Explore Official Dialogue Feedback

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

Discussion Topic 2: Are there new feasible approaches to streamline harmonized, proportionate, cost / efficient, collaborative global regulatory frameworks for biobased inputs? • More often than not, there is a copy paste of requirements from the Chemical products – a Hangover from the Chemical Regime, which needs new approaches, fresh outlook, open mindset, new talent of abilities and expertise. • Market size and not need is what mainly determines resources for registration, which causes many small countries to lose out on beneficial products/ technologies. • Sometimes a simple answer... Read more submitted to a simple question asked, generates a knee-jerk reaction of data requirement overload (sometimes/ usually not needed/ required or even unrealistic), which is a major challenge. There is a need for harmonization between nations, which could be facilitated by transnational discussion. There is a need for more bioprotection experts and the formation of independent expert groups, which could be at a regional or national level to whom regulators and companies can refer for sound scientific advice. This is because even where there is a specific regulation, there is not enough knowledge, expertise to address biocontrol. In addition, there is a need to consider commercialization problems due to a distribution system built around chemicals. Bioprotection works best in a system approach and managing expectations explaining how and when biologicals work often requires mindset change in farmers, advisers and distribution. We do have great examples such as Tuta absoluta. In particular in Brazil and Europe we need a specific regulation while Colombia does have it but apart from export crops it does not effectively solve problems elsewhere in the value chain (i.e produce for national consumption) since there is no official control for Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) of chemical pesticides sprayed. Harmonisation between countries is necessary and on a global basis companies and NG0s have a role. A real issue is lack of expertise in evaluating biocontrol. Read less

Discussion Topic 2: Are there new feasible approaches to streamline harmonized, proportionate, cost / efficient, collaborative global regulatory frameworks for biobased inputs? • The main challenges are at the national level. where individual countries have a duty to ensure safety to protect their citizens and environment. • FAO guidelines http://www.fao.org/3/i8091e/i8091e.pdf to register for the registration of microbial, botanical and semiochemical pest control agents for plant protection and public health uses can be used as a basis for guidelines at national and regional level. • On... Read morece developed guidance then needs to be used to authorise products. Here a lack of expertise in risk assessment of products can be a problem and delay market access. • Ensuring expertise, or at least someone to talk to if no expertise as well as a transnational committee could speed up evaluations. • Regional approach, registration for chemicals currently exists but could be used for biologicals too. Examples of regional collaboration eg In Colombia there is also the Comunidad Andina where Colombia works together with Ecuador and other countries. So regional differences also come out of the registrations. • In some countries biologicals are dealt within the chemical legislation - this can cause delays since chemical pesticides legislations were designed to handle the risks of contaminant and hazardous substances. Examples are Brazil and Europe where a specific regulation for biologicals would speed up registrations. To effectively and efficiently authorise bioprotection products requires a bioprotection specific approach. • In countries where there is a specific regulation e.g. Colombia other problems manifest themselves in this case lack of analytical capacity in country. • Distribution channels are set up for chemicals with financial and advisory structures associated with chemicals, This means biologicals face financial and advisory challenges to enter the distribution channel as they are not supported with the same finances (often supplied by SMEs) and advise on how to use bioprotection requires a systems thinking and not a direct replacement or comparison to chemicals. Direct comparison of efficacy is not therefore a "fair" comparison. Bioprotection needs more support from the government and companies to try to access the market. Changes in financial reward and advisory systems within the channel are necessary. Product use needs to be considered within a holistic farming system approach. • Bioprotection companies are often SMEs (80%). Often small companies have financial and resource difficulties with the whole regulation and market access process, so additional support is especially relevant to an SME focussed industry • As an industry, we need to show when and where biocontrol works better than chemicals (and sometimes it is the other way around, indeed it is true, it is not a war). F.i. until the pheromone for Tuta absoluta, the pest was destroying tomatoes across the world but this Is now manageable with bioprotection. • Bioprotection works best within a systems approach, which can be a challenge to manage expectations and explain how they work, in specific situations. It is a change in mindset and distribution channel reset that is required to ensure farmers understand how they work and where they work the best. • The situation is different in each country. National priorities have to be considered when harmonising regulation such as South Africa where there are several Biodiversity hotspots protected by different laws. • A global positive list for biocontrol, that could then be a fast track for approval in the specific countries. • Develop the role of associations, bring in government officials, associations that can help developments of guidelines and recommendations. We need that all the stakeholders in the industry work together because we cannot only rely on public authorities work. Read less

