Официальная обратная связь диалогов

Group 4: Capacity building and awareness The session started with a case study on the Anganwadi work that is being done in Rajasthan. It is an excellent insight about how it is done at the localized level, and capacity building at the grass-root level is so important to ensure the malnutrition levels come down and create much more awareness. It also shows that women empowerment is an overarching intervention across and how it has helped. The group discussion encapsulated the whole umbrella of the different kinds of stakeholders at different levels, and the kind of capacity building programs an... Подробнееd the awareness at each level at a systemic and a personal level. The main feedback and insight include: ⁻ At the consumption level, the group discussed how it is important for the learnings from the research community to come to the community level and how it can be practiced further, so that it can enhance the nutritional levels and also revive some of the traditional knowledge that already exists. ⁻ There were also some very interesting studies on reducing food waste shared, for example a study done in China which use data to create awareness on reducing food waste among restaurants and consumers. Throughout, it was discussed how it is extremely important not just for the government to take up initiative, but also for different stakeholders from bottom to up to start these kinds of dialogues and initiatives. ⁻ Further, participants shared how social media is used to reach out to more people like minded people who would want to come and volunteer. Although those are not formal structures, the kinds of informal structures also play very important roles in creating awareness, and eventually help one realize that there's a need for capacity building of these kinds of people who want to contribute at their own personal levels. The break-out group discussion was moderated by the facilitator through inviting participants to provide ideas or share information to the specific questions designed. Below we summarized the key feedback received from the participants during the group discussions. Q1: Who are the key stakeholders? 1. Local government sectors, 2. Researchers, 3. Tourism Sectors (Homestays) 4. Youth Organizations 5. Mid-day meal relevant stakeholders Q2: Briefly, what are the key areas of a capacity building required to shift wards healthy and sustainable diets in your geographical region and hence your country? And what type of capacity building programmes can facilitate this shift? 1. Sensitize the local communities about the nutritional value about the local landraces which are actually said to be Nutri-densed food. 2. Capacity building especially for the younger generation. 3. Women's agency and training on nutrition. 4. Training incentivizing farmers for switching to healthy food production. 5. Digital literacy for the farmers is very important. Q3: What are the areas in which awareness programmes are needed to shift towards healthy and sustainable diets in Asia? And what type of awareness programmes can facilitate this shift? 1. Benefiting from the local resources which are easily available around the region. 2. Promote local food which can help the local communities in improving economy as well as improve the nutrition in their daily diet. 3. Media especially social media influences food choices. Leveraging media for bringing about behavioral change. 4. Awareness must be spread among Low Income and Marginalized groups. Скрыть

The EU-funded SWITCH-Asia programme aims at supporting the development of green economy and the transition towards a low-carbon, resource-efficient and a more circular economy in Asia promoting economic growth while decoupling it from environmental degradation. The SWITCH-Asia Regional Policy Advocacy Component (RPAC), implemented by United Nations Environment Programme, is designed to strengthen the dialogue at regional, sub-regional and national policies on Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) and thereby contributing to green growth and reduction of poverty in Asia. In spite of the ... Подробнееfact that Asia is the largest contributor of global food production, yet it is home to a large portion of the world’s poor, hungry and food insecure people. Food accessibility remains one of key challenges in the region especially among the low income households. There is rapid urbanization over large parts of Asia and currently about 50% of the population lives in urban area. Studies have shown that urbanization influences both quantity and diversity of food consumption (Bhartendu et al., 2020) while risks such as climate change, natural disasters, price volatility, etc., impacts the food accessibility of the lower income households. In Asia, increasing food consumption by a growing population, together with changing dietary habits, poses an immense challenge for the global food system and is associated with health and environmental impacts, such as diseases due to unhealthy diets, increasing use of harmful chemicals to increase production, and increasing food wastage. Shifting to more sustainable food consumption patterns would greatly contribute to food systems transition in the context of Asia towards a sustainable, equitable, resilient and nutritious food system. Improving access to food and facilitating a transition towards healthier and sustainable diet is an essential aspect of green growth and sustainable development in the region. Policy and evidence-based, regenerative, innovative and technological solutions is urgently needed across Asia to overcome the diversity of problems that exist in meeting the challenges of food systems transformation. A Sub-Regional Dialogue: Promoting Sustainable Food Consumption in Southeast and Northeast Asia through Farm-to-Fork Concept, held by RPAC in partnership with Asian Institute of Technology on 14 September 2021, shared insights on food consumption patterns, policies and ways towards sustainable food consumption in Asia. Among which, healthy and nutritious diets for the vulnerable population were highlighted as one of priority areas in Asia to transform food consumption patterns, while technology, innovation, and policy were addressed as important tools. In this context, RPAC in partnership with the TERI School of Advanced Studies and AIT organized the Regional Dialogue - Promoting Sustainable Food Consumption and Shift to Healthy Diets in Asia through Farm to Fork Concept, held on 27 Jan. 2020 virtually via Zoom. The dialogue was based on the concept of Farm-to-Fork and further discussed sustainable food consumption with focuses on ensuring healthy and sustainable diets for the low-income households, with key stakeholders and experts in the region to gather first hand insights. Practical enablers, challenges and sollutions towards sustainable food consumption and healthy diets in Asia were shared through panel discussion and case studies, followed by detailed break-out group discussions. The dialogue documented the farm to folk strategy, addressed the challenges of sustainable food systems, and recognized the inextricable links between healthy people, healthy societies and healthy planet. It was highlighted that the regional dialogue on promoting sustainable food consumption and the shift to healthy diets in Asia is timely and will help in better understanding and identifying various mechanisms to which the shift to healthy diets can take place. Скрыть

