Официальная обратная связь диалогов

Managing risk and security at all levels – individual, community, government, and systems Climate Adaptation and Mitigation in Atoll countries Challenges in atoll countries; - Poor soil conditions - Climate change - Cost of farm inputs - Water availability Integrated methods – - bucket drip irrigation in conjunction with targeted compost productions – areas where high tide is below 30-50cm depth - Wicking system – used in low lying areas where high tides rise to the soil surface - Training for youth and women groups - Development of the RMI sector plan – to address challenging issues... Подробнее of food security Examples: SUPA project – adapted and established 30 wicking systems targeting patients with - Promote gardening - Health and resilience against NCDs Way forward - Investing in efficient water use mechanisms will improve soil nutrient management and enhance food productivity in atoll islands - Islanders must identify local knowledge and methods that can be upskilled or enhanced to combat the impacts of climate change, food security, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Скрыть

Not many areas of divergence were brought up due to time constraints.

Strengthening capacities and resources of farmers, indigenous groups, women, youth, and micro-small, medium enterprises (MSMEs) to effectively engage along with the agri-food production systems Main points: 1. Youth, women, children, and other marginalized groups are key stakeholders for addressing food security 2. Strengthen National councils within countries to support and promote youth at work 3. Mainstream and include young people in all decision makings platforms right from the community level to the national and regional levels. Way forward Develop aging advisory services to educate and ... Подробнееpromote innovative methods in rural communities to adapt to Climate change; Create associations for young people to take up agribusiness to understand and be competitive with outside markets; Government to provide and strengthen youth mechanisms that will continue the ongoing participation of youth in addressing key Pacific issues; National councils – need to be strengthened to promote and support youth at work. Скрыть

The Pacific Climate-Smart Agriculture Alliance (PaCSAA), hosted by the Pacific Community in collaboration with the Global Alliance for Climate-Smart Agriculture (GACSA) hosted a dialogue under the Independent Dialogues Food Systems Summit banner to provide a unique opportunity for PaCSAA stakeholders to dialogue on how the region can strike the balance between preserving vital ecosystem services and maintaining the stability of food supplies whilst fighting poverty, combating hunger and malnutrition, and preserving resilient ecosystems. The dialogue was aligned to Action Track 5: Build Resilie... Подробнееnce to Vulnerabilities, Shocks, and Stress. The resilience of food systems needs to be strengthened in such a way that the economic, social, and environmental foundations to produce sufficient nutritious food and maintain healthy ecosystems for current and future generations are not compromised. It demands a comprehensive approach that integrates responses to climate, biodiversity loss, conflict, pandemics, economic crises, food insecurity, malnutrition, and considering poverty, inequalities, and poor land use and distribution as structural root causes of increased hunger. These are critical for delivering the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Paris Agreement. The event was a 90-minute dialogue via zoom, which brought together food systems experts and leaders to explore, debate, and shape pathways to sustainable food systems that will inform contributions to the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit and build towards COP26. Скрыть

The Pacific Climate Smart Agriculture Alliance witnessed the importance of creating a platform for the Pacific region to dialogue, share and create linkages with international funding agencies to enhance develop our own Pacific solutions. The impacts of Climate change, natural disasters, poverty, and the current COVID-19 pandemic in the Pacific has been felt far and wide but the resilience of our small island nations to rebuild and withstand such stresses was also highlighted. The Pacific food systems dialogue witnessed the importance of the following key criteria’s: Stakeholders within the ... ПодробнееPacific Food Production systems require training, knowledge, and capacity building by local experts, academics, and government sectors to bring about sustainable food production systems for a resilient Pacific. Building partnerships between producers, state and non-state actors as well as consumers will ensure sustainable production systems which lead to the development of localized research to support and address key food production systems that will work well for the Pacific people. Invest in youth, women, and children empowerment to lead and take part in policy-making mechanisms as they constitute the majority of the population and can actively participate in driving and implementing changes within rural and urban communities. Capitalize on local resources and traditional knowledge to understand and build our own Pacific resilience in the face of Climate change, food security, and the current COVID-19 pandemic. Скрыть