Discussion Topic 1: What are the actions needed to accelerate the adoption of biobased agricultural inputs as key contributors to food systems transformation? • Education and communication around biobased inputs at all levels is critical, starting with farmers who need to understand their benefits and how to use these. Transferring knowledge at the farmer’s level is critical. • Next generations of farmers need to understand this to ensure from now a broader implementation in the future. • It is essential to have a global curriculum where agronomists and other related professionals can ... Read morebe trained in holistic management understanding bio-inputs as a key tool. • At the farmer’s level, especially small farmers, there is a lot of distrust and lack of confidence on the effectiveness of biobased products. This occurs because technicians and field advisors don’t have a unified discourse and are often not proficient in the philosophy and correct use of biobased products. • Greater consumer awareness about the benefits of bio-based agricultural inputs is needed. This awareness can boost producer’s preference for bio-inputs. • Private, public, and academic institutions working with biobased agricultural inputs need to work closer to develop public policies that put biobased inputs in the mainstream discussions. • Governments shall develop incentives for farmers to use these types of products considering their positive externalities for society and nature (e.g. market securities and protection against the risks of harvest loss). • Under the current paradigm of pest management most farmers do not perceive biological products as effective as chemical pesticides. • Registration and approval times must be shortened eliminating regulatory hurdles and duplications from one country to another. On average a biobased product can be developed in 2 to 3 years, but in many countries its approval by the relevant authorities takes 5 years in many countries, making its commercial acceptance and adoption very slow and expensive. • Brazil could be an example of successful collaboration to promote a “national biobased inputs plan” integrating different stakeholders including the government, research institutions, and the private sector (industry and farmers) to stimulate the use of biobased agricultural inputs. • In some countries, consumers are not ready to pay a premium price for clean biobased produce. This may be a constraint for smallholder producers to adopt these solutions. • The linear way of thinking that the petrochemical technologies left as legacy is not easy to surpass. Biobased inputs work as part of holistic systems and therefore, the way of thinking cannot be linear. • Harmonization of international terms and definitions regarding bioprotection and biocontrol is needed since internationally diverse terms are used with varying meanings. This would also facilitate international trade. Read less

Bioprotection inputs comprise only 5% of the global market share of crop protection solutions. The concept of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) indicates that chemical, biological, and cultural solutions shall be integrated for an effective pest management. Adoption rates indicate that a true implementation of IPM that takes into account biological (nature based) solutions, is still far from being a reality. A systemic approach that delivers exponential change towards massive adoption through transformative partnerships, appropriate public policies (that acknowledge the importance of enhancing ... Read morethe development and adoption of these type of bio-based solutions to sustainably boost productivity) and streamlined, proportionate, harmonized, “globally-local” and collaborative regulatory frameworks that enable the registration of alternatives (to chemical and fossil fuel based pesticides and fertilizers) that minimize duplications, overlaps and unnecessary costs, whilst optimizing data requirements/waivers and clearing Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) requisites and protocols, are some of the key factors for the successful expansion of these technologies worldwide. Fundamental elements and triggers for this to happen are: • Education and training • Proportionate and harmonized regulatory frameworks • Public policies and incentives • Systems thinking (which in agriculture is instrumental to understand the role of biology (life) and biobased (biological) inputs) Read less

