Официальная обратная связь диалогов

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

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

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.

The Dialogue was a webinar with high level speakers and two panels, Q&A sessions, chat and questionnaire. Hence it was not designed with strict discussion topics. However, the Dialogue outcome can be grouped under topics related to 4 questions: Discussion Topic 4: What governance structures and investments are required in order to improve working conditions in the aquatic foods system (labour rights, eliminating forced and child labour and developing social protection systems)? - Introduce social protection interventions to improve labour rights and eliminate child labour. - Introduce labo... Подробнееur-saving technologies. - Include aquatic food producers in decision-making to address working condition issues. Скрыть