- Agricultural innovations and practices driving positive change in the agri-food production systems (crop and livestock systems) that can be adapted or scaled in different contexts. - Enhancing investment and public-private partnerships (PPP) in holistic food systems approaches contributing to resilient communities Building resilience of local communities is achieved by building the capacity, knowledge, and experience of community people in agriculture; Field training and site demonstrations are impactful in delivering the skills and expertise directly to farmers to understand and adapt their... Подробнее farming systems; Building partnerships with various stakeholders, state and non-state actors within the Pacific food systems chain – for instance, a partnership between big farmers and smallholder farmers between the main island and outer islands in the transfer of planting materials, seeds to sustain long term supply of good quality and healthy plants. Other benefits of building partnerships include the provision of technical and expert support in developing value-added products and local food recipes that can easily be incorporated into the local people’s diets. Building resilience requires the support of donors to provide financial, expert, infrastructure, and capacity-building support; maintain good working relationships between private and public stakeholders to avoid communication breakdowns and delays in food production activities. Скрыть

- The role/research activities contributing to agri-food production systems outcomes Background: Climate change has exacerbated the social and economic issues in the Pacific – climate conditions in our forefathers' time vary greatly from the current times thus the importance of the role of research in developing and changing our Pacific food systems is crucial. Purpose of the research: - Helps to understand the relationship of our food system components with each other - To apply understanding and improve/optimize these relationships - To control relationships of components to make the syste... Подробнееm more efficient, effective, and high impact Examples of research in the Pacific: Conservation agriculture and sustainable intensification (Lincoln university, mordi tonga trust) - a combination of different conservation agriculture on how to optimize it in the local environment in order to address the needs of farmers and save the environment, PRISE - EU funded – which aims to improve the livelihood of farmers and fishers National food and nutrition - to co-create food production systems to suit our current climatic conditions, improve diets, ensure healthy soil and address pests and diseases in an environmentally friendly way. Application of crop models, social-economic – transforming the knowledge into making good decisions; food systems involve everyone. The way forward – rethink our research policies; ‘attitudes’ of people are not enabling change; promote the localization of research partnerships to include civil societies and NGOs; decolonize research – improve partnerships with international organizations with research focusing and prioritizing the needs of local farmers, fishers, private sector, and country governments. Increase investments – infrastructure to enable ‘trained’ and upskilled researchers to carry out proper research. Multiple risks approach – which encompasses all stakeholders within Pacific food production systems in order to understand the issues and solutions to suit our Pacific context; Need to relook at our farming systems – dynamics at the household level; - Increase productivity and profitability - Improve soil health - Reduce greenhouse emission There is a need to transform the knowledge from research into practice with the help of communication specialists to relay the information to all stakeholders within our Pacific Food Production systems. Скрыть

El enfoque principal del diálogo fue el Eje Acción 1, específicamente enfocado en lograrlo a través de cultivos biofortificados en Guatemala para reducir el hambre oculta. Los temas que los grupos de discusión se enfocaron en cómo escalar esta solución (masticación de semillas): inclusión de cultivos biofortificados para poblaciones vulnerables; intervenciones adaptadas culturalmente; alianzas público-privadas con empresas semilleras; cultivos biofortificados en programas gubernamentales.

1) la necesidad de crear redes de agricultores que produzcan cultivos biofortificados que abastezcan las compras del gobierno para programas sociales. 2) Incentivos económicos del sector público para activar a los agricultores que producen cultivos biofortificados. 3) La necesidad de campañas de comunicación que promuevan la adopción de cultivos biofortificados. 4) Incentivo económico a las empresas productoras de semillas para compensar el alto costo de la I&D. 5) Fortalecimiento del Instituto de Ciencia Tecnología Agrícolas - ICTA.