Biobased agricultural inputs (bioprotection, biofertilizers, and biostimulants) represent today only 5% of the global market share of agricultural inputs. Bioprotection and in general terms bioag inputs are nature based, strategic technologies and readily available solutions to achieve several of the UNFS Summit´s objectives. The consolidation and expansion of a robust biobased inputs industry is an instrumental bridge to achieve sustainable food systems, through biosolutions that facilitate the transition towards a more nature positive and resilient agriculture that is better prepared for th... Read moree global climate crisis and catalyze the achievement of the UN 2030 SDGs, the CBD, and the Paris Climate Agreement. Today’s science, technology and innovation allow us to be optimistic about biobased solutions catalyzing the achievement of these goals. Proven advances in bioprotection / biocontrol, biofertilizers and biostimulants development and introduction (into multiple scales of productive systems) together with data science and digital technologies, are setting new frontiers in terms of sustainable production and productivity increases, as well offering promising new perspectives for regenerating soil health, biodiversity and ecosystems functions. The challenge is to focus that potential and make it deliver all its benefits in terms of reaching the wider audience (farmers around the world) through increased (massive) adoption to decarbonize agriculture and covert in a nature based solution to nutritiously feed the global population while regenerating vital ecosystems and planetary biocapability. The immense majority of biobased products has not demonstrated issues around toxicity, persistence in the soil or water, nor residues on food crops. Hence, these don’t pose a risk to humans, non-target organisms nor the environment. Bioprotection Global (or BPG, the Convenor) considers that the bioprotection industry (and biobased inputs industry in general) does not have the visibility that it deserves amongst key stakeholders (invited to this Dialogue) in consideration to the potential added value that it can (and in some sectors and geographies is already delivering) to the agri-food systems including the primary production sector, the consumers and society and nature at large. It is of utmost importance for the bioprotection industry to understand and anticipate the profound transformations that the food systems are undergoing in order to boost the adoption of bio-based solutions. Food systems are nowadays dendritic and present features of complex systems: i.e. entirety, emergence, interrelations, non-linearity, feedbacks, self-organization, adaptation, counter-intuitive nature, time perspective and hierarchical organization. To intensify their complexity, they are multiple and develop themselves in coexistence with hybridizations, synergies, complementarities, coevolution, confrontations, competitions or exclusions. The Food Systems Summit 2021 is an opportunity for BPG to raise awareness of food systems actors about the potential contribution of the bioprotection and bioag inputs industry in general to the elaboration of solutions and strategies to deliver progress on all 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which rely on healthier, more sustainable and more equitable food systems. It is also a tremendous opportunity for BPG to explore and identify new ways to interact with food systems stakeholders globally to achieve its purpose i.e. “the adoption of bio-based solutions designed to protect crops, forests, people, homes and life on Earth” especially through broadening its audience, synergies, and collaborations among food systems actors. Read less

Overall, there were no substantial divergence in views and perspectives regarding the roles of AEAS. What was observed during the dialogue was relative diversity in views on which issues are of paramount importance, without necessarily downplaying the importance of other aspects. Some participants placed greater emphasis on informing farmers of the ever growing set of multi-functional roles that agrifood systems in achieving sustainable development goals, ranging from not only productivity, but also soil health, efficient post-harvest handling to reduce food loss and waste. Participates also e... Read moremphasize different aspects of capacity enhancement efforts that are particularly critical for AEAS. These range from focusing on enhancing skills of existing extension staff, or recruiting and training new staff, whether to focus on skills on businesses, group dynamics to promote efficient collective actions, or focusing on developing soft skills and light skills on communications, whether to continue strengthening the focus on production (for which challenges continues to remain substantial), or broader issues along the entire food systems. Some participants also place greater emphases on informing farmers of how natural resources are increasingly becoming scarce, while others significantly emphasized the role of digital technologies as the utmost importance in enabling AEAS systems in coming era. Other participants highlighted particularly the importance of cultivating greater economic incentives that lead to greater market-orientation and commercial aspirations of smallholder farmers. They emphasized that, developing markets themselves is insufficient in the short-to-medium terms because farmers cannot, in short term, efficiently develop capacity to develop market-intelligence, for example, conducting cost-benefit analyses of their farm production, gathering accurate information about the market demand including quality, safety or nutrient values of food commodities. Some participants place greatest importance in enhancing AEAS capacity to inform and educate farmers and other food system actors on how to adapt to evolving food environment under the accelerating global climate change. Much as mobilizing AEAS for modern production technologies is important, participants also emphasized the importance of continued support for informing farmers to address challenges that arise in more traditional production systems, that are rainfed and more extensive that continue rely on relatively limited quantity of modern inputs. Others emphasized the need to capacitate farmers to deal with, for example, low input quality, transportation of harvests and outputs, credit-market imperfections. Some participants also emphasized that, AEAS should not be try to promote sustainable agriculture, nutrition-sensitive agriculture, and market-oriented agriculture. Some participants argued that, for example, AEAS promoting market-orientation tends to place less emphasis on providing complementary nutrition education to farm household members. Similarly, some participants argued that, part of the existing AEAS in certain countries like Uganda continue to biased toward export-oriented agriculture, with insufficient attention to food and nutrition security. Other participants place greater emphases on scaling up successful interventions. They mention, for example, the potential of developing agricultural commercialization cluster in which farmers are clustered to improve their access to both inputs and outputs markets through collection actions that exploit economies of scale, as well as strengthening of farmer-training center which is a promising institution in which knowledge of successful AEAS interventions can be more effectively disseminated among farmers. Some participants continue to emphasize the importance of supplementing AEAS with sufficient provisions of successful materials, including, for example, quality protein maize, legumes, post-harvest handling, introducing metal silo. Other participants also continue to emphasize the importance of domestic agricultural R&D capacity, as critical providers of improved technologies, without which AEAS cannot effectively enhance the productivity of food system actors. Read less

