Explore Official Dialogue Feedback

La conclusiones más relevantes fueron: 1. Es necesario que los países incluyan el derecho a la alimentación, como derecho humano, en la Constitución para dar garantía de acceso a toda la población. Para Chile el proceso constituyente actual es una oportunidad ineludible. 2. Deben definirse el derecho a la alimentación adecuada como aquella saludable, inocua, suficiente, permanente, culturalmente pertinente, soberana y sostenible. 3. El derecho a la alimentación debe acompañarse también de mecanismos de judicialización constitucional. 4. La implementación efectiva del derecho a la a... Read morelimentación requiere de una institucionalidad que controle y monitoree su cumplimiento, además requiere de una ley nacional de alimentación y nutrición y de un conjunto de políticas públicas, estrategias y programas que hagan efectiva su implementación. 5. El derecho a la alimentación y todos sus componentes descritos no están desvinculados del modelo político, economico, productivo y social de los países por lo que se requiere de redefiniciones integrales. 6. Con una mirada más amplia y entendiendo que la alimentación es un tema político y global se propone el desarrollo de un convenio marco sobre alimentación y nutrición al alero de Naciones Unidas para abordar la gama de problemas de este ámbito que afectan a diversos territorios. 7. La academia tiene un rol relevante desde su quehacer en la formación de capital humano, de investigación y de vinculación con el medio, para que el derecho a la alimentación sea efectivo. Read less

 Es importante incorporar el DA en la nueva Constitución chilena ya que esta norma determina la actuación de todos los órganos del Estado, entre ellos el legislativo y ejecutivo. Desde el punto de vista de los ODS no es posible que un país se desarrolle si su población no se alimenta adecuadamente. Además es un derecho humano establecido en diferentes tratados internacionales a los que nuestro país adscribe.  Es necesario integrar el DA en la Constitución para que el tema no quede al arbitrio de los poderes y del sistema económico imperante, que lleva al fenómeno Obesidad- Hamb... Read morere. La alimentación adecuada debe ser protegida.  El DA debe tener presente la situación de las personas más vulnerables, como aquellas en situación de pobreza, privadas de libertad, pueblos originarios, personas de menor nivel educacional y socioeconómico, niños/as y mujeres, que reflejan profundas e injustas desigualdades.  Las características que deberían acompañar el DA son: suficiente, permanente, de calidad, saludable, inocua, accesible, culturalmente pertinente, soberana, sostenible y sin discriminación.  El DA debe ser complementado con cambios estructurales, un modelo de desarrollo inclusivo, democrático y equitativo.  Es necesario establecer también los mecanismos de acceso a recursos judiciales, para hacer efectivo este derecho.  No basta con establecer el derecho a la alimentación en la Constitución, es necesario implementarlo, se da el ejemplo de países que lo tienen establecido y sin embargo sus problemas alimentario-nutricionales persisten. Eso puede poner en duda la necesidad de establecer este derecho en la Constitución. Se reitera el sentido del Estado de Derecho en el que todos los actores públicos y privados cumplen con el mandato de la Constitución.  Se explicitan 4 importantes barreras para avanzar en los temas alimentario-nutricionales en el país, los que deben ser tomados en cuenta: 1) el conocimiento en temas alimentario nutricionales, falta de educación; el conocimiento de las personas y del Estado respecto del DA, su sentido y su alcance. 2) la falta de respaldo jurídico por no estar este derecho en la Constitución, ni contar con una ley ad-hoc que permita su implementación; 3) barrera socio-cultural dado el consumo irreflexivo, impuesto por el poder ligado al modelo económico y de sociedad neoliberal imperante con una lógica de mercado difícil de romper; 4) Barrera política: mal entendimiento de los DESC y de la economía, y que incluye una barrera productiva ya que hoy no somos capaces de autoabastecernos como país, se privilegian las exportaciones y no hay apoyo a los pequeños productores.  Se discute sobre el modelo imperante, y la necesidad de un cambio para lograr sistemas alimentarios más equitativos y sostenibles. Se da el ejemplo de la competencia desequilibrada entre grandes productores, dueños del agua, de las tierras y de derechos marítimos vs pequeños productores agrícolas y pesqueros. Por ello es imprescindible descentralizar el poder para reorientar el modelo productivo del país; políticas y programas de soberanía alimentaria con aplicación en los territorios, con participación de productores locales, que aseguren los alimentos en el nivel local, de acuerdo a ciclos estacionales cadenas cortas.  En ese sentido, además de incorporar el derecho a la alimentación como se plantea al inicio, existe la necesidad de una institucionalidad en la gestión que garantice su implementación.  Es relevante para la implementación del DA, la creación de una Ley sobre alimentación y nutrición intersectorial desde su diseño.  Es necesario hacerse cargo del alto costo de los alimentos saludables, más en pandemia, debería abordarse con subsidios estatales o impuestos. Las políticas públicas deben dar pleno cumplimiento al derecho consagrado en la Constitución.  Se releva la necesidad de que la población tenga acceso a información y educación en alimentación y nutrición.  La participación de la población en el diseño de las políticas públicas es clave en el proceso democrático de toma de decisiones y de implementación.  La Academia tiene un rol primordial en desarrollo de capital humano, en investigación-acción para promover la optimización las cadenas alimentarias, incidir en políticas públicas y vincularse con el medio para dar a conocer la información contribuyendo a democratizar el conocimiento.  Se deben democratizar las Universidades, que salgan a los territorios, dar espacios a la comunidad, promoviendo la ecología de saberes.  Para abordar globalmente los problemas de alimentación y nutrición, más allá de un nivel nacional o regional, se propone el desarrollo de un Convenio Marco al alero de Naciones Unidas siguiendo el modelo de lo realizado en tabaco, que permita además alinear el quehacer. Read less