Un acceso inclusivo a los cultivos biofortificados: I. Considerar la oportunidad que se tiene con el Programa Nacional de Alimentación Escolar, hay un nicho cautivo, en donde los productores tienen la oportunidad de vender sus productos agrícolas, por lo que los biofortificados pueden posicionarse en este mercado el cual ya tiene un presupuesto disponible. II. Que se generen y existan las variedades y/o híbridos biofortificados para las distintas condiciones climáticas que tiene Guatemala en maíz, frijol, papa, yuca, camote, entre otros. III. Que exista la promoción de las bondades de lo... Подробнееs biofortificados a los productores agrícolas pequeños y medianos, pero también a los consumidores. IV. Que exista el material didáctico para la producción de biofortificados para poder entregarlo a los productores agrícolas. Que la difusión y promoción de estos cultivos pueda ser de productor a productor. - Cómo medir el avance de las acciones: Tableros de control Estrategia masiva de comunicación sobre las bondades de los biofortificados Días de promoción de los biofortificados Reservas de alimentos y semillas mejoradas - Retos o desafíos: Semillas disponibles pero con ciertas características que permitan a los productores adoptarlas, pensando en rendimiento, manejo poscosecha. Políticas que impulsen el uso de los biofortificados Reconocimiento del MAGA de los productores, de los consumidores sobre las ventajas del uso de los biofortificados. Скрыть

Cultivos biofortificados compatibles con la cultura: I. Es importante que haya una vinculación entre sectores -- agrícola, educación, salud II. Para la diseminación de conocimiento e información sobre los biofortificados III. La compatibilidad cultural se puede hacer de agricultor agricultor IV. Públicos y privados crean mercados para el grano biofortificado -- hay que crear infraestructura por ejemplo silos para guardarlo V. Probablemente gastaron más creando las semillas que va a costar para fomentar la adopción VI. Desnutrición crónica no se erradica con alimentos pero con una pol... Подробнееítica, INCAP ha estudió el ciclo vicioso -- relación entre ingresos, calidad de vida, y nutrición. VII. Los alimentos básicos puede ser punto partida de cambiar el sistema: es importante que haya una vinculación entre sectores -- agrícola, educación, salud VIII. Para la diseminación de conocimiento e información sobre los biofortificados IX. Es importante que todos tengan el mismo mensajes X. La unificación de mensajes, campañas de información, y de sectores XI. Si van a producir el maíz, hay que asegurar que hay mercado para el producto; los biofortificados son un factor importante pero no sera la solución, hay que darle un justo valor. Скрыть

Alianzas público-privadas con el sector semillerista: - Vías factibles para escalar el uso de semillas biofortificadas para reducir las brechas nutricionales: I. El uso de semilla biofortificada puede ser facilitado con precios preferibles con algún tipo de subsidio para intermediarios--vender semilla alternativa. Podría ser casi regalar semilla a agricultores de muy escasos recursos. No sería muy diferente que El Salvador. II. Es factible en escala limitada el fomento semilla biofortificada por programas institucionales que dan preferencia a compra de grano biofortificado. El mercado es ... Подробнееmás seguro y rentable. III. Se debe fomentar la demanda. Muchos consumidores y madres/padres de familia podrían preferir la semilla. IV. Todo de esas alternativas son para uso de corto plazo para hacer algo mientras hagamos el fitomejoramiento (4x de producir germoplasma). Скрыть

