Explore Official Dialogue Feedback

• Expertise cannot be fostered overnight. Policymakers themselves require a minimum comprehension of intersectoral solutions to food, nutrition and environmental challenges. Developing the next generation of researchers and practitioners requires multi-disciplinary investment well in advance. • Funding is central. It should be well-planned and diversified, so it’s not entirely externally driven. This will allow research agendas to be formulated by African institutions and academics. Certainty around long-term funding would give universities and research institutions the confidence to inv... Read moreests in their own systems that support high-quality teaching, learning and research • It is critical to develop systems for forecasting and proactively planning to fill gaps in research expertise and scientific systems. This means investing in data collection and cross-institutional information sharing (between and within governments and universities). • Communicating with policymakers and funders is of utmost importance for the future of evidence-based food system actions. Building capacity in stakeholder engagement and scientific communications, including expertise to liaise effectively and ethically with the private sector and political leaders should be a priority. • Linkages between research and policy should be prioritised. Involvement of researchers from myriad disciplines in designing education policy and interventions is paramount. But barriers exist in engaging with policymakers and funders. Policymaker involvement in processes of identifying capacity would instil a firmer understanding of the research process and the significance of these shortfalls for the wider economy and society. • The significant depth of indigenous and traditional knowledge systems across Africa should be more purposely brought inside curriculums. • Regional and international networks and platforms for teaching, learning and research are pivotal to promoting collaboration and sharing the latest evidence, technologies, lessons learnt and best practices. Read less

The UN Food System Summit promises to “launch bold new actions to transform the way the world produces and consumes food, delivering progress on all 17 Sustainable Development Goals.” An ambitious aim that reflects the urgency needed to address the profound global and local problems linked to existing food systems – from poor diets driving malnutrition and chronic disease, to the climate crisis, environmental degradation and widening inequities eroding the safety and sustainability of livelihoods. Many of these are shared global challenges, yet significant variations exist across regions... Read more and within diverse country contexts, where levels of food and nutrition security and safety are hugely divergent. While high level rhetoric around food system transformation is positive, it is critical to understand how the evidence-base needed to underpin, guide and re-evaluate such priorities and policies in different settings will be generated and sustained. Ambitious ideas and goals emerging from the Summit must be supported by robust types of information. The expertise to generate contextually appropriate and scientifically robust evidence (cutting across disciplines) in a timely way is arguably as important as the policies themselves. In other words… “A game changer!” But unlike statements drafted for the Summit, they cannot be produced in a matter of weeks or months. Generating evidence that spans disciplines and sectors is inherently complex, but not insurmountable. However, bottlenecks may exist in the pipeline of expertise, particularly in countries where existing capacity may not yet be sufficient. In light of, this, investing in systems of research, learning and sharing – within and among affected regions, particularly low- and middle income settings – will be paramount to steering context-specific interventions, informed by robust evidence-bases as food systems evolve. The political and financial commitments expected to flow from the Summit should extend to these systems, to ensure that support is provided ‘upstream’ to interdisciplinary curriculums and training, alongside mechanisms for cross-sectoral and multi-stakeholder research and learning collaboration. But before this can happen, a range of important questions must be better addressed, which this Dialogue sought to respond. These include, but are not limited to: • Both food systems and research will have to coevolve, one informed by the other in an ongoing fashion. How can we plan and invest in long-term research capacities needed to support this? • What type of capacities are needed to prioritise policies in an evidence-informed way? I.e. to generate evidence to understand what works, what does not, how to improve, who wins, who loses, trade-offs and co-benefits across diverse outcomes of interest, as well as cost-effectiveness and financing • How can countries identify and prioritize solutions that could be most catalytic for positive food system transformation, informed by evidence? • Multi-disciplinary expertise is needed in all regions to help address these questions and to underpin key recommendations from the Summit and beyond. By convening stakeholders across communities of research, education and policy, with a specific focus on the African context, this Independent Dialogue will provide a space for these important questions to be discussed, and for new concerns and considerations to be shared. Read less

In the seventh question of this dialogue, "how do young people participate in food transformation and the concept of" good food "go deep into society? There are some differences: Some participants believed that: ”I feel familiar and distant. This kind of personal practice problem is mentioned almost every time. Everyone deeply realizes that these social problems need to be internalized and externalized in practice, but they often feel helpless because there are too many system departments involved and it is difficult to implement and promote. As a youth, I hope to participate in the grain tr... Read moreansformation as much as I can, but I feel I can't start. Read less