El diálogo versó principalmente sobre el derecho a la alimentación en Chile y posibles estrategias de implementación. El contexto temático tiene relación con el actual proceso socio-político chileno que nos llevó a la construcción de una nueva constitución desde una hoja en blanco. Por otra parte el contexto epidemiológico nutricional nacional reflejado en altas cifras de obesidad y sobrepeso a través de todo el ciclo vital constituye un desafío país para la próxima década. Por último, la pandemia que ha aumentado la inseguridad alimentaria y el hambre especialmente en los gru... Read morepos más vulnerables. Estos 3 factores contextuales, no muy distintos a lo que ocurre en otros países de América Latina, son un impulso para incorporar el derecho a la alimentación en la nueva Constitución, entendiendo el derecho a la alimentación como un derecho humano y parte de los derechos económicos, culturales, sociales y ambientales. En ese escenario se hace necesario reflexionar sobre la definición del derecho a la alimentación, pero también la necesidad de especificar los adjetivos que deberían acompañar al derecho por ejemplo, saludable, inocua, pertinente, sostenible, etc, así como de establecer sus formas de judicialización. Por último pensando en su constitucionalización, es importante también identificar la forma en que se podría y debería implementar este derecho, a través de leyes, políticas públicas, estrategias, programas y proyectos, de tal forma que contribuya en forma efectiva a mejorar la seguridad alimentaria, la alimentación y la condición nutricional de la población. En resumen la discusión versó sobre 5 preguntas planteadas: 1. ¿Es importante contar con el derecho a la alimentación? ¿y por qué? 2. ¿Cuáles son las barreras y gestión necesaria para la implementación? 3. ¿Cuáles son posibles soluciones? 4. ¿Cuáles son posibles formas de implementación? 5. ¿ Qué compromisos debería adquirir la academia? Read less

There were relatively few areas of divergence between participants in this Dialogue. In many instances, these resolved themselves as participants evolved their opinions over the course of the discussion. However, specific and unresolved areas of divergence are listed below. • School meals: While participants agreed on the important role of schools for mitigating food insecurity and supporting growth and development, there were differing opinions and perspectives on the nutritional value and quality of the meals. • Digestors: It was also suggested by some participants that the use of digest... Read moreors as a potential opportunity for food waste reduction has been done before and isn’t always successful, so greater research and experimentation was needed to make this a more effectively scaled solution. • Domains of sustainable food systems: Additional questions were raised by participants around the inherent tensions that exist amongst the four domains of sustainable food systems. While consumers may want more environmentally friendly foods, they may not be willing to pay more for those foods. Wages for those working on the farm must be balanced against investments in farm infrastructure and trainings. The discussions around culturally relevant meals for school children need to be considered alongside the desire for more localized food systems which – considering regionality and seasonality – may not be able to support diversity and selection of foods. Further, the necessary financial investments into equipment and training for schools to act on the Dialogue suggestions must not compete with funding used to offer free and reduced priced meals to students. • Funding: As more consumers and governments demand a more sustainable food system, funding for research and conservation efforts must be employed in addition to policy and regulations. As monetary resources are limited, recommendations must be prioritized which will inevitably mean lower priority recommendations remain unfunded and unrealized. A particular discussion was around whether the focus should be on legislation and policymakers to mandate changes, or for the farmers, researchers and school meal programs to receive more funding and investment ahead of legislation. Additionally, there was significant discussion around the role of compensation and incentive structures for ecosystem services; participants deemed this essential to increase the sustainability practices, improve farm economics and support livelihoods. But, there is tension with this goal and limited monetary resources. • Education: While there was much agreement on the topic of education, there was less agreement regarding who should be the target of the education efforts. As discussed above, audiences may need to be prioritized due to limited funding and resources as consumers, policymakers, children and health care professionals cannot all be top priority. • Animal welfare: While animal welfare is a priority for farmers, it was noted that actual legislation or mandates around welfare can be challenging and prevent farmers from responding quickly to changing science that would allow them to provide better care for their animals. Read less

