Explore Official Dialogue Feedback

Member State Dialogues: 490 Intergovernmental Dialogues: 6 Independent Dialogues: 681 Global Summit Dialogues: 10

This page allows anyone to explore responses from Dialogue Convenors to section 4 of the Food Systems Summit Dialogues Official Feedback Form. Section 4 is organised into 4 sub-sections that allow Convenors to detail the “Major Focus” of their Dialogue as well as the outcomes including the “Main findings”, “Outcomes for each Discussion Topic” and “Areas of Divergence”. Anyone can use this information to develop their own synthesis of Dialogue Feedback. For this reason, results can also be filtered by Action Track or keyword. Syntheses of Official Feedback must respect the Food Systems Summit Principles of Engagement and used in the context of the Dialogue that took place.

For researchers and advanced synthesis, an XML export is available here (last updated ).

Australia

Future proofing our food systems – boosting resilience

Area of divergence

This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of webinar participants and does not necessarily represent the views of the Australian Government. In addition to the key messages already detailed there were a number of issues raised which may have signified a divergence of views, including: • Consideration as to how the “true cost of food” (i.e. environmental, economic and social externalities) can be reflected in pricing structures and production and consumption patterns. Similarly, there was discussion around how best to ensure that factors such as nutrition, food safety and qual... Read moreity, sustainability outcomes can be systematically included as “measures of success” for our agri-food systems, beyond a the metric indicator of profit or economic return. • How to consider food systems challenges and issues in a more holistic manner (i.e. beyond the current predominant siloed approach) and foster policy harmonization between different sectors. There are different perspectives on how best to do this and whether there is a need for new institutions/approaches – but it may involve assessing the opportunity costs and trade-offs of food production in certain regions. • The perspective that the current structure of our food systems leads to increased rates of malnutrition and non-communicable diseases which is costly, both in terms of lost productivity but also direct costs borne by health systems. • Consideration as to how food systems stakeholders, including producers, can best continue to mitigate and adapt to climate change impacts. • The co-existence of plant and animal protein production in the Australian agricultural sector and exploration of opportunities for mutual development and innovation. • While there is a need to consider lower-level adaptations (i.e. incremental advances in production efficiency) there is also a need to simultaneously consider large-scale systematic and transformational adaptations which can change the “efficiency boundary” and the nature of system trade-offs (i.e. genetic technologies, supply chain modification). Read less

Action Track(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Keywords: Data & Evidence, Environment and Climate, Finance, Governance, Human rights, Innovation, Policy, Trade-offs

Australia

Future proofing our food systems – boosting resilience

Discussion topic outcome

This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of webinar participants and does not necessarily represent the views of the Australian Government. In addition to the topics already highlighted – there were a number of additional high-level key messages emerging during the dialogue discussion, including: • There is a continued need to foster the development of innovative approaches, solutions, and research outcomes that meets the needs of producers, consumers and other stakeholders along the supply chain, in order to boost resilience to future shocks and vulnerabilities facing food sy... Read morestems. • Approaches which emphasise the importance of collaboration will be critically important. Connected, integrated and agile food systems, which are underpinned by robust data and information networks, will be fundamental to resilient food systems, allowing stakeholders across food systems supply chains to make accurate and informed decisions to minimise the impact of future shocks and vulnerabilities. • The flow of information and market incentives from consumers to producers (and vice versa) is an important driver of food systems development and function. It will be important to improve connectivity in the value chain to ensure it is demand driven and reflects consumer wants and values, including relating to provenance. Ensuring the right products are grown in the right regions and facilitating the path to market is important for food security for all Australians. • Increased collaboration and relationship building between different levels of stakeholders in food systems also can bring about positive outcomes – including in the establishment of new “value-adding” industries which can strengthen the agri-food sector and its important contribution to the Australian economy. There are also many positive benefits and efficiencies to be found in further digitalisation and modernisation of the “logistics” of trading regulations and practices. • There is a need to incorporate “systems thinking” in our decision making for our food systems. There is a need to think beyond productivity metrics and consider multiple objectives and values. This will involve a need to consider indirect impacts and trade-offs of certain actions and policies. It will be necessary to promote collaborative approaches to achieve a joint and shared vision for our food systems and the transition pathways we may embark upon to get there. Read less

Action Track(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Keywords: Data & Evidence, Environment and Climate, Finance, Governance, Human rights, Innovation, Policy, Trade-offs

Australia

Eating for our health and the environment – balancing nutrition and sustainability