This opinion only represents the views of the participants in this dialogue, not the views of the government: Participants' views are: Food security can be divided into ① quantity (❶ country: the quantity occupied can be self-sufficient to meet the needs of Chinese people❵world perspective: on the premise of meeting the domestic demand, we can also appropriately promote the improvement of product rate and contribute to solving the problem of food and clothing in the world. Food security is not only related to the national economic and political security, The deeper thinking is also relat... Read moreed to whether human beings can really get rid of hunger, survive and adapt to nature) ② quality: the food problem from production to use (such as preservation, excessive additives, harmful to human body), and whether the substances contained in it are worth using Indicators: indicators can also be divided into ① quantity: (❶ quantity of species ❶ product rate of grain) ② quality (❶ nutritious ❶ food that will not cause human disease or death) 4. The emergence of food security problems can be divided into three points + 5. Measures ① environment: food production will also be restricted by the environment. We need to reduce the dependence of food on the environment and form a sustainable food supply chain ② management methods of management: waste is also the key to food security (quantitative security), The management class can properly formulate some rules (for example, what punishment will be given to the number of grams left after eating). ③ in terms of concept, it is also an important issue of food security (for example, superstition, some people use animal protection as medicine to lead to violations and crimes - "ideal shines on China"). I think people should improve their understanding of food in terms of spiritual education. Read less

The purpose of this dialogue is to summarize the views of participants' youth groups, not the views of the government The dialogue summarized the following systemic perspectives on food security: 1. National and international level 2, social and global level 3, personal behavior level. As young people, they can mainly participate in the latter two levels. Of course, it is better to formulate relevant laws and regulations in the first level. Young people can learn from it and publicize it. You can also actively participate in relevant theme activities held by society and campus. From the perspe... Read morective of individual participants, you can strictly require yourself not to waste food, not to eat expired and deteriorated food, not to eat three no products, etc Read less

This independent dialogue is centered on the theme of "world food security". It is not only in response to the United Nations Food System Summit (unfss), but also hopes to explore social views, thoughts and suggestions under the theme of "world food security". We hope to invite outstanding young people from all walks of life to combine critical thinking, all-round perspective and multi fields, Jointly focus on "food security" and make suggestions for the convening of the summit! The dialogue adopted: 1. Briefly introduce yourself and talk about your understanding of "good food"? 2. Talk about ... Read morethe food security problems or experiences in your life? 3. What is food security and what are the main indicators to measure food security? 4. How did the problem of food security arise? 5. Brief introduction to the world food problem and its solutions? 6. What are the specific aspects of the weakening of food security awareness? 7. As young people, how should we participate in the transformation of food security? How to deepen the concept of "good food" into society? 8. What are the main solutions to the consensus reached by you? 9. If the discussants have different opinions, discuss and supplement the questions. 10. The collaborator summarizes the results of the group discussion And other issues were discussed in depth. Read less

Bioprotection / biocontrol and biobased inputs in general are not strongly enough in the radar of public policies nor in the reports and recommendations of key institutions related to Food Systems. EU policy, like the Green Deal and Farm to Fork strategy could be very relevant tools to create space and incentives for the bio-based solutions sector to innovate and develop. Generally, creating a system conducive to life is desirable and needed to accelerate the transition from the old eradication mindset that started around World War II in the EU. It is important to consider bioprotection and it... Read mores efficacy and benefits within the context of the whole agricultural system considering positive and negative externalities for farmers, nature and society when comparing its performance to conventional / chemical pesticides. Distribution channels in some countries are structured under a rebate system where chemicals are rebated more than biologicals as system is set up for chemicals and are supplied by large companies while biocontrol is mostly supplied by SMEs and they tend not to operate within the rebate system. This varies by country but is a systemic block to biocontrol. Read less