Three groups reflected on how to achieve this vision: “A future where those involved in farming and animal husbandry are rewarded for their efforts while contributing to sustainability goals benefitting the natural environment and society at large.” Specific discussion focused on engaging with the public and youth specifically; building economic and government support; scaling the use of digesters; and providing support for small producers. Participants emphasized the importance of educating the public and younger generations on how their food is produced. They felt the public doesn’t fu... Read morelly grasp the significant investments farmers put into their work and there is little awareness about the economic reality that farmers face. The U.S. dairy community has done a great deal in terms of environmental sustainability across the supply chain (from farm gate, processing facility, transportation, retail and consumer-level), but participants encouraged the sector to continue to share with consumers what is being done and why. In addition, the younger generation may not fully appreciate the extensive career opportunities available in agriculture. Participants suggested land grant colleges and extension services can help to reach youth and build awareness and excitement for these career paths. Building greater economic stability for farmers was also viewed as essential. Participants reflected on the difficult economic situation that farmers face, coupled with demands to innovate and improve up environmental stewardship efforts and animal welfare standards. Farmers largely share these goals and are eager to play their role in supporting them, but often lack the capital and capabilities needed to introduce them. They discussed several opportunities to help address this need: cost-share programs, economic assessments, social support and knowledge-sharing amongst farmers, technical assistance and financial incentives. Importantly, they also encouraged the public to get curious about the great strides farmers have made and will continue to make; farmers work tirelessly to meet environmental targets and continually improve practices, despite difficult circumstances. Participants also pointed to the use of anerobic digesters as a unique opportunity to share the story of how the food system can provide alternative energy sources. Digesters are closed tanks which are used to break down organic matter such as cow manure and/or food waste through anaerobic digestion, creating biogas, which can be used to power the farm and communities, as well as to produce other materials. Participants believed it should be a priority to scale up the use of digesters and introduce them across the country for farms of all sizes and to look to community digesters. Finally, there was discussion of producers at all levels – but particularly small producers – trying to keep their farms running in addition to working towards enhanced environmental sustainability practices and animal care. These individuals need better support, including access to research and proven best practices. Within supply chains, corporations, cooperatives and processors can help create tracking systems, share expertise and incentivize farmers both within the U.S. and globally. Read less

Three groups discussed how to achieve this vision: “A future where U.S. agricultural production is more resilient and supports clean water, land conservation, climate mitigation and adaptation, and protects biodiversity.” Participants cited significant concern about methane emissions and its impact on global warming, alongside the pressing issue of food loss and waste. Dairy farmers referenced the extensive environmental gains made throughout the dairy supply chain and felt there is a lack of awareness of these efforts among decisionmakers and the public. Educating consumers and other food... Read more systems stakeholders around dairy farmer initiatives could help build greater awareness among the public and stronger partnerships between rural and urban communities. They saw an opportunity to elevate understanding around the U.S. dairy sector’s work on ensuring high animal care standards through the implementation of the FARM Program (Farmers Assuring Responsible Management) and establishing ambitious environmental commitments via the U.S. Dairy Environmental Stewardship goals, the industry’s commitment to be “carbon neutral or better,” optimize water use and improve water quality by 2050. Farmers noted that dairy community members pioneered and continue to be receptive to adopting new sustainability technologies and practices, but they must be economically and ecologically feasible. Anerobic digesters are one example of a proven technology that could be scaled. Unfortunately, many innovative practices are cost prohibitive. Public sector investment in research or pre-competitive research were considered key to identify and scale, but that information must be available publicly so that all farmers can benefit. Sharing best practices among farmers globally could be another opportunity to support farms of all sizes, but participants recognized that regional and local differences must be considered. Other recommendations discussed to support farmers in understanding and implementing ecological practices include Ecosystem Services Market and Field to Market. Participants also discussed the need for more engagement with consumers and younger generations, noting their understanding of cow’s milk production and the unique nutrient profile dairy foods provide (compared to non-dairy, plant-based alternatives). Targeted nutrition education efforts, focused on helping consumers understand date labels (e.g., differentiating between “use by” and “best if used by”), were referenced as ways to help reduce food waste. Like the child nutrition-focused groups, these breakout discussions also emphasized the importance of farm tours, including virtual farm tours, to build awareness and appreciation for on-farm practices and connect with young people to give them a voice in the future of sustainable food production. Finally, this group also touched on food production and food insecurity. While millions of people across the United States go hungry each day, there are times when farmers are forced to dispose of surplus food. Participants cited the need for a cohesive system (vs. present ad hoc models) that connects farmers with hunger coalitions to identify mutually beneficial options that get surplus food into the hands of those that need it most. Dairy farmers expressed their strong and historical support for participating in such systems and referenced the work undertaken by the U.S. dairy community to support address food insecurity when COVID-19 disrupted the food system. Read less