Area of divergence

This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of webinar participants and does not represent the views of the Australian Government. In addition to the key messages already detailed there were a number of issues discussed which may have signified a divergence of views, including: • Exploration of the divergent environmental impact that can be attributed to certain food groups (i.e. red meat, horticultural products, grains, alternative plant protein and other animal products). It was highlighted that environmental impact is highly circumstantial and determined by the highly localised ... Read moreand specific production/consumption context. Assessment of the nutritional and sustainability credentials of food groups is a highly complex and difficult undertaking – which is highly unlikely to be broadly or “globally” applicable. • There is a need to consider how best to manage competing trade-offs “between” different dimensions of healthy and sustainable diets (i.e. between environmental, health and nutrition and economic outcomes). Similarly, there is a need to consider trade-offs “within” one dimension. For instance, food choices can involve differing environmental impacts across a range of indicators including water consumption, GHG emissions and soil quality. Navigating these trade-offs and consumption choices is to some extent dependent on producer and consumer values. • Discussion around new and emerging food products, including around the role of reformulating ‘processed’ foods to improve nutritional characteristics. Similarly there was discussion around plant-based meat-alternatives and their role in healthy and sustainable diets. • Highlighting of potential inefficiencies in Australian food supply chains and discussion of where innovations and change can best be targeted to leverage positive change with the greatest return for investment. • Discussion around the role of education programs in schools that can target a range of dietary behaviours and be responsive to the differing needs of families– including focusing on activities and behaviour change both at home and at school. • Discussion around the value of sustainability labelling for foods for achieving better health and nutrition outcomes. The various complexities associated with developing appropriate metrics were discussed. • Discussion around the roles, responsibilities and opportunities for various stakeholders across food supply chains for improved collaboration, networking and relationship building. Improved connectivity and coordination between stakeholders can generate production, distribution efficiencies and ultimately ensure improved environmental and nutritional outcomes for Australian food systems. Read less

Action Track(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Keywords: Data & Evidence, Environment and Climate, Finance, Governance, Innovation, Policy, Trade-offs

Australia

Eating for our health and the environment – balancing nutrition and sustainability

Discussion topic outcome

This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of webinar participants and does not represent the views of the Australian Government. In addition to the topics already highlighted – there were a number of additional high-level key messages emerging during the dialogue discussion, including: • A sustainable and healthy diet is one that has low environmental impact and contributes to food security and health for people now, and into the future. Food systems have a critical role in the provision of health, sustainability, and equity outcomes. Various case studies demonstrate positive c... Read morehanges, including in several remote Aboriginal communities which have successfully improved health, sustainability and equity through dietary change and improved food security. • Trade-offs can become evident when making dietary and policy choices to balance environmental and health outcomes (i.e. lower GHG emissions diet versus adequate macro/micro nutrient intake) and sometimes achieving one outcome occurs at the expense of achieving another – however, there can also be synergies – and these are important to recognise and utilise. • Food systems (including production and consumption patterns) are highly specific to regions and countries – and there is a need to design and implement solutions to improve sustainability and health outcomes, which reflect the reality of national and regional food systems. It was acknowledged that solutions should seek to recognise the importance of achieving outcomes across health, sustainability and be science-based. Australian solutions should draw heavily upon the evidence base from Australia. • Comprehensive and clear national food policies and guidelines, frameworks and targets can be of significant value to both producers and consumers, and can help to underpin improved nutritional and environmental outcomes and encourage a transition towards healthy, sustainable diets. • There is a need to ensure that innovations, solutions, regulation, and research are designed with the needs of all stakeholders across the supply chain and distribution networks in mind. Taking a systems approach when considering how to improve health and sustainability outcomes (including as it relates to reducing food loss and waste) is important, to be able to determine interlinkages and impacts of interventions. • Network diagramming of Australian health and food professionals revealed strong siloing between groups such as academics, decision makers, farmers, nutritionists, and consumers. Compounding this is the level of complexity across the food system. Building relationships, communication and collaboration across the food system will be needed to shift the current siloed culture to overcome complexities and create food systems that are flexible, intelligent, and transparent. Read less

Action Track(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Keywords: Data & Evidence, Environment and Climate, Finance, Governance, Innovation, Policy

Australia

Eating for our health and the environment – balancing nutrition and sustainability

Main findings

This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of webinar participants and does not represent the views of the Australian Government. Three expert panellists explored the webinar themes outlined previously – delivering short presentations to webinar participants. Key messages highlighted during these presentations included: • There can be important synergies between a healthy diet for people and for the planet. Key changes required in Australia may involve decreasing food waste, decreasing energy intake, decreasing intake of unhealthy food and drinks, and increasing the proportion o... Read moref healthy plant-based foods in diets. • Australia has food and nutrition policy frameworks, yet there is a need for greater implementation of evidence-based actions, regulatory action and renewed engagement with experts and other stakeholders. Approximately less than 1% of Australians consume diets consistent with the food based dietary guidelines. Greater adherence to the current guidelines by the Australian populace would likely deliver significant health and environmental benefits. • There is a perception that healthy food is “too expensive” however there is significant discrepancy as to the relative affordability of “healthy” and “unhealthy” diets for the Australian population, as affordability can be significantly affected by factors such as socio-economic status and geographical. For example, low-income Australians may make dietary choices influenced primarily by monetary cost, and as such “unhealthy” food choices tend to be cheaper than “healthy ones.” There are also significant issues with food access and affordability, particularly in remote communities. • Discretionary foods currently account for over 35% of the total energy intake of the average Australian diet (a proportion much higher than the recommended daily nutritional intake). It was also suggested that the production and consumption of discretionary foods can have a significant environmental and climate impact. • To deliver healthy and sustainable diets, it is important to focus equally on the “production side” (i.e. resource use efficiency, lower GHG emissions associated with food production) as on the “consumption side” (i.e. nutritional guidance and influencing consumer choice). • Food waste is a global issue, including for Australia. Reducing food loss and waste has multiple benefits across the food system including economic benefits for business and households, environmental benefits (particularly water and climate), and increased food availability and security. • In Australia, one-fifth to one-quarter of Australian food waste occurs during primary production, with another one-fifth occurring during manufacturing. In comparison, across other OECD countries, food waste is very heavily concentrated towards the consumption end of the value chain. • One-third of fresh produce is wasted in Australia, which has significant implications for food security given the lost nutritional value from these foods. • There is a vibrant and exciting role for innovation and start-ups focused on transforming surplus food and by-products into valuable ingredients and products. This can help significantly to reduce food loss and waste, create economic value and value-adding industries, reduce environmental pressure and increase the availability of healthy food products. A special-feature webinar panellist gave a short presentation on OzHarvest, an Australian food rescue charity that aims to reduce food waste and feed hungry people. The presentation highlighted: • Various activities undertaken to give effect to the goal of halving food waste by 2030 in Australia • Education programs for youth and children on how to prepare, store and value food • The opportunity for individuals in Australia to significantly reduce their contribution to combat climate change by reducing their food waste • Simplifying messaging around food waste to the mantra: look, buy, store, cook The question and answer session was wide-ranging reflecting strong stakeholder engagement and interest. Some key thematic elements of the discussion related to: • the role of quality health information, advertising, social marketing campaigns, and the standardisation of nutritional guidelines, readily accessible and available to the public (including schools); • local food production environments and the significantly divergent environmental impact of production across regions and production systems; • the role of agricultural technology and innovation for reducing food loss and waste during production; • the interactions between food regulations and specifications and the creation/reduction of food waste • opportunities for value-adding and higher farm-gate return through reduction in food loss/waste and responding to changes in consumer behaviour and demand; • the role of plant-based meat alternatives and their contribution to a health and sustainable diet; • the concept of “food miles” and their utility for determining accurately the environmental impact of food; • complexities associated with sustainable, environmental or GHG emission labelling for foods; • complexities of the health star rating system for foods in Australian supermarkets and the role of food labelling in reducing food loss and wastage. Read less