Discussion Topic 5: In reference to Tolerance Limits and Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) could bioprotection products be accepted in international trade without quantitative restrictions (analytical methodology to determine presence) much like organic commodities are mutually recognized via international agreements? • Currently, there is not an internationally accepted methodology for biological products to determine if they have residues of toxicological concern • In at least one country, regulators have the authority to accept foreign products without MRLs, but the regulator would conduct ... Read moreits own risk-based assessment as needed and if there was a hazard concern, it would establish an MRL • Codex is working on nonbinding guidelines for low-risk products. Accelerating this process is instrumental to avoid MRLs turning into unnecessary trade barriers to bioprotection (biobased) products. • Some regulators will accept scientifically robust waiver rationales in place of field data, others won’t. • When growers try to export crops that have had biological products that are exempt from tolerance applied to them, they are being asked by some regulators to provide country of origin MRL information, which is creating a barrier to trade. • There are some examples of joint regulatory review programs (e.g., EPA/PMRA). • Nations with the most stringent regulatory schemes will expect other countries to “come up” to satisfy those standards. • MRL lab testing capability will require extensive capacity building in some areas • There are several regional efforts already underway to harmonize MRL requirements for biological products at least within that particular geographic region. • Global harmonization for MRLs for bioprotection products may be extremely difficult, but regional harmonization may be an easier first step. • A progressive or regional approach to resolve MRLs issue of becoming a trade barriers could be a good approach but it is important to avoid conflicting standards between countries that are exporting agricultural products in which bioprotection products were used and those countries that are importing those same products. Read less

Discussion Topic 4: What are the best ways to interact with food systems actors globally to increase the adoption of bio-based solutions? -Another big challenge is Transparency in sharing information on trials and products by extension workers/ agronomists such that no particular company/ product is unduly highlighted whilst promoting integrated food production systems that deliver desired environmental outcomes towards regenerative agricultural systems. -BioProtection has a yet to match the traction gained by biostumulants and bionutrients among big/ mega corporations. -Many growers are inter... Read moreested to achieve economic benefits of innovative Biologicals, along with environmental benefits. -Bio-products need concept promotion, companies have to invest in people, demonstrate field efficacy, build confidence in product use among both growers and Retailers. -A “good distribution network” is the key; integrating biological and chemical products; exploring partnerships with Large Companies; showcasing Bio-Products success stories on various crops, addressing different agricultural challenges, delivering value to growers, thus building strong relationships. -Making retailers focus on the Value Add/ Speciality of a Bio-Product. -For e.g., in Brazil the use of multi-action Bio-nematicides has increased due to issues of resistance to single-action Chemicals. Bio-fungicide use too is growing as part of control programs (not yet replacing chemicals). For Bio-insecticides, there is a need for more pest-specific products besides Beauveria, Bt-K, etc. -Public-Private Partnerships help in research and innovation of bio-products. -Technologies like sequencing soil micro biota can unlock value for small bio-product companies. -Eventually markets will help achieve a balance between chemical inputs and bio-products. -Large companies are partnering with / acquiring small bio-product companies to fast-track innovation with capital investment. -A good example of increasing market size by Industry action, is the Argentinian Chamber of Biobased products (CABIO), working to unite companies, which is supported by the national regulatory and control entities. It is developing a national agenda to: unify and strengthen the industry with participation from universities, pushing for approving a national bio-inputs law, publishing articles on bio-inputs to increase relevance in mainstream scientific peer reviews. Read less