Los bioforificados dentro de los programas sociales públicos actuales – política púbica de éxito: I. ¿Qué tipo de alianzas son necesarias para la inversión y compra pública de alimentos biofortificados? Tiene que ser una alianza pública privada donde participan todos los sectores. Es importante tener el acompañamiento de varios actores (ej. educación), con metas muy claras que aseguren que el beneficiario final recibe el beneficio nutricional. Si ponemos al centro el Ministerio de Agricultura... la nutrición es multicausal, a quienes más tenemos que involucrar? Hay que poner al ... Подробнееniño en el centro. Con el programa de acompañame a crecer, podemos usar la estructura para no sólo entregarles la semilla, sino también toda la información y acompañamiento necesario. Las instituciones académicas deberían de acompañar y verificar. El sector privado tiene que empoderar a la gente. El sector público está viendo la parte de rendimiento pero no tanto la parte de la biofortificación. Tiene que ver mucho el empoderamiento. El tema de educar para generar conciencia, lo cual puede despertar la demanda, romper los paradigmas sobre los transgénicos. A nivel comunitario, explicar estos conceptos. Hay desconocimiento sobre la biofortificación - hay que aclarar que no son transgénicos. Explicar estos conceptos para que las familias puedan tomar las mejores decisiones. Para que las familias vean los beneficios: hacer alianzas con los programas de nutrición es importante también. II. ¿Cómo generamos la demanda e integración de la cadena de abastecimientos que involucre a los biofortificados? A través de programas de pequeños empresarios para que ellos mismos sean los agentes de promoción, un mecanismo diferente para generar demanda. Desde la comunidad promover los biofortificados. La creación de una política pública. A través de los medios de comunicación y comisiones comunitarias, pueden promover los biofortificados. III. ¿Cómo hacemos llegar tecnología a pequeños agricultores de infrasubsistencia, subsistencia y excedentarios? Los retos con agricultores de infrasubsistencia son grandes. Mejor enfocar en los agricultores de subsistencia, este grupo intermedio tiene recursos limitados - así podemos usar menor recurso para lograr mayor impacto. A través de ONGs ya en las comunidades (ej. facilitadores en el campo de World Vision) podemos hacer llegar esta tecnología. No solo tenemos que depender de los mecanismos de extensionismo del gobierno, podemos emplear el personal de las ONGs ya en el campo. Скрыть

Food safety capacity building

Multiple sectors should work together - through a public private partnership - to improve food safety capacity building.

1. Actors vision for diversified food systems When asked to envision sustainable and resilient agricultural and food systems that should exist in Malawi, all groups indicated that there should be diverse food systems that not only focus on exotic foods but promote production and consumption of indigenous crop and animal products. Some of the indigenous foods mentioned by the different actors include green grams, chick peas, velvet beans, lima beans, bambara nuts. baobab, tamarind, indian plum, prickly cucumber and wild animals (e.g., insects, caterpillars and mice). The findings on the diverse... Подробнее foods and agricultural enterprises mentioned at the national level is consistent with the findings from the community and district level dialogues. Actors at the community and district level also mentioned different foods that are cultivated, whilst some foods are from the wild. Some foods are also accessed from the markets. Surprisingly, when asked about what foods should be promoted in their areas, the actors at community level mostly mentioned the foods that are usually promoted by the programmers and public and non-state agricultural extension organisations. 2. Diversified food systems require agricultural investments and policies that embrace biodiversity The national participants observed that the national agricultural policies did not promote diversity as they equate food to maize. People are declared food insecure simply because they do not have enough maize, even when they have access to other foods such as potatoes, millet and cassava, just to mention a few. The narrative: “food is equal to maize” has also influenced agricultural policy investments such as the input subsidies that focuses on maize productivity. The narrow diversity was also exposed at the community level, where the participants mostly mentioned exotic crops and animals as their food of choice, mainly those promoted by agricultural research and development policies and programmes. Rarely or no effort is there to promote production and consumption of indigenous foods. Furthermore, there is insufficient investments to support the diversity, for example, the country does not have technologies for production and processing of indigenous fruits. 3. Capacity of actors is crucial to achieving sustainable food systems The different participants were in agreement that food systems are complex and require multi and interdisciplinary efforts. Food systems should be understood as systems comprising different actors (e.g., the academia, research, private sector, government, media, development partners), activities (i.e., production, storage, processing, distribution and consumption) and fields (i.e., agriculture, nutrition, economics, environment, society). Therefore, achieving sustainable and healthy food systems demands that different sectors play their roles. Development partners are key in mobilising resources and financing the strategic activities for the food systems. The government should ensure that there are policies that can support research and development and also invest in building the capacity, physical infrastructure and human capacity of actors in the food systems, promulgating activities that nudge appropriate behaviour change. Research and academia are challenged to transform the education systems as well as the research agenda setting to recognise and promote production, storage, processing and consumption of the crops and livestock species which are not in the mainstream agriculture and nutrition programmes. The research and academia should produce technologies, innovations, education programmes, and evidence which in turn can be applied by the food systems actors, used to train students, and used to enrich evidence-based advocacy. While each actor in the food system has important roles to play for the food system to perform, a question arises related to the capacity of the concerned actors to carry out their roles effectively and efficiently. Do the actors have the required knowledge and skills? Do they have the right attitudes and motivation? Are opportunities available? Can the actors seize the opportunities? What kind of support is available to the actors? Addressing these questions is paramount to the food systems performance since a malfunction of a single component in a system leads to failure of the whole system. For example, it was learned during the national and district level discussions that even though some actors (e.g., nutrition) promote the consumption of some indigenous vegetables for improved nutrition (e.g., amaranth), the availability of the such vegetables was limited to seasons. Unfortunately, agricultural research and extension activities pay minimal attention to promoting indigenous vegetables. Similarly, the environment group added that there is a need to promote the consumption of insects. However, they also observed that this required different sectors to be working hand in hand to make sure that the insects are available in all seasons. In appreciation of the complexity of the food systems, especially with regards to the multiplicity of the actors in the system, the participants to national dialogue noted the challenges to reach consensus on the foods to prioritize for consumption and production or investments. The challenges are due to differences in the interests and objectives to pursue in the food system. Скрыть