Action Track(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Keywords: Data & Evidence, Environment and Climate, Finance, Governance, Innovation, Policy, Trade-offs

Australia

Eating for our health and the environment – balancing nutrition and sustainability

Major focus

As the third in the series of Australian National Food Systems Summit Dialogues hosted by the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, the major focus of this webinar "Eating for our health and the environment - balancing nutrition and sustainability" was to explore: • current and emerging food choices and the intersection between diet / nutrition and environmental sustainability in Australia • various initiatives, innovations and research along the supply chain which seeks to balance environmental/nutrition considerations • innovative approaches to addressing food loss and ... Read morewaste. We were pleased to have the participation of the following panellists to lead discussion: • Professor Amanda Lee, Professor in Public Health Policy, University of Queensland • Dr Bradley Ridoutt, Principal Research Scientist, CSIRO • Mark Barthel, Fight Food Waste CRC • Ronni Kahn AO, CEO and Founder, Ozharvest Read less

Action Track(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Keywords: Data & Evidence, Environment and Climate, Finance, Governance, Human rights, Innovation, Policy, Trade-offs, Women & Youth Empowerment

Independent Dialogue

Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue on Innovation and Technology (Precision Agriculture and Precision Breeding)

Geographical focus: No borders, Philippines

Area of divergence

I. Precision Agriculture The issue of the young generations and aging farmers surfaced during the workshop. Others are of the view that precision farming will entice the young generations to go into farming. Others reacted that precision agriculture must also provide opportunities for aging farmers. The latter contend that technology is not only for the young. Older generations have experience and can contribute. There must be no age divide or differential insofar as precision agriculture is concerned. II. Precision Breeding Precision livestock breeding should also be included in the discussio... Read moren, not just crops. This is to recognize the challenge that the Philippines continues to import livestock animals for 25 years now from temperate countries that are not suitable for the tropical environment of the country. The government should also invest its funds towards establishing an infrastructure for tropical dairy breeding, especially for water buffalos, cattle, and other livestock animals. There are local researchers and experts in the Philippine Carabao Center who are currently tropicalizing the imported animals whose expertise should be maximized. The purported cheaper genome editing tools may not be true after all. The accessibility of genome editing tools especially CRISPR/Cas system may be easy for research purposes but commercialization of products developed may be restricted and entail exorbitant licensing fees. It was therefore recommended to explore other tools such as TALENS that require simple and affordable licensing terms if any. The regulation of genome edited crops remains unclear with the government considering some form of assessment (e.g. testing presence of transgenes) while the industry prefers no pre-market evaluation much like what is done with conventional crops. An advisory team has been tasked by the Department of Agriculture to work out a suitable guideline for genome editing. Read less

Action Track(s): 1, 5

Keywords: Finance, Governance, Innovation, Policy

Independent Dialogue

Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue on Innovation and Technology (Precision Agriculture and Precision Breeding)