Discussion Topic 4: What are the best ways to interact with food systems actors globally to increase the adoption of bio-based solutions? Regulatory: Even though Europe has is in general a very favorable environment for bio-based products, regulations and specially MRLs are a limitation for a quick and sustainable coordination with the food industry. The process is manufacturer-un-friendly and is time consuming, delaying/limiting quick responses to the requirements of the food industry. International coordination is needed by all stakeholders to increase the logic and the simplification of the... Read more requirements by authorities. Communication: Improved communication with the food chain to build together production schemes to fit the needs of farmers and food industry. For e.g., coffee production using bees to pollinate, a very positive method for farmers, which positively impacts the consumer, portraying coffee production as bee-friendly. Traceability helps engaging with the food industry, as it demonstrates safety to people and planet via Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) and precision farming. Demonstrate that Bio-based production is sustainable and safer for the food industry. Role of the OECD (Organization for the Economic Cooperation and Development) in influencing better policies and trade practices for improving quality of life. Generate and show new alternatives that, use of biologicals can fulfill needs of farmers and food industry. Using IPM by complementing Biologicals, with certain chemicals to enhance bio-products performance, without negative effects. Education and Communication is imperative to promote Biologicals. - Non-Tariff Trade Barriers adopted by the EU i.e., rigid regulatory regime and MRLs among other are the biggest barriers to increase adoption of Biologicals. - Need to establish technical criteria for the registration of biobased products, not just to fit them in the rules of chemical products. - Suggestion: a global initiative for a technical discussion to prove that establishing MRLs for biological products is not appropriate. - There is a global need for Bio-inputs produced food to be recognized as a safer and more sustainable production system. Contextually, more sustainable means providing measurable economic, social and ecological benefits (KPIs). Practically, bio-inputs must provide concrete benefits to farmers, by optimizing resources, creating value or greater acceptance of the final product by consumers. - Digital solutions, precision farming (drones), traceability and certification are important tools to support communication globally (e.g., bee friendly technologies to control pests during the pre-flowering and flowering period). - Showcasing best practices helps to share successes of Biologicals in achieving more sustainable agricultural systems. For e.g. in Brazil, the market for biologicals on soy, sugar cane, coffee, fruits, vegetables, is expected to grow about 33% in 2021. The biggest challenge in enabling sustainable growth of biological is creating awareness among farmers on efficient use of high-quality products. -The use of Biologicals drastically reduces the carbon footprint and climate change effects of Chemical Products -Biologicals industry needs to engage more with NGOs, Regulators and control entities interested in reducing carbon footprint in Agriculture and on the table impact of crop inputs. -Imperative for Biologicals industry to support science-based initiatives and protocols to have carbon neutral supply chains and demonstrate that Biologicals reduce carbon footprint. -Important actors are producer and consumer groups, engaging with other actors interested in promoting Biologicals, so that the importance of Bio-based food production is understood by stores and brands. -The key influencers in agricultural production are important actors including retailers, agronomists, university extension specialists that can block or promote Bio-based adoption. Small-Medium Bio-Products producers can’t match resource allocation of large agro-chemical companies for engaging the key influencers/ actors. Read less

Discussion Topic 3: Possible solutions and recommendations to resolve regulatory and registration bottlenecks for bioprotection products • Global positive list of products for biocontrol: this could provide a way for authorities to fast track registration of these products. Note that industry holds this data and can provide it and should be part of this solution. Industry needs to be trusted more to provide the solution. Example cited was Bacillus subtilus, it makes no difference if tests are done in US, Europe or Colombia the result will be the same so we should pool these results. The WHO ... Read moreperiodically releases a list of Essential/ Critical/ Life-Saving medicines as a recommendation for use in many countries; why not a similar approach to biologicals? • Need of an international body of experts in biocontrol that authorities can refer to obtain expert advice when authorising a biocontrol product. • Fast track on a regional basis as f.i. FAO has done on the Fall Army work (FAW) project with biocontrol solutions. Enablers for authorities trying to register biocontrol: • Terms of reference for making biocontrol evaluations - Use FAO guidance although noted that this is too detailed and onerous for some so the global positive list (see above) is a good option • Specific biocontrol guidelines wanted for Brazil and EU. Existing regulation in these countries are still based on chemical legislation. However, Colombia and South Africa have specific ones but it is not easy to register products in these countries either due to other factors and regulations impacting the authorisation process. Additional challenges once countries have a specific regulation are: • Money – need substantial investment to register a biological and bio-based companies generally have less money than chemical companies (usually smaller and less developed) • Fast track – need fast track approach e.g. 420 days to registration (South Africa) is too long for companies to wait for a return on their investment • Teaching farmers and advisers – need to explain how a product should be used for best results – managing expectation of the farmers is key • Efficacy – biologicals are often seen as not as efficacious as chemicals – this can be used against the biological in a sales setting. Important to explain that efficacy should be seen in the widest context of yield and quality and season long control as part of the overall system. This is a change in thinking. • In some situations, chemicals provide control and in others they do not. An example is the use of Tuta absoluta where no chemical worked and control is now entirely biological. • Capacity for laboratory testing and performing regulatory studies especially analytical capability. • National situations may be specific like in South Africa – Cape biodiversity site means that any introduced biological must be carefully evaluated to check fit in this unique environment. General points • As industry we have to explain to the world that there are many good examples of biocontrol • Need to make industry part of the solution as they hold many of the solutions and the understanding – there is a role for Associations in explaining this. • Recommendation of simple regulation for biocontrol including market access with fast track. Read less