Официальная обратная связь диалогов

Potential solutions & main drivers We must: -Invest in education and better communicate innovation to the public. The role of schools is particularly important. -Support start-up incubators. -Involve all players and stakeholders. -Open mindsets to new solutions. -Digitalise consumer information (including positive and negative consumer labelling (e.g. tobacco ads!) and connect consumers with local producers. -Empower consumers as a force for change. -Engage consumers at the EU-level. -Enable knowledge sharing and open-source solutions. -Connect academia and industry (e.g., the European Tec... Подробнееhnology Platform innovation Strategic Research Innovation Agenda, built between academia and the food industry: -Bring political incentives. -Ensure financial support. -Give a greater voice to small players (such as small farmer communities and SMEs). -Learn to connect R&D with farmers and other implementers (knowledge transfer). -Develop a EU food policy that connects the food systems challenges (all solutions are interrelated). -Harness the ideas of young people. -Find the true cost of food so that consumers can choose which product to buy not only in terms of price but also on how it was produced. -Ensure trade agreements guarantee sustainability requirements. Скрыть

The following statements had opposing views from participants: -The discussion can become too focused on farmers and agriculture and not enough connection to food processing and consumer behaviour. -Small farmers, SMEs and consumers are often missing from the discussion (we all talk on their behalf, but they are not ‘in the system’ to join these sorts of discussions. They also do not have time!) -We strive for circularity in the economy and yet we do not recognize circularity in existing systems. An example is the pork industry, which - according to one of our participants - is fully circu... Подробнееlar. Abandoning pork production may cause input shortages in other sectors of the economy. -Consumer preferences and actions are contradicting each other: Two examples would be wanting to eat only local food, but have it available all year round, as well as asking for the highest quality food, but not willing to pay a premium for it. Скрыть

The European Union aims to be at the forefront of global food sustainability, including initiatives such as the European Green New Deal, as well as working towards achieving the aims of the 17 SDGs. This Dialogue explored the role of innovation in meeting food sustainability challenges, and how to create an enabling environment that will allow next-gen entrepreneurs, start-ups and business to bring forward the game-changing solutions needed. This Dialogue brought together and heard perspectives from diverse stakeholders based in the EU, looking to include next-generation innovators, farmers, s... Подробнееcientists, public and private sector representatives, civil society representatives, activists, as well as stakeholders in other areas of the food and agriculture industry. In alignment with the goals of the Action Tracks and the United Nations Food Systems Summit 2021, this Dialogue aimed to explore the opportunities for innovation in the EU to transform food systems. Скрыть

1. There are several challenges that require urgent action in the food systems, such as climate change, unsustainable farming practices (impacting soil, water quality, and biodiversity), access to quality food and the complexity of food value chains, where sustainability issues are predominant. There is a feeling of urgency that will require R&I to foster transitions to a more sustainable and equitable world. 2. Small actors in the food system need a greater voice, that goes from the small farmer to the individual consumer and includes SMEs which are the majority of the food systems actors... Подробнее (99%) and are often not accessing the innovation being produced by researchers and innovation providers. It is key also to understand the sectoral and regional/cultural aspects of food systems, thus a multistakeholder approach is needed at different levels (global, European, national, regional), and shall be facilitated by policy makers. It was noted that multinationals (e.g. seed companies) are relevant in the discussion, but must not be allowed to ‘abuse’ their power. 3. Behaviour and attitude is as important as technology. Many solutions discussed were less technical, and more behavioural: Communication and cooperation between science providers and implementation actors, policy and financial support to the food systems R&I ecosystem, more design systemic solutions that connects the food system challenges, the role of young entrepreneurs and start-ups in the food systems R&I, or multi stakeholder commitments to achieve greater goals using R&I. 4. Empower consumers through education which can impact acceptance of innovation. Science-based education on food and how it is produced is key, particularly targeting consumers (and policymakers), and starting from schools. Empowering consumers from being ‘passive’ to ‘active’, includes better product information. The concept and understanding of food systems is not well understood, and the role of all actors in a value chain (producers, processors, distributors, consumers etc.) needs to be better explained, and a holistic solution sought. 5. We need to more prominently include startups and next-generation innovators in food systems transformation. Innovation comes faster than regulation, and the next-generation has the tools and skillset to enable this shift towards more sustainable food systems for all. As digital natives, the next-generation inherently understands the importance of digitalization and data-driven decision-making. The next-generation also embodies the key attitudes needed to facilitate this food systems change - openness, willingness to adopt alternative business models (circular economy, cradle to cradle), and nimbleness to adapt quickly to changes and navigate through ambiguity (especially in the times of COVID-19). Young entrepreneurs embody all of these behaviors to create innovative and new products and services using (and even re-using) existing resources with a greater focus on sustainability. The regulatory framework (transparent, science-based, pragmatic) needs to allow innovations into the market. 6. Money is important. Farmers need an income, food businesses need to make a profit, and consumers need affordable food. No farmer has a problem with having fewer cattle if he/she has the same income, but they also need legal clarity and stability. Farmers will also be more willing to grow a wider variety of crops – if the market is there. 7. But profit must not be the only consideration. Business must be supported by governments to pursue sustainable practices and to do ‘what is right for the world’ not just what will make the most money. Business should be rewarded for doing good and called out for failing. 8. Solutions must be multi-stakeholder. Solutions must be tailored, policies must be inclusive and multi-stakeholder approaches and listening must underpin all approaches. Everyone must contribute as much as they can, we need to foster a dialogue among everyone involved. 9. Solutions must not come in isolation. That is to say there must be a supply chain approach where the complexities and needs of different actors – from farm to fork – are taken on board. 10. There must be political will. EU policymakers must forget about re-election and short-termism and fear of failure and act now to send a clear signal to farmers, food business and consumers that business as usual is not an option. For true change to happen, politics need to make the first step by putting supporting regulations in place, and it needs to happen NOW. Скрыть