. What more needs to be done to define and monitor the benefits and outcomes of regenerative agriculture? • Set up farmer networks in different geographies and contexts for peer-to-peer learning and sharing of best practices and outcomes. No cookie cutter approaches are possible, all processes for defining and monitoring benefits and outcomes need to be contextual. • Define several different social and ecological contexts worldwide in which regenerative agriculture and agro-ecology produce economic benefits for farmers, community and ecology. Profile and share best practices across these. ... ПодробнееWhat does successful regenerative agriculture look like in South Africa vs Far Northern Queensland vs Argentina vs Spain; can we create bioregional models of regenerative agro-ecology? • Increase transparency initiatives across the board. Organisations need to share data about the improvements made through using regenerative agriculture practices transparently and widely • Wider discussion and agreement of what should be measured in each system: what should be measured for soil, what for water, what for nutrient levels in food, what for productivity, what for financial viability of farms, what for biodiversity? Is a simple set of metrics possible in such a complex system? • Can partnerships with national landowners in different countries be developed through collaborations and policy - for example the National Trust in the UK, the USA government in terms of National Parks or such as the government of Tanzania’s investment in agro-ecology projects - where large-scale land-based projects could be created? • Develop a clearer global narrative to which the UN, food organisations and governments can sign up so that the approach is not captured by the existing food system. Скрыть

What technologies would aid or hinder us in scaling agro-ecology and regenerative agriculture? • Geospatial monitoring can help to determine how well/poorly landscapes are doing in terms of soil health, biodiversity and reforestation. • Satellite, drone and other digital approaches can be used to monitor soil health, biodiversity and reforestation and drive funding towards farmers improving land management • Collaborative land management is made possible by satellite monitoring technology - whether that is through large scale herd management across vast landscapes, or reforestation. What... Подробнее is needed to maximise the potential of emergent technology is collaboration across landowners, governments and global food stakeholders. • Labelling technology to track and trace source and provenance is not maximised in the food system. Скрыть

Simplification vs Complexity: there is considerable demand for simplicity in this field, whether that is simplifying terminology and language, simplifying measurement systems, labelling systems, or simplifying complex supply chains. The demand for simplification has an alter ego called recognition of complexity. As much as there is demand for simplicity, there is also recognition that scaling regenerative agro-ecology can not be made simple due to the wide variety of approaches it includes, the vast differences in its application depending on landscape, culture and market. Valuable next steps ... Подробнееwould be a UN-led exploration on what it is possible to simplify to engage with broader audiences and stakeholder groups, and where the need is education in complexity to enable people to cope with the ambiguity (no cookie cutter approaches or simple best practice models) that is inherent in complex system change. Organisations with greater capacity to manage complexity are much more easily able to absorb ambiguity than small scale farmers. Standardisation and Best Practice vs Localised Uniqueness This is a further reflection of the above issue. Global economies are build on standardisation and best practice because these approaches are what makes it possible to generate a certain kind of scale which is built on homogenisation. The kind of scale that is possible for regenerative agri-ecology is not this kind of scale. It is finding processes that enable scale from a different approach. It will be scaling on an ecosystem level rather than a global level. Therefore it will be critical to define how these approaches can work most effectively in specific ecosystems, cultures and markets and follow this approach to scale rather than global certification and standards. This might mean approaches for vast grasslands, arid steppes, coastal wetlands, temperate forests etc and also by socio-economic regions. During the presentations and discussions the restoration of the link between animals and the land emerged as a core principle of regenerative agriculture for many. Good grassland systems for raising animals were advocated by many in view of the environmental and animal welfare benefits. However, there was disagreement from others. Several participants argued that there is an enormous difference between regenerative animal agriculture and ‘regenerative veganic agriculture’. One stated, for example, that ‘’veganic agriculture is good for the planet and the climate whereas regenerative animal agriculture is used as a public relations point to give cover to the animal foods industry’’. There were differing viewpoints on future food systems. Some argued that we should move to predominantly plant-based food systems with less and better animal-source foods from grazing animals that benefit the environment, livelihoods and animal welfare. Others argued for transition to 100% plant-based diets freeing up land currently used for animal agriculture for rewilding. With respect to health, some argued that meat from grazing animals is healthier than meat from industrially reared animals, whereas others argued for a vegan diet on health grounds. Скрыть