Breakout room 3: Market-oriented agriculture and the roles of agricultural Extension and Advisory Services 1. What are three tangible ways that AEAS can contribute to food system transformation through promoting sustainable agriculture? - Farmer training remains critical in fostering commercial mindset, entrepreneurship, improving farmers' skills to negotiate and engage with market actors, conduct market-surveys and analyses, make critical decisions in terms of identify appropriate markets to sell - Curriculum overhaul or revisions for extension service providers, expanding more materials on m... Read morearket-oriented approach, value-chain oriented approaches, so that they can empower farmers to undertake different aspects of engaging and interacting with markets; revisions in curriculum can include marketing, entrepreneurships, having market-oriented extension approaches, value-chain based extension focuses, and leveraging more with ICT - Focus on mobilizing farmers into business-entities, by encouraging the formation of groups and collective actions when engaging with market actors, accessing necessary resources for required investments, through the provision of incentive mechanisms for them to shift from current subsistence agriculture to commercial agriculture - In addition, support for promoting the development of institutions providing AEAS, including institutions that provide market information, remains crucial 2. What action tracks or clusters or coalitions should take up the recommendation? - Track 4 – Advance equitable livelihoods: - Track 5 – Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress: which are both expected to be achieved as AEAS successfully enhance farmers' aspirations to be more market-oriented, as increased market sales help smallholder and vulnerable farmers to transform their farming into more reliable source of economic livelihoods, and also enhance their resilience against future shocks through improved financial resources Read less

Breakout room 2: Promoting nutrition-sensitive agriculture and the roles of agricultural Extension and Advisory Services 1. What are three tangible ways that AEAS can contribute to food system transformation through promoting sustainable agriculture? 2. What action tracks or clusters or coalitions should take up the recommendation? 3. What other actors should be brought on board? Collectively, the following approaches are considered effective: Increase nutrition awareness among service providers and clients - Without assuming that the knowledge on nutrition by farmers is sufficient, it is impo... Read morertant to recognize that the knowledge including that of researchers and extension staff is still basic Engage not only the mothers but need to also communicate with entire families and communities - Without the support from the entire family, informing mothers can only have limited effects on bringing actual nutritional outcomes of the household members Foster collaboration between health and ag extension service providers (will require reskilling) - Agricultural extension agents typically have limited skillsets and knowledge on nutrition and health - Ministries of Health and NGOs working in nutrition and health domains have advanced their skillsets and knowledge in recent years - It is critical for agricultural extension agents to collaborate with these groups to expand their knowledge and skillsets on nutrition and health, and their links with agriculture Promote diversity of production and consumption for income generation and balanced diets - Improved nutrition can be achieved through diversity in both production and consumption - Income generation is also important achieving this diversity through consumption of more nutrient-dense food from both animals and plants, which tend to be more available through market developments Package extension material around nutrition sensitive agriculture, promote nutrient dense plants and animal sourced foods as they can complement each other - While specific agricultural production and other practices may be effective under certain circumstances, they may only achieve a limited set of outcomes, like achieving higher productivity alone without necessarily bringing in improved production of a range of micronutrients - It is therefore critical to incorporate nutrients and their diversity in designing agricultural extension programs Use media around food preparation, food safety, etc. (including apps) - Modern digital media, including smart phones, can be utilized to convey information on agricultural practices and their implications on nutrients, in more practical and creative ways - These approaches help conveying messages to farmers that the improved nutrition-sensitive production process is not simply about raw materials (nutrient-dense plants, animals and fish), but how to handle, process and store them safely (relating to food safety) in ways that minimize food-borne diseases Track nutrition related indicators (e.g., increase in dietary diversity) - Retooling extension staff and overall human resources engaging in AEAS of newer skillsets on Monitoring & Evaluation is critical - Train extension staff and other relevant actors on key indicators on nutrition and health, and linkages with agricultural production; such training also empower these staff in gathering these indicators Partnerships across broader set of actors are key in developing AEAS to address emerging needs for transforming food systems in nutrition-sensitive ways - While the private sector can play roles, allocating sufficient public resources is critical for AEAS to achieve critical knowledge and technology dissemination to transform food systems Read less