The discussion explored opportunities and solutions to improve the resilience of Kisumu’s food system. It considered possibilities for transforming the food system to one that is less dependent on external forces and actors for its sustainability. This was done by exploring instrumental policies, incentive mechanisms and initiatives which can be adopted to spur systemic transformation of Kisumu’s food system. The dialogue also highlighted major food system transformation stakeholders in Kisumu, what their requirements in order to drive food system transformation are, and how stakeholder co... Подробнееllaboration can be strengthened. Overall, the dialogue unpacked ways in which governance arrangements of Kisumu’s food system can be improved. Скрыть

The discussions stressed the need for enabling policy frameworks that will allow all food system actors in Kisumu to thrive and this was emphasized all across the Action Tracks. Creating this enabling environment for the transformation of Kisumu’s food system, the discussants noted, starts from contextualizing the regional and national food and nutrition policies such as the Food and Nutrition Security Policy (2012), and scaling them down to the local level. Policies that can guide growth across the food value chain should be put in place particularly in production (embracing aspects such as... Подробнее urban agriculture, fishing support and regulations as well as agroecology which relates to nature-positive production (Action Track 3). It was concluded that there is need to develop and implement a comprehensive food policy for the city region. Given that Kisumu is presently dependent on external regions and actors for its food needs, participants noted the need to enable the growth of the logistics and transportation sector which delivers safe and efficient transportation of food across and within the county. Discussants also reflected on how consumption can be regulated and improved locally. They noted the need for better consumption of nutritious foods through investment in feeding programmes in schools, public hospitals and other government institutions including correctional centres. In terms of trade and marketing, the discussions explored how best farmers can be supported in facilitating their access to both input and output markets. Participants argued that government needs to partner with both private and international development institutions to enhance market access for farmers. Initiatives should not only consider formal market channels but must also embrace the informal sector. Development partners were urged to play more active roles in providing training and services including trainings on how nature-based solutions can be incorporated in agriculture. There is the need to establish a farmers resource center where farmers can learn and be shown how to farm crops in the right way. The center should be in a position to educate and help farmers with soil management, crop production, and crop protection challenges. It should also be a demonstration area for urban agriculture and should have a list of alternative crops that can grow in the area. The center should also be able to network farmers so that they can learn from each other through networking. It is also important, according to the participants, that enabling policies for the growth of the circular economy are put in place. This would include the introduction of a comprehensive waste management strategy that encompasses waste across the entire food value chain. They argued that waste must also be considered as resource to produce energy, fertilizers etc. Participants emphasized that initiatives to incentivize and empower participation of vulnerable groups particularly youth and women are needed. These should include access to land and other resources that can facilitate their participation in food production. Opportunities for moving towards a more inclusive and food sensitive urban planning strategy, that recognizes the role of both formal and informal actors across the food value chain needs to be explored, participants noted. Urban planning has a critical role to play in strengthening urban food systems, and this should incorporate emergency food planning in light of the effect of the Covid-19 pandemic on food and nutrition security. Participants also highlighted the need to improve access to finance to small-scale food actors such as smallholders. This financing opportunities could be in form of revolving loans or other loan-provisioning mechanisms. It should also explore public-private and donor partnerships in loan provisioning. Participants argued that ten percent of the county’s budget should be dedicated to agriculture. Investment in infrastructure was emphasized by participants as crucial to the transformation of Kisumu’s food system. This should include investment in water infrastructure, transport infrastructure, market infrastructure and storage facilities for farmers and traders. Market information system infrastructure was also highlighted as important to ensure the sustainability of Kisumu’s food system. There is need for awareness creation among households in the county, especially on the consumption of nutritious diets. Consumption patterns are mainly affected by income levels, perceptions and creating awareness through sensitisation campaigns can contribute towards shaping the right perceptions on nutrition. For farmers, sensitisation campaigns can also drive transformation towards a more sustainable agricultural production. Finally, participants noted that most sectors and actors still operate in silos with little appreciation of the linkages and benefits of synergistic relationships. The need for a more collaborative governance approach of the Kisumu’s food system was therefore emphasised. This should be done by building networks and stakeholder groups, as well as creating spaces for dialogues, cooperation, sharing, co-learning and co-creation in a bid to transform Kisumu’s food system. Скрыть