Geographical focus: No borders, Philippines

Discussion topic outcome

II. Precision Breeding Precision breeding and genome editing are increasingly becoming a practice in the Philippines, where there is an expressed need to repurpose the crops to adapt to the effects of climate change or to tropicalize livestock animals being imported from temperate countries. The multi-stakeholder dialogue obtained the following recommendations and suggested action points: 1. Public-private partnerships to be strengthened, which can commence through the establishment of a national consortia that could identify specific target areas and funding opportunities in support of mainst... Read morereaming precision breeding. The discussions enumerated the value of doing this around the following areas: - Investments on laboratories and genome editing tools which are currently very costly in the market - Identification of researchable areas - Harmonization of the efforts of various government agencies such as the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Science and Technology to complement existing efforts and allocated government funds - Exploration of PPP models to determine what worked or that need to be customized according to the target areas and strategies 2. Enabling policies and mechanisms should be in place. The government is currently working on the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) on genome editing that will be subjected to public consultations. This can kick start the process on creating an enabling environment for precision breeding. Further inputs include the following: - Creation of responsive regulatory policies on licensing. Currently, licensing is expensive especially for commercial purposes, while it is free for research. - Adopting the guidelines set by the National Committee Biosafety of the Philippines on genome editing. The members of NCBP are currently advising the Department of Agriculture on crafting the IRR related to genome editing. 3. Science communication on biotechnology should be mainstreamed. There are negative perceptions of the public on this area, especially on the genetically-modified crops or animals. Some recommendations under this item are the following: - Strengthen social media use among the scientific and research community - Simplification or translation (laymanize) of technical research or reports of scientists and experts Read less

Action Track(s): 1, 3, 5

Keywords: Data & Evidence, Governance, Innovation, Policy

Independent Dialogue

Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue on Innovation and Technology (Precision Agriculture and Precision Breeding)

Geographical focus: No borders, Philippines

Discussion topic outcome

I. Precision Agriculture As can be deduced, the following outcomes are to be worked out: 1. Enabling policies on precision agriculture should be put in place. This will involve: a) a policy framework or a program (precision agriculture program, as the way of organic agriculture program; b) mainstreaming of precision agriculture as a strategy of the commodity programs of the DA; c) crafting of a road map. 2. Private sector and government to lead in upscaling precision agriculture. It may involve demonstration areas, most preferably following the farm clustering and consolidation schemes to prom... Read moreote efficiency. In the process, will involve the organization of smallholder farmers. 3. Basic infrastructure needs to be addressed. Water and IT infrastructure requirements. It will require convergence initiatives with other agencies of the government. 4. Regulations decentralized to the regions. In the case of drones, permitting and licensing are done at the National Capital Region. 5. Inventory of firms, entities, and expert groups engaged in precision agriculture. This is needed to determine the current breadth and reach of precision agriculture adoption in the Philippines. This is an important component in road map preparation. Read less

Action Track(s): 1, 3, 5

Keywords: Data & Evidence, Governance, Innovation, Policy

Independent Dialogue

Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue on Innovation and Technology (Precision Agriculture and Precision Breeding)

Geographical focus: No borders, Philippines

Main findings

I. Precision Agriculture The breakout session on Precision Agriculture was able to impress its importance in the whole gamut of the food systems, yet there are important points raised that need to be addressed. Precision agriculture needs an active public-private partnership. The workshop clearly showed that there has to be an enabling policy, which may partake of a legal framework and/or mainstreaming precision agriculture in the commodity programs of the Department of Agriculture and the crafting of a roadmap. As digital agriculture is largely influenced by information technology, the worksh... Read moreop agreed to decentralize technology and infrastructure development. As to the matter of upscaling digital agriculture, the issue of small landholding is a concern. The emerging consensus along this end is to pursue and support the government’s farm clustering and consolidation approach. The private sector and companies may take the lead in this initiative. Other challenges mentioned during the roundtable discussion included the lack of intensive research and development for all crops, lack of accredited facilities to implement technologies specifically in monitoring residue levels, and poor internet connectivity especially in the rural areas. Moreover, the role of the youth in further promoting precision agriculture was also heavily mentioned during the event but there were recommendations on marrying the skills of the young ones and the expertise and knowledge of the more matured farmers. The role of educational institutions was also emphasized. The workshop agreed that precision agriculture must be included in the curriculum. Ii. Precision Breeding The other breakout session was on precision breeding. The discussions from that group reported the need to scale up the support and promotion of precision breeding in the Philippines, given that the country has been dependent on imported livestock breeders from temperate regions. It also reported the need to modify crops and animals to adapt to the changes happening in the environment, especially given the impacts of climate change and biosecurity threats. Some of the recommendations during the session included the 1) increase in funding and investment opportunities to support the uptake of precision agriculture; and 2) maximization of available resources, systems, and partnerships including the existing breeding institutions, the functional biotechnology regulatory system for genome editing and precision agriculture, and the inter-regional collaborations that respond to the high cost of laboratories, genome editing tools, and licensing. In terms of funding, some shared that the Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Agricultural Research could allocate funds to the National Livestock Program to support the establishment of tropical dairy breeding in the country for water buffalos, cattle, and other livestock animals. Also, to respond to the challenge of the weak private-public partnership on precision breeding, PPP should be scaled up and the successful or working models highlighting private sector engagements should be explored. Furthermore, the convergence and harmonization of government institutions was recommended to be done to create an impactful response and establish a pool of funds. These can be pursued through the creation of a consortia, which will lead to the identification of milestone targets and strategies. The Philippine Seed Industry Association (PSIA), citing its membership, network and expertise, volunteered to initiate the establishment of the consortium. Read less

Action Track(s): 1, 5

Keywords: Data & Evidence, Environment and Climate, Governance, Innovation, Policy, Women & Youth Empowerment

Independent Dialogue

Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue on Innovation and Technology (Precision Agriculture and Precision Breeding)