Our Dialogue focused on how the world could approach scaling regenerative agriculture and agro-ecology for the benefit of human, planetary and animal health and welfare, with a wide global audience that included a range of interests in agro-ecology and regenerative agriculture. During the Dialogue we aimed to:- • Highlight the perspectives of those already engaged in regenerative agriculture approaches including regenerative farmers and global food businesses. • Discuss the key constraints holding back the wide adoption of regenerative agricultural practices. • Explore how to create incr... Подробнееeased global support for an integrated, holistic approach to policy reform across the food system value chain in support of regenerative agriculture. • Discuss recommendations for accelerating the emergence of regenerative agriculture as a key pillar of a sustainable food system. Скрыть

Overall the whole group highlighted the complexity of addressing this subject, with an inter-disciplinary and interconnected approach across multiple systems required to make progress. The key findings included: A Systemic Approach: the opportunity to scale regenerative agriculture and agro-ecology requires an inter-connected and inter-disciplinary approach across global organisations, businesses and national institutions, land management, livestock management, international trade and tariffs, support institutions such as finance/insurance/banking, and government policy. Policy: international ... Подробнееand national policy is insufficient in most countries to support a transition to regenerative agriculture and agro-ecology. Significant changes in agricultural subsidies from industrial to organic/regenerative/agro-ecology, transparent supply chain tracking, consistent and clear labelling, education of industry, farming and consumer communities to create demand, innovative trade agreement policy to promote food produced in this way were all cited as high value approaches. Best Practice vs Uniqueness: there is recognition that improved sharing of data and best practices would be helpful to farmers worldwide. That is tempered by the recognition by almost all participants that regenerative agriculture and agro-ecology are philosophies that require different implementation dependent on the kind of land system being worked, and the culture in which it is operating. There is urgent need for further discussion on how to approach best practice and simplification to encourage adoption and the need to recognise ecological and cultural uniqueness in different parts of the world. The issue of integration of livestock into land regeneration schemes is also a geographic/ecology / cultural issue which requires further discussion and definition. In some parts of the world, livestock integration is essential for soil health; in other parts driven by the cultural practice of always including meat in human diets. Land: urgent discussion and agreement on global land use would be helpful. Global and national agreements on geospatial mapping and protecting some landscapes from agriculture entirely in the future would be helpful. Greater access to land ownership and management for young people and indigenous peoples with deep knowledge of these kind of agricultural practices is a common thread, as well as including the latter in educational systems worldwide. Definitions: there is a sense that there is still too much ambiguity between what is agro-ecology and what is regenerative agriculture which is confusing for grassroots farmers around the world. There is also a perceived gap between the global south and global north as to whether these approaches incorporate social justice as well as ecological and business transformation which is reflected in the definitions. Greater clarity is required from the UN, in the food system in general on what is common on the approach, in simple language, and further clarity on which organisations support what approaches. Finance/Banking/Insurance: there are not sufficient policies or products in place on a global or national level to support the transition to regenerative agriculture and agro-ecology. There is a requirement to educate the finance, banking and insurance community about the approach, the timeframe and challenges of transformation, so that the appropriate products and services that support farmers and food businesses can be developed. Research/Data/Metrics: there is insufficient research published and available outside the USA to validate the outcomes of the transition to regenerative agriculture. The research and data that is available has insufficient visibility. A global coalition between academic and agricultural research organisations to gather and publish data in different continents, respecting the different challenges of land and culture, is considered valuable. The need for a true cost accounting approach to food production as global and national policy was mentioned frequently. Support for Farmers: support for farmers to make a transition from industrial farming is inadequate on a worldwide basis. Key needs that must be addressed include: • educating farmers on the economic, ecological and social benefits of regenerative agriculture and agro-ecology • developing business models that work in different land systems and cultures that demonstrate how farmers can successfully make a viable transition from one system to another • more cost-effective access to consulting support - ideally free and highly regular - to consistently build farmer knowledge and confidence • support to break the industrial cycle and to combat the narratives of existing supplier networks to which farmers are tied that support industrial agriculture, such as feed suppliers, nutritionists, veterinary suppliers A Culture of Trust; Transparency The lack of a culture of trust between farmers and global businesses and institutions was frequently remarked upon. Creating an atmosphere of collective respect, mutuality and trust is considered essential to moving this agenda forwards. Establishing common language, common goals, common metrics and designing opportunities that reflect collaborative advantage over competitive advantage were all proposed as approaches. Developing more open food networks, common and open-source opportunities to share narratives and outcomes in the field, a global and national way to access information that can be trusted, are all needed. Скрыть