Participants highlighted some major food system stakeholders and their requirements to ensure sustainability of Kisumu’s food system. These are: Farmers: They are important and critical because they produce the food consumed by residents of Kisumu. Requirements for them are markets, capacity building. This has been missing for some time as there are not enough extension officers. There is a need for specialised institutions of higher learning where agricultural production is taught. Researchers: Whereas the farmers may be visualising what is needed, sometimes they need researchers to articul... Подробнееate this in order to drive innovation. Funding is critical in order for impactful research to be undertaken. This can be facilitated by government and donor agencies. Technical experts: Many people are shying away from studying agriculture related subjects which is dangerous for the county and country. Efforts must therefore be geared towards incentivising people to study agriculture and food-related subject. Donors: Donors are important. However, they require good policies and systems to be put in place by the government so that they can be encouraged to come in and to ensure that their efforts are impactful. Government should do more to put better policies and systems in place to facilitate the work of donors. Civil Society: CSOs should take a leading role in advocating for the rights of the farmers, the plights of farmers, and things that affect stakeholders within the food system. Documentaries can be used to articulate the plight of the farmers. They also need to emphasise the challenge of food prices. Food-related CSOs need enabling policy environment to function effectively. Other key points and suggestions include the following: • Technology and innovation: Strengthen co-production of knowledge for innovation and technology. • Infrastructure: Investment in water, transport and storage infrastructure should be prioritised. Policies on water harvesting, flood water control should be initiated. • Capacity development: Capacity of technical officers needs to be improved. The County government should give priority to bringing technical people on board to the county • Access to market: Access to both input and output market is important for farmers, hence this needs to be improved. • Social networks: Enhance social networks including collective community, fishing community • Agricultural Extension: There is need to recruit, retain, train and empower extension officers in order to build the capacity of farmers and improve their productivity. Скрыть

None

This dialogue, organized by the Mountain Partnership Secretariat, aimed to show the specificity of mountain food systems as well as generate innovative and diverse solutions for more sustainable mountain food systems – solutions that could be useful for shaping more sustainable food systems worldwide. The major focus was the exploration of what would ideal sustainable mountain food systems look like in 10 years. Participants discussed the features that make mountain food systems sustainable or unsustainable and the relevance of some of the solutions proposed under Action Track 3 and 4, as we... Подробнееll as some cross cutting issues particularly relevant for mountain people and environments, such as gender, innovation and technology. The only UN alliance that promotes the sustainable development of mountain areas and works towards building the resilience of mountain peoples worldwide, the Mountain Partnership counts more than 400 members among governments, intergovernmental organizations and major groups (e.g. civil society, NGOs and the private sector). Mountains cover more than one-quarter of the Earth’s land surface and are home to 1.1 billion people, almost 15 percent of the world’s population. More than 90 percent of the world’s mountain dwellers live in developing countries, including 648 million people in rural areas, where a vast majority live below the poverty line and one out of two people faces the threat of food insecurity. This dialogue aimed to draw attention to: 1. the disproportionately high level of food insecure people living in mountain areas; 2. sustainable food systems' role as drivers of mountain development due to their potential for small- and medium-sized enterprises, and their links with tourism and niche markets; 3. the globally relevant ecosystem services and goods provided by mountains, such as water provision and regulation, erosion control and disaster risk reduction as well as biodiversity and agrobiodiversity conservation; and 4. the need to discuss inclusive policies and governance systems in mountains. The dialogue has been an opportunity for Mountain Partnership members and relevant stakeholders to raise their voices about the relevance of developing more sustainable food systems in mountains during the consultation process. leading to the Summit and to propose solutions to achieve these goals. Скрыть

Mountain ecosystems are globally relevant for sustainable food systems. Mountain food systems are extremely diverse, both culturally and biologically. Mountain areas are highly vulnerable to climate change and natural hazards. Mountain people are custodians and managers of this high diversity and ensure the provision of ecosystem services to the lowlands, such as water regulation. Women in mountains are holders of agroecological knowledge and agrobiodiversity conservation for food systems and are often the heads of households, but in certain areas lack access to basic services such as credit a... Подробнееnd training. The international community and policy makers need to recognize mountains as vulnerable ecosystems. Mountains’ role in supporting sustainable food systems is still neglected and must be acknowledged. Mountain peoples have shaped mountain landscapes and food systems over centuries, but this equilibrium is being destabilized. There is a trend towards a simplification of mountain food systems, with a preference towards commercial and fast-growing crops. Many varieties are disappearing, not only leading to biodiversity loss, but also causing a shift toward unbalanced diets due to the abandonment of traditional diets. Mountain food systems are often for self-consumption and are less dependent on external inputs. Landholding is small and most practices are traditional with low chemical inputs and not mechanized. Traditional crops have much lower yields than their lowland counterparts do, and there is a lack of research on how to sustainably improve production. Intensive production systems are not feasible or sustainable in mountain ecosystems and should be avoided. High quality, highly biodiverse and low-impact products should be given priority. Pastoralism is a key economic activity in mountains, and access to pastures is important. Policies are needed to secure pastoralists’ rights to pastures and migration routes. In some mountain areas, the population growth has passed the carrying capacity threshold while in others the issues of outmigration are causing a serious depopulation with irreversible loss of culture and knowledge. The reduced access to services and education as well as the need to create alternative livelihood options in mountains need to be taken into consideration to increase income generation activities and youth engagement. Diversification of activities in the field and on the farm is crucial for building the resilience of mountain people’s livelihoods, and agroecological approaches can help at different scales. Mountain products are often high quality and low impact and have a potential to lift mountain people out of poverty. Most mountain products are climate resilient and have high nutritional value, but they are often neglected as policies do not support their production. Distorted and unequitable value chains are a serious problem for mountain producers. Public policies have a role in incentivizing direct investments to support private action and guaranteeing access to markets through adequate infrastructures. Public sector can have an important role in raising awareness as well as promoting consumers’ understanding of the value, culture and quality behind each product. Mountain agriculture needs participatory innovations to address the disconnect between producers, industries and consumers. Technology can be key in connecting mountains and markets as well as connecting communities in mountains. The organization of farmers through cooperatives and different associations is crucial to strengthen value chains, ensure fair compensation and increase mountain producers’ voices in the political debate. Collective marketing and product aggregation are necessary to support mountain value chains. Policies, technologies and innovations in agriculture have largely been designed for men and lowlands. They need to be tailored to mountain environments and people, including women and youth. The narrative, representation, visibility (i.e. through data) and role of women is essential for their agency and access to resources. Social protection is essential and should be considered in view of the frequent occurrence of disasters and risks in mountains. The role of mountain communities, institutions and the Mountain Partnership is to: • Develop programmes that focus on watershed management creating alternative livelihood opportunities for mountain communities. • Strengthen and maintain cultural diversity and identity, documenting indigenous knowledge. • Promote capacity building as a coping mechanism for indigenous communities and women in mountain areas. • Ensure that mountain people have the same access to services and infrastructures as lowland people and that their human rights are respected. • Preserve the local breeds that pastoralists rely on. • Develop indigenous seed banks within communities, possibly with the help of governments. • Compile a database on climate-resilient mountain crops and try to influence the use and adoption of these crops. • Promote mountain products and raise awareness of their value. • Identify and map biodiversity hotspots. • Promote cooperation between institutions. • Build local agribusinesses. • Conduct regional consultations that include mountain communities to give mountain people the opportunity to express their own desired development trajectories. Скрыть