Three groups reflected on this vision: “A future where all children across the U.S. have equitable access to affordable, nutrient-rich, culturally-acceptable, and environmentally-friendly foods.” Participants discussed how schools are trusted food environments that can help drive food system transformation via school meal programs and more education on food/nutrition, farming and agriculture. Overcoming financial challenges through policy changes to provide universal free meals for all students was considered essential. Participants noted that this includes providing adequate funding to th... Read moree National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program, while addressing the fact that some families are food insecure yet have incomes that disqualify them from this assistance. Immigration status can also be a barrier. The U.S. is a multicultural country and school nutrition staff need training to prepare culturally relevant food for diverse student populations. A lack of funding, skilled staff and infrastructure often means these advancements are deprioritized. School meals present an opportunity to identify and prevent food waste along the whole value chain. The burden of preventing food waste sits with all actors, including producers, processors, transporters, and consumers. Schools can also enhance food systems education. Nutrition education is imperative when seeking to improve children’s diets, while life skills and applied science and technology (e.g., STEM) should be incorporated as well. School gardens, farm tours and farmer visits can raise awareness of fresh and local foods among children and families. Participants saw a disconnect between these educational opportunities and current policy. The U.S. does not require nutrition education in schools and school meals are considered separate from the educational portion of the school day. These policy barriers, combined with lacking resource support, pose barriers to overcome. Procurement and distribution flexibility were also seen as opportunities to deliver on this vision. Participants stated that U.S. school food procurement practices must evolve to better support local food purchases. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, participants identified emerging challenges and insights, including food insecurity among children. Many children have been cut off from access to food because of the pandemic. Participants noted how some school districts innovated quickly to distribute school meals to the community; they piloted new meal delivery options like school bus drop-offs, grab-and-go options, and car line pick-ups. The U.S. government also launched the Pandemic Electronic Benefit Transfer option, which afforded families the ability to purchase healthy foods at retail locations during school disruptions. Participants recognized how dairy can support this vision. For example, children consume most of their dairy intake in schools, helping to achieve three daily servings of non-fat or low-fat dairy per day as recommended in the United States Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Participants also observed that children’s diets often include overconsumption of foods that are nutrient poor and supplant nutrient-rich options like dairy foods, fruits and vegetables. Additionally, they observed that bulk milk dispensers in the cafeteria have been proven to help reduce food waste. Lastly, dairy farmers have a long history of hosting farm tours and serving as “farm ambassadors” to generations of school children. They can continue to serve in this capacity to bridge the gap between farm to school. Read less

