Explore Official Dialogue Feedback

1.TWG1 and TWG2 > According to the experiences consulted, the focus is on agriculture organic production, economic efficiency, as well as the reduction of environmental impacts. Another relevant aspect is the use of technology in soil protection practices, low carbon emission strategies, and the importance of NAMAs to promote the adoption of technologies. The importance of respecting the specific characteristics of the countries on a technical and scientific basis, as well as economic and productive efficiency, was emphasized. The importance of technical assistance and dialogue with the agr... Read moreicultural and environmental sectors was key. It was also mentioned that each country has its own approved public policies related to the environment and agriculture. Finally, it is important to take into account food security and sovereignty, limited resources to implement climate actions, the resistance of producers to change adopted practices, as well as investment in research. Climate management should be one of the factors to be taken into account in the climate agenda, considering the climate agenda as a whole and not only mitigation; conservation and adaptation are more important. 2. At the TWG3 extensionists' roundtable, it was noted that, in terms of who has benefited from adaptation and mitigation practices in the region to address climate change, it has benefited the producer family. Agroecological practices with local knowledge have been captured. When discussing the results and/or impacts of the implementation of these practices, they focus on the fact that they have had to face the chemical degradation of soils. In the coastal drylands of the O'Higgins region in Chile, the adaptation to water deficit conditions was noted. Work has been done on soil water conservation. Regarding key actors for the implementation of these practices, in the case of Mexico, there is the integration of multiple actors. In the case of Chile, they highlighted the role of PRODESAL, the central axis for reaching farmers. Finally, in terms of constraints, they suggested learning by doing with others, co-construction with local actors with the support of science. In short, it is important for farmers to incorporate the use of technologies. The producers' roundtable of TWG3 addressed the different practices implemented in agriculture. There were participants from Guatemala, Argentina, Chile, and Mexico. It was discussed that there are several practices that make up a strategy. Water management, agrosilvopastoral management, aspects of dynamic bio-agriculture, seeds, and plants that adapt to climate variability were highlighted. In turn, the importance of linking agricultural practices and the community with other schools and markets, as well as with the final consumer. Demonstration of practices is important. The involvement of a larger network of technicians from research institutions, markets, schools, among others, was mentioned as a factor in the success of these practices to mitigate climate change in agriculture. Finally, it was mentioned that these practices should be low-cost and adaptable to different situations. Finally, with regard to the network of actors, it was identified that the reaction among actors is key to a successful strategy: producers, professionals or extensionists, governmental and research institutions, among others. 3. TWG4 indicated that the research experiences in the agriculture and livestock areas are the search for species that are resistant to arid conditions. Climate variability is being incorporated into aspects of agriculture and livestock. At the same time, other elements are being sought to adapt, such as the use of microorganisms to promote the resistance of species to water stress and pests. Another important element is the search for mechanisms to add value to products. On the other hand, in aquaculture and agriculture, it was mentioned that climate variability should be considered in the management of resources. The challenges are to face the problem from an intersectoral point of view, to incorporate the topic from a local point of view, and how to disseminate research results to interested persons (farmers). Read less

The regional dialogue focus to promote a space for public and private sector actors, research institutes, universities, farmers' organizations, producers, and extensionists from Latin America and the Caribbean to share their experiences in the agricultural sector and food systems at the subnational, national or regional level, considering their impacts, and finding new ways to unite in accordance with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). During the first part of the event, there was a brief presentation about how to achieve balance in LAC agri-food systems: addressing the climate crisis w... Read morehile fighting poverty, combating hunger and malnutrition, and preserving resilient ecosystems. Then, four break-out rooms were created around the following topics: a) Public Policies in the context of adaptation and mitigation of climate change (TGW1 and TWG2); b) Knowledge transfer and good practices (focus on extensionists and producers) /TWG3; c) Research, development, and technological innovation (TWG4). After the group discussions, participants had the opportunity to present their a resume in the plenary, in order to show possible future pathways and provide concrete lines of action. After the plenary, the Presidency of PLACA emphasized that the global problem of climate change is not foreign to the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean. Local impacts require their own solutions, as well as the identification of the regional space as a spill-over of knowledge to reduce climate vulnerability. PLACA is an opportunity to generate regional synergy and be able to talk about local impacts, as well as how countries can enrich and collaborate with each other through science, innovation, and research. He emphasized strengthening the capacity for climate action in agriculture. Read less

There were more elements of convergence, rather than significant areas of divergence, during the short event.

1. Promote collaborative One-Health approaches and develop agri-food value chains rooted in international standards to boost market access. 2. Further strengthen cooperation between SPS authorities and other relevant agencies, including those addressing customs, border management and environment. 3. Increase public-private dialogue on SPS issues to build trust and create new opportunities for collaboration. 4. Learn how cross-cutting issues have been addressed in other sectors, and develop and roll out new approaches to support gender mainstreaming in SPS capacity development. 5. Design interv... Read moreentions to reach more small-scale farmers and business operators, and increase access to financing mechanisms to meet international standards. 6. Clearly identify and communicate the business case for SPS investments, including through use of the STDF's evidence-based P-IMA framework to prioritize SPS investments for market access. Members of STDF's global partnership will further discuss how to address these actions areas within the STDF's global partnership as part of future workplans under the STDF's Strategy for 2020-2024. Other work carried out by STDF partners and other STDF members will also contribute to these action areas. Read less