1. How can regenerative agriculture and agro-ecology scale to become a key pillar of sustainable food systems? The approach to scale requires a complex, multi-step process across a wide range of different stakeholders to bring the approach to mainstream acceptance. The following pathways are considered critical: - • reconciliation of the perceptions that a) regenerative agriculture is western-centric and does not consider the socio-economic component of agriculture in the global south and b) regenerative agriculture and agro-ecology cannot on its own produce enough food for global needs and ... Подробнееcan only ever be a niche player • research and data to support the efficacy of the approach in delivering volume food production • research and data, more widely shared, to support the efficacy of the approaches in soil restoration and health • science-based evidence to influence policy and investment • an international and national education programme which covers not only farmers and agriculture, but politicians, the finance and investment system, and the insurance system, as key structural support • consumer education to drive demand for regeneratively produced produce, which would also have to include better tracking and tracing of produce, and a global/national system of clear labelling • platforms which share current best practice and success both internationally and nationally but which also recognise that the application of these practices has no perfect blueprint and must reflect the uniqueness of the landscape in which it is being practiced, the local culture and the ‘state of readiness of the local market/industry • a globally agreed approach to true cost accounting • appropriate business models for farmers to make a viable transition for their country/terrain which must include long term financial support, appropriate incentives, training and outcome measurement • large scale demonstration farms that are easily accessible on different continents/in different regions • global agreement to hold certain lands in perpetuity for non-agricultural conservation of nature Скрыть

What constraints are holding back the scaling of agro-ecology and regenerative agriculture? • Lack of globally agreed definitions that can support farmers in different geographic locations • Conversely lack of flexibility in mindsets which mean we seek tight definitions, best practice and are uncomfortable with ambiguity of complex systems • Perception that regenerative agriculture is western-centric and does not consider the socio-economic component of agriculture in the global south • Perception that regenerative agriculture and agro-ecology cannot on its own produce enough food for ... Подробнееglobal needs and can only ever be a niche player • The supply chain structure that has eroded smaller farms in favour of large-scale production and monocultures • Knowledge gaps regarding the potential of regenerative agriculture and agro-ecology to provide a viable business model in farming communities • Economic affordability of transition for farmers in many parts of the world • Lack of viable financial support for farmers, either through banking/finance/loans, insurance products, long term investment for change • Affordability and demand for regeneratively farmed produce in developed nations • Widely different labelling, production and slaughter systems for livestock • Lack of widely available or agreed impact measurement systems to prove viability and measure carbon sequestration, footprint Скрыть

Priority 4 - How to promote justice, equality, and inclusion in food systems Focus: Combatting food insecurity for vulnerable groups and supporting collective action for food sovereignty and more equal access to healthy and sustainable food for all. Why is this important? This is a cross-cutting priority that intersects with all other areas for action research on food systems, and is instrumental to advancing progress on the sustainable development goals (SDGs). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2019) finds that empowering and valuing women increases their capacity to improve food... Подробнее security has a multiplier effect, contributing to poverty reduction, food security, and better nutrition for families and whole communities. Opportunities for action The consultation surfaced 29 opportunities which, through discussion, crystallized around three key research opportunities: 1. Address how research is carried out in food systems for more inclusive and just outcomes. This entails engaging all actors in the food system, including women and marginalized groups, through a highly collaborative approach — building coalitions and collective action through the research process itself. This includes an emphasis on rights-based approaches. • Support research that drives and scales collective action and resilience practices, such as by linking researchers to civil society groups working on food sovereignty (among other areas), and explore ways to incentivize food producers to embrace resilience and nutrition rather than only mass production. • Understand the behavioural factors that underpin social change processes, such as by focussing on knowledge translation, engaging youth, and improving education on climate change and food systems. • Intentionally integrate justice, equity, and decolonizing lenses into every stage of research to drive food system transformations that support the most vulnerable. • Prioritize transdisciplinary and participatory research that combines traditional, local, and Western knowledge systems. 2. Link social policy goals and related support measures (such as social safety nets and access to finance) to climate and agricultural policy through incentives. • Focus incentives for transforming food systems on tackling the root causes of inequality. Such incentives might include, for example, measures that help overcome powerful business interests and ‘growth at any cost’ economic models, or that link local producers with community groups serving the vulnerable. • Target subsidies to promote agroecological production that meets food, social, and ecological goals, and discourage environmentally harmful practices. • Create voucher systems that link people with limited means to local food systems. 3. Address the structural and systemic exclusion of marginalized groups, removing institutional and governance barriers they face, and increasing their access to and influence over decision-making. • Take a rights-based approach, including respect for the tenure and land claims of Indigenous groups. • Move beyond action research toward a rights-based approach that prioritizes legal empowerment of marginalized groups. For example, entrench the right to a healthy environment in law, thereby providing legal recourse for marginalized people. • Use education to inform grassroots groups pressuring elected leaders to shift policy. • Integrate analysis of power relations into food systems research to reveal vested interests and engage influential actors in food system change. Скрыть