Geographical focus: No borders, Philippines

Major focus

The multi-stakeholder dialogue focused on sharing some innovations such as drones, biotechnology, and genome editing, and their potential positive impact in helping manage food production systems, a solution area under Action Track 3. The Philippines UNFSS Core Group, through the leadership of the National Convenor, also identified thematic areas that the country will focus on in relation to the conduct of sub-national dialogues in the Philippines. One of these thematic areas is the advancement of innovations and science-based farm production systems. This dialogue aimed to contribute to this.... Read more Specifically, it identified key challenges faced by the Philippine agriculture industry in mainstreaming precision agriculture and precision breeding. The session was targeted to gather insights and recommendations on how to scale up the promotion and adoption of innovations around precision agriculture and precision breeding, which can eventually support efforts on achieving food security. Read less

Action Track(s): 1, 3

Keywords: Data & Evidence, Governance, Innovation, Policy, Women & Youth Empowerment

Australia

Australian Food Systems – Addressing Shared Challenges

Area of divergence

This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of webinar participants and does not necessarily represent the views of the Australian Government. In addition to the key messages already detailed, there were a number of issues discussed which may have signified a divergence of views, including: • The need to consider communications, positive messaging and enhanced “narratives” to highlight the importance of food systems and engender greater understanding in the community of their critical role for achieving important economic, social and environmental outcomes. It was suggested tha... Read moret there is a prevailing dichotomy at play in contemporary food systems, and a desire on the part of the consumer and advocates to be able to classify certain foods, production practices and/or sectors as “good” or “bad” – when the reality is far more nuanced and complex. • It was suggested that since many Australians associate modern agriculture and food systems with challenges and generally have a negative perception which dissuades stakeholder engagement and collaborative discussion. For this reason, it was suggested that reframing the narrative by focusing on “shared food values” and the positive contribution that food systems make to society – may be one way to engage diverse stakeholders in future conversations about sustainable food systems. • The facts, interests and values which determine the reality of food systems (for instance what consumers can choose to eat, or what producers are able to grow) can be constrained by the current limits of knowledge, culture, history and other factors. Reframing problems and challenges in new and innovative ways can be useful when thinking about and addressing systemic challenges. This could involve thinking more fundamentally about what we choose to produce and consume in Australia and for instance, reflecting on the place of indigenous species in our food systems. • When discussing food systems, the term “complexity” may often be confused with something being “complicated”. Complexity involves the interaction of complex systems, while something being complicated means it is difficult to solve. Improving food systems can involve both complexity and complication. Taking a “systems thinking” approach, may involve reframing our food systems as “complex” systems which we aim to “guide” to function better, instead of isolating our focus to unitary outcomes or goals – which may not lead to the best outcome. • There is a need to consider how best to create the space for continuing these types of discussions around the challenges and best-practice approaches and recommendations for sustainable, healthy and resilient food systems. This may involve consideration of the utility of a higher-level food strategy, formalised governance structures or incorporation into political frameworks. Read less

Action Track(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Keywords: Data & Evidence, Environment and Climate, Finance, Governance, Human rights, Innovation, Policy, Trade-offs, Women & Youth Empowerment

Australia

Australian Food Systems – Addressing Shared Challenges

Discussion topic outcome

This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of webinar participants and does not necessarily represent the views of the Australian Government. In addition to the topics already highlighted – there were a number of additional high-level key messages emerging during the dialogue discussion, including: • Exploration of future food systems and the most crucial actions needed to ensure that our food systems are delivering on the triple challenge of economic livelihoods, health/nutrition and environmental outcomes. These included the need to address current gaps and flaws in data, a la... Read moreck of diversity in stakeholder engagement, conflicts over facts and interest groups, and a lack of traceability in the supply chain. • It was suggested that consumers may be feeling “guilt-fatigue” as they continue to receive conflicting messages around the ethical and environmental consequences of their consumption choices. For this reason improving traceability could be one of the most promising tools for improving consumer trust and transparency in Australian food systems. Better collection and use of datasets will be crucial along the supply chain to provide assurance of health, environmental and social outcomes to consumers and producers alike. • There is a need to improve data collection and “knowledge production” practices to facilitate better collaboration, assessment and analysis and ultimately policymaking, potentially through the implementation of data standards or a more coordinated approach. This may also involve some consideration of the role of future “data markets” and “data trading”. • Policymakers need access to better quality datasets to inform food systems decision making. There is a need for greater collaboration across the supply chain to better analyse and interpret the data we have, and to identify where there may be gaps. A key priority for food systems policy related data is being able to quantify assessed policy trade-offs and their respective impacts, to inform better decision making. • Effective food systems policy making relies on consultation and engagement with diverse stakeholders. Deliberative processes can be useful in policymaking to overcome differences in stakeholder views, interests and values, and can lead to more transparent and equitable decision-making. • The era of digital technology and innovations provides huge opportunities for producers and other stakeholders in the food sector to reduce inputs and improve efficiencies. This includes proper assessment of the contributions and supporting architecture for satellite technology in helping to collect, manage and store agricultural and food system data. Read less

Action Track(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Keywords: Data & Evidence, Environment and Climate, Finance, Governance, Innovation, Policy, Trade-offs