The STDF Independent Dialogue highlighted why facilitating safe trade matters for food systems transformation, and how interventions to build sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) capacity for trade can have even greater domestic impacts including to to improve food safety for domestic populations. There has been a huge increase in global agri-food exports, from US$32.1 billion in 1961 to US$1,448.6 billion in 2018. This increases the need to manage SPS risks linked to trade, and also to better understand the complexities and trade-offs linked to the implementation of SPS measures. For instance, tr... Read moreade-offs related to the relationship between food safety compliance, trade and food security, such as questions related to the local sale and consumption of products that do not meet standards for export. These linkages and trade-offs are complex, with positive as well as potentially negative effects depending on the specific context. Trade plays a significant role in economic growth, job creation and poverty reduction. Trade benefits vulnerable groups, including women and youth, and generates other positive impacts on domestic systems. While there is recognition that SPS capacity building and trade contributes to the Sustainable Development Goals – including cross-cutting impacts on gender equity, environmental impacts and sustainability, and other domestic impacts – there is a need to better understand these interactions and, in particular, to move from recognition to mainstreaming. Firstly, research has highlighted the linkages between gender and trade (including the Joint WTO declaration on Women and Trade in 2017). For instance, that women are disadvantaged in national and international food systems, or that they are more likely to be found in the informal trade sector, to face higher export costs and/or to be excluded in processes to promote compliance with SPS measures. In general, gender is not well mainstreamed in the design of SPS measures and SPS capacity building activities. Secondly, on environmental impacts and sustainability, there are critical interplays between the implementation of SPS measures and efforts to promote sustainable agriculture. For instance, SPS measures may be associated with the improved and/or reduced use of pesticides, which is critical for sustainable agriculture. However, while this is recognized to some extent, it is inadequately mainstreamed. Thirdly, the inter-linkages between SPS capacity development, trade and domestic impacts are not well articulated. While it is assumed that increasing SPS capacity to promote trade to regional and international markets generates wider, indirect domestic benefits (for instance for firms and groups not directly involved in trade), it is difficult to find examples of these indirect "domestic spillovers" in practice because they not identified and streamlined in the design of the capacity building efforts, and therefore not measured. Moving forward, the key question is how to mainstream gender, environmental sustainability, and domestic issues in the SPS arena around trade? This also very much depends on the stakeholders who are engaged, and the frameworks used for priority-setting and decision-making. The importance of partnerships for food systems transformation was emphasized. The STDF's multi-stakeholder partnership can play a role in promoting better practices to support the mainstreaming of these issues and food systems transformations. For instance, the STDF's evidence-based framework to prioritize SPS investment options for trade (P-IMA) identifies cross-cutting issues (including gender, environmental impacts and domestic impacts) as key decision criteria to be considered in ranking SPS investment priorities for market access. This is one example of an effort to begin to mainstream these topics. Other key messages from the panel discussion addressed the following: • the importance of international standards to promote harmonization and facilitate trade in support of food systems transformation. • the importance of greater transparency, engagement and more effective collaboration (including with the right partners) to strengthen results. This includes, for instance, collaboration and partnerships across diverse public sector stakeholders working across SPS systems and trade facilitation, as well as public-private cooperation. • The role and added-value of the "One Health" approach to promote synergies and address interconnected global issues (such as trade in wildlife or antimicrobial resistance) related to food safety, animal health and domestic public health. • the crucial role of the private sector and the need to find new ways to leverage the private sector's knowledge to drive innovation and for the public and private sector to work together more effectively and with greater impact. • the need for substantially increased resources and action to make access to safe and nutritious food a right, not a privilege. • the importance of a food chain approach and utilizing systems-based approaches to strengthen food safety as well as plant and animal health for trade that contributes to food systems transformation in a way that promotes gender equity, as well as environment sustainability and other domestic impacts. • emerging opportunities to promote innovation, including digitalization, to facilitate safe trade that mainstreams cross-cutting issues and promotes gender equity and environmental sustainability. Read less

The Dialogue focused on how the implementation of international standards (including Codex standards for food safety) and the facilitation of safe trade contribute to the transformation of food systems and the UN's Sustainable Development Goals. Recognizing the importance and urgency of such transformation to deliver food security for the future, the Dialogue aimed to better understand and position the facilitation of safe trade towards this outcome. Trade helps to create jobs, improve incomes, attract investment and boost economic growth. Meeting international standards for food safety, anima... Read morel and plant health is essential to facilitate safe trade. Safe trade enables developing countries to participate in and benefit from export-oriented agri-food value chains that generate employment and promote sustainable economic development. Safe trade protects the health of consumers, animals and plants, while helping to mitigate and adapt to the risks posed by climate change, promoting sustainable development. International standards for food safety, animal and plant health are at the core of STDF's work to facilitate safe and inclusive trade horizons for developing countries, building on STDF's Strategy for 2020-2024 "Safe and Inclusive Trade Horizons for Development Countries". Meeting these standards results in effective national food control, veterinary and phytosanitary systems, which facilitate safe trade, in line with the WTO's Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. Meeting these standards promotes agricultural development, protects the environment and helps to mitigate against the risks of climate change. Like agri-food systems, effective SPS systems depend on inter-disciplinary, cross-sectoral and inclusive multi-stakeholder processes and approaches that cut across agriculture, health, environment, trade and development to enable diverse stakeholders to achieve more and stronger results together than would be possible alone. The STDF Dialogue engaged members of STDF's global partnership to: • Share experiences and learning about innovative and collaborative safe trade solutions in Africa, Asia and the Pacific and Latin America and the Caribbean, and explore how they are contributing to food systems transformation. • Reflect on how ongoing trends – from the growth in regional and South-South trade to digitalization and inclusive and sustainable trade – are influencing SPS capacity development, and what this means for food systems transformation. • Identify new opportunities for STDF's global partnership to influence and catalyse sustainable improvements in SPS systems that support agri-food systems to deliver for the world of tomorrow. Read less