Action Track 3, Action Areas PROTECT, MANAGE AND RESTORE NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS: • Develop and support mountain-specific research and innovation. • Mainstream mountain crops and livestock in policies and research to protect traditional and indigenous food systems including neglected crops and native livestock, local knowledge and practices. • Set up participatory research and innovation mechanisms, as well as multi-stakeholder incentive-based mechanisms. Support the alignment of mountain food systems with national policies, and the alignment of national policies with local potential and farm... Подробнееers’ priorities, addressing land rights and tenure issues. • Map agroecological potential in mountains, and establish mountain-specific crop and livestock databases, to promote understanding of the ecosystem services they provide to upstream and downstream communities, to address trade-offs and promote opportunities for mountains in regional and global fora. • Promote climate services and early warning systems as key tools to mitigate degradation of natural resources in mountains and better respond to climate change impacts. • Include the impacts of climate change on mountains in policy, and create opportunities for climate resilient crops and for mountain-specific technology. • Promote the leadership of local people as a strategy to restore degraded ecosystems by integrating them in policy-making processes and promoting cooperative work to achieve better results and negotiation prices and increased resilience. • Focus on alternative income sources and the natural diversity of mountain ecosystems. • Bring youth back into mountains and restore degraded ecosystems by creating enabling economic conditions using traditional knowledge provided by older generations and farmers • Study and document the traditional knowledge of mountain communities. Promote the engagement of a broader set of actors. Скрыть

Action Track 4, Action Areas FAIR AND INCLUSIVE VALUE CHAINS AND LOCAL MARKETS: • Promote capacity development to contrast distorted, unequitable value chains, bringing education and training on production, technologies, processing, commercialization and certification to remote areas. • Support agrobiodiversity to reduce risk and maintain genetic diversity at field level; income diversified livelihoods through off-farm activities, agrotourism, heritage-based artisanal products, and nonagricultural products at the farm level; recognition of and payment for ecosystems services at landscape l... Подробнееevel. • Develop public-private partnership to promote and implement necessary policies, investments and incentives on mountain areas at national and regional level, focusing on specific sectors such as processing and food loss reduction. • Market mountain food as “smart food” due to their not depending on intensive and harmful agricultural inputs. • Increase consumers' awareness and understanding of the importance of mountain products though narrative labels, traditional production certification and organic certification, moving from the “commodity” approach to products with a face, story and heritage. Скрыть

Cross-cutting issues TECHNOLOGY, INNOVATION and GENDER: • Tailor technology and innovations in mountain food systems to all people, including women and youth, and develop the capacity of local people on best agricultural practices in mountains. • Promote participatory approaches to develop technology and innovations that accommodate traditional and indigenous food culture and knowledge. • Support the engagement of Mountain Partnership members, and facilitate their linkages to decision-making structures. • Ensure inclusivity, equality and equity in all processes, decision-making and rep... Подробнееresentation. • Examine opportunities to build women’s capacity on all levels, recognizing women as holders of agroecological knowledge and agrobiodiversity conservation for mountain food systems. • Develop solutions that take the specific, local context (including trade-offs) into account, and acknowledge the diversity in mountain regions. • Improve social protection in mountains. Facilitate women’s access to insurance and health services. • Build the capacity of elected women members of local councils in mountainous regions to protect natural resources. • Promote the concepts of "justice" (i.e. social and environmental) and solidarity (i.e. lowlands-highlands, taxation, redistribution of economic wealth). Скрыть