Across nine groups, several themes emerged: • Enhance accountability & transparency: This was considered essential in building confidence in food systems. Participants highlighted the importance of metrics that transparently report on progress, reveal priorities, and collect/share environmental and animal care data. • Ensure equity, dignity & inclusion: Participants emphasized these as cross-cutting themes. They shared how to involve stakeholders in food systems solutions, particularly farmers and students, who have historically been omitted from the conversation. Participants urge... Read mored coherent strategies to eliminate the stigma of receiving free and reduced-price school meals and other forms of food assistance. • Elevate voices of young people: Having youth leaders in each discussion enhanced the Dialogue and underscored the importance of including the next generation in these conversations. Young people should be afforded more opportunities to interact with food systems stakeholders and have their perspectives heard. • Elevate voices of farmers: As many discussions around food systems and agriculture have excluded the very people responsible for food production and resource management, it was imperative that farmers be represented in all group discussions. In some cases, that meant increasing the groups, but this was necessary for adequate farmer representation. • Improve communication & education: Participants saw a role for better communication between farmers and the public, so that the public has a better appreciation for on-farm conditions. They urged more prevalent food/nutrition education to improve public health and combat unreliable information about food production. They also wanted young people to gain better access to and understanding of where food comes from and how it is produced. • Work towards multisector solutions: Participants saw an abundance of willingness from food systems actors to find solutions. They agreed transformation is possible through collective, multidisciplinary action. Dialogues like these are needed to bring stakeholders together who may not otherwise share learnings, opportunities and discuss trade-offs. • Recognize interconnections: Multisector solutions depend on identifying interconnections across the food system. Participants wanted to bolster connections between farmers, schools, food banks and urban communities to build mutual support, understanding and resiliency. Specific to dairy, participants recognized the strong connections between animal welfare, environmental sustainability and social science to enhance consumer trust and support farmers’ livelihoods. • Reimagine existing policies & programs: Participants recognized that the U.S. has many programs to support farmers’ livelihoods, low-income families, nutritious meal programs, etc.; but they saw a need to evolve and improve them to be more inclusive and effective. They highlighted policy opportunities to financially incentivize ecosystem services and support farmers as they seek out and scale sustainable practices. They also recommended updating school food procurement practices to incentivize local food purchases. • Strive for innovations: Research and funding are needed to address environmental challenges — including identifying and measuring the impact of specific innovations. Small farmers in particular need access to this research and funding. Governments can incentivize and invest in researching sustainable and innovative practices. These themes show that responsibility for making food systems sustainable from an environmental, health, social and economic perspective must be shared throughout the supply chain and society: • Farmers acknowledge their role in applying responsible production practices and have made tremendous strides to do so. Continuous improvement requires stronger support from public research and better mechanisms for knowledge-sharing to bolster innovation and make operations more sustainable. • Schools have an important role to play in educating/engaging young people in how foods can nourish people and protect the planet and in serving nutritious, sustainable, affordable and culturally relevant meals to all children. Financial resources, staffing and regulatory hurdles are challenges to overcome. In addition, students must be made aware of the diverse career opportunities in agricultural, whether through school curriculum or expansion of national programs (e.g., 4-H). • The public wants more information about how to eat nutritiously, sustainably and affordably. They would be better served through ongoing education about how/where food is produced, and how a diverse food supply supports food systems sustainability from an environmental, health, social and economic perspective. Read less

Convened by organizations united in their commitment to advancing sustainable food systems and improving the health and wellbeing of children, the major focus of this Dialogue was to explore how society can better nourish future generations in more sustainable ways. This Dialogue provided an opportunity for participants from various sectors across the food system to brainstorm opportunities, find common ground, identify solutions, and work through complexities and challenges to achieve food systems transformation. The conversation focused on the following topics and the links between them: •... Read more Better ensuring food security and nutrition for children through sustainable school meal programs • Identifying ways to advance environmentally responsible food production, including efforts that can achieve carbon neutrality, enhance farm and water stewardship and more • Exploring U.S. dairy’s role in advancing sustainable food systems through commitments to environmental stewardship and carbon neutrality, child nutrition and social/community impact Participants heard from keynote speakers who highlighted their organization’s respective efforts to help achieve food systems transformation for future generations. • Ron Kleinman, MD (GCNF) emphasized the importance of school meal programs and the roles schools can play in delivering nutritious, safe, sustainable and affordable meals. He also noted that a recent GCNF report, School Meal Programs Around the World, demonstrated that when country governments prioritize nutritious, healthy foods, the market follows. School feeding programs create demand for diverse, nutritious, locally sourced food while promoting local agricultural development and government ownership. He emphasized that by providing a predictable, structured market for these healthy school foods, farmers, producers, distributors - actors all along the value chain - are benefiting from a reliable income source, allowing for increased production and quality year after year. • Lynn Scarlett (TNC) shared ongoing initiatives from the Food and Agriculture Climate Alliance around advancing recommendations to help guide U.S. climate policy. She also underscored the critical need to scale up integrative regenerative practices that restore habitat and protect biodiversity while reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). • Greg Miller, PhD (NDC) highlighted the importance of working holistically across the four domains of sustainability – nutrition, environment, economic and social. He shared the U.S. dairy industry’s commitment to achieve “carbon neutral or better” status for GHG, optimize water use and improve water quality by 2050, and also highlighted the FARM Program -- an effort that drives the dairy community to reach the highest environmental and animal care standards, while supporting safe and stable livelihoods. • Janya Green, Action Track #1 vice chair, spoke to the importance of Dialogues for identifying game-changing and systemic solutions and spoke to her own anti-hunger work in her community. Participants were divided into nine breakout groups; each discussion began with a vision statement based on one of the topics. Participants discussed opportunities and barriers, identified stakeholders to involve and brainstormed actions to take within the next three years to make the vision a reality. While this Dialogue focused on the role of U.S. dairy farmers and dairy products, this sector's experiences can serve as an example for food system actors in general as the world collectively moves towards more sustainable food systems. Read less