Priority 5 - How to support the resilience of smallholder farmers Focus: Promote locally produced and consumed food and increase the access of smallholder farmers to markets and to climate adaptation and mitigation options. Why is this important? Enhancing the welfare and resilience of smallholder farmers in the context of climate change is essential for food and nutrition security. Opportunities for action From a total of 34 opportunities identified, discussion focused on three key areas of potential action: 1. Help smallholder farmers access markets and grow their incomes. Markets-related ac... Подробнееtion research can facilitate smallholder farmers’ access to markets, helping them grow their incomes and achieve both financial and food security. The two main research opportunities are: • institutional innovations in terms of how market actors, particularly smallholders, collaborate; and • exploring what kinds of markets support different kinds of smallholder farmers. We can also explore what happens to markets and how they respond in crises, and how to support well functioning markets where transportation links are minimal, especially during and after crisis situations such as conflicts or climate-related disasters. Digital communications - particularly of market-relevant information (like climate services, commodity prices, or market access information) – are increasingly important. It’s also important to explore innovations to address value chain disruptions considering the range of different market actors – including smallholders - affected by such disruptions. Research around markets should include a comprehensive and systemic approach to food production and distribution (e.g., local food system platforms linking food production, transport, commercialization, and consumption). Smallholder farmers should also have access to climate advisories, early warning systems, and adaptive safety nets to reduce risks coming from climate variability and extreme events. Gender considerations are important to ensure the care burden and time poverty of women farmers are addressed to enable them to participate in markets. It is also critical to explore alternative opportunities for income generation through economic diversification programs. 2. Promote e-commerce and other mechanisms to facilitate direct interactions between consumers and producers. Rapid e-commerce growth in certain countries during the pandemic caused disruptions for farmers. While e-commerce offers important opportunities, it also poses risks to small farmers. How can we increase smallholder farmers’ access to this technology and help them tap its strength in connecting with consumers? Many do not have access to the connectivity and infrastructure required. There are also big regional - and gender - differences in access. E-commerce can support income growth for smallholder farmers, but it requires appropriate linkages among different actors involved. In other contexts, NGOs or other entities may be better suited to this role. Context-specific research can shed light on how best to facilitate these linkages. There is a clear opportunity for action research and policy influence to find innovative ways to make these digital technologies more user-friendly to both men and women farmers and more accessible to youth, which could motivate their renewed participation in agriculture and food production. 3. Enhance information access, training and capacity development for smallholder farmers. For smallholder farmers to be relevant and profitable in the current competitive environment, continued education, timely knowledge access, and training emerged as important. Farmers need further training and information in such areas as climate-smart (climate-resilient) crops and practices, sustainable agronomic practices, and financial management. Developing and implementing well designed training programs for agricultural extension workers who can adapt knowledge to local contexts for smallholders to understand and implement, is another area of research opportunity. Supporting peer learning and bridging research-into-use through digital tools are other opportunities. Скрыть

Priority 6 - How to plan for climate risk in food systems Focus: Adapting to extreme and slow on-set changes through rapid learning, foresight, and sustainable agricultural practices. Why is this important? Climate change and extreme events pose a wide range of human and economic costs, including famine. Focusing on reducing climate risk in food systems would benefit local governments and those engaged all along the food supply system. Opportunities for action From a total of 27 opportunities identified, the three priority action areas are: 1. Create storylines (socialization in public discour... Подробнееse) to communicate narratives that support transformation in a complex system. This would entail improving communication: • between government ministries and departments, to help to surface trade-offs. Irrigation, for example, may reduce risk in terms of agricultural productivity, but may increase risk in the water sector, or the health sector; • with consumers - who are shifting their diets or may want to do so - on the implications of their choices; and • with various actors along the value chain, incl. between extension service providers and farmers. This links with the need for capacity development, including the capacity to better communicate, if better narratives need to be co-developed. There is a need to better communicate risk, in a timely manner, in ways understood by communities, and to explain how to feasibly reduce risk. Too often risk awareness is not followed by action, or is communicated too late, or without risk management options that communities can afford. Key actors should be mobilized, including civil society, in demanding justice in the way risk is managed and communicated. 2. Assess climate risks and opportunities along value chains. There is also a need to better understand risks, underlying factors, and uncertainties and to improve risk assessments for decision-making. Such assessments should be conducted at the beginning of projects, not at the end. Assessment must include risks triggered by actions aimed at reducing other types of risk. Risk needs to be assessed along all parts of the food system value chain, including how risk is unevenly distributed among actors. This entails co-assessing climate risks, with all stakeholders, taking into consideration who uses or needs to use the information, and fine-tuning the information accordingly. o Use system thinking to assess how risk travels along value chains, how it is altered across actors, its ripple effects, and implications of our actions. o Better understand how risks are distributed, in type, timing, and magnitude: Are there equal risks across the value chain? Where are the weaker parts of each value chain, in different contexts? Can we better target our interventions based on this knowledge? Will minimizing risk in one part of the value chain increase risk in another, or for other people? o Strengthen the link between risk assessments and solution identification. While risk assessments are well developed, we can't say the same about solution identification, which should be based on equally robust technical assessments. 3. Overcome the ‘last mile’ challenge in the delivery of climate services. This demands major investments in proactive climate risk management strategies, including early warning and adaptive safety net programs that have the potential to secure more resilient livelihoods for millions of farmers in low- and middle-income countries. To help user communities and countries cope with climate change, climate services need to be easily accessible to all. Research can play an important role in understanding how to overcome this ‘last mile’ challenge in the delivery of climate services. It is important to note, however, that not all risks can be foreseen by better climate services. There are components of risk linked to structural weaknesses of food systems, which may similarly present shocks, as happened with COVID-19. Some of these shocks may be addressed in part through actions – such as changing agricultural practices and shifting diets - proposed under other priority research areas. Скрыть