When discussing food systems in mountains, participants held different opinions on: • Economic sustainability of mountain food systems: Some saw the high costs of agricultural production in mountain as unsustainable. There are no one-size-fits-all solutions, and an approach that can work in one mountain environment will not necessarily work in all contexts. For example, using tourism as a tool for improving livelihoods was viewed by some as potentially contributing to the dispossession and marginalization of pastoralists and benefitting only the local elite and/or external stakeholders. • ... ПодробнееMarket development: Developing markets does not automatically mean that the most vulnerable will benefit, and it can compromise authenticity and diversity. • Outmigration: There was not agreement on whether outmigration should be opposed or organized and structured, as – for example – from a young mountain farmer’s perspective, migrating could be the best option. • Increasing access to technology: There is uncertainty whether the introduction of technology is compatible with maintaining traditional values and cultures, and whether this is feasible in rural mountain areas where all young people have left. Traditional knowledge is not static and not necessarily manifesting the same way in young people, who are intermittently migrating to cities and collecting other types of knowledge. Technologies and infrastructural developments may also not be coherent with local needs. For example, afforestation in mountains with drones spreading one species could be in conflict with local biodiversity needs. • Power relations: There are power dynamics within mountain communities as well as between the highlands and plains that cannot be ignored. Social norms, access and infrastructures need to be worked on. • Social protection for mountain women: The issue of social protection and gender equality is locality and context specific. There cannot be a blanket approach to addressing access to resources, women’s agency, decision-making regarding the use resources, and creating advantageous economic opportunities. • Issue of social justice: Mountain people have the right to decide their own development trajectory. It is necessary to give voice to mountain people so that they can express their idea of development. This can create divergences, for example, with how mountain indigenous food systems could change: will they have a market driven trajectory, or will other elements (conservation of identity, cultural-based decisions, etc.) be considered? Conflicts among stakeholders and conflicting interests Conflicts of interest between institutions: Ministry of Environment vs. Ministry of Agriculture, vs mining rights etc. Research institutions often focus on national priority crops, which are in conflict with traditional crops. At local level, there is more research on indigenous local products. In some mountain areas, private sectors are coming out with product diversification, which conflicts with the main crops being promoted by the public sector. Conflicts also exist between policy makers and local farmers. Mountain people can be considered a burden to governments because it is expensive to support them. Mountain people and ecosystems, however, should be viewed as a positive value. If mountain farmers are given the necessary tools, they could scale up their agriculture production. The challenge is to create a multi-stakeholder platform including all stakeholders to ensure that all interests are represented and discussed together to identify how can they complement each other. Скрыть

Governança das ações de garantia da alimentação saudável: certeza de processos democráticos para assegurar o direito de todos/as à alimentação. Ações urgentes e necessárias nos próximos 3 anos: Ações de comunicação: Divulgar a importância dos conselhos, fóruns e políticas públicas de alimentação e controle socioambiental; o atual desmonte que vêm sofrendo as políticas públicas e suas consequências frente à garantia do direito básico à alimentação, previsto na Constituição Federal. Incentivar o consumo de alimentos saudáveis. Criar narrativas e campanhas que ... Подробнееesclareçam que o agronegócio não produz alimentos para as pessoas. A campanha do agronegócio de commodities (“Agro é Pop, Agro é Tudo”) se apropriou da agenda da alimentação para esconder interesse de grandes empresas e apropriação política de discurso. É importante utilizar todos os meios de comunicação, inclusive o rádio. Produção de alimentos: Estimular a produção de alimentos saudáveis através de um processo educativo com os produtores da agricultura familiar convencional. Fomentar a agricultura familiar e as políticas de produção e acesso aos alimentos sem agrotóxicos. Manter a mobilização do legislativo e dos Fóruns Estaduais de combate ao uso indiscriminado de agrotóxicos. Valorizar e viabilizar o extrativismo, considerando a importância das populações tradicionais neste processo, em especial, as mulheres quebradeiras de coco, marisqueiras, indígenas e seus saberes. Fortalecimento da Governança: Fortalecer os Conselhos Estaduais e Municipais de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional que têm sobrevivido ao desmonte e ao desafio de continuar agindo junto ao Ministério Público, para fazer valer o seu papel e as ações acordadas. Assegurar instituições da sociedade civil como "espaços" de debate para reconstrução do mecanismo de controle social e todo sistema. Constituir parcerias para cobrar dos governantes políticas eficazes que restabeleçam as estruturas formais de governança e os aportes de recursos para garantia do direito à alimentação. As grandes centrais de abastecimento estaduais (CEASAs) devem se mobilizar para garantir alimentação às populações mais vulneráveis. Proteger o Programa Nacional de Alimentação Escolar dos ataques que vem sofrendo (por projetos de lei que visam excluir prioridades de compras feitas dos produtores familiares e comunidades tradicionais, bem como que visam violar diretrizes do Guia Alimentar Brasileiro). Defender e valorizar os grupos minoritários, mulheres, povo negro, quilombolas e comunidades. Quem deverá implementar? A sociedade civil, os movimentos sociais, os conselhos e toda a população, articulados com o Ministério Público e sobretudo apoiados pelas esferas dos governos Federal, Estadual e Municipal. Como avaliar o progresso? Restabelecimento do Conselho Nacional de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional, principal mecanismo de controle social - extinto no primeiro dia do atual governo – e demais conselhos. População informada sobre seu direito básico à alimentação, garantido pela Constituição Federal, e sobre os impactos dos sistemas alimentares na sua saúde, na sociedade e no meio ambiente. O Ministério Público, as Assembleias Legislativas e Câmaras Municipais agindo para garantir o direito à alimentação de todos os brasileiros. Redução da insegurança alimentar, medida pela escala EBIA, objetivando alimentação saudável para todos. Desafios que podem ser antecipados A governança das políticas públicas só se realiza se os governos responsáveis estiverem comprometidos com a sociedade, no sentido de fazer valer direitos que foram adquiridos e garantidos junto às institucionalidades criadas para isso. Como existir governança sem governo? Há uma ausência do Governo Federal e das estruturas criadas para a garantia das ações voltadas para a Soberania e Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional, que foram desorganizadas ou destruídas. Recompor os Conselhos Municipais e Estaduais que dialogam com os poderes públicos para criação de políticas eficazes. Reverter o cenário causado pela extinção do CONSEA Nacional feito por um governo que não apoia a participação social e não tem interesse pela realização por meio de processos democráticos. Скрыть