Four areas of divergence: 1) Role of High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) (many important learnings, strengths and weaknesses). Also: need to distinguish between HLPE/ UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS, which is a political body, while HLPE is a small scientific panel). Importantly, HLPE has a 15-person steering committee and also has a mandate to explore disagreements. Cons of CFS/HLPE: Small high-level group is fine but cannot have the level of representation needed; silos between HLPE, civil society, private sector. Pros of CFS/HLPE: It is the only legiti... Read moremate-UN embedded body. However, there are different interpretations of “legitimacy” as some argue that this comes through local participation. 2) Nature of evidence and role of science (Values versus evidence). One camp suggests that food is different from country to country as there are many more cultural/value–based elements in food systems so roll of a Science Policy Interface(s) for food systems must balance the need to create a space for debate and make clear recommendations. One camp suggests science needs to be “objective” and value-free. Relevance of science is the scientific evidence used to drive/inform change? If not, then it’s likely not fit for purpose. 3) Scale. Need for local Science Policy Interface(s) (SPIs) and not just global ones. 4) Existing vs. new SPIs: some argue the use of existing entities, others argue the need for something new. Read less

Importance of synthesising different positions (maintaining the evidence-based approach), the need to reflect on the difference between multi-stakeholderism vs. multilateralism (and how to organise the dialogue with civil society), the importance of learning from more localised experiences (where participation seems to be more effective and it is often easier to connect food system actors). Looking forward and stressing the need to improve (not replace) existing structures is a priority. UN Food Systems Summit is a great tool for having a more structured dialogue and ask for specific engagemen... Read moret with different stakeholder (e.g., private sector guiding group and leadership teams of each of the action tracks). Considering the role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that offers some key guidelines in that it has similarities to the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) but different way of operating. In particular, the IPCC has done a lot of work on assessing quality of evidence and confidence of quality of evidence. Read less

In Science Policy Interface(s) (SPIs), it is essential to consider different sources of knowledge. Knowledge should not be seen only as scientific publications, but also other sources of knowledge (grey literature, local knowledge, etc.) should be considered. Food should not be seen only as nutrition and energy; the cultural aspects of food also need to be considered in the future SPIs. Importance of transparency and inclusion in relation to SPIs, need to avoid polarisation of debate around technology (by taking into account also the role of social innovation), importance of two- way communica... Read moretion and citizen participation (as evidenced by the audience’s interest in Living Labs and Food Policy Councils emerged during the Slido exercise). Legitimacy and mandate are precursors to impact. Legitimacy can come through different ways, like: independent science, the UN as a structure, or through representation and participation. Though should we want a mandate to act in food systems, then it must extend beyond nation states. Read less

The stakeholder dialogue was designed to both inform and solicit inputs from a wide diversity of actors, in particular international organisations, Members States and other policy makers, scientists and research organisations, knowledge providers, the private sector, civil society organisations/NGO and media.

No surgieron ni se detectaron áreas de divergencia. Como se observa arriba, hubo muchas similitudes y complementariedad en los conceptos y recomendaciones elaboradas por los diferentes grupos.