Breakout room 1: Promoting sustainable agriculture and the roles of agricultural Extension and Advisory Services 1. What are three tangible ways that AEAS can contribute to food system transformation through promoting sustainable agriculture? - Continuing and scaling-up existing climate-smart agriculture, nature-positive agriculture development and promotion initiatives. These include the following: - Training and capacity building of farmers on the use of weather / climate-based information, soil-quality testing, risk management, and management of other information - Training and capacity bui... Read morelding of farmers on new areas including payment for ecosystem services, incentive mechanisms for farmer-adoption of new sustainable practices, instead of simply providing subsidies; these approaches may bring the benefits more in the medium-to-longer terms, but with higher cost-efficiency overall - Promoting agricultural-resource based incentives through showcasing and field demonstration to improve knowledge ownership by farmers themselves 2. What action tracks or clusters or coalitions should take up the recommendation? - Action tracks 2: Shift to sustainable consumption patterns - Action tracks 3: Boost nature-positive production both of which benefit significantly through improvement management of ecosystems 3. What other actors should be brought on board? - Bring private-sector, and promote public-private partnership like Sasakawa Africa Association (SAA), universities, government ministries - Diversify activities beyond traditional extension programs to ensure bilateral and multilateral cooperation partnership and cooperation, instead of simply relying on public-extension Read less

Farmers remain central to food system transformation. How to share knowledge and information with farmers, while critical, has been one of the most often neglected issues in transforming today's food system. Participants agreed with various key issues associated with agricultural extension and advisory services (AEAS) within the food system. First, it was re-emphasized that AEAS is one of the weakest links in the agrifood value chain, such that ensuring the successful transformation of food systems is not possible without significant strengthening of AEAS, no matter how much development is mad... Read moree in other elements of the food system. Second, scaling-up and scaling-out of successful AEAS models is urgently needed. Numerous pilot interventions based on different modes of AEAS have been implemented with insufficient evaluation and subsequent uptake elsewhere. Enhancing capacity is also critical for enabling such scaling-up / scaling-out. Third, building and strengthening institutions for AEAS continue to be essential. These include institutions for extension workers in general, through colleges, universities and technical/vocational training and continuing education for skill enhancement. While training individual staff is important, it is also crucial to simultaneously strengthen extension systems / institutions. Fourth, identifying and strengthening the enabling environment for AEAS is important. These include the policy environment and national extension policies / strategies, which not all countries have established. Critical strategies for the enabling environment also must be backed up by sufficient public resource allocation and funding. Developing sufficient public-resource mobilization toward extension is crucial in ensuring that extension efforts do not operate at individual farms or farming communities in isolation, but are connected back to the agrifood policies and strategies at the national level. Fifth, conscious efforts are needed to reorient the capacity building efforts for AEAS within a context that is becoming increasing broader. These means expanding from a traditional focus on production into broader aspects including climate change, emerging markets, nutrition-sensitivity, and sustainability. These should not be achieved by merely focusing on disseminating knowledge and skills exclusively through extension workers, but also mobilizing broader frameworks to support farmers from the bottom up to enable them to be market-oriented and market-intelligent, understanding and responding to market demand. It is equally important to strengthen extension systems, not only for production, but also along the entire value-chain focusing on marketing, consumption, environmental sustainability, food safety, and improved post-harvest handling. Sixth, AEAS can also benefit from, and drive improved inclusiveness, including engaging youth in food systems. Helping youth to join extension systems in both the formal and the informal sectors, by designing appropriate programs, is essential - whether as providers or recipients of AEAS. SAA's current approach offers valuable insights in this process. Seventh, digitization, digital transformation of extension systems, must be capitalized on more than ever to compensate for the low extension-to-farmer ratios in developing countries including those in Africa today. An e-extension platform implemented in Ethiopia, as well as successful apps developed and disseminated by SAA can offer useful lessons for other countries. Social behavioral changes are likely to play key roles in transforming eating patterns, dietary intake, and consumption behaviors. The discussions revealed that, especially in rural areas, much of these are both affected through direct communications to induce behavioral changes as well as the crop diversification at farm household levels, both of which can be directly informed through improved AEAS. The discussions also highlighted the need for transforming AEAS to meet regional food systems challenges, not only national challenges, given the fact that food systems are increasingly integrated globally, and sharing knowledge across countries is essential to exploit economies of scale in boosting the effectiveness of AEAS overall. Given the increasing complexity of challenges faced by today's food systems, it was also emphasized that it is essential to extend collaboration among diverse actors involved in AEAS, including health, environmental sectors, various government ministries, and sectoral organizations. Bringing together AEAS implementers and researchers, as is ongoing IFPRI-SAA collaborations, is important in enhancing AEAS effectiveness through positive evidence-implementation cycle. Along similar lines, combining governmental and private-sector systems remain some of the most effective options in strengthening AEAS. For example, while Ethiopia has large government extension system, other African countries like Uganda have AEAS systems primarily led by the private-sector leads (including farmer-to-farmer, village-agent systems). Harmonization between government and private systems is key for exploring the complementarity and synergies to boost overall effectiveness of AEAS. Lastly, as mentioned in the opening remarks, donors in developed countries like Japan continue to play critical roles in sustaining the effective functioning of AEAS that provide key public-goods in the form of knowledge and technologies to food system actors including smallholders. Read less