Inocuidade dos alimentos e garantia de uma alimentação cada vez mais adequada, saudável e segura para todos/as. Ações urgentes e necessárias nos próximos 3 anos: Criar mecanismos de rastreabilidade dos produtos da agricultura, pesca e extrativismo familiar, de comunidades indígenas, comunidades quilombolas e demais comunidades tradicionais, com regras sanitárias mais simples que viabilizem alimentos seguros e certificados para o mercado, além de sistema que classifique a relação entre a produção do alimento e seu custo socioambiental. O conceito de alimentação segura deve inclu... Подробнееir questões do uso de agrotóxico na produção, da violência em razão da disputa de terras, e do impacto climático pelo desmatamento. Fortalecer redes de agricultura familiar, pescadores/as artesanais, extrativistas, tornando-as mais integradas. Fomentar parcerias das cooperativas com os movimentos sociais, associações e entidades que defendem a produção agroecológica e a segurança e soberania alimentar. Promover o acesso das comunidades e pequenos produtores à terra, à água, à assistência técnica e a tecnologias para a produção e comercialização de alimentos seguros, com o apoio dos órgãos públicos, institutos de pesquisa e universidades. Introduzir saberes tradicionais e novos modelos de produção agroecológicos, como bioinsumos, agroindústria familiar para circuitos curtos, além de produtos diferentes dos convencionais. Recuperar as sementes crioulas, símbolo da preservação da agrobiodiversidade. Considerar as especificidades regionais e as lutas dos movimentos dos povos tradicionais do país nas ações de segurança alimentar e nutricional, vinculando-as à construção e à preservação de marcos legais e conceituais que reforcem as raízes culturais desses povos, além de reconhecerem a relação do alimento com a medicina tradicional preventiva e rituais históricos. Monitorar a violência no campo e criar canais de denúncia, um dos espaços que o extinto CONSEA (Conselho de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional) ocupava. Quem deverá implementar? As ações devem ser tomadas pelo governo/poder público, mas na prática, isso ocorre e deve ocorrer também por meio da sociedade civil. Algumas ações podem ser tratadas a partir da iniciativa de conselhos e fóruns populares, além de campanhas que articulem parte das ações sugeridas. Na ausência da iniciativa do governo, as ações possíveis devem ser tomadas pela própria sociedade civil, através de mecanismos de articulação das instituições da sociedade civil. Como avaliar o progresso? Retomar e fortalecer os conselhos de política alimentar com participação social. Fortalecer os canais de denúncia e os mecanismos de garantia e monitoramento do direito humano à alimentação adequada, inclusive internacionais. Criar fóruns de agricultura familiar com todos os setores da sociedade. Ampliar os sistemas e mecanismos de garantia/selos, com agricultores participando do processo de certificação. Estimular o uso de aplicativos, pelos consumidores, para a avaliação da qualidade dos alimentos. Desafios que podem ser antecipados: Dificuldade de acesso aos recursos públicos ou a fundos locais de investimento para pequenos produtores. Bloqueio no recebimento de recursos internacionais, inclusive de doações para apoio à conservação do meio ambiente. Produtores e extrativistas com dificuldade de acesso à internet e suas ferramentas. Exclusão digital e conectividade escassa. Falta de acesso a técnicas e tecnologias adequadas para a matriz de produção de alimentos seguros, saudáveis e sustentáveis conectados a cada território e bioma. E de reconhecimento formal de quem produz, especialmente das mulheres, jovens e ações coletivas. Retrocesso na política de acesso à terra, e a destruição das políticas públicas e instrumentos de apoio à agricultura familiar. Fraqueza da governança alimentar, especialmente dos bens comuns como pesca, irrigação comunitária e aspectos fundiários. A governança deve caminhar para a criação de espaços como o Conselho Nacional de Segurança Alimentar, que poderiam recomendar ações para uma alimentação saudável e segura. Скрыть