Se detallan a continuación las notas sobre los conceptos y recomendaciones compartidos por cada grupo a través de su vocero, en la sesión plenaria posterior al trabajo en grupos. Todos los grupos trabajaron en la misma consigna (ver arriba): Grupo 1: Acceso a las TICs en cobertura y calidad como básico para desarrollar agricultura digital. Acento en trabajar con agricultores en cooperativas, mejorando sus conocimientos tecnológicos. Conocimiento desarrollado a través de organizaciones. Énfasis en comercio internacional electrónico, venta de desperdicios para transformación. Agricultur... Read morea digital llevada a familias rurales y a grupos excluidos como comunidades indígenas. Territorios rurales más dinámicos económicamente para poder hacer desarrollo digital. Grupo 2: Gran cantidad de productores no conoce la oferta de soluciones digitales disponibles. Dar a conocer estas soluciones y comenzar a analizar los contextos en los que se aplican las mismas, habiendo tecnologías que se enfocan en contextos específicos que no aplican en otros. Importante evaluar objetivamente y documentar el impacto específico que genera cada una de estas soluciones tecnológicas. Foco en capacitación de usuarios/as de la tecnología, y ver cómo incluir a los jóvenes como protagonistas para conducir estos procesos, así como a las mujeres. Rol de tecnologías digitales para rescatar conocimientos ancestrales que corren riesgo de perderse y cuentan tienen gran valor. Mostrar impactos que generan las tecnologías y difundirlos. Hay que ser inteligentes para montar sistemas de incentivos para la adopción de la tecnología. Grupo 3: Aspectos importantes como tener en cuenta facilidad de uso de la herramienta; que sean intuitivas y puedan usarse con poca capacitación. De todos modos, enseñar el uso e implicancias de las herramientas. Que las herramientas se adapten al agricultor y no al revés. Deben ser adaptadas considerando a quién van dirigidas (jóvenes, mujeres…). Herramientas orientadas a problemas reales y soluciones reales, y ver vinculación entre problemas y soluciones. Es clave la necesidad de que participen diferentes actores en el idear y diseñar las herramientas. Necesidad de herramientas que sean accesibles, que puedan trabajar fuera de línea para su mejor aprovechamiento. Las acciones para impulsar deben ser parte de la política pública, incluyendo la mejora de procesos de tramitación, y que el sector público genere las condiciones para que el privado pueda utilizar las herramientas. Grupo 4: Prioridades: la conectividad, que se convirtió en derecho humano fundamental; la alfabetización para superar las brechas digitales, la digitalización como forma de alfabetización; la extensión agrícola como mecanismo de promoción de la digitalización agrícola; definición de diferentes tipos de aplicaciones tecnológicas en función del contexto y condiciones específicas. Acciones específicas: Fortalecimiento de los sistemas de extensión agrícola, entendiendo que la pandemia ha propiciado una mayor apropiación de las tecnologías; Que los gobiernos entiendan los beneficios de la digitalización; La formación de extensionistas agrícolas digitales, bajo el supuesto de que se requieren destrezas y capacidades especiales para transmitir estos procesos; Definición de medidas macro y micro de las necesidades que se tengan para cada caso y para cada país; Incidir en los gobiernos, en la sociedad, organismos internacionales, sobre los beneficios que la digitalización trae, no solo al sector agropecuario. Read less

A continuación, se señalan los principales cinco conceptos y recomendaciones emergentes del trabajo en grupos (muchos de ellos mencionados por la mayoría de los grupos; ver detalles abajo): 1) Asegurar el acceso a las tecnologías: Es indispensable asegurar el acceso a las tecnologías y, en especial, conectividad con cobertura amplia y alta calidad para el desarrollo de la agricultura digital. La conectividad constituye un aspecto central de la agricultura digital y se convirtió en un elemento esencial para la vida rural en el marco de la pandemia. 2) Visibilizar las tecnologías: Difundi... Read morer las soluciones tecnológicas digitales disponibles, dado que muchos agricultores no conocen la oferta existente. Evaluar, documentar y comunicar los impactos y beneficios de las mismas como elemento clave para su incorporación y aprovechamiento. 3) Ajustar las tecnologías para que sean relevantes: Asegurar que las soluciones tecnológicas se enfoquen en las necesidades de los agricultores y se adapten a sus contextos (ej. que aborden problemáticas concretas, que sean simples e intuitivas, que puedan funcionar sin conexión, etc.). Para este fin, es importante el trabajo con los agricultores y las organizaciones en los procesos de desarrollo. 4) Fortalecer la capacitación y acompañamiento técnico: Es indispensable la alfabetización digital para formar las destrezas y capacidades que requiere el uso de las tecnologías digitales. En este contexto es necesario adaptar los servicios de extensión para que puedan encabezar instancias de formación de capacidades y de acompañamiento en procesos de desarrollo e incorporación de las tecnologías. 5) Sensibilizar a los decisores políticos: Instalar los beneficios potenciales de la agricultura digital y la urgencia de trabajar en su impulso en decisores políticos a distintas escalas territoriales. El sector público debe generar las condiciones para que los privados desarrollen y utilicen las tecnologías. Por su parte, el sector público debe simplificar y digitalizar servicios (ej. trámites) como parte del proceso de digitalización y su impulso. De manera transversal a los cinco puntos, se mencionó la necesidad de poner especial énfasis (en el marco del proceso de impulso a la digitalización) en grupos o actores más relegados (ej. comunidades indígenas, jóvenes y mujeres) Read less