Priority 7 - How to reduce emissions in food systems Focus: Use of low carbon technologies and methods that regenerate and protect soils and water while reducing food loss. Why is this important? Survey respondents highlighted the significant contributions of agriculture to greenhouse gas emissions, and the related impact that carbon-intensive industrial agricultural practices have on both soils and people — increasing poverty and vulnerability in fragile contexts. Opportunities for action This priority identified in survey responses was not selected for synthesis discussion by workshop part... Подробнееicipants. Nonetheless, the consultation generated more than 40 potential opportunities for action. These have been aggregated as follows: 1. Support agricultural practices that reduce emissions and mitigate impacts on soils. • Support the diversification of farming practices, including agroforestry and agroecology, permaculture, and others that help to reduce emissions and increase carbon sequestration. • Research soils across different farming and landscape systems to show the change needed for healthy soils (which reduce emissions and enable climate resilience). 2. Tackle the economic underpinnings of carbon intensive farming. • Conduct cost-benefit and investment return analyses on agroecological systems, and use the results to advocate for change in agri-business models. • Address private sector interests, lobbying and disincentives to adopting low-carbon food systems. • Explore the use of taxes and subsidies to incentivize sustainable, regenerative local food production, and discourage high-emission production. • Reduce the costs of healthy diets. • Create incentives for companies to measure and curtail food loss and waste. • Deploy public private partnerships. 3. Use policy and regulatory reforms to reduce emissions. • Identify and scale tools and policies to improve transparency and accountability within the commodity supply chains that are driving high emission production. • Develop regulation and incentives to reduce food waste, such as by encouraging smaller portion packaging, recycling, or increasing food waste disposal costs. • Use regulation and enforcement, together with real-time remote sensing, to secure and enforce protection of high-carbon landscapes. • Implement "demand-side" policies that incentivize "supply-side" changes, such as food labelling systems that inform consumers on emissions and water use in food. 4. Invest in innovation. • Rethink existing investment in agricultural research and innovation to focus more on climate-resilient, low-emission technologies and practices. • Pressure large financial sector agencies to finance corporations that invest in low carbon foods. • Explore market-based approaches to incentivize farmers’ adoption of climate-smart technologies that also enhance their livelihoods. 5. Reduce carbon intensive value chains. • Shorten and diversify supply chains for greater resilience within food systems. • Look at emissions in post-harvest, post-production segments of value chains, such as through food loss, transport, storage, and infrastructure. • Develop early warning and information management systems to reduce food loss. • Ensure every adaptation project has access to mitigation experts who can help evaluate whether the adaptation changes proposed will increase or decrease emissions. 6. Bridge knowledge gaps on emissions reduction among various stakeholders. • Foster knowledge sharing to ensure innovations reach farmers. • Engage high-level policymakers in dialogue on emissions reduction in agriculture – giving them confidence to address it in their Nationally Determined Contributions. • Support platforms and dialogues at local and regional levels to build policy capacity within governments and extension services. • Improve our understanding on trade-offs and how to minimize them, such as when improving the diets of marginal communities entails more carbon-intensive infrastructure development. • Educate and organize the public on food loss and their right to safe, secure, healthy food, so that they start demanding low-emission, low-input and fairly produced food. Скрыть

The seven priority areas related to food systems that were presented for discussion in the dialogue were surfaced by nearly 40 survey respondents in the weeks leading up to the dialogue. Some of the dialogue participants noted the absence of some important priorities, including a focus on how we might transform food systems through a better understanding of market demands for increased protein (in particular, meat), and a focus on economic incentives to move towards agroecology. Note that the seven priority areas are not ranked, and neither the survey nor the dialogue asked that these be weigh... Подробнееed against one another to reach any consensus around order or prioritization. While not areas of divergence per se, the dialogue flagged a number of overlapping areas among priorities, including that aspects of several priorities link with agroecology and that justice, equality and inclusion must be seen as cutting across all the other priorities. This highlights the need to think holistically, rather than addressing each priority as a silo. Similarly, some participants highlighted the need to think about how we do research differently, rather than just identifying research gaps and priorities. This would entail new ways of rewarding scientists to motivate, support, and reward participatory and transdisciplinary research; better understanding how research can support transformation; and ensuring the people we are trying to help are engaged in the research process. In a post-dialogue debrief, IDRC organizers reflected on gaps in representation in the overall consultation process. Some regions (MENA and Asia-Pacific in particular) and stakeholder groups (mainly research users) were underrepresented. ARA and others that use the findings from this consultation process should consider other validation steps to ensure research directions reflect the needs of producers, consumers, and farming communities, not just the perspectives of funders and researchers. There was also some unevenness in the distribution of expertise. Some group conversations included leading experts. For them the gap was less on what to do (they felt there was clear agreement on what works) but how. And while social and economic trade-offs rippled across many priorities, we did not have many economists present, so there was no discussion in, for example, the agroecology group, on economic incentives, while in the discussion of healthy sustainable diets, two of the four participants were economists. This likely skewed the selection and elaboration of proposed actions. Скрыть