Não houve o apontamento de discordâncias e todos ficaram à vontade para colocar o seu ponto de vista. Embora os participantes pertencessem a diferentes realidades, tanto da cidade quanto do campo, havia uma ligação comum representada por suas participações em ações de combate à insegurança alimentar ou à defesa de direitos. As opiniões foram colocadas de forma muitas vezes complementar , com posição independente e representação territorial de cada participante, o que trouxe uma visão diversificada sobre uma ação que tinha o mesmo objetivo. Embora tenha havido um acordo nos ... Подробнееtemas mais importantes, há que se destacar a diferença de ênfase colocada pelas pessoas de origem diversa, seja do ponto de vista regional ou rural/urbana, seja do ponto de vista de suas representações institucionais. Assim, por exemplo, pessoas do Norte do Brasil enfatizaram mais a questão dos alimentos naturais produzidos de forma sustentável; os representantes das organizações de produtores enfatizaram a importância da agricultura familiar na alimentação saudável; etc. Скрыть

Ações governamentais de combate à insegurança alimentar: respostas emergenciais dadas em tempo, além das respostas estruturais fortalecidas. Ações urgentes e necessárias nos próximos 3 anos: O Brasil saiu do mapa da fome porque conseguiu conceber um programa intersetorial, que foi e está sendo desestruturado pelo governo federal desde 2016, resultando em grave insegurança alimentar, acelerada pela pandemia. É urgente retomar tanto os programas federais que foram extintos, quanto os orçamentos dos programas que permaneceram, e fortalecer estas políticas públicas: - Auxílio emerg... Подробнееencial de renda enquanto a pandemia perdurar. - Recriação do Conselho de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional nacional. - Programas de transferência de renda governamental: renda mínima perene, “bolsa família” e reajuste do salário mínimo para reativar a economia. - Programa de transferência de renda no modelo que está sendo proposto nos EUA pelo Presidente em exercício. - Compras Institucionais: Programa de Aquisição de Alimentos (compra pública de produtores/pescadores/ extrativistas familiares e comunidades tradicionais para doação a populações vulneráveis via banco de alimentos, ou formação de estoques públicos), Banco de Alimentos, Programa Nacional de Alimentação Escolar (compra pública de produtores/pescadores/ extrativistas familiares e comunidades tradicionais para a alimentação escolar). - Estratégia Fome Zero, Programa de Cisternas (segurança hídrica para territórios do semi-árido brasileiro), Água Para Todos e Luz Para Todos (programas de segurança hídrica e energética). - Incentivo à agricultura familiar: programas de crédito e financiamento como o Pronaf e o Plano Safra Agricultura Familiar, e incentivo às feiras livres. - Manutenção dos programas de educação e saúde. - Políticas de combate à insegurança alimentar, como o marco legal de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional, devem ser cumpridas, colocadas no centro do debate e pensadas no longo prazo como políticas de Estado, e não apenas como políticas de um governo. Quem deverá implementar? A esfera federal tem papel fundamental, entretanto, nos últimos 5 anos, vem se omitindo, apesar do direito à alimentação estar previsto na Constituição. Com o desmonte das políticas estruturantes federais, estados e municípios precisam se organizar para implementar soluções de combate à insegurança alimentar ao nível local. A sociedade civil tem papel fundamental de cobrança do cumprimento das leis e de que sejam priorizados os projetos sócioambientais. Como avaliar o progresso? - O número de pessoas em situação de extrema pobreza, considerando que “a fome é fruto da extrema pobreza”. Programas de transferência de renda possuem efeito multiplicador no combate à insegurança alimentar, pois ao mesmo tempo que oferecem condições para que a extrema pobreza seja combatida, dão autonomia para que chefes de família decidam quais alimentos comprar. - Acompanhamento dos orçamentos federais, municipais e estaduais, tendo como princípio norteador os repasses às políticas focadas em Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional. Nesse contexto, pode-se pensar em compras institucionais, crédito e fomento para a agricultura familiar, diálogo campo-cidade, além de instrumentos para fomentar bancos de alimentos para regulação de preços e mecanismos de compras públicas mais eficientes. Vale lembrar que, em um passado não tão distante, o Brasil já foi referência mundial nessa questão. Desafios que podem ser antecipados - O maior desafio é o governo atual entender a gravidade da situação e verdadeiramente atender às necessidades do povo. Sem este entendimento será muito difícil retomar os programas estruturantes com seus orçamentos e até mesmo os programas emergenciais. - Re-instituição do Conselho nacional de segurança alimentar e a retomada do funcionamento do Sistema Nacional de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional. - Conscientizar a população sobre a situação real que o Brasil se encontra, para que, dentro das estruturas democráticas, através da eleição de novas pessoas, seja tomado um rumo distinto do atual Governo Federal e do Congresso Nacional. Скрыть

O foco do Diálogo foi explorar principalmente entre atores da sociedade civil brasileira, como garantir acesso universal à alimentação saudável e frear o aumento da insegurança alimentar e da obesidade, partindo do princípio que o acesso à alimentação saudável é um direito de todos. As temáticas dos grupos envolvem aspectos ou desafios da garantia desse acesso à alimentação saudável no cenário brasileiro atual, como as questões relacionadas ao preço da alimentação saudável versus garantia de remuneração justa aos produtores (acesso financeiro); a importância do fortal... Подробнееecimento dos territórios para a o acesso (físico) à alimentação saudável; a educação e o acesso à informação acerca da alimentação saudável; as ações emergenciais de combate à insegurança alimentar; os mecanismos estruturais de combate à insegurança alimentar; a forma como deve ser dar a governança das políticas e processos de combate à insegurança alimentar, destacando os atores e agentes essenciais à boa governança; e a significação de alimentação segura (food safety) num ambiente de valorização da produção familiar e artesanal de alimentos. O foco principal do Diálogo, portanto, estava relacionado à Action Track #1, e isso foi identificado e exposto aos participantes previamente ao encontro. Скрыть