To feed its growing population amid climate change and other challenges, Africa needs a flourishing food system that is nutrition-sensitive, efficient, safe, healthy, and environmentally sustainable. This requires bringing modern technologies to local communities, helping stakeholders to acquire the relevant technical know-how, and building strong partnerships and institutions. Developed countries around the world, including Japan, can play important roles in these efforts. Disseminating modern technologies and enhancing knowledge and skills among Food Systems Actors are important components o... Read moref these efforts. Different models exist for agricultural extension and advisory services (AEAS). Considering these challenges in today’s global food systems, it is paramount that more consideration is given to the important role of AEAS as the primary enablers of enhancing knowledge and skills of food systems actors. Enhancing the effectiveness of AEAS, and providing relevant research and field evidence will require bold actions and new mindsets directed at enhancing human capital among food system actors to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. The Independent Dialogue was convened in partnership between the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and Sasakawa Africa Association (SAA) to discuss the role of AEAS for Food Systems Transformation in developing countries including Africa. Insights emerging from this multistakeholder dialogue will be presented to contribute to the United Nations Food System Summit (UNFSS) in September 2021. Transforming #foodsystems is among the most powerful ways to make progress toward all 17 #SDGS. The dialogue discussed the importance of enhancing knowledge and skills for a diverse set of actors for all aspects of food systems, with a focus on achieving sustainable, nutrition-sensitive, and market-oriented agriculture. The dialogue also highlighted measures related to AEAS that ensure equity, inclusion, capacity, innovation and sustainability, including insights on how food systems need to change to achieve no poverty (SDG 1), zero hunger (SDG 2), good health and well-being (SDG 3) through nutrition-sensitive agriculture, reduced inequalities (SDG 10) through enhanced human capital formation among vulnerable smallholder farmers, responsible production and consumption (SDG 12) through relevant knowledge and technology disseminations, climate action (SDG 13) through climate-smart agriculture. This pre-UNFSS2021 session therefore sought to achieve the following goals: • Explore how extension can best contribute to promoting climate-resilient sustainability, nutrition-sensitive agriculture, and market access; answering the following questions: what knowledge and skills do farmers require in these areas? What are the priority actions for countries, funders, managers, and implementers to improve extension for these areas? • Share what SAA and IFPRI are learning, as implementers and researchers, in these areas • Highlight ongoing IFPRI-Japan collaboration in the areas of AEAS applications • Prepare for a virtual summit side event for the Food Summit (by bringing recommendations from the dialogue to the Summit for action) Read less