Australia

Australian Food Systems – Addressing Shared Challenges

Main findings

This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of webinar participants and does not necessarily represent the views of the Australian Government. A scene-setting presentation was delivered exploring the webinar themes outlined previously. Key messages highlighted during this presentation included: • The COVID-19 crisis has brought renewed attention to the importance of food systems and their role in meeting the triple challenge – delivering food security and nutrition, providing livelihoods for stakeholders across food supply chains and ensuring environmental sustainability. • Foo... Read mored systems have delivered significant accomplishments in recent decades - including quadrupling of agricultural production since 1960 and decoupling production from agricultural land expansion through efficiency gains – however there remain shortcomings relating to food security and malnutrition and the environmental impact of food production. Better policies can make a difference to solving these issues. • While many of the challenges facing food systems are well-understood, there is often less focus on the identification and development of appropriate policy solutions. Many agri-food policies currently implemented globally are not effectively addressing the triple challenge and may be exacerbating the challenges in some instances. This can include distorting policy instruments – such as those providing production incentives to individual producers – which can lead to significant environmental externalities and international agricultural market distortion. • Developing coherent agri-food policies requires policymakers to be aware of possible trade-offs and synergies with other policy areas. For instance, agricultural sector policy interventions are likely to impact health or environmental outcomes and vice-versa. It is important for policymakers to vigorously evaluate possible interactions across food systems and look to maximise synergies and effectively manage any unavoidable “trade-offs.” There is unlikely to be a “silver-bullet” policy instrument – and there is a need to consider using a mix of policy instruments and approaches. • Sometimes there may be a need for difficult discussions, debate and choices around “trade-offs.” These decisions can be made made more difficult as occasionally stakeholder perspectives on certain issues can be primarily informed by values. There is a need for policymakers to appreciate the role of facts, interests and values in policy debates and to use innovative approaches to bridge gaps and create opportunities for better understanding and collaboration between competing stakeholder interests. Panellists were asked to provide some initial thoughts and reflections on the scene-setting presentation, which included: • Emphasis on the importance of holistic approaches for food policy making – noting in Australia that a core focus has traditionally been on agri-food sector competitiveness to underpin our economic wellbeing. • The importance of overcoming challenges relating to data collection and using it appropriately and effectively to enable better policymaking – while ensuring that food remains accessible, high quality and is aligned with consumer demand. • Recognition that complex systems have fundamental characteristics and traits which need to be acknowledged – for instance, they are constantly evolving and there are complex interactions and consequences (both known and unknown) for different policy interventions. There is likely to be a need for mixed policy approaches which are coherent (for instance across production and consumption sides), recognise complexity and employ “systems thinking”. • The need for taking an inclusive approach which seeks to consult widely and consider the needs and views of diverse stakeholder groups. Through its engagement and leadership in the Asia-Pacific region, there is also a role for Australia in helping our international partners to address the triple challenge through better policymaking for food systems. The question-and-answer session was wide-ranging reflecting strong stakeholder engagement and interest. Some key thematic elements of the discussion related to: • Navigating challenges and opportunities for agri-food policymaking as consumers increasingly make food choices according to environmental, social and ethical considerations. • The role of deliberative processes for effectively dealing with “trade-offs” and ensuring diverse stakeholder engagement and representation, including at the local/regional government level. • The critical need for more and improved data on food systems at the local, national and global level for food systems policy and decision making. • How best to take food systems conversations and discussions forward, to promote improved coherency and policymaking across sectors. Read less

Action Track(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Keywords: Data & Evidence, Environment and Climate, Finance, Governance, Innovation, Policy, Trade-offs

Australia

Australian Food Systems – Addressing Shared Challenges

Major focus

As the fourth in the series of the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (DAWE) led Australian National FSS Dialogues, the Australian Food Systems – addressing shared challenges webinar explored: • how we can think holistically about food systems and work to meet the triple challenge of providing food security and nutrition, delivering strong livelihoods throughout the supply chain and ensuring environmental sustainability; • the notion of “trade-offs” and synergies in food systems; and • the need for decisions to be underpinned by rigorous science and evidence whils... Read moret acknowledging and managing diverse stakeholder interests and values. We were pleased to have the participation of the following panellists to lead discussion: • Lee Ann Jackson, Head of Division, Agro-food Trade and Markets, OECD • Dr Anne Astin PSM, Chair of the Board, Food Agility CRC • Howard Parry-Husbands, CEO of Pollinate • Krista Singleton-Cambage, Head of Climate and Food Security, World Wildlife Fund Australia. Read less

Action Track(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Keywords: Data & Evidence, Environment and Climate, Finance, Governance, Innovation, Policy, Trade-offs

Samoa - Stage 3

Samoa Food Systems Dialogue

Area of divergence

The following were key areas of divergence identified from the dialogue:  Trade-offs in public policies promoting the development and regulating of the food systems. For instance, while health advocates policy responses promoting reduction in unhealthy supply and consumption food items (e.g. alcohol, tobacco, imported turkey tails), other public authorities are more concerned with employment and food supply development and security (hence may take commercial industry interests into account) which conflict with the nutritional health push from health advocates given the rising burden of NCDs... Read more in Samoa.  Trade-offs during policy implementation - there are clearly contradicting targets usually identified at implementation stage of policies. Hence proper coordination and dialogue at the policy development stage is important in order to have shared understanding of these contradictions and how they can be managed.  Push for commercialization versus nature-positive farming. Given inconsistent local food supply, there has been a push for improved commercialization. This requires commercial farmers opting to use more chemicals especially given the decreased labour (but increased labour cost) in agriculture. On the other hand, there is also a promotion of organic and farming pushing for the reduction and/or ban of the use of chemicals in farming.  Trade-offs in the push for strengthening livelihoods opportunities versus ongoing impacts on the environment (e.g. soil degradation, ongoing killing of native species such as the manumea bird, flying foxes and pigeons).  Trade-offs in reducing importation of unhealthy foods and free trade agreements under WTO agreements.  Trade-offs in the regulating of unhealthy products versus the economic development that are needed to boost economic growth, employment and income generation. Read less