Praticamente todos os grupos destacaram o momento trágico vivido pelo Brasil, com aumento significativo da insegurança alimentar e da pobreza, e a constante redução das políticas e estruturas nacionais (federais) de combate à insegurança alimentar pelo governo federal atual, seja por sensíveis reduções orçamentárias de programas-chave no combate à fome, seja por alterações legislativas que ferem ou enfraquecem direta ou indiretamente o direito humano à alimentação - direito reconhecido no Brasil por sua Constituição Federal - seja por descaracterização das estruturas de g... Подробнееovernança participativa e inclusiva no monitoramento dessas políticas públicas, tudo isso com resultados trágicos para os mecanismos estruturais de um Estado garantidor de direitos, e também para a situação socioeconômica da população brasileira. Retrocesso nas políticas de segurança alimentar e nutricional foi o ponto mais destacado. Portanto, o principal resultado foi o reconhecimento da necessidade de retomada dessas políticas públicas, no nível federal, de apoio à produção familiar, de garantia da alimentação saudável, e de apoio às vulnerabilidades; mas também: 1- Necessidade de articulação em rede e de ação conjunta e coordenada entre diversos atores da sociedade civil, gestores e pesquisadores, para desenvolvimento de ações, monitoramento e acompanhamento de resultados, e geração de dados e informações de forma transparente. Maior aproximação entre grupos de produtores e grupos de consumidores, e maior articulação entre os diversos movimentos sociais que atuam nas temáticas referentes à alimentação. 2- Garantia de condições básicas socioeconômicas: necessidade de garantir renda mínima (políticas de renda mínima ou transferência de renda) e infraestrutura básica para a população (por exemplo, acesso à água e gás de cozinha). 3- Advocacy pela reinstalação do conselho nacional de segurança alimentar e nutricional - que era um fórum de interlocução entre governo e sociedade civil no plano nacional e de controle das políticas públicas federais em temas de segurança alimentar e nutricional; um conselho no âmbito da administração federal mas com presidência e maioria de membros da sociedade civil. 4- Regulação da propaganda, do acesso e das embalagens (rotulagem) dos ultraprocessados para desincentivar o acesso a esses alimentos. 5- Ampliação dos espaços de participação popular e de articulação comunitária, principalmente no âmbito local/municipal, para que as diversas vozes dos sistemas alimentares possam ser ouvidas, principalmente dos agricultores, pescadores e extrativistas familiares e das comunidades tradicionais e indígenas - verdadeiros produtores do alimento saudável. 6- Valorização de políticas locais que busquem garantir o acesso universal ao alimento saudável, como os exemplos das cozinhas comunitárias e das escolas de gastronomia social (total ou parcialmente custeadas pelos governos locais), e da ampliação de feiras livres / mercados de rua com alimentos saudáveis. Necessidade de maior investimento em estruturas de logística e transporte de alimentos perecíveis (o que apoia a redução de custo). 7- Necessidade de informação e geração de dados com transparência e combate a fake news. Necessidade de indicadores regulares sobre estado nutricional da população, bem como de dados claros e confiáveis sobre as cadeias de produção e consumo de alimentação saudável. 8- Ações de capacitação, formação e sensibilização dos diversos atores chave e profissionais que atuam nos sistemas alimentares, mas também junto aos gestores e a população em geral, em ações que apontem para entendimento integrado e holístico do alimento e das culturas alimentares. 9- Ampliação e desenvolvimento de programas e projetos de educação alimentar com inserção das culturas alimentares indígenas e tradicionais e valorização de dietas diversificadas, que atentem para a sociobiodiversidade brasileira. 10- Garantia aos produtores familiares de acesso à terra e acesso à agua, por ações das três esferas de governos (federal, estadual e municipal), representando reforma agrária no campo e fomento à agricultura urbana nas cidades. 11- Necessidade de ampliação dos programas e ações de assistência técnica agroecológica, e de inclusão digital / acesso à internet pelos produtores, pescadores e extrativistas familiares e comunidades tradicionais. 12- Construção e disseminação de estratégias de comunicação acerca da alimentação saudável e sistemas alimentares sustentáveis, valorizando a narrativa da comida de verdade e da soberania alimentar. Campanhas e estratégias de comunicação também voltadas ao conhecimento geral sobre o direito à alimentação, sobre alimentos saudáveis e agroecológicos, e sobre o papel de produtore/as, pescadore/as, extrativistas familiares e comunidades tradicionais (indígenas, quilombolas, caiçaras…) na segurança alimentar brasileira - destacando a relevância da mulher. 13- Necessidade do conceito de alimento seguro (food safety) incluir, na comunicação e na regulação, o não uso de agrotóxicos na produção e a ausência tanto de violência pela disputa de terra da cadeia produtiva, quanto de desmatamento. Скрыть