Below are the findings for each of the seven action research priority areas surfaced through the Dialogue: Priority 1- How to transform food systems Proposed focus: The role of multi-stakeholder governance and cooperation across sectors in scaling innovations and increasing transparency and equitable participation in value chains. Why is this important? Transforming innovation systems to deliver impacts at scale and making knowledge and innovation more accessible and actionable to farmers should be a priority. Research in this area would accelerate the deployment of demonstrated technologies a... Подробнееnd shed light on innovative financing mechanisms to scale new approaches and harness the power of the private sector. We need to better understand how to shift power dynamics and the status quo to transform food systems. Understanding the impacts of this bundling approach is vital for building systemic resilience against climate. Opportunities for action The consultation surfaced 33 opportunities that can be characterized as a set of approaches to exploring food system transformation that focus on the drivers, process and intended “destination” of transformation. 1. Understand the different motivations, drivers, incentives of different food system actors - and those of researchers - and test key leverage points for changing these incentives. For example: • Explore market incentives to support national exports that use sustainable practices. • Develop guidelines for large supermarkets around minimum share of local supply. • Direct market linkage to reduce food prices and reduce the exploitation of small farmers (such as by eliminating intermediaries or creating cooperatives that will increase farmers’ bargaining power). 2. Ensure the PROCESS of transformation is participatory, and that stakeholders, including underrepresented groups (indigenous communities, women, smallholder farmers, low-income households) are aligned to address the root causes of systemic problems. This entails: • Research that adopts a systematic perspective, doesn't reproduce power inequalities, and values local, traditional, and Indigenous knowledge; and • Research on the best ways to link farmers (and other often ignored groups of producers such as pastoralists and urban/peri-urban farmers), businesses, governments, and donors to work in the same direction despite their different motivations, drivers, and decision-making processes. 3. Clarify the “destination” - what should we be aiming for in new food systems? Focus on what would bring about a climate resilient and food secure future for all, in each specific context and globally. This includes: • Understanding the trade-offs (such as between adaptation and mitigation, or between food security and food sovereignty) and context specificity, acknowledging that there are different types of farmers and therefore different pathways for transformation; and • Socializing narrative on what it takes to transition to a healthy and sustainable food system, such as reducing meat and unhealthy food consumption; improving environmental regulation in agriculture; engaging all of society; and adopting a wholesale ‘end-to-end’ approach across food systems, from ‘farm to fork’. Скрыть

Priority 2 - How to transition toward agroecology Focus: Practical research to identify the conditions and drivers to achieve the agroecological transition needed to contribute to soil regeneration and food systems that are more sustainable, equitable and climate resilient. Why is this important? Agroecology has the potential to contribute to both adaptation and mitigation of climate change; it would enhance food security at the national level while promoting greater inclusion by benefiting smallholder households and indigenous small producers. Opportunities for action Building on a total of 3... Подробнее0 opportunities for action identified through the survey and virtual workshop highlighted the need for funding to support alliances that would broadly engage around the urgent need to shift towards agroecological production, given its contribution to both human resilience (through nutrition, health and social benefits) and natural resilience (preserving soils, biodiversity, and ecosystem services). As part of this paradigm shift, national policies need to promote climate resilient and sustainable food systems, rather than focusing only on for-profit commercialisation of food products. Within the research and policy community, there is a need to build consensus around the central principles of agroecology, getting past the terminology to reduce polarization. To support transition at the farm level, a focus on research-into-use opportunities, such as integrating agroecological production within extension services, will help farmers apply new knowledge and techniques. At the popular level, there is a need to promote collective action and education demanding healthier and sustainable diets. Research must be transdisciplinary and participatory, ensuring leadership from marginalized groups. This may be advanced through collaboration with agroecological and food sovereignty-focused civil society movements around the world, such as Via Campesina, the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa, and IFOAM Organics. In terms of research focus areas, the dialogue surfaced a number of opportunities, including: • developing monitoring and accountability systems (including development of metrics) that track health and environmental outcomes of food system policies; • protecting local knowledge, seed biodiversity, plant genetic resources through farmer seed exchanges, and participatory technology development; • generating evidence on the economic advantages of agroecology, and developing business models to make the case for agroecology at scale; and • understanding agroecology trade-offs (and potential ‘triple wins’) for people, nature, and climate in LDCs with context-specific evidence. Скрыть