Action Track(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Keywords: Data & Evidence, Environment and Climate, Finance, Governance, Human rights, Innovation, Policy, Trade-offs, Women & Youth Empowerment

Samoa - Stage 3

Samoa Food Systems Dialogue

Discussion topic outcome

Based on the discussions at the dialogue, the following were the key solutions identified to respond to the key issues and challenges identified under B) above: Transformation of the agriculture sector to boost local production. Consistent local supply of healthy foods to be addressed through incentives for farmers and fishers and encouraging commercialization. Government to lead specific interventions targeting capacity training for value chain actors and addressing of key issues facing production including, high labour costs in agriculture production, water, transport and infrastructure chal... Read morelenges and facilitating local and overseas markets for farmers and fishers. Strengthening food safety and standards practice and systems through better enforcement, awareness and coordination between relevant partners, as well as strengthening the food safety policy and regulatory system in Samoa. Food literacy and targeted consumer awareness to ensure consumers make informed decisions to purchase and prepare healthy tasty and affordable meals. Clear messaging and programmes using attractive and easily understood awareness materials for both urban and rural populations. School nutrition education and school food programmes within the governance and support systems of the community and village institutions starting from early childhood education across to senior school form healthy eating behaviors at a young age. Parents and food vendors to be involved in the formulating, implementation and monitoring of these programmes. School food programmes that encourage consumption of locally available foods with linkages to local producers. Promotion of the consumption and availability of local traditional foods, made from locally available produce for healthy diets. Ensuring products are available for convenient consumption by the public. Strengthened food waste data and evidence base to inform policy and awareness programme development and implementation. Capacity building at both household and retail level to build awareness and capacities on limiting as well as handling food waste. Revitalise and promote the use of traditional and indigenous knowledge in agriculture for sustainable land, marine and terrestrial management production practices to go in parallel with conventional methods of production. Strengthen research and development, and extension services for improved knowledge sharing and capacities among partners and users, especially for information such as status of food resources (soil, forestry, weather etc.) to ensure practices undertaken by farmers and fishers are emphasizing conservation and biodiversity. Strengthen policy and regulatory roles for the sustainable management of the different aspects of the food systems related resources. Coordination and dissemination of information from responsible Ministry to ensure the relevant polices and regulations are shared with, and understood by relevant stakeholders. Strengthen the effective engagement of everyone including the vulnerable groups in the discussions confronting institutional and systematic barriers for equitable participation in the sustainable development of livelihoods within the context of the food systems. Promote the role of women and youth in agricultural activities including providing the needed support (access to land and finance, capacity building, networking etc.). Improve the image of agriculture and fisheries as career options and provide a clear pathway for students to capture their interest in studying food related curriculum from a young age. Role of communities and culture in developing the food systems and equitable livelihoods needs to be strengthened through more research and coordinated awareness programmes, as well as customized civic education. Climate resilient practices and resources for agriculture, fisheries, livestock strengthened through research and development, seeds and stocks availability, and capacity building. Strengthen social protection measures in response to impact of shocks in food supply and consumption. Explore opportunities in digital and technological innovations to boost local production and strengthen value chains Read less

Action Track(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Keywords: Data & Evidence, Environment and Climate, Finance, Governance, Human rights, Innovation, Policy, Trade-offs, Women & Youth Empowerment

