matter of policy, investing in the individual benefits accrued from farming--such as the awarding of government grants or funds--should be an immediate priority to preserve the future of sustainable food systems. A second theme arose around the question of equitable access. More specifically, this included access to economic markets as well as the need for streamlining the connection between the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and individual farmers. Farmers spoke extensively about the barriers to qualification that exist in order to compete for lucrative contracts. For example, the certifications and qualification standards often change rapidly, and without a robust infrastructure to connect regulatory bodies with individual farmers, these individual farmers cannot keep up with rapidly changing requirements. Additionally, the language and jargon involved with the complex legal bureaucracy is often inaccessible to smaller farmers: simply put, the increased bureaucratization of agriculture in the United States has weakened the links in the food system between political systems and the individual farmers. This, again, creates a highly concerning failure point within the food system: namely, the risk of alienating (and the potential to entirely lose) small farmers from the overall food system. Without building the requisite infrastructure to connect bureaucracy to individual farmers--including the simplification of language and streamlining the communication of updated regulations--small and mid-sized farmers are at risk of being left behind in the current food environment. Read less

Our dialogue focused on three primary areas: (1) Addressing racial discrimination against black farmers (2) Best practices that farmers currently use to address food access, food justice, or food sovereignty. (3) Resources needed to be in place to advance equitable livelihood. Our purpose with these questions were primarily information gathering and synthesis. Organizers of the dialogue put together these questions in an effort to allow participants to prioritize their answers organically. In the three breakout rooms, facilitators asked this question to the participants, allowing them to provi... Read morede answers and to dialogue back and forth (where applicable) on each topic. Read less