Australia
Area of divergence
This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of webinar participants and does not necessarily represent the views of the Australian Government. In addition to the key messages already detailed, there were a number of issues discussed which may have signified a divergence of views, including: • The need to consider communications, positive messaging and enhanced “narratives” to highlight the importance of food systems and engender greater understanding in the community of their critical role for achieving important economic, social and environmental outcomes. It was suggested tha
... Read moret there is a prevailing dichotomy at play in contemporary food systems, and a desire on the part of the consumer and advocates to be able to classify certain foods, production practices and/or sectors as “good” or “bad” – when the reality is far more nuanced and complex. • It was suggested that since many Australians associate modern agriculture and food systems with challenges and generally have a negative perception which dissuades stakeholder engagement and collaborative discussion. For this reason, it was suggested that reframing the narrative by focusing on “shared food values” and the positive contribution that food systems make to society – may be one way to engage diverse stakeholders in future conversations about sustainable food systems. • The facts, interests and values which determine the reality of food systems (for instance what consumers can choose to eat, or what producers are able to grow) can be constrained by the current limits of knowledge, culture, history and other factors. Reframing problems and challenges in new and innovative ways can be useful when thinking about and addressing systemic challenges. This could involve thinking more fundamentally about what we choose to produce and consume in Australia and for instance, reflecting on the place of indigenous species in our food systems. • When discussing food systems, the term “complexity” may often be confused with something being “complicated”. Complexity involves the interaction of complex systems, while something being complicated means it is difficult to solve. Improving food systems can involve both complexity and complication. Taking a “systems thinking” approach, may involve reframing our food systems as “complex” systems which we aim to “guide” to function better, instead of isolating our focus to unitary outcomes or goals – which may not lead to the best outcome. • There is a need to consider how best to create the space for continuing these types of discussions around the challenges and best-practice approaches and recommendations for sustainable, healthy and resilient food systems. This may involve consideration of the utility of a higher-level food strategy, formalised governance structures or incorporation into political frameworks. Read less
Action Track(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Keywords: Data & Evidence, Environment and Climate, Finance, Governance, Human rights, Innovation, Policy, Trade-offs, Women & Youth Empowerment