Samoa - Stage 3

Samoa Food Systems Dialogue

Main findings

Samoa is committed to exploring its Food Systems characteristics to further identify key bottle necks requiring focused action to enhance the nation’s food security and nutrition status. Specific aspects of the food systems deemed as requiring closer inspection and focused action, include the country’s high dependence on food imports and the inconsistent supply and access of locally produced foods for healthy diets. The lack of incentives for the agriculture and fisheries production sectors need further review. Food safety was also a core challenge identified as requiring further attention... Read more. Unhealthy diets due to consumption of highly processed imported foods and the lack of access and consumption of local food especially fruits and vegetables has led to high levels of NCD’s, with the country now holding a place in the top ten countries in the world with the highest rates of NCD’s. The food culture and food preference of Samoans which is influenced by accessibility and affordability factors was deemed as contributors to unhealthy diets. Whilst data was limited on the topic, food waste was considered a key issues that required addressing given the need to enhance food supply and ensure optimum use of food available therefore preservation techniques and options of utilizing food in the food cycle needs to be a key focus of Samoa’s actions. Specific attention is needed to address the lack of evidence-based and shared understanding about the status of sustainable management of key natural resources underpinning the sustainability of the food systems (e.g. soil health, available fish, water and land resources, control of invasive species, and use of chemicals), in order to boost production which is centred on nature and biodiversity conservation. Under– utilised traditional knowledge to boost nature-positive production needs to be explored. Whilst the country’s focus on increasing food supply will depend a great deal on commercialisation of the agriculture sector, the impacts this will have on nature- positive production and consumption needs to be at the forefront when planning for this under the supply sector. There is limited support for vulnerable groups to be able to expand and contribute more to food system. There are institutional and systematic barriers (access to land, social norms about roles stereotyping, traditional divisions of labour, etc.), preventing women, youth and persons with disabilities from accessing the needed resources to pursue better livelihoods in the food sector. Capacities and incentives are limited in order to garner interest from youth to entertain the food sector as a livelihood option. Coordination of community programmes targeting food supplies is lacking and there is programme and project fatigue at the implementing village level. Samoa needs its food systems (nature, environment, people, etc.) to be regenerative and circular and be more resilient to shocks. Efforts should empower everyone to prepare for, withstand, and recover from instability, and to continue to participate in the sustainable development and management of their food systems, despite shocks and stressors, so that there is a consistent delivery and maintenance of food security, nutrition and equitable livelihoods for all. Inconsistent access to safe and nutritional food is further compounded by the nation’s fragility due to its isolation from the global markets, shortage of arable land and other resources required to encourage local production (e.g. limited local seed supplies and feed supply) and it’s being prone to the impact of climate change. The need to further research and identify key risks to its food systems with the necessary response planning is missing. COVID-19 and its impact on Samoa’s food systems displayed the nation’s susceptibility and lack of preparedness to shocks and stressors. The dialogues stressed the need for a multi-sectoral approach to addressing the concerns listed above regarding Samoa’s Food System. The lack of communication and coordination between partners was viewed as a key step towards improving the accelerating the nation’s food and nutrition security. Utilizing existing platforms and sector plans as a basis of coordination was identified with key players expected to suggest ways in which to ensure a multi-sectoral response. Data was a key gap identified for all of the five action tracks. Evidence based policies is essential to guide the nation’s planning. Despite the fact that there is a numerous policies covering the different parts of the Food , there is a need to ensure that these policies complement one another and all involved are aware these policies exist, including committing resources and time to implement, enforce, monitor and evaluate their effectiveness. Read less

Action Track(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Keywords: Data & Evidence, Environment and Climate, Finance, Governance, Human rights, Innovation, Policy, Trade-offs, Women & Youth Empowerment

Samoa - Stage 3

Samoa Food Systems Dialogue

Major focus

The dialogue involved a three-fold process: i) focused group discussion; 2) national dialogue; and 3) SFSSD committee and development partners dialogue. 1. The first part of the dialogue was a focused group discussions of key stakeholder organisations with a significant role in the national food systems. The stakeholders were organized as members of the different five Action Tracks, based on their areas of work and interests, with two members selected as lead discussants. The purpose was for participants to explore each of the five Action Tracks, identifying the current status in Samoa, the ke... Read morey issues and challenges and game-changing solutions. The five action track group discussions were held for five days (3-7 May 2021), with one day dedicated to each of the focused group dialogues discussions on each of the five-action tracks. Briefing meetings were held with the lead organisations of the Five Action Tracks to prepare them to lead the group discussions. Participants were all provided with a background information paper - so that they have the necessary background about the purpose of the group dialogue discussions, and how they can better contribute to the dialogue. The dialogue programme included an introduction of the dialogue and its purpose, an overview of the Action Track under discussions at the forum, and the group discussions. It concluded with a wrap up of the day’s session and presenting on the next steps of the overall dialogue. A total of 100 participants representing various stakeholder organisations attended this first session of the dialogue. 2. The second part of the dialogue was the wider National Dialogue, which took place on the 27 May 2021. At the completion of the first part (i.e. the five-action tracks focused group discussions), a meeting of the dialogue working committee and the National Multi-sectoral Coordinating Committee was held to provide feedback and learnings from the implementation of part one, to inform the preparations of the wider national dialogue. Lessons learnt from part one were discussed to arrive at a more suitable structure and format of the wider national dialogue. Participants from across different sectors of the food systems were grouped into five group discussions based on their areas of work or interests: Government ministries/agencies, Private sector, Farmer, livestock and fishers organisations, Civil society, and Research organisations and academia. A group of two facilitators and note takers were selected for each of the groups and were given a methodology, format and guiding questions for the group discussions, with presentation of group findings to the whole audience, followed by a plenary session. A total of 90 people participated in this second part of the dialogue. 3. The third part of the dialogue was a dialogue with key development partners. Findings or key thematic areas from the synthesis report (desktop and literature review) and dialogue report (based on Parts 1 and 2) were used as the basis of the plenary discussion at this forum. A total of 52 people participated in this third part of the dialogue. Read less

Action Track(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Keywords: Data & Evidence, Environment and Climate, Finance, Governance, Human rights, Innovation, Policy, Trade-offs, Women & Youth Empowerment

Mexico - Stage 1

Tercer Diálogo Nacional de México camino a la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios. Programa de comunicación de cambio de comportamiento para una alimentación saludable, justa y sostenible.

Area of divergence

· El disenso fue sobre si en el programa de comunicación se debía poner más énfasis en el tema interpersonal y en el tema de los entornos alimentarios, que en el impacto comunitario y social. · Algunos de los participantes desde su ámbito de trabajo tienen un enfoque más individual, otros están más en contacto con las comunidades y finalmente algunos tienen una visión más acorde con el modelo ecológico.

Action Track(s): 1, 2, 3

Keywords: Data & Evidence, Governance, Policy

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305