Priority 3 - How to support healthy and sustainable diets Focus: Incentives for healthy consumption patterns of sustainably produced food, including plant-based food and low agrochemical inputs Why is this important? The participants highlighted the health and environmental advantages of a plant-based diet and the potentially high impact of wide-scale adoption of more sustainable and health diets. Opportunities for action A total of 43 opportunities were identified, focusing largely around four key areas of potential action: 1.Institutional procurement There is a need to build on existing inte... Подробнееrventions to ensure that procurement programs (like for school food) meet the joint goals of enriching diets and sourcing food sustainably. This is very relevant for Asia and Africa. Given potential commercial interest in procurement programs, these must be designed with care to ensure the desired nutritional and environmental outcomes. It will be important to research the effectiveness of program design and consider carefully which food system actors need to be included. For equity purposes, decision-making cannot involve only government officials or private businesses, but must also include community representatives - particularly those who are food insecure. 2. Food policy bundle (incl. taxes, subsidies, labelling, marketing regulation) This focal area would aim to create a more enabling policy and regulatory environment – helping to shape demand for more sustainable and healthy diets while also addressing supply-side factors. It may involve, for example, dismantling elements of trade agreements that undermine the competitiveness of sustainable local farmers. The objective is to have macro-level regulatory and economic policy tools that would influence the consumption and supply of not only food products, but also carbon emissions and agricultural inputs (fertilizers, water, and land). This would make the resource allocation in food systems more environmentally sustainable and improve health and equity outcomes. The aim would be to make unhealthy and unsustainable products more expensive than healthy sustainable foods. 3. Building narratives that support a shift to healthy, sustainable diets Addressing food insecurity, dietary quality, and environmental sustainability requires multi-sectoral action and negotiating trade-offs (like between the returns to farm labour and profits for private enterprise, and between food quality and prices). Given the many actors and their incentives, standard critiques that delay action - like the cost of transitioning to healthy diets and the potential impact on private industry of regulations - can be barriers to change. These need to be countered by creating narratives on why and how to make the shift to healthy sustainable diets (like by illustrating the co-benefits for environment and health, and opportunities to increase wages for low-income food system workers). Such narratives can help create an incentive structure to shift industry practices for farmers, agri-business, and vendors towards better nutritional and ecological outcomes. Creating these narratives will require support for advocacy and civil society mobilisation, incl. through investigative journalism that exposes the powerful interests that support unhealthy food systems and reports on the health, economic, and environment impacts of industrial agriculture. 4. Increasing the diversity of food sources (incl. traditional and local and sustainable foods) Multiple food systems can co-exist. We need to expand the reach of food systems that incorporate diverse food sources while addressing food insecurity and ensuring food accessibility, availability, and affordability - which all depend on well functioning global value chains. Increasing this diversity demands understanding the mechanisms for change - how, for instance, increasing the supply of a particular crop involves trade-offs between farmer incomes, land use, and dietary diversity. It also requires understanding the political economy of the relevant food system and how the integration of global food value chains interacts with requirements for ensuring food sovereignty. Скрыть

Our Dialogue focused on surfacing priorities and recommendations for action research in adapting food systems. The dialogue was the second part of a wider two-step consultation process. A full Chair's Summary from this process can be found here: http://hdl.handle.net/10625/60830. French and Spanish translations are also available.

Healthy, sustainable, and equitable food systems are essential for food security, and highly sensitive to the impacts of climate change. They also have the potential to play a key role in mitigating and adapting to climate change. Seven priority areas related to food systems were identified in this dialogue: • Transforming food systems • Transitions toward agroecology • Supporting healthy and sustainable diets • Justice, equality, and inclusion in food systems • Supporting the resilience of smallholder farmers • Anticipatory planning for climate risk in food systems • Reducing em... Подробнееissions in food systems The dialogue also noted the absence of some important priorities, including a focus on how we might transform food systems through a better understanding of market demands for increased protein (in particular, meat), and a focus on economic incentives to move towards agroecology. Cross-cutting observations for consideration: • the enormous scale and cost of adapting food systems in the context of climate change, which will demand considerable investment and a transformation in thinking; • the need to consider the pros and cons and ideal circumstances for international collaboration, taking into account that adaptation is essentially local and that collaboration carries transaction costs in terms of time and effort to coordinate action research across diverse actors; • a request that the Adaptation Research Alliance (ARA) document and share the learning from across different research collaborations and experiences; • the urgent importance of understanding and communicating risks and uncertainties, and using risk assessments for decision-making - as a starting point for every project; and • the need to think holistically, rather than addressing each priority as a silo. In chairing this dialogue, IDRC notes its value in exploring which priorities best lend themselves to action research, and which require collaboration. It will nonetheless be important for the ARA to also draw from evidence reviews in designing its research support agenda. Скрыть

Eradicating hunger and achieving food security remain major challenges to humanity and to sustainability. At the global level, hunger and food insecurity were on the rise in 2021. An estimated 25.9 per cent of the global population – 2 billion people were affected by moderate or severe food insecurity in 2021, an increase from 22.4 per cent in 2014, The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020 report from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that there are nearly 690 million people in the world who are hungry, or 8.9 per cent of the world population – up 10 m... Подробнееillion people in one year and nearly 60 million in five years. and the COVID-19 pandemic has only exacerbated the problem. Half of the world’s habitable land is used for agriculture and about a quarter of the world’s productive lands are degraded. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2 aiming to zero hunger, along with other closely associated SDGs such as those targeting poverty eradication and climate action. To support the UN system’s efforts towards eliminating hunger, and to underscore the interlinkages between SDG 2 and the rest of the goals, experts and professionals on food systems, population trends and rural development will be invited to join as panelists to discuss this urgent and multidimensional issue. The event also will serve as a Food Systems Summit Dialogue aligned with Action Track 4—Advance Equitable Livelihoods Скрыть