1. A call to provide space to local communities and indigenous knowledge in food systems transformation processes. The participants indicated that food transformation process pays little attention to local/ indigenous knowledge about how food is traditionally produced, processed, distributed and consumed. The process to transform food systems in the country is top down. The development partners, programmers, practitioners and scholars- “experts” design, implement and evaluate the food systems projects, programmes and policies. The communities are often placed at the receiving end. As such,... Подробнее the food preferences as well as the enterprises and activities for making the foods available, accessible and utilized are imposed on the local people. In other words, there is no collaboration with the local communities on food systems. The national participants noted issues with respect to culture and food traditions. The different communities value different foods differently such that “what is food to one culture is not food to another culture”. For example, communities valued finger millet, mice, and wild insects as food, while the district participants had reservations on some of the foods. But these foods play significant roles in cultural activities such as weddings. A case in point is finger millet that is an ingredient for sweet beer and is consumed during traditional ceremonies. The differences in the values attached makes some of the foods not recognized and supported in the mainstream policies, programmes and projects that often focus on the so called main crops, maize in particular. Moreover, the multi-national profit or non-profit making organisations that support agricultural research and development projects and programmes rarely focus on locally available foods that are valued by communities. Consequently, seeds for some indigenous crops have become scarce. 2. Negotiating and integrating diverging perspectives a challenge to multidisciplinary approach The discussions at all levels revealed that the participants representing different sectors understand the food systems concept differently. For instance, when asked to define food systems, the definitions reflected different predispositions or professional backgrounds. Definitions by nutritionists, gender activists, and environmentalists for example, leaned more towards nutrition, inclusion, and environment, respectively. Whilst the definition of agriculturalists leans towards outcome of the food systems in terms of food security and income or livelihoods. The participants agreed that the differences in the definitions affect the efforts and investments in agriculture and food systems. The differences are also the reason why the outcomes of the agriculture and food systems are inefficient and insufficient because the existing synergies are not maximized. During discussions, the trade-offs came out clear in the multiple criteria that the participants at different levels and from different sectors applied to select foods and the farm enterprises for making the selected foods available. The criteria included: used to food type, nutrients availability, easy to produce/rear, availability / accessibility, multiple benefits, provision of farm inputs, seasonality, productivity, income/for sale. The criteria vary across sites and across stakeholders. Observations of the discussions within the sectors and between the sectors revealed that reaching a consensus on the criteria was an uphill task. Participants debated the differences and conceded that it was difficult to reach consensus on ranking the criterion even within the group. The ranking exercise revealed the objectives and priorities different stakeholders have when promoting crops to be grown. They acknowledged that in practice it is not easy to decide on what crop to focus on and even the investments to make in terms of research, policy effort and support. They further realized that if an agriculture and food system is to meet different objectives by different stakeholders a lot of trade-offs have to be minimized. It would also require stakeholders working together to make decision together. This is unlike the current situation where stakeholder works in silos and planning for agriculture and food systems does not pay attention to the objectives of other stakeholders. Скрыть