1. There be consideration for the establishment of a community-based nutrition promotion workforce where community members are trained and adequately supported (by public health nutritionists/dietitians) as local nutrition promotion officers. These nutrition promotion officers to be involved in: a. Community-wide nutrition promotion through cook-ups, group education, hunting trips and education on traditional foods to children in schools with elders b. Store assessments so as to provide information to store owners/ operators on where improvements could be made for the promotion of healthy food... Read more and less promotion of unhealthy food c. In partnership with stores, set-up and maintenance of store promotional activity, such as shelf talkers 2. Resources (i.e., healthy stores 2020 policy options and Good Tucker App) be made available to store owners and operators to guide their policy making for promotion of healthy food and less promotion of unhealthy food 3. Store owners/operators, community leaders, Aboriginal health services, government policy-makers, nutrition practitioners work as a collective to develop a sustainable way building on all the work to date to support all store directors/owners make good policy to promote healthy food and promote less healthy food in their stores. Read less

The Healthy Stores 2020 randomised controlled trial conducted by the Arnhem Land Progress Aboriginal Corporation in partnership with Monash University and other universities, provides empirical evidence that making unhealthy foods less visible in the store (i.e., restricting their merchandising) can reduce the amount of sugar from food and drinks sold and not adversely impact the store business. The Ali Curung and Engawala Stories also provide evidence of how store directors can make bold policy decisions in relation to their store businesses that can impact on the health and wellbeing of the ... Read morecommunity. We need to share these stories/evidence and have conversations with all communities so store directors can consider the Healthy Stores 2020 strategy and other successful strategies (such as the Ali Curung and Engawala stories) for their store and community for the benefit of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Visual signs on store shelves can point out the healthy choice to customers as shown in Santa Teresa and Bidyadanga communities. Community-designed visual signs (shelf talkers) showing good food choices with community-wide healthy food promotion (such as cook-ups and displays in school, child care etc) can help increase people’s knowledge of healthy food choices as shown in Bidyadanga community. This nutrition/healthy food promotion needs to be ongoing and lead by people in the community with all community settings involved (such as school, child care, sport and recreation centres). Evidence-based resources have been developed to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander store directors make good policy for the promotion of healthy food and less promotion of unhealthy food in their stores (refer to Healthy Stores 2020 Policy Options, Good Tucker App). The Healthy Stores 2020 Policy Options co-designed with Store directors, retailers, practitioners, policy-makers and academics combine the most current research evidence on use of the 4Ps to promote healthy food and disincentivise unhealthy food with evidence from the ground on what is feasible and acceptable. These Policy Options can inform policy standards for health promoting stores. A five-year research project (2021-2026), Benchmarking for healthy remote stores, funded by the Medical Research Future Fund, Australia, and involving academics, retailers, community leaders, public health nutrition practitioners, and policy-makers, will develop with remote store and takeaway owners and operators, a way to support store directors/owners across remote Australia consider and put in place evidence-informed policy to promote healthy food and promote less healthy food in their stores. Read less