El tema principal del diálogo fue la Agricultura Digital. El diálogo propuso analizar y proponer acciones y colaboraciones que contribuyan a asegurar los aportes que la agricultura digital puede hacer a la transformación de los sistemas agrícolas. El diálogo tuvo una presentación de encuadre en la cual se plantearon los siguientes conceptos: - La digitalización de la agricultura es necesaria (aunque no suficiente) para la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios. La agricultura digital puede contribuir de múltiples maneras a las 5 vías de acción que propone la cumbre, y con ello ... Read morea cumplir varios Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible. - La digitalización de la agricultura supone múltiples impactos positivos o beneficios, pero también conlleva riesgos de impactos negativos, en especial asociados a la dimensión social (acentuar desigualdades, acelerar exclusión y desplazamiento, generar conflictos). - La digitalización de la agricultura es inevitable, pero aún es incipiente y desigual por la existencia de múltiples barreras y brechas: Infraestructura, Correspondencia entre la oferta tecnológica y las necesidades de agricultores, Acceso a las tecnologías, Capacidades para el uso de las tecnologías, Agendas de promoción y regulación. - La digitalización de la agricultura está en marcha y se acelera (influencia importante de COVID-19): Es urgente concertar agendas público-privadas de impulso a la digitalización de la agricultura, de modo de asegurar que se expresan sus beneficios por sobre sus amenazas. Hacia el final de la presentación se mencionaron acciones sugeridas para agendas de impulso a la digitalización de la agricultura. Las consignas para el diálogo (en grupos y luego intercambio plenario) se plantearon de acuerdo a los conceptos propuestos en la presentación disparadora: - ¿Qué aspectos de la digitalización de la agricultura debieran priorizarse para asegurar su contribución a la transformación positiva de sistemas alimentarios? - ¿Qué acciones concretas podrían realizar distintos actores para un avance dinámico e inclusivo de la digitalización de la agricultura? Read less

One of the outcomes of our dialogue was the need for education of people concerning the reality of migrants, spreading the word of what is the reality of those who already migrated in search of better conditions to live is the best way to guarantee those people are well informed when making that kind of decision. The big problem here is that the ones that need the information are the ones with little to no access to the internet and general communication means, based on CPUV research, 35% of the migrant families in Colombia only have 1 smartphone with internet access when they have it.

How are programs in Venezuela strengthened to prevent and regulate unsystematic migration? The lack of information about organizations such as Alimenta la Solidaridad for some Venezuelans is a reality. If not the most pressing, food security is one reason people decide to leave their country, and yet, they are unaware of the solutions they can find if they decide to stay. Despite technological challenges in the country, it is important to find ways to strengthen communications between organizations, vulnerable communities, and potential allies. If different organizations joined forces, they wo... Read moreuld create a ripple effect that reaches most of the population. These alliances and partnerships could determine the success of eventual food banks in Venezuelan territory and even food sovereignty, with the creation of seed networks that could potentially awaken agriculture again in a country where most of its food is imported and sold at terribly high prices. Do you think Venezuela is in condition to set up food banks? What ideas do you have? - Difficult passage from the border, transportation capacity does not currently exist - Combustible crisis - They work with Macro as a distributor, only through orders - Persecution of activists or organizations - Production on the floor, production can be at 30% - Agricultural production - Colombia has ANDI, Venezuela has the Venezuelan Food Chamber: actor key code - Polar Companies - How to do an analysis of food systems today? - How is it currently articulated? - Civil society is not articulated - Opportunities identification Conclusions: - Food banks are born worldwide in order to avoid losses and food waste to contribute to the food and nutrition security of the vulnerable population. - A logistical infrastructure is required for the rescue of food and a network of donors. - Both agricultural production and industry are currently limited - It is important to do an analysis of food systems, with the current context in Venezuela in order to identify opportunities. Read less

Participants agreed on several solutions to mitigate this regional challenge, including the following: 1. Educational programs that demystify migration, spreading the information of the reality of those who migrate in search of food. 2. Implementation of co-responsibility models that offer worthy opportunities, eg. The new Colombian policies for the regularization of Venezuelan migrants. 3. Comprehensive analysis of food systems in Venezuela within the current context of the country. 4. Strengthening logistics to prevent food waste. 5. Creation of donation networks, necessary for the implement... Read moreation of food banks. Read less