The dialogues contributed to sustainable, healthier and equitable agriculture and food systems in Malawi by: • Informing: o programing for on-going and new programs and projects on agriculture, nutrition and environment; o policy processes and policy investments and priorities in agriculture (e.g. Agricultural Input Program, Extension), nutrition, environment; o institutions and institutional structures in nutrition, agriculture, environment. • Appraising stakeholders on trade-offs to minimize and synergies to maximize in achieving agriculture, food and environmental objectives. • Inculc... Подробнееating a culture of integrated decision making process and planning in stakeholders (environment, agriculture, nutrition/health) at all levels to make better informed and inclusive decisions that will: o strengthen food security, o improve income, o enhance health and nutrition security and o enhance environmental objectives. Скрыть

There was no area of divergence during the discussions in the Dialogue. There were occasions of misunderstanding or lack of information, which were clarified in the live chat.

Sustainable, resilient food systems for healthy diets is one of the six cross-cutting, integrative action areas of the UN Decade of Action on Nutrition (2016-2025). The Global Action Network: Sustainable Food from the Oceans and Inland Waters for Food Security and Nutrition, is established under the umbrella of the Nutrition Decade. The Network aims to include aquatic foods as a key food source for achieving food security and improved nutrition in the Decade of Action on Nutrition and in line with the Sustainable Development Goals. The Network takes a holistic food chain approach “from healt... Подробнееhy waters to healthy people”, highlighting solutions for sustainable aquatic food and food security (sufficient, safe and nutritious aquatic foods which meets dietary needs and food preferences, leaving no one behind). Aquatic foods will be important in transforming our global food systems. In the lead up to the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit, the Network arranged a series of three Independent Dialogues. This Dialogue (together with the two others arranged by the Global Action Network Sustainable Food from the Ocean and Inland Waters) aimed to make aquatic foods better integrated in the current food systems debates and seen as contributing as a key food source for achieving global food security and improved nutrition. A dietary shift towards more aquatic foods will contribute to food security within the planetary boundaries. The Dialogue “Transforming food systems with aquatic foods: Advancing equitable livelihoods for healthy people and planet” was an exploration of Action Track 4 (Advance equitable livelihoods) but also interlinked to the other Action Tracks. The Dialogue brought together representatives from government, science and research, private sectors and NGOs, as well as the UN Food Systems Summit Action Track leaders. All stakeholder groups engaged in the Dialogue. During the event, we encouraged questions and discussion among and between panellists and participants, and ensured their voices were heard. The panellists highlighted current issues and showcased successful solutions within aquatic food systems. The participants agreed with the urgent issues mentioned by the panellists and identified several other issues to be addressed in the future. The Dialogue acknowledged the need to increase the awareness of the contribution of aquatic foods in current food systems as well as addressing the interlinkages with terrestrial food production. There is a need to provide equitable livelihoods with aquatic foods. To achieve this, the Dialogue emphasised important aspects and identified actions for advancing equitable livelihoods in order to transform future food systems. This was delivered by multiple stakeholders from ministerial level, governments, private sector, NGOs, academia, UN-initiatives, and the Action Track 3 leadership. The Dialogue identified current issues and directions to advance equitable livelihoods, build capacity, and facilitate the transfer of skills and knowledge in aquatic food systems, and showcased possible solutions on how to drive equitable, inclusive livelihoods outcomes for all through aquatic food productions. The panellists disseminated approaches to bridge science, policy and actions and encouraged holistic approaches and cross-sectorial engagement to make aquatic foods more visible in current food systems. Скрыть