The HEALTHY STORiES = GOOD FOOD event had a focus on Action Track 1 with the recognition that the other action tracks relate to Action Track 1 as shifting to sustainable consumption patterns, building resilience to shocks and stress etc are fundamental determinants of ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all. This consideration of all action tracks also aligns with Indigenous knowledges of the interconnectedness of food system elements, people and the natural environment. This is reflected in the HEALTHY STORiES = GOOD FOOD artwork, where Jarrod says, "In this artwork I have tried t... Read moreo represent HEALTH STORiES in a number of ways. In the middle of the painting is a group of people eating - we come together at meal time. The situation in which we eat is equally as important as the food we eat. Surrounding these are nuts, berries and witchetty grubs - important traditional food sources that our old people survived off for millennia, we need to take lessons from these (even if our food sources have changed) and watch what we are eating always. Stretching in four directions are the journeys we make for food, with a yam plant in each corner and bush food extended off of the branches. This represents our health journey, there are many paths we can take. The hands and spirals represent the relationships to people we have. These can also be important in our relationship with food, we need to surround ourselves with the right people and also encourage each other to eat well and nurture each other in times of health and illness alike." In this dialogue, HEALTHY STORiES = GOOD FOOD 4, we explored the theme of the 4Ps of marketing for healthy food in relation to community food retail businesses and levers of change for improved community health and wellbeing. We showcased innovative initiatives led by Indigenous communities and leaders as such initiatives can be overlooked by governments and organisations, perpetuating a history of imposed and inappropriate policy-action that is neither effective nor sustainable for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Underpinning our event was the recognition of the human right of Indigenous Peoples to participate in and lead decisions impacting their lives, communities, culture and lands. Store directors with access to evidence and information needed for decision-making are putting policies in place in their stores for the health of families and the community (e.g., as shown in the ALPA Healthy Stores 2020 short story, and the sugar-reduction policies in the communities of Ali Curung and Engawala). These policies are innovative, bold and trail-blazing and come from recognition of community leaders of the devastating impact on health of high fat/sugar/salt/highly processed foods and drinks. There is little evidence of these bold policy actions being implemented by non-remote retailers in Australia and/or overseas. This dialogue shows ownership of these store-related policies by Indigenous community leaders and how this community leadership underpins the successful implementation of these policies for the benefit of the community. While not a discussion point of this dialogue, these store-related policies aimed to reduce purchase of unhealthy foods, also relate to the Action Track 2: shift to sustainable consumption patterns. Unhealthy foods are usually packaged, contribute to overconsumption and are not needed in a healthy diet. The current high production of these unhealthy products is detrimental to the environment. For this HEALTHY STORiES = GOOD FOOD dialogue we featured stories from: Northern Western Australia - Bidyadanga Community Store: Use of nutrition promotion and social marketing for increasing healthy food sales, Boab Health Service and Cancer Council WA Alcoota and Ali Curung, Northern Territory - Sugar reduction strategies and community store policies: Engawala Store (Alcoota) and Mirnirri Store (Ali Curung), Outback Stores (OBS) Santa Teresa, Northern Territory - Uncle Jimmy says....ThumbsUp! Good Tucker Long Life store and nutrition promotion including the Good Tucker App, Uncle Jimmy Thumbs up! Read less

The areas for action that emerged from dialogue discussion points for further discussion and consideration with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community leaders included: 1. Urgent attention be given by government to determine with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community leaders the best policy approaches to address the high cost of groceries and home goods in remote communities 2. Continued access to groceries and home goods be provided for Homeland residents 3. A timely and reliable monitoring and feedback information system be established to provide community store owners/ope... Read morerators with information needed to guide policy making for healthy stores 4. Serious policy consideration be given to investment in local food procurement and production for a secure, sustainable and affordable food supply in remote communities. Read less

Food affordability is a lead contributor to the health and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. High cost of groceries and home goods coupled with low income and inadequate household storage and food preparation facilities result in purchase of non-perishable “filler” foods (energy dense-nutrient poor foods) or take-away food (that ends up being more expensive than a home prepared meal and/or of low nutritional value because of limited choice). These important social determinants of diet and health need urgent attention by policy-makers with community leaders to ... Read moreaddress inequities in food price experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. The right to affordable food was presented as a human right in this dialogue event. Investment in local food procurement and production will contribute to provision of a more secure, sustainable and affordable food supply in remote communities. Using an essential service model, as shown by Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation with the Tucker Run (refer to HEALTHY STORiES dialogue 2) and Laynthapuy Homelands Aboriginal Corporation with Gan Gan store, are examples of two Aboriginal corporations, enabling access to grocery and home goods to Peoples living in homelands. Store owners/operators have put a number of different policies in place to help make healthy food more affordable (e.g., off-setting freight costs on fruit and vegetables, better price deals with suppliers e.g. $1 for 600ml bottled water, increasing mark-up on unhealthy food to fund decreased mark-up on healthy food). Small economies of scale, high overheads (e.g., infrastructure maintenance, utility costs) and freight costs however all contribute to the higher cost of food in remote communities compared to urban centres and so stores cannot fully address the price differential whilst running viable businesses. A better understanding of factors contributing to higher food costs in remote communities is needed to inform policy decisions on how best to support reduced food costs. In addition timely information systems are needed for monitoring and feedback of food pricing and food affordability to policy-makers including retailers and community leaders to inform appropriate policy action. Read less